A Herzen Reader

We do not think so. And even if it were so, it is hardly possible to have a continuation of the Nicholaevan reign. We are certain that this merciless, backward-dragging despotism has run its course in Russia. The govern­ment itself senses this, but feels new and awkward in the world of reform, improvement, and the human word; it is shy and slow-moving, not believ­ing in its strength and confused by the difficulty and complexity of the task. This deadening notion of its own weakness, that we are not up to the task, exists among us, and, unfortunately, not just in the government but in us as well.

This is not modesty, but the beginning of despair and depression; for so long we were cowed and downtrodden, so accustomed to blush in the presence of other nations and to consider all the filth of Russian life to be irreparable—from bribes to birch rods—that we really almost lost faith in ourselves. This unfortunate feeling surely must pass. Goethe said quite correctly:

To lose one's courage is to lose everything, It would be better not to have been born.²

Of course, the last three decades were hard, and our whole historical de­velopment followed a difficult and strange path, but didn't this time leave us pledges for the future? Did we really come to a stop, exhausted, did Rus split up into parts or fall under foreign dominion? No, we stand whole and unharmed, full of strength, unified in the face of a new path.

We are frightened by the backward and terrible condition of the people, its habit of lawlessness, and the poverty that is crushing it. All of this un- arguably makes—and will make—development difficult, but, in contrast to Burger's ballad,³ we say: the living stride fast, and the pace of the popular masses, when they begin to move, will be very great. We do not need to lead them toward the new life, just to remove what is crushing their own traditional ways. [. . .]

For 150 years we have been living in the ruins of the old; nothing whole has remained and there is nothing to regret. We have an imperial dictator­ship and rural life, and between them every sort of institution, attempt, initiative, and idea, coming more and more to life, not tied to any caste or to any existing order. Since Peter I we have been in a state of restructuring, looking for new forms, imitating, making copies, and a year later we try something newer. It is enough to change ministers for state serfs to sud­denly become personal serfs of the imperial family or vice versa. What does not change is the foundation, the soil, i.e., there is still the village with its physiological character, its pre-governmental state and condition, a premise whose syllogism lies in the future rather than as a continuation of the Mus­covite kingdom; it also existed at that time, that is all we can say. It would be very difficult to change it, and it is unnecessary; quite the contrary, on it will be built the Rus of the future!

Of course, it is not easy to go from military despotism and German bureaucracy to a simpler and more popular governmental structure. But where are the insurmountable obstacles? To be sure, it is difficult to see the truth if some are not permitted to speak it and others are interested in keep­ing it hidden. The sovereign sees nothing from behind the beams and posts of the chancellery and the bureaucracy and the dust raised by soldiers on maneuvers; that is why the government, as it enters into the era of reform, is feeling its way along, desiring it and not desiring it, and those who might give advice are floundering like a fish on ice, with no voice.

In order to continue Peter's work, the government must openly renounce the Petersburg period as Peter himself renounced Muscovy. These artificial contrivances of imperial administration have grown old. Having so much power and, on the one hand, leaning on the common folk, while, on the other, on all thinking and educated people in Russia, the current govern­ment could perform miracles without the slightest danger to itself.

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 +