‘The Tragic Omen’ exhibition opens in St. Petersburg

On 1st May 2026, the exhibition “Tragic Omen opened at the Museum of Political History in St. Petersburg. The exhibition is timed to the 130th anniversary of the Holy Coronation of Emperor Nicholas II on 27 May (O.S. 14 May) 1896 and the tragic events on the Khodynka Field on 31st (O.S. 18th) May 1896.

The art nouveau mansion which today houses the museum itself was originally built for Mathilde Kshesinskaya (1872-1971), the famous prima ballerina at the Mariinskiy before the Revolution, and Nicholas II’s mistress before he became Emperor. Designed by Alexander von Gogen and completed in 1906, the residence combines an enfilade of reception rooms with a winter garden and rotunda.

In 1917, the building was seized by the Bolsheviks and turned into their headquarters in the city. It became the centre of their revolutionary activities, and Lenin made a historic speech from one of the balconies after his arrival in the city. It was later passed through a number of organizations, before eventually becoming the Museum of the Revolution in 1957. At the beginning of the 1990’s, the museum was renamed the Museum of Political History

PHOTO: view of the Museum of Political History, which is housed in the former mansion of the Russian prima ballerina Mathilde Kshesinskaya in St. Petersburg

The exhibition features a little-known portrait of Emperor Nicholas II, painted in 1896 for the coronation celebrations by one of the nuns of the Novo-Tikhvin Convent in Ekaterinburg and hung in one of the rooms of the Winter Palace until October 1917. When revolutionary Red Guards and sailors stormed the imperial residence, they attacked the portrait with bayonets.

The exhibition presents a collection of very interesting items from the Holy Coronation of Emperor Nicholas II. Amon them are menus of the gala lunches and dinners served to the newly crowned Tsar and his guests on the days of the coronation. Each is colorfully decorated by eminent artists Viktor Vasnetsov (1848-1926), Alexander Benois (1870-1960) and Ernst Liphart (1847-1932).

In addition are uniforms, coronation mugs, a scarf, photographs, invitations to the ceremony, foreign magazines and la copy of the two-volume Coronation Album – published in 1899.

PHOTO: late 19th century lithograph depicts Emperor Nicholas II’s official entry to Moscow, on 9th May 1896. The event marked the beginning of his Holy Coronation – the ceremonies and festivities lasted three weeks

Books published underground (illegally) and abroad, satirical postcards brought from Europe to Russia show the origin and cultivation of the myth of “Bloody Nicholas”.

Visitors can also acquaint themselves with the testimonies of eyewitnesses of the Khodynka tragedy and hear the assessments of people of different social backgrounds and political beliefs. The “voices” of eyewitnesses reflect the polyphony of opinions: who is to blame for the tragedy – the police and the Moscow authorities, who failed to ensure the security of the event, or the excitement of the uncontrollable crowd, greedy for Tsarist gifts?

The project will tell how after the Khodynka tragedy, the liberal and revolutionary intelligentsia began to systematically undermine the authority of Nicholas II and the entire Russian monarchy. This happened despite the fact that the Emperor personally took responsibility for what happened.

This section of the exhibition is complemented by “At the Vagankovo Cemetery. Funeral of the Victims of Khodynka” by the Russian artist Viktor Makovsky (1846-1920) and sketches for “Khodynka”, conveying the emotional perception of the tragedy – depicted in detail the tragic events that he witnessed.

PHOTO: At the Vagankovo Cemetery. Funeral of the Victims of Khodynka (1901) by Vladimir Makovsky. From the Collection of the Museum of Political History, St. Petersburg

In May 1896, Makovsky was invited by the government to illustrate the coronation exhibition, but unexpectedly encountered the gloomy side of the festivitiies. Going to Moscow from St. Petersburg, he intended to record the festive atmosphere, folk festivities and fireworks that accompanied the coronation celebrations.

A huge crowd of people came for the promised gifts, and the situation quickly got out of control. Crowds amounting to tens of thousands of confused people pushed, fell and screamed, turning the grandiose spectacle into a nightmarish scene of suffering, pain and death.

Returning to St. Petersburg, Makovsky spent the next five years creating a painting depicting the events of the Khodynka Field. The work showed the reality of the incident, in which 1,389 people were trampled to death, and an additional 1300 injured. The painting turned out to be so emotionally rich and realistic that the artist was forced to hide it from the public at the request of official bodies – the censors.

Vladimir Makovsky’s painting “At the Vagankovo Cemetery. Funeral of the Victims of Khodynka” as an exampled of unspeakable tragedy and the wrath of censorship.

