A Herzen Reader

authorities. Toward this goal, in accordance with my customary wishes and my frequently expressed desire, it behooves all branches of government to pay complete attention to the preservation of the rights of property and entreaty, in relation to its use and need (the right of petition!) by various districts and various sections of the popula­tion. It is important to curtail the repeated attempts to stir up enmity between various classes and particularly the stirring up of enmity against the nobility and against landowners in general, in which enemies of social order naturally see their immediate opponents. A firm and unswerving observance of these general principles will place a limit on those criminal aspirations, which have now been uncovered with suf­ficient clarity and must be subject to the just retribution of the law. I direct you to announce my rescript to the appropriate leadership, to all ministers and all heads of all the divisions.

I remain, etc.

Alexander

In Tsarskoe Selo, May 13/25, 1866

.There we have it, the final echo of the shot!

Fear in the face of something indeterminate, pious—but hardly new— thoughts, a poor style, nameless hints, a lesson learned by heart and a moral coup d'etat.

We decided to reprint in its entirety this gloomily thought-out and gloomily written dissertation,¹ because in it we see a kind of historic border post, a poorly made, poorly painted, clumsy boundary marker, but all the same a marker.

If this were a rhetorical exercise about the corruption of minds and hearts, about false teachings and theories of property [. . .] we would not pay it the slightest attention. We have read such marvels in the journals that stand in the way of Russian development. But a royal diatribe, cast down from the heights upon which the throne stands, is a completely different matter. No matter how little genuine substance there is, it must fly down to our low-lying fields like a cannonball and either smash something or get smashed itself.

Looking closely at this royal document, which reminds us—with its worldly philosophy—of the spiritual icon painting with which Metropoli­tan Filaret adorned the emancipation manifesto,² we are struck most of all by three things.

First, it is as clear as day that that there was no conspiracy linked to the shot on April 4/16 (as we have stated and repeated), to the extent that they could not draw one out no matter the shadows in which the investigation was carried out, nor the choice of an investigator, nor the methods which he employed. A conspiracy and Poles, the participation of nihilists and in­ternational revolution—all of this is intrigue, lies, and slander. They did not dare put this in the mouth of the sovereign. What remained was to exploit moral participation, i.e., immoral complicity morale, having intercepted cor­respondence between friends and family and having made note of certain thoughts, then confused them with all thinking people in the younger gen­eration, all those who awoke to intellectual life and breathed freely after the death of Nicholas. It is impossible to make out to what guilty people the letter refers. In the Karakozov case, the only guilty ones are those who participated with him, and not all those people who think that the Russian government is not the ideal of all forms of governance and who debate property rights. [. . .]

A single adversary was pointed out and identified, not by name, but as a living force, a rival with whom it is necessary to contend, which is growing and will continue to grow unless it is suppressed now. [. . .] The giant in the cradle, which the government fears and in which it senses its future suc­cessor, is social thought, the ideas of a few inconsequential writers, young people, nihilists, and, I am ashamed to say, us. The character of this move­ment, which seeks to break down the old forms of Russian life that prevent its new forces from taking shape, is instinctively recognized as social³. and for that reason the government stands on the eternal peaks of conserva­tism and reaction, in favor of landed property; it wishes to defend it and be defended by it. to its aid it summons the catechism, domestic education, spying by department heads, and all of its forces, i.e., all its police.

This tsarist adornment we see as a second victory.