Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow

by Irina Reyfman

  O! you who establish censorship, remember that you may be compared to Pope Alexander VI and may shame overcome you!101

  In 1515, the Lateran Council passed a decree on censorship that no book could be printed without the permission of the clergy.

  From the preceding, we have seen that censorship was invented by the clergy and that it was adopted exclusively by them. Accompanied by anathema and a fine, censorship could at the time seem like a terrible thing to the violator of the rules published about it. But the rejection by Luther of pontifical authority, the breach of various rites from the Roman church, disputes among different powers during the Thirty Years War, gave rise to many books published without the usual seal of approval from the censor. Everywhere, however, the clergy arrogated to itself the right to exercise censorship on publications and when in 1650 secular censorship was established in France, the Faculty of Theology of the University of Paris protested against this new ordinance by arguing that it had in fact for two centuries enjoyed this right.

  It was shortly after the introduction of printing in England* that censorship was established.102 The Star Chamber, no less terrible in its time for England than the Inquisition in Spain or the Secret Chancery103 for Russia, decided on the number of printers and printing presses and established the office of the vetter of print matter without whose authorization one would not dare print anything at all. The excesses of the Star Chamber against those who wrote about the government were endless and its history abounds in this kind. If, therefore, in England clerical superstition was incapable of imposing on reason the heavy curb of censorship, it was imposed by political superstition. But each of these made it their business to preserve power intact, that the orbs of enlightenment be veiled by the fog of enchantment, and that coercion dominate at the expense of reason.

  It was the death of the Earl of Strafford that precipitated the demise of the Star Chamber;104 but neither the liquidation of the latter nor the trial and execution of Charles I were able to confirm the freedom of the press in England. The Long Parliament restored the old regulations established against it. They were again restored during the reigns of Charles II and James I. Even in 1692 at the conclusion of the Glorious Revolution this legislation was confirmed although only for two years. When the two years were over in 1694, liberty to print was fully restored and after a final gasp censorship gave up the ghost.*

  The American states adopted freedom to publish among the very first laws establishing civil liberties. In chapter 1 of its constitution, in article 12 of the preamble concerning the rights of its residents, Pennsylvania says: “The people have the right to express, write, and publish their opinions; it follows that freedom to publish must never be subject to restriction.” In chapter 2, paragraph 35, respecting the mode of government: “Let freedom of the press be guaranteed to all who wish to inspect the work of the legislative assembly or any other branch of government.” In the draft relating to the type of government for the state of Pennsylvania, printed in July 1776 in order that the residents be able to share their comments, at paragraph 35: “Let freedom to print be guaranteed to all those who desire to study the legislative body, and the general assembly may not in any circumstances limit it. No publisher may be brought before a tribunal because he published remarks, evaluations, observations bearing on the works of the general assembly, the various branches of government, public affairs, or the conduct of government servants insofar as it relates to the jobs they do.” The State of Delaware, in the declaration made of its rights, says in article 23: “Let the freedom to print be maintained in its inviolability.” The State of Maryland uses the same terms in article 38. Virginia expresses itself in these words in article 14: “Freedom of the press is for the State the best bulwark of the freedom.”105

  The press, before the revolution of 1789 that took place in France, was nowhere so constrained as in this state. A hundred-eyed Argos, a hundred-handed Briareus, the police of Paris raged against writings and writers. In the dungeons of the Bastille wasted away the unfortunate who had the audacity to denounce the greed and depravity of ministers. Had the French language not enjoyed such universal use in Europe, France, which suffered under the lash of censorship, would not have attained that grandeur of thought to which so large a number of its writers offers proof. But the widespread use of French gave a reason to establish presses in Holland, England, Switzerland, and in the German lands, and everything you could not dare to be published in France was published freely in other places. So in this way power, flaunting its muscles, was derided and was not frightful; so it was that the maws foaming with fury remained empty, and firm speech slipped out of them unscathed.

  How not to marvel at the incongruity of the human mind! Now when in France all are breathless about liberty, when brazenness and anarchy have reached the limit of possibility, censorship in France has not been abolished. And while everything can be published there now with impunity, it is clandestine. Not long ago we read—and may the French weep for their fate and with them all of humanity—we read not long ago that the Assemblée Nationale, acting as autocratically as the monarch had done hitherto, seized by force a book and put its author on trial for having dared to write against the Assemblée Nationale. Lafayette was the perpetrator of the sentence. O France! You continue to skirt the abyss of the Bastille.

