The story of the incredible life and fantastical death of
Grigori Rasputin has fascinated me ever since I was a child. It has been told in books and films, though
perhaps most memorably in a song by a 1970s silver-booted disco-combo. You may be surprised to discover that, despite
the claims of Boney M, he was neither “the lover of the Russian queen†or
“Russia’s greatest love machineâ€. It’s even debatable that he was “a cat that
really was gone.â€
The image of an insane, diabolical monk who is seemingly impossible
to kill is so alluring that many serious historians have gone along with it and
solemnly repeated it as if it were gospel.
Given that these events happened only a hundred years ago, it
is slightly bewildering to see how quickly the man has turned into a myth and
surprisingly difficult to get a balanced view of what he was really like. The
person most responsible for this demonisation is Rasputin’s self-proclaimed
assassin, Prince Felix Yusupov.
I realised that this colourful and not entirely pleasant
character is the key to the mystery about a decade ago when I chanced across
his autobiography “Lost Splendourâ€.
Yusupov was born into the richest family in Russia. His
mother had a servant dedicated to caring for her collection of muffs, they had
their own private train carriage complete with an aviary to drown out the noise
of the engine and for one birthday his father gave his mother a mountain (which
must have been Hell to gift wrap).
Felix was the second son and thus initially not heir to the
fortune. His mother had wanted a girl, so decided to dress her son in frills
and pink clothes anyway. Seemingly he enjoyed this as he carried on cross
dressing in his adolescence, sneaking out of the palace to sing in local clubs
and looking so convincing as a woman that he attracted admiring enquiries from
an oblivious Edward VII. It seemed that Yusupov enjoyed this attention from
men.
The death of his older brother in a duel propelled Felix into
the limelight, making him reluctantly bound to marry and produce an heir. He
did seem to have the occasional crisis of conscience about having so much when
the general populace had so little, but he was persuaded by his mother not to
give everything away.
Ultimately he would become infamous for the murder of
Rasputin, an act which he hoped would save the monarchy, but actually probably
just hastened its demise. He had to flee the country, leaving behind most of
his fortune.
The rest of his life would revolve around the man he killed,
not always in a negative way. He and his wife successfully sued MGM for the way
they were portrayed in the film “Rasputin and the Princess†and it’s thanks to
them that all motion pictures now come with the disclaimer, “Any similarity to
people living or dead is purely coincidental.â€
Remarkably Yusupov lived for fifty years after the
revolution, long after most of the other participants were dead, living in
usually comfortable exile in Paris. In 1967 he was interviewed by an American
journalist called EM Halliday, partly as promotion for another film (this time made
with the Prince’s blessing and participation) called “I Killed Rasputinâ€.
Halliday is seemingly one of the first people to question the somewhat dubious
story that Yusupov had told and came close persuading him to admit that there
was some invention in the tale.
I realised that this meeting would serve as the perfect
setting for a drama and that by treating the main players, Rasputin, Nicholas
and Alexandra as peripheral characters it might be possible to explore the
well-worn story from a more interesting angle. Yusupov was never punished for
his crime and often profited from it, but it haunted him for the rest of his
life and ensured he would only be remembered for one thing. As frustrating as
that must have been he still loved recounting the story and seemed pleased that
his place in history was assured.
In April I flew to St Petersburg to see the Yusupov Palace
and the cellar where Rasputin died (the first time). The most striking thing
was the impossible luxury that aristocrats were living in and the sharp and
sickening juxtaposition with the horrific poverty of ordinary people. It seems
we haven’t come too far in the last century, but maybe there’s a lesson for
today’s super rich.
Even though I am sceptical that anything supernatural
happened during the murder I still secretly hoped that the ghost of Rasputin
might visit me as I started writing the play in the Palace café (just metres
from the scene of the crime). But he kept to himself. I took a “Rasputin Tourâ€
of the city and was thrilled when our guide sneaked us into the very apartment
block where the Holy Man had lived and I stood outside the front door of his
rooms.
I feel history has been unkind to this flawed, but fascinating
figure. But his murderer is just as flawed and intriguing. Both men struggled between
their religious faith and physical desires, their lust for power and charitable
inclinations. Yusupov claimed to be disgusted by Rasputin, but he was clearly
attracted to him on some level. Some have speculated their relationship was
sexual, but I think they were as much drawn to each other’s social positions:
the aristocrat and the peasant. I wondered if Yusupov wanted to get rid of this
man because he represented a part of himself that he was trying to repress.
It’s a strange world where killing a man can make you a hero, but loving a man
could get you sent to prison.
For such dark subject matter there is a surprising amount of
comedy in the death of Rasputin, as there is in the oblivious decadence of the
doomed Russian aristocracy.
I leave Prince Yusupov feeling tantalisingly close to a truth
that is now hidden forever.
