A Herzen Reader

The Bell, No. 200, July 15, 1865. Nikolay A. Serno-Solovyovich was one of the found­ers, along with his brother Alexander, of the first "Land and Liberty" group (1861-62), which "had sprung up so casually from the first network of correspondents and readers of Kolokol or the ideas preached by the Sovremennik" (Venturi, Roots of Revolution, 268, 278). He was arrested on July 7, 1862, the same day as Chernyshevsky. An agent of the Third Department had sent word from London that someone would be crossing the Russian border in July 1862 with letters from Herzen, Bakunin, and others; once the courier was seized, the police were able to arrest thirty-two people, fundamentally weak­ening Land and Liberty (Venturi, Roots of Revolution, 263). Herzen reacted painfully to the arrest, calling it a "wound on the heart" (Gertsen, Sobranie sochinenii, 18:644). Serno-Solovyovich was a key figure in the "Trial of the 32," and was admired for the dignified way he conducted himself. He said that while he loved his country, he would never be forced to act against his conscience, and saw no obligation to inform the gov­ernment about his conversations abroad in i860 with Herzen and others. Although his sentence was reduced from hard labor to exile, his health rapidly declined and he died in 1866. Alexander Serno-Solovyovich lived in exile abroad and wrote critical articles on the evolution of The Bell's politics, and quoted another Russia radical to the effect that "Herzen's only use now would be to get himself killed on the barricades, but in any case he will never go near them" (Venturi, Roots of Revolution, 279).

The Serno-Solovyovich Case [1865]

One of the most noble and pure people in Russia, N. A. Serno-Solevyovich has been sent into permanent exile. "A wise government," said one mem­ber of the State Council, "would be better off trying to get such people on its side"—yes!.. a wise government!

We implore our friends to send us in extenso the Senate record for this case.¹ This sentence, with its colossal absurdity, its absence of any unity, and so carelessly done (there was no time to rewrite it properly!) abandons the judicial masks with which tsarist vengeance had covered itself. For al­most three years people were held in prison cells, and at rare intervals there were rumors of the significance of the case. The herd in the Senate sen­tenced them to hard labor, then, seeing that they had exceeded all limits, stepped back.² What is the case about? It's about the fact that there is no case. [. . .] Serno-Solovyovich was acquainted with the London propagandists, read their publications, gave them to others to read, and met with a judicial rar­ity of the first magnitude (who did not become acquainted with them?)—the unconvicted state criminal Kelsiev, who is portrayed from afar as some sort of Tamerlane,³ who shook up the Russian Empire...

[. . .] The guilt ofVetoshnikov, Vladimirov, and others who received lesser sentences is, obviously, less significant.⁴ Here the sentence is distinguished by a remarkable casuistry. Serno-Solovyovich is being punished for the dis­tribution of foreign works their criminal content (there isn't even the correct

punctuation), while Vetoshnikov and Vladimirov only for the distribution of criminal works (without content?). This is followed by one bit of nonsense after another: Lyalin was sentenced for suspicion of correspondence with Bakunin. The English citizen Arthur Bennie was convicted of not inform­ing the government of Kelsiev's arrival in Petersburg. [. . .] We do not know which treaty obliges English citizens to do such a favor for the Russian police, and we ask the Foreign Office to look into this question. The young lady Marya Chelishchev was accused of having in her possession forbidden publications and illustrations, and was kept under arrest for ten days. In the worst days of the fury of our unforgettable Saul,⁵ there was nothing fouler than this. The failure to denounce—a criminal offense!⁶