Chapter 2: The New Tsar Liberator

The rise of the Generation of the Sixties happened soon after the accession to the throne of Alexander Nikolaevitch Romanov, who upon the death of his father in 1855 was titled Tsar Alexander II. The new Tsar was only 38 years old. He had a tendency to lean to the liberal side of autocratic Russian politics. A sensitive sort, young Alexander had always displayed much more fondness for the pomp of military parades and the polish of military uniforms than the brutish imperial business of fighting battles against heathens and pacifying hostile territory.112 His father, Tsar Nicholas I, felt it necessary to prepare Alexander for eventual rule. In 1837 Nicholas sent the 19-year old heir apparent on a tour of discovery throughout the vast regions ruled from St. Petersburg. While touring in a remote area of northeast Russia, on the way to Siberia, Alexander attended an exhibition where he was guided by a well educated young noble, Alexander Herzen. Herzen had been sentenced to live there for having attended a festival in which subversive poetry was read. After meeting Herzen in this way, the Tsarevich personally interceded for Herzen and obtained from his father a commutation of Herzen’s banishment.113

Another place young Alexander Romanov sojourned on his voyage was Kurgan, Siberia. There, consigned to exile, resided a group of liberal nobles who had supported the so-called “Decembrist” revolt of 1825, opposing his father’s accession to the throne, but who did not participate so overtly and directly in the rebellion to be hanged as ringleaders. Though the exiled Decembrists were not allowed to speak with the young Tsarevitch, Alexander had felt pity for these convicts. Immediately after his visit he had urged his father to show them clemency.¹¹⁴

Upon becoming Emperor, one of Alexander’s first acts was to sign pardons and commutations for the remaining Decembrists exiled in Siberia.¹¹⁵ The new Tsar was awed by the magnitude of the powers now reposed in him as supreme ruler of the enormous Russian empire. He humbly asked for divine assistance in assuming to undertake the role of supreme judge.¹¹⁶ While vowing loyalty to his father’s legacy, Alexander II promptly embarked on his own policies, which were in sympathy with the progressive elements of Russian thought, and thus stood in contrast to his father’s conservatism. For instance, very soon after his accession, travel policies were loosened so that it became easy for Russians to obtain passports to travel abroad in Western Europe.¹¹⁷

More students were now allowed to pursue higher education. Entrance into the Russian university system, under Nicholas, had been basically restricted to privileged sons of the nobility. At the time of Alexander’s accession, there were only 2,900 university students in a country of 70 million people.¹¹⁸ Alexander cracked open the doors of the universities. Between 1853 and 1860 student enrollment in the five Russian universities (St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kiev, Kharkov and Kazan) climbed from 2,809 to 4,935.¹¹⁹

Though still very low in absolute numbers, the influx of new students and faculty would soon spray into Russian society a stream of young intellectuals and activists. Many of these men and women felt a strong urge to dedicate their lives to ameliorating the ills of Russian society. They were particularly concerned with the poverty, disease and often brutal discipline of the Russian peasantry, which young people from middle and upper class backgrounds found appalling. Eventually, most of the starry eyed students embarked on family life and productive careers. They favored the granting of academic and personal freedoms, as well as the abolition of serfdom, but they did not choose to sacrifice their own lives to attain these goals.120

However, a very small percentage of the students in the Generation of the Sixties would follow a different path. They would be drawn into a deepening fascination with the ideal of dramatic change through revolution, rather than gradual evolution. These “revolutionaries” would, themselves, evolve. They would organize. They would polarize, disdaining “liberals” and believers in constitutional reforms. They would theorize. They would rationalize. Ultimately, from the core of uncompromising “revolutionaries” would be distilled an even smaller circle, one composed exclusively of individuals who would refine and reinforce one another’s delusions. This group would ultimately reject all other forms of direct action in favor of a vision of effecting dramatic change through spectacular murderous exploits. According to their own terminology, they were committed “terrorists.” Their own deaths, and martyrdom in support of the cause, were integral to the vision. They created a virtual test tube laboratory for terrorism.

Early in his reign, Alexander delegated power to liberal ministers. He also gave much deference to the views of his younger brother Konstantin, always an outspoken reform advocate, and his aunt Hélène, a French-educated progressive. Konstantin and Hélène vehemently opposed the institution of serfdom. They bolstered Alexander in his resolve to make its abolition the key initiative of his reign.

