A Herzen Reader

Let landowners think that flogging will not be around for long, and, fol­lowing the awkwardness of the transitional state, one must, against one's will, part company with the rod. is it not better to give it up voluntarily? To cast off the rod like the French nobility threw their feudal charters into the fire on August 4th? ¹

It is noble to reject the right to flog in light of the Cherkassky party and Samarin and Milyutin who are united with Cherkassky.² And, really, what would the government take you for, thinking that you demand human rights for yourself and also want to flog without a trial, and this at a time when the government itself is beginning to limit beating in the military?

In every province let three or four landowners give each other their solemn promise never to resort to corporal punishment, never to allow themselves to beat anyone—that is enough of a beginning. Of course it is perfectly clear that the thing shouldn't be done halfway—it's little enough not to beat people yourself and not to send them to be flogged. it is necessary to forbid stewards, elders, and butlers, and to forbid it in such a way that the field and house serfs knew!

This is not the first time we have had to be embarrassed at the poverty of our demands. Yes, there is a great deal one must tame and keep silent in oneself in order to stretch out a hand as if asking for alms. for what?.. for recognizing human dignity in oneself and in those near to you!

If only our voice is not in vain, if only it reminded some and advised oth­ers that the time has come to leave off butchery; if only as a first instance it succeeded in sparing several peasants from torture and several landowners from a stain on their conscience.

We do not want to know what landowners did up till now. We close our eyes to the past, when much was done due to ignorance, habit, an awful upbringing, and the disgraceful example of the parental home. Amnesty and oblivion are also necessary here. But three years ago, the situation changed, and from the point when the question of emancipation was raised by the government, discussed in journals, sitting-rooms, and front halls, in the capital and the provinces—since that time it has become impos­sible to be an honorable and educated person and beat one's people. (Of course, we exclude theoretical fanatics of flogging, these are damaged people, and they can talk nonsense and still be the most honorable of people, like every madman.)

Let us give each other our word of honor not to flog our peasants and set up not just one union but hundreds of them in various provinces and vari­ous districts. Most of all, do not be afraid of your small numbers; two ener­getic people, firmly marching toward their goal, are more powerful than a whole crowd that lacks any goal. Didn't Wilberforce and Cobden begin with three or four people who came to agreement in a club or a tavern?³ [. . .] Man is as weak as a spark and as strong as a spark, if he believes in his strength and comes upon a ready environment in time.

Throw away the despicable rod and join hands in the Union to Ban Cor­poral Punishment!

Notes

Source: "Rozgi doloi!" Kolokol, l. 75, July 1, i860; 14:287-89, 561.

At a meeting of the Constituent Assembly in 1789.

Prince Vladimir A. Cherkassky (1824-1878) was an expert member on the Edito­rial Commission considering the issue of serfdom and emancipation; Yury F. Samarin (1819-1876) was a writer, public figure, member of the Editorial Commission, and a Slavophile.

William Wilberforce (1759-1833) was an English activist who successfully fought to end the slave trade in Britain; Richard Cobden (1804-1865) was an English political figure, opponent of the Corn Laws, advocate of free trade, and member of Parliament.