A Herzen Reader

The Bell, No. 219, May 1, 1866. Herzen reacts here to the first assassination attempt against Alexander II, as a member of the younger generation "answered accusations of 'nihilism' with a shot. [. . .] and action overtook words" (Ivanova, A. I. Gertsen, 189). Her­zen states his objection to individual acts of terror and "surprises" as a way of changing history, which brings to mind the Marquis de Custine's comment on the suppressed history of palace coups: "The Russian government is an absolute monarchy moderated by assassination" (de Custine, Letters from Russia, 126). Herzen himself had once char­acterized Russian history since Peter the Great as a "criminal affair" (Doc. 18).

The labeling of Karakozov as a "fanatic" angered the younger generation of Rus­sian radicals (Verhoeven, The Odd Man Karakozov). Herzen received anonymous letters from Polish emigres with threats to publicly label Herzen a traitor for his negative atti­tude, while Mikhail Bakunin mourned the loss of The Bell's influence and urged his old comrade in arms to change direction and show the nihilists "where to go and where to lead the people" (Let 4:264-65, 283). "Irkutsk and Petersburg" takes note of the absurd honors shown the declared "savior" of the tsar, the peasant Komissarov, who was feted at banquets, and whose name and image appeared on everything from beer to candy and cigarettes, while the hero's wife used this instant fame to get discounts on her purchases (Let 4:66-84).

Irkutsk and Petersburg (March 5 and April 4, 1866) [1866]

We have no opportunity to even indirectly say something in favor of the rul­ing powers. The shot on April 4 was not to our liking. We expected from it calamity, and we were troubled by the responsibility that some fanatic took upon himself. In general we cannot stand surprises, whether at birthday celebrations or in the public square: the first kind never succeed, and the second kind are almost always harmful. It is only among wild and decrepit peoples that history changes through murders. Murders are useful only to those who gain by the dynastic change. Petersburg got used to the regular removal of anointed rulers, and forgot neither Ropscha nor the Mikhailov Palace.¹

We do not require bullets. we are moving at full strength along the high road; there are many traps and a great deal of mud, but our hopes are even greater; on our legs are heavy stocks, but in our heart there are colossal claims that cannot be removed. It is impossible to stop us—we can only be turned off the high road onto another, from the path of orderly develop­ment to the path of a general uprising.

While we prepared to express this in other words, our speech gave way to the terrible news from Irkutsk: Serno-Solovyovich died March 5.

.These murderers do not miss their mark!

The most noble, pure, and honest Serno-Solovyovich—and they killed him.

The reproachful shade of Serno-Solovyovich passed before us in melan­choly protest, the same kind of reminder as the news of the Warsaw kill­ings of April i0, i86i, rushed by like a terrible memento and covered with mourning our celebration of the emancipation.

The last Marquis Poza,² he believed with his innocent young heart that they could be brought around, and he spoke to the sovereign in ordinary language, and he moved him—and then he died in Irkutsk, exhausted by torture and three years in solitary. For what? Read the senate minutes and you will throw up your hands.

Our enemies, sworn conservatives and members of the State Council, were struck by the valor, simplicity, and heroism of Serno-Solovyovich. He was so unsullied that The Moscow Gazette did not berate him or denounce him during the investigation, and made no insinuations that he was either an arsonist or a thief. This was one of the best, most youthful proclaim- ers of a new age in Russia. And he has been killed. "But they did not desire his death." What nonsense! Mikhailov died, Serno-Solovyovich died, Chernyshevsky is sick. What are the conditions in which they place robust young people, so that they cannot last five years? In this method of torturing one's enemies a little bit at a time, without any direct responsibility, there is such a depth of lies, cowardice, hypocrisy, or such criminal negligence, which any upright tyranny feels itself above, as a brigand feels superior to a simple thief.

Are the lives of these people really not as sacred for Russia, really not as protected as the life of the emperor, are they really not among those, who together with him took part in the awakening of Russia, in the peasant question, in hopes for the future?..