The battle over Russian serfdom, a form of slavery, was fought out in parallel with the struggle to abolish slavery in the United States. In many respects, Russia’s serfdom was even more challenging than America’s problem with slavery. Out of an estimated 70 million total Russians, 50 million were in some form of bondage when Alexander became Emperor. Ending serfdom had been one of the principal “planks” of the Decembrists. Tsar Nicholas I, after crushing the Decembrists, sought to defuse the issue. He had, in fact, appointed his son Alexander to a secret committee to try to work out a solution.121 The major issue and obstacle was: How to free the serfs, without at the same time granting them land? To give the serfs land, it was felt, the government must take away valuable land from land owners. And as in the antebellum southern United States, large plantation owners (in Russia, more commonly called “estate owners”) formed a powerful and entrenched constituency. They depended upon and perpetuated the institutions of serfdom.¹²²

Upon accession to the throne, Alexander rapidly appointed his own committee to find a path to emancipation.123 However, in a pattern we will see repeated, a majority of the nobles and councilors whom Alexander placed on this committee were conservatives, basically hostile to the idea of a wholesale liberation. They were just as content to keep the system as it was or, at most, to enact slow and small changes. They expected to watch the new Emperor’s anti-serfdom initiative die of its own weight, just like all the previous ones under Nicholas. In order to overcome this inertia, Alexander appointed his brother Konstantin to the emancipation committee. Alexander also took the bold step of publicly announcing his support f or ending serfdom.¹²⁴ Alexander thus earned his enduring nickname, “The Tsar Liberator.”

Alexander Nikolaevitch Romanov, Tsar Alexander II

Debate on how to end serfdom dragged on interminably during the first five years of Alexander’s rule. Constant political battles raged over the issue. Alexander kept pushing for results. Finally, in January 1861, the Emperor personally intervened with the committee and insisted that a decree must be in place by mid February, well before the planting season could start. On February 19, 1861, the historic imperial decree abolishing serfdom was signed.125

Some highlights of the new emancipation law included:

•The serfs would receive the rights of citizens, and perpetual freedom.

•They also received the perpetual use of their homes.

•The serfs received an allotment of ground similar to what they had cultivated in the past; however, they were required to “purchase” this ground from the landowner.

•Only domestic serfs were emancipated without ground.

•A two year transitional period was decreed, in which the existing relationships would hold, prior to emancipation.

•During this two year transition period, the “purchase price” of the peasant plots was to be negotiated.

•Disputes over the land purchases would be resolved by “peace arbitrators” selected from the local nobility.

•To facilitate the transition, the government would make low interest loans, to enable the landowners to receive the money and to allow the peasants to pay off their land acquisition over a period of years.

•Much of the land, that was previously under collective cultivation, would remain under collective cultivation, in the form of the mir. The mir would also be responsible to pay the taxes.

•To figure out how much land each freed serf would receive, a complicated formula was used. In part, it was broken down geographically. Russia was divided into the “fertile” zone, the “non fertile” zones, and the “steppes,” which were themselves subdivided into 16 categories. 126

A rough parallel could be drawn between Alexander’s emancipation decree and U.S. President Barack Obama’s “Affordable Health Care” act. Both initiatives produced a legislative package that was, in the end, a patched up package of compromises, with many flaws, injustices, and loopholes. It was easy to underestimate the vast economic, administrative, and social difficulties and complexities involved in working out the emancipation law. As a result, advocates on both sides of the issue were left unhappy. Many were highly critical of the final decree. Among the more immediate problems, landowners naturally sold to the serfs those of their lands that were the least desirable due to issues such as sand or marshy conditions. The two year period of continued servitude prescribed prior to emancipation seemed like an eternity. Also, there was a provision in the law that allowed freed serfs to elect to receive only one quarter of their land allotment, and pay nothing, instead of “purchasing” their entire allotment. Many peasants of course opted to pay nothing, and as a result, they received an allotment of land that was too small to make a sustainable living. Due to protests over these problems and other perceived “tricks” embedded in the emancipation decree, the popular adulation Alexander received upon its issuance was short lived.¹²⁷

In early 1861, just as the emancipation decree was in its final stages of preparation, major protests erupted in Poland against its rule by imperial Russia. Partly because of his German heritage (Alexander’s mother was Prussian, and he had spent much of his youth visiting Germanic areas), Alexander had a tendency to look upon the partition of Poland between Prussia and Russia as justified and inevitable.¹²⁸ On the Poland question, he found himself strongly torn between the hawkish advice of his father’s former aides, who urged a policy of repression, and the doves associated with his brother Konstantin and the liberal ministers, who urged conciliation. On March 25, 1861, Alexander announced a series of major concessions to Polish autonomy, including a Polish council of state, educational reforms, and increased freedom for the Catholic church to operate in Poland. He also installed a Polish nobleman, Alexander Wielopolski, as a sort of virtual vice-tsar of the Polish territory.129

