A Herzen Reader

The Bell, No. 27, November i, i858. In the years leading up to the emancipation a split developed between Herzen and two prominent liberals, the jurist and writer Boris N. Chicherin and Moscow law professor Konstantin D. Kavelin. They had already publicly disagreed with Herzen in the almanac Voices from Russia, and Chicherin continued to speak for what he said were the majority of enlightened, right-thinking Russians who did not respond positively to revolutionary propaganda. Chicherin visited London in the fall of 1858 to try to get Herzen to moderate his views; each recorded impressions of the meeting in their memoirs (Herzen, My Past and Thoughts, 2:624-29). Herzen's publi­cation of an anonymous letter that called for emancipation from below, and "We Stand Accused," led to a strongly worded response from Chicherin, in which he envisioned Russian society moving in two different directions, one of which responded impatiently to conservative moves as the other sought a common language with autocracy. Despite the harsh tone he had adopted, Chicherin insisted that his personal respect for the editor of The Bell remained as strong as ever; the memory of Granovsky was sacred to them both (Zhelvakova, Gertsen, 435). Although Herzen felt that the attack was unnecessarily nasty, his belief in political dialogue led him to publish it, referring to himself and his antagonist as two officers who acknowledged each other's rank while fighting in oppos­ing armies. Chicherin accepted this comparison, but still insisted that they agreed on the basics—freedom for the serfs with land and freedom of conscience—while disagree­ing over tactics. If society was at this point not sufficiently unified to act responsibly, then it was too soon to demand action from the government (Let 2:451-57).

Chicherin claimed that Herzen's misuse of free speech would lead to greater repres­sion back home. After this charge was made public, Herzen received many letters of support. Kavelin was particularly effusive in his expressions of respect and affection, reminding Herzen of the role that he, Belinsky, and Granovsky had played in Kavelin's life. "For me you are not an abstract idea, but a living person, and you have no advisors because you see so far into the future" (Let 3:67-69). Chicherin was sent a collective letter by Kavelin, Turgenev, Pavel Annenkov, and others, taking him to task for justify­ing persecution in Russia and for gladdening the government with this sign of serious disagreement among progressive forces. Even the conservative pedagogue and censor Nikitenko said that Chicherin's criticism of the London exile was harmful. Herzen gave a detailed answer to accusations made against him; this article and the one that follows led to a complete break in their relations, surprising and regrettable in a group of people who shared so many mentors and friends (Let 2:453).

We Stand Accused [1858]

Liberal conservatives accuse us of attacking the government too much, ex­pressing ourselves too sharply, and being too abusive.

The red democrats fiercely accuse us of making allowances for Alexan­der II, praising him when he does something good and believing that he desires the emancipation of the serfs.

The Slavophiles accuse us of a Western turn of mind.

The Westernizers accuse us of Slavophilism.

The strict doctrinaires accuse us of frivolousness and instability because in the winter we complain about the cold, and in the summer about the heat.

On this occasion, there will be just a few words about the final accusation.

It was provoked by two or three admissions on our part that we were mistaken, that we were carried away by our enthusiasm; we won't attempt to justify ourselves by saying that we were mistaken and carried away along with the rest of Russia, and we do not shirk the responsibility that we have voluntarily assumed. We must be consistent; unity is a necessary condition for all propaganda, and it is right to demand that of us. But while taking a measure of guilt upon ourselves, we wish to share it with other guilty parties.

It is easy to follow one line when you are dealing with a mature order of things and consistent types of activity. What's hard about taking a sharply defined position in relation to the English government or the French impe­rial house? Would it have been hard to be consistent under the last tsar?

But we do not find unity in Alexander II's actions; first he represents himself as the liberator of the serfs and a reformer, and then defends the

Nicholaevan harness and threatens to trample the shoots that have just emerged.

How can one reconcile the speech to the Moscow nobility with Governor- General Zakrevsky?¹

How to reconcile the easing of censorship with the ban on writing about the liberation of the serfs with land?