When the painting was finally exhibited in 1901 at the Peredvizhniki Exhibition, it caused an instant reaction from the authorities. The canvas was immediately seized by order of the censorship department, and the Moscow governor Grand Duke Sergei A;exandrovich (1857-1905) sent a laconic review to the artist: “The painting is not yet timed, it is salt sprinkled on a fresh wound.” It was not possible to show the painting to the Russian audience, but the audience in London saw the canvas in 1910, and out of reach pf the Russian censors. Makovsky himself did not seek active agitation or participation in the revolutionary movement of the time. He memrey attempted to honestly depict what he saw, but it turned out that honesty and objectivity in art can be much more dangerous than any propaganda slogan.

In total, the exhibition presents more than 100 exhibits from the Collection of the Museum of Political History in St. Petersburg. This collection will be presented for the first time, offereing visitors a modern historical interpretation.

© Paul Gilbert. 1 May 2026

The myth of Nicholas II’s indifference to the Khodynka tragedy

0298a

More than a century after his death and martyrdom, a number of tragic events continue to haunt the legacy of Russia’s last tsar. It was the Khodynka tragedy, in which thousands were killed or injured during a stampede, that would haunt Nicholas II throughout his 22-year reign.

On the morning of 31st May [O.S. 18th May] 1896, over half a million revelers had gathered on the Khodynka Field in Moscow for ceremonies marking the Coronation of Emperor Nicholas II.

Organizers had set up 150 stalls to distribute 400 thousand free gifts to the people, a souvenir of the historic event.

The gift included a commemorative enamelled metal cup, bearing the cyphers of Nicholas II and Alexandra Feodorovna 1896 and the Imperial Crown on one side, the Imperial coat of arms on the reverse.

The cup was distributed along with a variety of food presents, which included a 400 gram loaf of bread; 200 gram sausage stick; Vyazemsky gingerbread; a small bag full of sweets, nuts, and dried fruits.

Everything was tied in a bright calico commemorative scarf, on which the portraits of the imperial couple were printed on one side, and a view of the Kremlin on the reverse.

Sadly, the day began in tragedy. Rumours began to spread among the people that there was not enough beer or pretzels for everybody, and that the enamel cups contained a gold coin. A police force of 1,800 men failed to maintain civil order, and a catastrophic crowd crush and panic resulted in an estimated 1,389 people being trampled to death, and an additional 1300 injured, in what has become known as the Khodynka Tragedy.

Despite the tragedy, the program of festivities continued as planned elsewhere on the Khodynka field, with many people unaware of the tragedy that had taken place. The Emperor and Empress made a brief appearance in front of the crowds on the balcony of the Tsar’s Pavilion in the middle of the field around 2 p.m. By that time the traces of the incident had been cleaned up. The couple were clearly shaken by the news.

0298d

PHOTO: The Emperor and Empress on the balcony of the Tsar’s Pavilion in the middle of the Khodynka Field

It was the Emperor’s attendance at a grand ball held on the evening of the tragedy, however, which planted a seed of gross misunderstanding and ridicule, one which Nicholas is criticized to this very day. I would like to take a closer look at this . . . 

The ball was hosted by the French ambassador Gustave Lannes de Montebello (1838-1907), in Moscow. The French spared no expense in the extravagant preparations for the ball. The ball in part marked the recently signed Franco-Russian alliance.

For the arrival of Their Majesties, foreign princes, princesses, members of the Imperial Family, representatives of the foreign diplomatic corps, court officials gathered in the halls of the embassy. For hours this mass paraded through the halls. The excitement was everywhere. Their Majesties were greeted by the French ambassador and his wife at the entrance and remained at the embassy until 2 am.

The tsars’ sister Grand Duchess Olga Alexandra wrote: “The French government had gone to immense expense and trouble to arrange the ball. Tapestries and plate were brought from Versailles and Fontainebleau and 100,000 roses from the south of France.

“Other guests shared their descriptions: “some of the rooms had been converted into winter gardens” . . . “in one room a fountain lit up with colourful electric lights”. 

The grand ball at the French ambassador’s party ended with a fine dinner. During the ball, the ladies were offered luxurious fans and bouquets of flowers brought from France. In general, the ball was wonderful; full of animation, luxury, extraordinary brilliance, it left an indelible impression on many.

During the ball, an orchestra played and a choir of Russian singers in luxurious Russian costumes sang. The wide hospitality of the French embassy was extended to all guests.

An open buffet, champagne, fine French wines, a magnificent dinner, flowers for guests – everything was there. The tables in the Tsar’s rooms especially stood out – among the luxurious silver there were literally mountains of fragrant flowers.