  With their equipment hidden from the authorities, the proliferation of printing presses in the German lands deprives them of the capacity to rage against reason and enlightenment. The smaller German governments, even though they are trying to impose a limit on freedom to publish, have been unsuccessful. Even though Wekhrlin was put under arrest by a vengeful government, the Gray Monstrosity remained in everyone’s hands.106 The late Frederick II, the Prussian king, in his lands all but established freedom to print: he did it not through the promulgation of any legislation, but only by tacit permission and the example of his own ideas. Why be surprised that he did not abolish censorship? He was an absolute monarch whose cherished passion was omnipotence. Contain your laughter.—He learned that someone was planning to assemble and publish his decrees. He assigned to them two censors—or perhaps it would be more appropriate to say inspectors. O domination! O omnipotence! you do not trust your own physical strength! You fear the accusation you make of yourself, you fear lest your tongue betray you and lest your own hand box your ears!—But what good could they do, these tyrannical censors? Far from doing good, they only could do harm. They secreted from the scrutiny of posterity some absurd law that power was ashamed to submit to future judgment, a law that once published could be a bridle on power so that it dares not to realize monstrous deeds. The Emperor Joseph II107 removed in part an obstacle that barred the path to enlightenment and oppressed reason in the Austrian lands during the reign of Maria Theresa. But he was unable to shake off the burden of prejudices and published a very long memorandum on censorship. If he can be praised for not having banned criticism of his decisions, any complaint about his behavior, and the like, from being published in the press, still we will reproach him for leaving this curb on the freedom of expression of ideas. How easy it is to use this for bad ends! …* Why feel any surprise? We say now what we said earlier: he was an emperor. Tell me, then, where can there be more incongruities than in a royal head?

  In Russia…. What happened in Russia with censorship you will learn another time. And now, without imposing censorship on the postal horses, I set off on my journey in haste.

  * It is said that a censor of this kind did not give permission to print compositions in which God was mentioned, saying “I have nothing to do with Him.” If in any sort of composition the customs of the people of one or another state were faulted he considered this to be unacceptable, saying that Russia had a friendship treaty with them. If there was a mention in a work of a prince or count he did not allow this to be printed, saying: this is a personal affront since we have princes and counts among our people of quality.

  * Mr. Dickinson, who took part in the
recent American Revolution and thereby earned a reputation, did not shirk when he became president of Pennsylvania from taking on his detractors. The most violent libels were published against him. The preeminent governor of the region descended into the arena, had his defense published, justified himself, refuted the allegations of his enemies, and covered them in shame…. Here is an example to follow in the way to take revenge when one is attacked in writing in public. If published lines render someone furious they give reason to think that what has been published is true and that the person taking revenge is just as they have been depicted in print.

  * The works of Arias Montano, who printed in the Netherlands the first inventory of forbidden books, were entered into the same inventory.

  † Cassius Severus, the friend of Labienus, on seeing the writings of the latter devoured by the fire said: “Now you will have to burn me since I know them by heart.” This was the occasion for the law of libelous writings under Augustus, which due to the human tendency to ape one another, was adopted in England and also in other countries.

  *Codex diplomaticus, published by Gudenus, volume IV.

  * One can compare this with the permission to possess foreign books of any type and the ban on the very same books in the vernacular language.

  * “Aforementioned art” here and below refers to printing.—Trans.

  * In England, William Caxton, a London merchant, established a printing press in the reign of Edward IV in 1474. The first book printed in the English language was A Treatise on Chess, translated from the French. The second was the Collection of Sayings and Speeches of Philosophers, translated by Lord Rivers.

  * In Denmark freedom to print books was brief. The verses of Voltaire addressed to the King of Denmark on this occasion are proof that one should not hasten to praise a law, however wise it was.

  * We read in the most recent news that the successor of Joseph II intends to renew the censorship committee abolished by his predecessor.

  MEDNOE

  “In a field a birch tree stood / in a field it curly stood / oi lyuli-lyuli-lyuli-lyuli.” A round dance of young womenfolk and maidens—they dance. “Let us draw closer,” said I to myself while unfolding the found papers of my acquaintance.—But I read the following. I was unable to walk up to the round dance. My ears were blocked with sadness and the joyous voice of plain cheerfulness failed to penetrate my heart. O my friend! Wherever you are, harken and judge.

  Twice weekly the entire Russian Empire gets the news that N.N. or B.B. either cannot or does not want to pay what he borrowed or took, or the sum demanded of him. The borrowed sum is gambled away, spent on travel, used up, eaten up, drunk up, … up or given away, lost in fire or water, or through some other set of circumstances either N.N. or B.B. has gone into debt or repossession. Both reasons are printed by newspapers.—As printed: “On this day … at 10 o’clock in the morning, on the remand of the district court or the city magistrate, at a public auction will be sold the real estate, house, located in … quarter, at number … and with it six souls male and female, of the retired captain G; the sale will be held at the said house. All those interested may view in advance.”

