No monarch in Europe has been in the position of Alexander II, but from him to whom much is given, much is demanded!.
June 15, 1857
Notes
Source: "Revoliutsiia v Rossii," Kolokol, l. 2, August 1, 1857; 13:21-29, 496-99.
The speech quoted in the opening epigraph was delivered on March 30 (April 11), 1856; it was not published but news of it spread quickly. In comparing the emancipation manifesto and the original address, Herzen later said that "the manifesto is unusually stupid, but the speech is unusually wise—they clearly scared themselves" (Gertsen, So- branie sochinenii, 25:340).
Peter allowed the peasants and clergy to keep their beards, but insisted that the gentry shave. Old Believers had to pay a beard tax.
From the verse cycle "Maxims."
Herzen is referring to the ballad "Lenore" by Gottfried August Btirger (1748-1794).
^ 13 +
The Bell, No. 6, December 1, 1857. The problem of corporal punishment was one that Herzen raised in a number of essays, and it was a central issue for many advocates of reform in Russia. (See Doc. 29.) In chapter 15 of Past and Thoughts, Herzen recalled what he learned in exile about the government's treatment of peasants who objected to absurd orders and corrupt behavior by officials sent from Petersburg. During the inquiry, everything was done in the usual Russian way. "The peasants were flogged during the examination, flogged as a punishment, flogged as an example, flogged to extort money, and a whole crowd of them sent to Siberia."
To Flog or Not to Flog the Peasant?
[1857]
To flog or not to flog the peasant? That is the question!—Of course one must flog him, and very painfully. Without a birch rod how can we convince a man that he must work for the master six days a week, with only the remaining time for himself? How can he be convinced that when the master takes it into his head, the peasant has to drag himself to the town with hay and firewood, and sometimes to hand over his son for the front hall and his daughter for the bedroom. Any doubts about the right to flog is by itself an infringement on gentry rights, on the inviolability of property as recognized by the law. And, in essence, why not flog the peasant if it is allowed, if the peasant tolerates it, the church blesses it, and the government takes the peasant by the collar and whips him?
Do we really have such heavenly souls if we think that an entire caste of people, who share with the executioner the right of corporal punishment, and, having the advantage of whipping according to their own desires and for their own profit—and people they know, not strangers—should such a caste for reasons of humanity and heartfelt emotion throw away the rod? Enough nonsense.
A few months back a ship's captain, on the journey from New York to England, flogged a boy, not a rare occasion, it seems, for us. When the ship reached England, the sailors complained. The captain was brought to court and then hung by the seashore. That is how to break the habit of misusing the rod!
A second instance. Three years ago some sort of officer quarreled in London with a cab driver; one word followed another and the officer struck the cabbie; the offended driver pulled out his whip and hit the officer across the face. The officer went to the police. The judge said: "For goodness sake, you are the one who should be punished, not the cabbie, you are guilty all around and yet you lodge a complaint. Go back to your quarters." That is how to break someone of the habit of misusing his fists.
This is how a person can be taught both one and the other lesson. Who does not know the story (blushing, we read various extracts in the Times) about an aide-de-camp (Elston-Sumarokov) who was sent to Nizhegorod- skaia province for an investigation of indignant peasants? The matter is in itself remarkable. A certain landowner's serfs (I believe it was Rakhmanov) proposed paying for themselves; the owner took the money, i.e., stole it, and sold the peasants to someone else instead of giving them their freedom. The serfs of course refused to obey the new landowner. Is this a difficult matter to sort out? However, with us the courts count for nothing, and what are needed are a commission, aides-de-camp, aiguillettes, a military party, and birch rods. Elston-Sumarokov was sent with birch rods. The peasants fell to their knees (a rebellion on one's knees!). He asked them: "To whom do you belong?" The serfs mentioned the name of the former owner, while Sumarokov said the name of the new owner (Pashkov, it seems, or the other way around) and ordered that all the peasants should be flogged without distinction. The serfs gave in. Then the aide-de-camp got so worked up that he gave instructions to the provincial authorities that one section of the kneeling, rebellious peasants be sent to Siberia, another to punishment battalions, and the third group were to be flogged again. The provincial authorities would have been happy to fulfill this order but were not bold enough to take on such a clear violation of positive law and turned to the senate. In return for such an understanding of justice and such knowledge of the laws Elston-Sumarokov was made vice-director of one of the departments in the War Ministry.
And you are judging whether to flog or not to flog a peasant? Whip him, brothers, whip him in peace! And when you get tired, the tsar will send an aide-de-camp to help!!!
Some sort of landowner in the Agricultural Newspaper has rightly protested the impertinent objections to birch rods, and sensibly observed that "for insignificant misdeeds a punishment of a few blows of the rod (2, 20, 200, 2,000?) does not kill a man either morally or physically (sometimes, it is true, people die, but this is morally useful for an Orthodox believer, and the dead can feel no pain!). The landowner's power is that of a parent over his children, and according to our Orthodox beliefs children accept punishment from their parents without complaint. Punishment by the rod is not going to be replaced by any foreign notions, because the birch rod in the hands of a well-meaning and kind landowner is a genuine blessing for the serfs!" [. . .]
Notes
Source: "Sech' ili ne sech' muzhika?" Kolokol, l. 6, December 1, 1857; 13:105-7, 527-28.
♦ 14 ♦
The Bell, No. 8, February 1, 1858. This is Herzen's answer to a letter that—in the end— was never published, but which raised issues that Herzen felt obliged to address. It is one of Herzen's most significant statements on laughter, and on how he would treat, in his own manner, facts about the arbitrary behavior of Russian serf owners and bureaucrats, amidst concerns that he was turning liberal observations into radical propaganda.
Mikhail Bakhtin included some of Herzen's observations on laughter in Rabelais and His World.
A Letter Criticizing The Bell [1858]
We recently received a letter severely criticizing The Bell.
This letter is full of such warm affection for the cause and a desire that our publications may help it, that we can only sincerely thank our anonymous critic and make use of that portion of his advice with which our conscience is in agreement.
We regret that the letter says that it must not be published, because we would have liked to acquaint our readers with it.
We will allow ourselves one observation. The author of this letter can see for himself how from the first issue of The Bell up to the most recent one we have fervently asked everyone sending us news to check it out carefully. What means of verification do we have? If on our pages, as in all periodicals, mistakes get past us, we are prepared to correct them—but we cannot always prevent them.