A Herzen Reader

The circumstances which gave rise to this correspondence are well-known to our readers. In 1847, N. Gogol, who was living abroad, published his Cor­respondence with Friends in Russia. The book was a surprise to everyone. Its spirit completely contradicted his previous creations, which had so deeply shaken all Russian readers. Was it an internal, psychic reshaping, one of those painful stages of development by which a person reaches eventual maturity? Was it the result of a physical ailment, indignation, a long period spent abroad or simply dizziness? In any case, the publication of such a book by such a major talent had to stimulate a powerful polemic.

Admirers of Gogol, having accepted as truth the opinions which had shone through so brilliantly in his works, were insulted by his renuncia­tion, his defense of the status quo, his disparaging, in the words of the neo- Slavs; they picked up the glove that he had thrown down, and, of course, there came to the forefront a fighter worthy of him—Belinsky.

He published a strong article against Gogol's new book in The Contemporary.

Hence the correspondence. In giving more publicity to these letters, we are far from any idea of condemnation and reprimand. It is time for us to look upon publicity with grown-up eyes. Publicity is a purgatory from which the memory of the departed passes on into history, the only life pos­sible beyond the grave.

There is no need to hide anything; in publicity there is repentance, the last judgment and certain reconciliation, if there can be reconciliation. More­over, nothing must be hidden; only that which is unimportant and empty is forgotten, lost without a trace.

The whole question is; do Gogol and Belinsky belong to us as public figures in the field of Russian thought? And if so—was there a correspon­dence between them?

As I have already said, Belinsky read me his letter and that of Gogol in Paris.

Notes

Source: "Primechanie k 'Perepiske N. Gogolia s Belinskim' v Poliarnoi zvezde," Poliar- naia zvezda, kn. i, 1855; 12:275-76, 539-40.

♦ 7 *

The Polestar, Bk. II, i856. "Forward! Forward!" is dated March 3i, but the peace treaty ending the Crimean War was actually signed on March 30. This programmatic article identifies the commune (obshchina) as the cornerstone of Russian socialism and Rus­sia's hope for the future. Herzen called upon advanced Russian society to become politi­cally active now that Nicholas I was dead and the war had ended.

Forward! Forward! [1856]

Keep moving now, do not stand in one place, it is difficult to say what will come and how, but there has been a real jolt and the ice has begun to break up. Move forward. You'll be amazed how easy it will be to go on after this.

This morning, Count Orlov threw the last clump of earth on the grave of Nicholas, having solemnly witnessed his death and along with it the begin­ning of a new era for Russia.

The war was costly for you and peace brought no glory, but the blood of the Sevastopol warriors did not flow in vain if you take advantage of that terrible lesson. Roads strewn with corpses, soldiers worn out before encountering the enemy, poor communications, confusion in the quarter­master service—all clearly demonstrated the incompatibility of a deadening autocracy not only with development and general welfare, but even with force and external order, with that mechanical supplying of the essentials that is despotism's ideal. To what purpose was the oppression of thought, the persecution of the word, eternal parades and instruction, to what pur­pose was police surveillance over the entire government, with hundreds of thousands of documents being received and issued?

The purpose was that forty-two years after the brilliant, young, liberal colonel M. F. Orlov signed on March 30, 1814 the capitulation of Paris in the name of those who defeated Napoleon, another Orlov, an old man, who was his brother and the chief of the gendarmes, bore the guilty head of Rus­sia and accepted a peace given by another Napoleon, also from the ranks of the gendarmes.

"Do you really believe in the tremendous power of the tsar of which you speak?" I said in 1853 at a Polish meeting in London, and I repeat my words, because events have so sharply confirmed them. "Russia is strong, but impe­rial power, as it is now constituted, is unable to summon that strength. It has no roots in national consciousness; it is not Russian and not Slavic. It is a temporary dictatorship, a state of siege, introduced into the foundations of the government. Perhaps it was historically necessary, but it has outlived itself; it realized its destiny when Alexander I entered Paris as a liberator, surrounded by kings and crowned heads, whom he restrained from pillage and violence."