0298b

PHOTO: Nicholas and Alexandra are greeted by the French ambassador and his wife

It was clear that the newly crowned Emperor and Empress did not want to attend the ball. Some historians believe that Nicholas was bullied by his uncles, urging him to attend. Because of the extravagant preparation for the ball, caused in part by France’s delight at the recently signed alliance with Russia, the failure of Nicholas and Alexandra to attend would have been a great slight.

According to the Countess Maria Eduardovna Kleinmichel (1846-1931), “in view of the terrible expense, the French ambassador begged the Imperial couple to attend, He urged the Emperor to agree to at least attending the reception, even if for a short while. The Tsar looked all haggard and pale as a white sheet. The Imperial couple walked in silence through the halls, bowing to those who had assembled. Then they went into the ambassador’s drawing-room, and shortly thereafter departed. The French were in despair, but they seem to have realized that their demands after such a tragedy, one which shook the Emperor and Empresses so deeply, were simply impossible.” 

Grand Duchess Olga Alexandra also noted: “I know for a fact that neither of them wanted to go. It was done under great pressure from his advisers . . . Nicky’s ministers insisted that he must go as a gesture of friendship to France.”

Count Sergei Witte, who served as Prime Minister under Nicholas II recalled that Nicholas “looked sick” and was “obviously depressed”.

“I know that both Nicky and Alicky spent the whole of that day in visiting one hospital after another,” wrote Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna.

Nicholas allotted some 90 thousand rubles to the victims families out of his own personal funds, and not the states. He ordered that a thousand bottles of port and Madeira were to be sent to hospitals for the wounded, and the sovereign himself visited the wounded in the hospitals and attended the funeral service for the dead. Further, all orphans received a pension until they were of age.

In their book A Life for the Tsar, co-authors Greg King (1964-2025) and Janet Ashton wrote: “They [Nicholas and Alexandra] visited the wounded in Moscow’s hospitals, and Nicholas announced that he would compensate the victims . . . yet the visits were mechanical and the pledge of financial aid went largely unfulfilled.” What is interesting to note is that their 189-page book, contains no less than 1,349 citations, yet there is no citation for their claim that Nicholas reneged on his promise to compensate victims. This in itself suggests that such a claim is based on rumour and not fact.

The Emperor’s kindness and empathy towards the victims and their families has been widely documented by numerous historians, both Western and Russian. The claim by King and Ashton that the “pledge of financial aid went largely unfulfilled”, simply goes against the personal character and deeply pious Orthodox beliefs of Nicholas II.

When asked if Nicholas II showed indifference to the victims of the Khodynka tragedy, Professor M.V. Lomonosov, who serves as associate professor of the history faculty of Moscow State University said:

“Here it is necessary to clearly separate the two matters. On one hand we have a situation related to human relationships, issues of empathy, compassion and mercy. On the other hand, there are issues of diplomacy and diplomatic protocol. And in this situation, they overlap one another.

“There was an official reception with the French ambassador, and it was necessary to demonstrate good relations with France. It was quite obvious that if Nicholas II for any reason ignored this event, then it would have a negative impact on Russian-French relations. As you know, his attendance at the ball was purely official.

“The  reception was not an entertainment event as such. It was political. There are things which need to be done, despite the fact that a tragic event overshadowed it.

“By attending, Nicholas II fulfilled his duties and Russia received a certain European political resonance.”

0298c

PHOTO: Emperor Nicholas II at the bedside of a victim injured during the Khodynka tragedy

That evening Nicholas briefly noted the event in his diary: “Up until now, thank God, everything went perfectly. The crowd spending the night on the Khodynka meadow, in anticipation in the distribution of the food and mugs, broke through the barrier and there was a terrible crush, during which it is terrible to say about 1300 people trampled!!”

His lack of emotion or empathy in this entry for the victims does not reflect his private feelings. His detractors often cite this in their negative assessment of his reign. [for more on Nicholas II’s diaries, please refer to my article Nicholas II’s Diaries 1894-1918.]

Whatever the Emperor’s private feelings, the Khodynka tragedy created a number of negative images and impressions which would colour all later views of Nicholas, his government and his reign. The first such image was that of a young monarch dancing at a fabulous ball on the evening of a day when hundreds of his subjects had lost their lives as a result of the incompetence of his own government.

“The image was unfair,” notes Russian historian Dominic Lieven. Not for the last time, however, the Emperor’s self-control exposed him in temperamental Russian eyes to accusations of heartlessness and indifference.

Sadly, Nicholas and his government never erased the image which Khodynka implanted in the public mind.

© Paul Gilbert. 23 August 2020