Notes
Source: "Delo Serno-Solov'evicha," Kolokol, l. 200, July i5, Й65; ^395-97, 644-47.
This statement is attributed to Prince Alexander A. Suvorov (i8o4-i882), who was close to the Decembrists in his youth. From i86i to i866 he was governor-general of St. Petersburg and a member of the State Council. Suvorov had met N. Serno-Solovyovich and was impressed by his charm and education.
The State Council followed the Senate's lead in softening the harsh sentence, although the civil execution was still carried out.
Tamerlane (i336-i405) was a Central Asian military leader who sought to restore the empire of Genghis Khan. Vasily I. Kelsiev (Й35-Й72), who emigrated in Й59, returned to Russia illegally in March i862 with Turkish citizenship papers and the goal of establishing links with Old Believers and distributing publications of the Free Russian Press. Expelled from Russia, he returned in Й67, saying that he repented of past acts.
Pavel A. Vetoshnikov was employed by a trading company and Nikolay M. Vladi- mirov worked for a Petersburg export firm; both were accused of transporting forbidden publications back to Russia and were exiled to Siberia.
Nicholas I.
In Stalinist Russia, beginning in the 1930s, this crime (nedonositel'stvo) was enshrined in law.
Nazimov, former governor of the Vilna, Grodno, Minsk, and Kovno provinces was removed for using insufficient force in putting down the Poles.
In i858, Serno-Solovyovich, while serving as a clerk for the Main Committee on emancipation, approached the tsar with a letter revealing the deceit and red tape that was harming the preparations for the peasant reforms, and the alarming situation in the country. Alexander sent the note to Prince Orlov, chairman of the State Council, saying that Orlov should summon the young man, inform him that the tsar was not angry at his boldness, but thankful for his information. Orlov is said to have kissed the young man in the tsar's name.
71 +
The Bell, No. 200, July i5, i865. This unsigned piece is attributed to Herzen because of the subject matter, in which he was deeply interested, and the style.
Russia Is Still Burning [1865]
There are fires in twenty provinces! And all of them arson, according to The Moscow Gazette. But who is committing this arson? Is it possible that not once have the police ever gotten their hands on a genuinely guilty person, except for some holy fools and juveniles, from whom you could not get a sensible word? Isn't it time to sack such a police force, with all its special and general officers, and the civilian and military governors and governor- generals? If there are no arsonists or if they are a great rarity, then isn't it time to get rid of all the worthless journalistic alarmists, all those moral poisoners of public opinion?
Notes
Source: "Vse eshche gorit Rossiia," Kolokol, l. 200, July i5, i865; i8:398, 647.
The Bell, No. 209, December 1, 1865 (Part I); No. 210, December 15, 1865 (Part II). Her- zen wrote this essay in answer to criticism from radical democratic (young emigres and Bakunin), "court liberal" (Chicherin), and conservative (M. P. Pogodin) circles. It covers not just 1865, but the line taken by The Bell during the past few years. To those on his left and right, Herzen declares his unchanged views on Russia's path toward liberation. He saw the period that began in 1862 as one of harsh reprisals, the corruption of Russian journalism, and the movement of a confused society to the right. Herzen defends his complex attitude toward Alexander II, and affirms his faith in the powerful legacy of the peasant commune. Bakunin was not satisfied with the tone of this document, noting that Herzen still felt sad about the decline of Russian liberalism and his disappointed hopes in the tsar. According to Bakunin, what was needed was an end to the commune and a popular uprising (Let 4:283).
As the Year Comes to an End [1865]
I
We are surviving the year 1865, as we survived 1863 and 1864.
After delirium tremens lasting two years, the tedious period of recovery has come—slow, concealed, with continuing flashes of heat and the return of delirious episodes. A clear turning point, in which the old doctors believed, did not happen, but the attacks of rage have apparently weakened, and, taking everything into account, things are not getting worse.
For us, it's even demonstrably better.
Since last spring our ringing has again begun to reach Russia, has again begun to rouse some people and upset others. We are being scolded more often, more people are writing to us, and we have more and more correspondence and readers. And we are traveling along our very same path and have no intention at all of changing it, that is, the path itself—we do not answer for the tone and the coverage, because they depend on events and not on us, and we have said this many times.1
To travel one's own path under the circumstances under which we traveled for the past three years was difficult, and we would never say—given the prevailing confusion of ideas and passions, and the streams rushing in opposite directions—that we were not from time to time carried to one side, but we were not dislodged from the main line either by the frenzied abuse of independent or government-supported enemies, or by the advice of stubborn friends.
The Bell has remained what it was, has remained itself; it represented the same line of thought and did not represent any coterie. Abandoned by almost everyone, it did not rush either into the patriotic camp or toward the democratic alarmists. [. . .]
We know and see that our enemies followed a different road and took nine-tenths of our friends with them. What we do not know or see is whether the Russian reading public, the only people for whom we write, will follow them for very long. We were unable to follow our enemies along the path of bloody and crude patriotism; to the extent that this will cool down and resistance grow to The Moscow Gazette and Muravyov's actions, to that extent readers will return to us.
That personally strong people and lively talents, full of youthful freshness, not only can but should overtake us—we not only know this but rejoice in it, like any person who has cleared a path and takes pleasure when people walk further along it.2 However, we do not know and seriously doubt that public opinion in Russia has outstripped our propaganda. [. . .]
Neither abstract thought, nor far-off ideals, nor logical severity, nor a sharp consistency, in and of themselves, will help the work of everyday propaganda, if they are unable to grasp close-range ideals, today's strivings, and the doubts of the masses. The town square and the club, the auditoriums and every sort of gathering differ from the closed circle of school friends, in that the former pay attention while the latter were engaged in study, or were supposed to be studying.
It wasn't easy to follow from afar the changing stream of opinions, especially from a public so young, unbridled, and only partly free. We trusted our instinct, and steered as best we could through the dark and stormy night between opposing beacons, even losing our ballast.
However, we do not blame ourselves for that. There is only so much coordination with the direction of society possible; any further and it becomes a betrayal. The sounds of The Bell were lost, and caused rage and indignation to the degree that the popularity of Muravyov and The Moscow Gazette grew. Muravyov was cast aside, The Moscow Gazette passed its apogee and will likely begin to fade, we have survived the worst period, and soon our prodigal children, with gray hair or without any hair at all, will once again appear when we ring out, back from the patriotic herd where they did not graze but were tended. [. . .]