A Herzen Reader

78. From Petersburg [1866]

From Petersburg 271 Notes Source: “Kniaz’ Sergei Grigor’evich Volkonskii,” Kolokol, l. 212, January 15, 1866; 19:16– 21, 369–70. 1. What follows is an excerpt from a long series of “Letters to a Future Friend,” four of which appeared in The Bell in 1864, and a fifth in 1866, and which marked a deepening rift between Herzen and the liberals. 2. Prince Petr V. Dolgorukov (1816–1868), a historian and commentator, emigrated in 1859, and from 1860 to 1864 published newspapers and journals in Leipzig, Paris, Brussels, and London. 3. Herzen mentions in a footnote that Volkonsky related much of this story to him as well, but asked that any published work attributed to him be delayed until after his death. Volkonsky’s account of the three traitors—Boshnyak, Maiborod, and Shervood— was published earlier in the ninth issue of Herzen’s journal Listok but as the notes of “a deceased Decembrist.” 4. Herzen adds that Yushnevsky had given the document to two others, Kryukov and Zaykin, who shared quarters in Tulchin. Hearing of Pestel’s arrest, they buried it in the ground in a neighboring village. During the investigation, Zaykin was tortured into a confession, and was taken from Petersburg to the site to retrieve it. 5. The liaison and possibly secret marriage between Empress Elizabeth and the Cossack turned count Alexey Razumovsky gave rise to legends about offspring. The first false Princess Tarakanova retired to a convent; the woman mentioned here is the second pretender, who was brought from Italy in 1775 by Count Orlov on orders of Catherine II and was imprisoned, dying soon afterward. 6. Speransky wrote a very liberal reform plan—a constitutional government based on a series of ascending dumas—for Alexander I in 1809, was dismissed on the eve of the 1812 campaign, made governor-general of Siberia in 1816, and asked by Nicholas I to codify all existing Russian laws. His role in 1826 was a loyalty test set by the new tsar, which he passed. 7. A verst is slightly longer than a kilometer.  78  The Bell, No. 214, February 15, 1866. The theme—harassment of progressive journalists— and the ironic tone are familiar, as are the government’s misgivings about the zemstvos (institutions of local self-government), which were the products of its own reform program.  From Petersburg [1866] There was a speech in the committee of ministers about closing the zemstvos, in light of the fact that the zemstvo assemblies are seeking more 272 A Herzen Reader and more to become independent of the administration, taking up issues that do not directly concern their mandate. Speeches are given that agitate people, and the development of these institutions is leading to a limitation of autocratic power.1 The proposal to take repressive measures against the zemstvos came from Warsaw-Milyutin, as he is called, and the majority of ministers were on his side. Only Valuev defended the zemstvo institutions, and the matter ended in some sort of compromise.2 The bureaucrats were frightened by the first signs of a lively spirit in the zemstvo assemblies, and are conspiring in their departments against the zemstvos. They tremble over the financial support, the extraordinary sums, and the government quarters. They are frightened by the thought that maybe, one day, they will have to give an account of their actions not to the authorities, but to representatives of the people. With all their limitations , they understand that the present order of things will not remain forever and ever in Russia, that it will not always be in the grip of the limitless power of a spendthrift government and its thieving officials. The bureaucrats will likely draw the government toward repressive measures , and in that case they will themselves call forth and prepare the soil for a violent revolution. The publisher of The Contemporary, after two warnings, asked Valuev to place The Contemporary under censorship control once more.3 Valuev refused , referring to the fact that to transfer The Contemporary, “that freedomloving journal,” back to the censorship would amount to directly admitting that the new, censorship-free situation for Russian journalism was worse than under the previous censorship. However, without fulfilling Nekrasov’s request, Valuev reassured The Contemporary with the following advice: “Carry on your publication under the same conditions, and I give my word that I will not administer a third warning and will not close down the journal … as long as the editors of The Contemporary agree to...