Whether or not the results were correct, whether there was in them more maturity than seeds, or the other way around, of one thing there can be no doubt: this was a new movement of life, a new splashing of a liberated wave; while remaining in the same fetters, under the same bolts, we became freer people.
In confirmation of this I introduce the following fact, to which little attention was paid. Alongside the corrupted literature, with journals on government contracts, and with the Third Department at university lecterns, there was an extraordinary rise in social morality. The courage of one's convictions, which was completely lost in the previous reign, appeared once again, unafraid of the consequences.
Along with the Decembrists, our civic valor disappeared. The heroic period of opposition ends with the struggle ofthese conquered—but not dethroned— titans. During Nicholas's entire reign the tone of political defendants was evasive and based on denial. Society's indifference killed off futile bravery.
That has changed recently.
Once more, a man who was persecuted for his opinions and his words stood proudly before the court; he sensed the sympathy of the choir on the other side of the wall, he knew that his words were listened to avidly, he knew that his example would be a mighty homily.
Sadly, but firmly, Mikhailov appeared before the Senate.24 The almshouse of old men who judged him were stupefied and listened with their mouths open; during their long military and civilian service they had never heard anything like it. The zealous Buturlin demanded the death sentence because of the insolence of the accused.25
Calmly and steadfastly stood the three youths—Arngoldt, Slivetsky, and Rostovsky—before the military authorities, who had been ordered to sentence them to death.
"Did you write this unsigned letter to Liders?" Arngoldt was asked.
"I did," answered Arngoldt, "but I didn't have a chance to complete it," and he took a pen and signed his name.
And these are not isolated examples, not exceptions; they have become the norm. Other officers behaved this way, Obruchev, for example. [. . . ]26
"I am publishing my project under my own name; it is time for us to stop being afraid, and if we want them to stop treating us like children, we have to stop acting in a juvenile manner. A person who desires truth and justice must be able to fearlessly stand up for them."
When I read these lines in the brochure by Serno-Solovyovich, it seemed to me that I—that we—had grown up.27 Such words, such expressions, did not exist in Nicholavean times; this was a milestone in our history by which one could measure how far we had traveled from that unforgettable stage. [. . .]
These words, these answers before a court of executioners, in sight of loaded rifles, in sight of hard labor—the younger generation can place these on scales. Better than anything else they justify the children against the fathers, if the fathers have in fact attacked them.28 With this they can easily atone for the awkwardness of forms and the arrogant language.
This morally valiant attitude, which declared itself strongly in Russian society, not only did not allow it to choose between the tsar and Poland, but between silence and speech. The beaten-down, flustered man, who kept silent about everything, could remain silent and covered with innocent blood. But after Mikhailov and "Great Rus," and after the executed officers [. . .] when all of Russia sees the need for an Assembly of the Land in order to take charge of a government that was inept and evil as well, we cannot remain silent in the face of the murder of an entire nation, in the face of this murder, which is taking place with our hands, our money, our obedience. [. . .]
Make haste to speak out!
Make haste to untie your boat in time from the imperial barque and to raise your own private flag. Make haste to defend the Russian people. Make haste to protest against the despicable and corrupt state institutions compelling Russian soldiers to exterminate Poles, and let their dishonorable speech be drowned out by your cry of indignation.
We are awaiting you! Land and Liberty has set an example.
Notes
Source: "1831-1863," Kolokol, l. 160, April 1, 1863; 17:92-111, 388-92.
This is Herzen's version of lines from Macbeth, act 5, scene 1. These remarks are actually both made by Lady Macbeth.
A reference to Banquo in act 3, scene 4 of Macbeth.
In his discussions with Alexander I, the historian Nikolay M. Karamzin argued that the independence of Poland was incompatible with the greatness (velichie) and security of the Russian state.
After the revolution of July 1830 that overthrew the Bourbons and brought Louis Philippe to the throne as king of France, Nicholas declared him a usurper and moved to break diplomatic relations, but his failure to put together a coalition of like-minded rulers forced him to back off from this measure, and he confined himself to simply failing to observe the usual formalities and signs of respect between rulers in their subsequent correspondence.
In Russian: samoderzhavie, pravoslavie, narodnost'.
Wellington was British prime minister in 1830; Metternich was Austrian foreign minister; Sebastiani was the French foreign minister, and Perier was head of the French Palace of Deputies.
"To the Slanderers of Russia."
Stuart (1803-1854) was a British politician who strongly supported Polish independence.
Pecherin was a poet and professor of Greek philology at Moscow University; in 1836 he emigrated and converted to Catholicism. Alexander I. Polezhaev (1804-1838) was a poet whose tragic story was recounted by Herzen in Past and Thoughts.
Chaadaev, a political philosopher famous for one published and other circulated manuscripts, was subjected to a yearlong house arrest by Nicholas I. Herzen describes Chaadaev's impact on Russia in his memoirs.
Karl Sand (1795-1820) was a radical Prussian student executed for his murder of the conservative writer Kotzebue. The Italian province of Calabria was very poor and full of bandits.
Herzen: "In 1835, during my exile to the province of Vyatka, I found in the town of Sarapul a wonderfully organized library, which received all the new books and journals in Russian. Members could take books home and there was a reading room. All this was set up with incredible effort, sacrifices, and great persistence by the district physician, who had graduated from Moscow University. His name, I think, was Chudnovsky."
Admiral Nikolay S. Mordvinov (1754-1845) served as a senator, member of the State Council, and, from 1823 to 1840, as head of the Free Economic Society. Mordvinov submitted his opinions and proposals to the State Council under Alexander I and Nicholas I, and they also circulated widely in society. He believed that the economic development of Russia depended on a strengthening of the rule of law and the educational system.
This is a criticism of Moscow University professor B. N. Chicherin, among others.
General Rostovtsev (1803-1860) was put in charge of all military schools in 1835. In an 1849 letter to Herzen, Granovsky described the new instructions as something that Jesuits would envy.
A reference to Ivan Turgenev's collection of stories called Notes of a Hunter (Za- piski okhotnika, 1852).
The article "The Anniversary of Borodino" appeared in Fatherland Notes (Oteche- stvennye zapiski) in October 1839, while Belinsky was under the influence of Hegel. The idea of reconciliation with reality was advanced in this and other Belinsky articles in 1839 and 1840.