Unfortunately, neither Alexander’s autonomy concessions nor his appointment of Wielopolski were enough to pacify the nationalists dedicated to an independent Poland. Alexander’s benevolent moves only led the militants to demand more. The Polish nobility, clergy, youth, and notable citizens all called for an end to Russian dominion over Polish territory. Polish partisans also agitated abroad, particularly in Paris.¹³⁰ Little by little, the “Polish cause” was widely accepted and championed throughout Europe. Wielopolski, despite being Polish, was viewed as an illegitimate imposition, resulting in hostility. Alexander was soon forced to recall him. Next, Alexander tried appointing his brother Konstantin to the post of vice-tsar for Poland. Despite Konstantin’s strong credentials as an ardent liberal, his appointment again failed to quell the brewing nationalistic ferment within Poland.¹³¹ Polish partisans declared that they preferred Siberia or the gibbet to the ignominious insult of an “amnesty” offered as one of the Tsar’s conciliatory gestures.

The balance of power within the government was tipped back toward the reactionaries by a series of terrorist attacks that occurred in Poland, including an assassination attempt against Konstantin himself. The perpetrators were caught, and hung. Their martyrdom provoked more bitterness and recriminations among the Polish patriots. Alexander found himself emotionally affected by the attempt on his brother. In response, he approved the dispatch of Russian troops into Poland. Konstantin was recalled to Russia and, under the supervision of ruthless military governors who replaced him, a deadly purge commenced. Thousands of Poles were arrested, executed, and sent to forced labor in Siberia. Russian was made the obligatory official language in Poland. Even the church fell under strict scrutiny. Convents that were suspected of sheltering or helping Polish partisans were closed. Pope Pius IX protested in vain. Most of the surviving Polish partisan leaders fled to the West.132

Alexander’s Polish policy obliterated his remaining goodwill among Russian progressives.¹³³ Alexander Herzen, who by now had left Russia and who had become one of the most influential Russian expatriates, cancelled his planned toast to Alexander’s liberation of the serfs. Instead, in his London periodical The Bell [Kolokol], he chastised: “You, Alexander Nikolaevitch, why did you rob us of our joyful occasion?” Now Herzen drank “for the full unconditional independence of Poland.”¹³⁴ Yet Alexander’s hard line policy on Poland was thoroughly supported by mainstream Russian public opinion. Most Russians favored territorial aggrandizement, and did not want lands of the empire stripped off.¹³⁵

By this time, some within the new generation of energized Russian youth had turned to writing as a means to push for social progress. At the center of the progressive Russian press was a radical periodical called The Contemporary [Sovremennik]. The writers who published in The Contemporary, including Chernyshevsky who was one of its principal contributors between 1858 and 1860, had nothing but contempt for liberals and their plans for peasant reform. Chernyshevsky was not an advocate of reform, but of revolution.¹³⁶ He privately criticized emigrès like Herzen and Mikhail Bakhunin as being hopelessly behind the times, in terms of the “liberation movement.”¹³⁷

Chernyshevsky was born in 1828 in Saratov, 840 kilometers southeast of Moscow. His father was a priest. Young Nikolai himself grew up devout. He was groomed to follow in his father’s profession. Thus he was sent to Russian Orthodox seminary, where he proved to be a precocious and gifted student. By the time he graduated, he had read most of the classics of contemporary world literature, including the works of George Sand, the alter ego and pen name used by the feminist French author Amantine-Lucile-Aurore Dupin, as well as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Charles Dickens. He had acquired a working ability in eight modern and classic languages, including, French, Italian, German, and English, in addition to his native Russian. His parents, convinced that a brilliant future awaited their son, eagerly sent him to university at St. Petersburg, the capital of the Russian empire, in 1846. But upon his arrival in the capital, Nikolai was regarded as nothing special, just another boy from the provinces. He was awkward and very nearsighted, peering through thick glasses. He lacked social graces such as musical talent and dancing ability. His relative poverty was reflected in his wardrobe, which quickly made his origins obvious to his university peers, most of whom were children of the aristocracy.

Chernyshevsky’s rather large and sensitive ego felt crushed. The experience altered him deeply. In his diary he spoke of a coldness that crept into his heart and produced a renunciation of emotion. He abandoned his former devout religious faith and, in its place, ardently embraced a philosophy of utilitarian materialism. This, essentially, is the utopian world view reflected in What Is to Be Done? As part of his transformation Chernyshevsky embraced with passion the political outlook of revolutionary socialism.138 Thus, Nikolai finally succeeded in gaining acceptance by others who were following a similar path.

