Mikhail Pavlovich did not know Russia, did not even know Petersburg; he knew the guards regiments, the artillery, cadets. and he died, having returned from a military exercise and having given Paskevich an imperial honor. [. . .]
Your Majesty, save your children from this kind of future!
I know very well that my words, if they reach you, will surprise you with their impertinence: the sharp words of a free man sound odd in the halls of the Winter Palace. But overcome your distaste and think about what my sad words express; maybe you will find in them the great sorrow that eats at my heart, and see my honest desire for the well-being of Russia more than any insult or impertinence.
You stand too high to take offense, and I am too independent to be impertinent.
In olden times, tsars sometimes took off their robes and, dressed like mere mortals, they walked around the markets and squares, listening to popular talk and gaining practical wisdom in the crowds. This practice has lapsed, and it really is not necessary—free speech has itself penetrated the cavalry guards at court. Do not push it aside—think about it, and, if it makes you happier, forget who wrote it, although he sincerely wishes you well.
November 1, 1858
Notes
Source: "Pis'mo k Imperatritse Marii Aleksandrovne," Kolokol, l. 27, November 1, 1858; 13:353-60, 586-87.
Herzen is referring to the court decree of June 24, 1718, concerning the conspiracy which formed around Alexey Petrovich and was directed against Peter's transformation of the country. Alexey was condemned to death and Peter approved the sentence.
"I am only the result of a stroke of luck."
Herzen employs the term "Black Cabinet" to designate the most reactionary members of the Main Committee discussing the serf question: the police chief and head of the Third Department (V. A. Dolgorukov), the minister of government property (M. N. Muravyov), the chairman of the State Council (A. F. Orlov), the minister of justice (V. N. Panin), and an aide-de-camp (Ya. I. Rostovtsev). Herzen published an essay called "The
Black Cabinet" in the August 1, 1858, issue of The Bell. (See Gertsen, Sobranie sochinenii, 13:300-305, nn. 570-72.)
Frederic-Cesar de La Harpe (1754-1838), a Swiss government official who became tutor to Grand Duke Alexander Pavlovich, later Alexander I. Herzen refers ironically to the widespread opinion that La Harpe had a liberal influence on his pupil.
The person forced out was Moscow University law professor Konstantin D. Kavelin (1818-1885), who began tutoring Nicholas Alexandrovich in 1857, but had to step down the following year after his article on emancipation appeared in the April 1858 issue of The Contemporary. Grimm, tutor to the children of Nicholas I, succeeded him. The poet Fyodor Tyutchev, who served on the Foreign Censorship Committee, complained of another absurdity: while Grimm was being entrusted with the instruction of the heir, there was a proposal to ban his books from entering Russia (Choldin, Fence Around the Empire, 57-61).
Published in Berlin in 1858.
Nikolay V. Zinoviev (1801-1882), an aide-de-camp who from 1849 to i860 taught the grand dukes Nikolay, Alexander, and Vladimir Alexandrovich.
Yakov I. Rostovtsev (1803-1860) directed the military academies, and served on the Secret and Main Committees for the serf question; Vladimir P. Butkov (1820-1881) was a state secretary from 1854 to 1865.
Mikhail Pavlovich (1798-1849) was the younger brother of Nicholas I.
♦ 20 +
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.