  A bargain always has many seekers. The day and hour of the sale arrives. The purchasers are gathering. Those who have been condemned to sale stand motionless in the room where it is being conducted. An old man of about seventy-five, leaning on an elm club, craves to guess which pair of hands fate will give him to, who will close his eyes. He was with his master’s father in the Crimean campaign in the time of Field Marshal Münnich;108 at the battle of Frankfurt, he carried his wounded master on his shoulders from the front line. On return home, he was serf tutor to his young master. He saved him in his childhood from drowning, plunging into the river where the other had fallen during his crossing on a ferry and at danger to his own life saved him. In his youth, he bailed his master from the prison to which he had been sentenced because of debts incurred during his time as a junior officer in the guards.—An old woman of eighty years, his wife, was wet nurse to the young master’s mother, was his nanny, and had oversight of the house until the very hour when she was brought to this auction. For the entire period of her service, she never lost anything of her masters’, never coveted anything, never lied, and if she irritated them in any way then it was only perhaps through her truthfulness.—A woman of forty years, a widow, the wet nurse of her young master. Even now she still feels for him a measure of tenderness. Her blood runs in his veins. She is a second mother to him, and he owes his life to her more than to his natural mother. She who conceived him in pleasure gave no thought to his childhood. His wet nurse and nanny raised him. They part from him like a son.—A young woman of eighteen, her daughter and the granddaughter of the old people. Vicious beast, monster, fiend! Look at her, look at her crimson cheeks, tears flowing from her delightful eyes. Is it not you who, when unable to capture her innocence by means of seduction and promises, nor to intimidate with threats and punishment her constancy, finally used deception by marrying her to a collaborator in your vileness and in this guise take the pleasure that she abhorred to share with you? She discovered your deception. Her husband was never allowed to touch her bed again and you, deprived of your toy, used rape. Four villains, the instruments of your will, hold her hands and legs … but we shall not complete this. On her brow is grief, in her eyes despair. She holds the babe, the dolorous fruit of deceit or rape, but the living copy of his adulterous father. After giving birth to him, she forgot the father’s beastliness and her heart began to feel tenderness toward him. She fears that she might fall into the hands of someone similar to the father.—The infant…. Your son, barbarian, your blood. Or do you think that where a church rite has not taken place there is no obligation then? Or do you think that the blessing given on your order by the hired performer of the divine word confirmed their union? Or do you think that a forced marriage in God’s temple can be called a union? The Almighty reviles compulsion, He revels in heartfelt desires. Only they are pure. Oh, between us how many acts of adultery and defilement are committed in the name of the father of joys and the comforter of ills in the presence of witnesses unworthy of their stature.—A lad of twenty-five, her lawful husband, is the companion and confidant of her master. Brutality and vengeance can be seen in his eyes. He repents of his craven acts for his master. A knife is in his pocket; he grabbed hold of it fiercely, his plan not hard to work out…. Your zeal is fruitless. You will be given over to another owner. The hand of your owner, held constantly over the head of his slave, will bend your neck into compliance. Hunger, cold, heat, punishment, everything will be against you. Your mind is alien to noble thoughts. You do not know how to die. You will submit and will be a slave in spirit as much as in station. And if you were to want to resist you would die a slow death in chains. There is no judge to come between you. Your tormentor would not want to punish you personally. He will be your accuser. He will give you over to the municipal justice system.—The justice system!—where the accused scarcely has the power to defend himself.—Let us walk past the other unfortunate people put up for auction.

  Scarcely had the terror-inducing hammer emitted its dull sound and unfortunates learned their fate—then tears, sobbing, groaning penetrated the ears of the entire assembly. Even the most callous were moved. Hardened hearts! What is the point of fruitless empathy? O Quakers! if we had your soul, we would have clubbed together, bought these wretches, gifted them freedom.—After living in harmony for many years, these victims of abusive sale will feel the pain of separation. But if the law—or, to put it better, barbaric custom since this is not written—permits such a mockery of humanity, what right do you have to sell this infant? He is illegitimate. The law frees him. Stop, I shall be the denouncer, I shall redeem him. If only I were able to save others with him! O Fortune! why have you stinted so miserably on my portion? I presently yearn to taste your enchanting gaze, for the first time I began to feel a passion for wealth.—My heart was so constrained that I bounde
d out of the meeting and fled after emptying my purse of my last ten kopecks to the victims. On the staircase I met a foreigner, a friend of mine. “What has happened to you? You are weeping!” “Turn back,” I told him, “do not be a witness to this shameful spectacle. You once cursed the barbaric custom of selling black slaves in the distant settlements of your country; turn back,” I repeated, “do not be a witness to our decline and may you not carry back our shame to your fellow citizens by conversing with them about our mores.” “I cannot believe this,” my friend said to me, “it is impossible that in a place where everyone is permitted to think and worship as they wish such a shameful custom exists.” “Do not be surprised,” I said to him, “the establishment of freedom of religion offends only priests and monks, and even they would sooner wish to acquire for themselves a sheep than a sheep for their Christian flock. But the freedom of rural dwellers will damage what they call the right of ownership. And all those who could champion freedom, all are the great landowners, and it is not from their councils that one should expect freedom, but from the burden of enslavement itself.”