The year 1848 witnessed a wave of nationalistic and republican oriented uprisings against hereditary monarchies throughout Europe, including in France, Germany, Ireland, Denmark, Austria, Hungary and Italy. Russian students were acutely aware of current world events. Stimulated by the hope for radical change, Russian utopian socialists, including some prominent intellectuals and writers, formed a group called the Petrashevsky circle, named after its original organizer Mikhail Petrashevsky. The very idea of such a group was highly illegal under the repressive regime of Nicholas I. The Tsar’s secret police soon learned of the Petrashevsky circle. They arrested all of its members whom they could catch. Many were sentenced to death, only to have the sentences commuted at the very last second by a special “dispensation” of mercy from Nicholas himself. Among these was Fyodor Dostoyevsky, who at the time was 28, seven years older than Chernyshevsky. Dostoyevsky spent four years in prison as a result of his involvement in the Petrashevsky circle. Chernyshevsky, as a university student, also was active with Petrashevsky, but apparently his involvement escaped the attention of the secret police.

After graduating in March 1851, Chernyshevsky returned to Saratov and became a teacher. Two years later, he was married.139 However, his relationship with his wife Olga was never happy. Once married, she all but abandoned Nikolai, whom she found tedious and pedantic, and whose ideas she never found remotely interesting.¹⁴⁰ Unencumbered by any semblance of a family life, Chernyshevsky returned to St. Petersburg where he immersed himself in radical journalism. This he did predominantly in the form of The Contemporary, which he took over editing during the mid-1850’s.

By 1861 Chernyshevsky was ready to launch into revolutionary agitation. To counter goodwill generated by the Tsar’s proclamation freeing the serfs, Chernyshevsky wrote demagogic pamphlets. He did not, however, call for an immediate uprising. Instead, he urged the “people” to stay quiet and gather their strength until such time as their “friends” and “well-wishers” called for them to rise. He convinced himself that the revolution would occur in 1863. In order to build momentum in that direction, a group of St. Petersburg radicals inspired by Chernyshevsky formed a new secret organization, named Zemlya i Volya [Land and Freedom] to exploit the main frustration accompanying the Tsar’s emancipation decree – the fact that land grants did not accompany the serfs’ freedom. Zemlya i Volya would be the forebear of a series of underground groups organized by radicals who emerged from the Generation of the Sixties.141

Russian governments have long been very proficient in techniques of surveillance. In Alexander II’s era, the Russian intelligence agency charged with spying on Russian subjects was called the Third Section of the Okhrana [meaning, Guard]. Chernyshevsky, rightly suspected of being an instigator of student protests, was a major object of its study. His janitor and cook provided the Third Section with the fascinating intelligence that he seemed to sleep only two or three hours per night, spending the rest writing behind the locked door to his study. He was observed being visited by army officers, by left wing dissidents, and by suspected Poles.¹⁴² In late April 1862, Prince Vasily Dolgorukov, chief of police, presented a report to Alexander in which he concluded that liberal policies had led to an organization that was trying to take power. He recommended the arrest of 50 subversive persons including Chernyshevsky.¹⁴³ Alexander, however, did not immediately follow this recommendation. He took it under advisement.

In May of 1862, a series of major urban fires struck St. Petersburg. The largest of these, on May 28, 1862,¹⁴⁴ struck the Apraxin Dvor, a huge outdoor public market filled with shops and stores. Arson was suspected. Although no proof was ever produced, in the public mind the fires were associated with left wing agitators typified by Chernyshevsky and the writings of The Contemporary. A popular sentiment of fear and distrust, fueled by the fires, bolstered the conservatives in their push for repressive measures. On July 7, 1862, Chernyshevsky was arrested.¹⁴⁵ His prison based authorship of What Is to Be Done? would follow.

Alexander still moved forward with liberalizing. He continued with his opening of the universities, and he also supported initiatives to make the governance of the university system itself more enlightened. He took action to outlaw corporal punishment, in the form of control techniques such as beating and whipping, which were previously endorsed by codified law in Russia, and which were notoriously applied to the bodies of serfs. Alexander was aware that these punishments were was regarded as medieval and barbaric by “modern” societies. On April 7, 1863, Alexander signed a decree banning the bastonnade (judicial beatings), as well as branding with a hot iron and all corporal punishment. However, an exception permitted whipping to remain an approved method of discipline within the military and in prisons.146 This exception would prove fateful for Alexander.

Alexander also instituted sweeping reforms of the Russian justice system. On November 20, 1864, he signed a decree that thoroughly modernized and overhauled the Russian court system. It introduced such concepts as confrontation of witnesses, the right to defense attorneys, public trials, independent judges protected from removal from office, speedier trials, and equality before the law. Criminal trials were now to be decided by juries. This change, too, would be intertwined in an unexpected way with Alexander’s fate.