Now the “politicals” had had much to bear, but had never been legally liable to personal chastisement; the mere threat was held by many as an insult only to be wiped out with blood, and this view was voiced by Sergius Bobohov. I have not hitherto mentioned this excellent man; for the part that he played, and that gives him a place in the annals of the Russian revolutionary movement, only began with this challenge from the Siberian satrap.

Sergius Bobohov was born in the Volga district. He had studied in the Petersburg veterinary college, and had been expelled towards the end of the sixties for taking part in a riot of the students directed against Professor Zion, an affair that made a good deal of stir at the time. He was subsequently banished by “administrative methods” to the government of Archangel, and in 1878 attempted unsuccessfully to escape. When he was recaptured he fired a revolver-shot in the air, hoping that this would cause him to be brought to trial, and that so he might have an opportunity of denouncing the arbitrariness of the so-called “administrative methods.” For this shot he was sentenced to twenty years’ “katorga,” and brought to Kara in 1879.

During the nearly thirty years of my intercourse with Russian revolutionists I have met many remarkable men, but none that lived on a higher moral plane than Bobohov. Genuine sincerity, seriousness of purpose, and boundless devotion to his ideal were his leading characteristics. He was the most modest of men, but when the honour of a revolutionist was at stake, or if it were a question of duty, he would undergo a transformation and become a fiery and inspired prophet. There was never the slightest contradiction between his words and his deeds, he was the most logical and consistent of men, and it was no wonder if he won universal respect and esteem in Kara, even though everyone did not share his opinions.

Bobohov was but a youth when I entered the prison, and the ideas that he had imbibed were the then prevalent, rather anarchistical views of the Buntari, to which he remained faithful all his life. Imprisonment and exile are apt to exercise a conservative influence on the mind; the opinions with which one enters prison tend to become stereotyped. Bobohov was well read, and interested himself keenly in all questions of social politics; but it happened with him as with many other intelligent men among us—he gathered from every book he read only what tended to strengthen anew the opinions he already held. He took great interest in the Social-Democratic theory, for instance, but his way of thinking prevented him from properly grasping its argument, and he was continually combating those who were attracted by it. He and I were never room-mates, but when walking in the yard I used to have endless discussions with him on this subject, and he always showed himself an exemplary debater, attentive, restrained, never ill-tempered or personal.

Bobohov took the threat of flogging more keenly to heart than any of the others. His idea, which he at once did his best to promulgate, was that we should immediately send a telegram to the Minister of the Interior, declaring that if the threat of the Governor-General were not withdrawn we would all commit suicide; and he further demanded of us that if the minister had not yielded within a certain time, we should each in our turn, to be decided by lot, take measures to put an end to our lives.

I had an opportunity one day of speaking to him about this proposal, and I tried to convince him of its impracticability, especially arguing against his impossible notion of casting lots, which would make suicide cease to be a voluntary act, as those who had at first agreed might feel in honour bound to cast away their lives, even if when the time came they had changed their minds. Moreover, I reasoned, if we were to announce such an intention to the authorities, they would at once take steps to prevent its being carried out.

Bobohov passionately disputed my arguments. “I cling to life as much as any other man,” he said. “If I am ready to face death as a means of protest, it would only be if I could reckon on others to follow my example. Without casting lots—that is, without making it a duty—there would be no sense in the undertaking; the others might draw back after I had taken my life, and my sacrifice would have been in vain, for the effect on the Government would be lacking.”

The impression I gathered from the whole of this conversation with Bobohov was that life was really dear to him, and that he would not commit suicide, so that my worst fears were quieted. But his fate and that of some others of our comrades was already sealed.

Rumours reached us directly after this that, by order of the Governor-General, Nadyèshda Sigida was to be subjected to corporal punishment for assaulting the commandant. We took this rumour as quite improbable. In all the history of our movement there had been no single instance of a woman being punished in such a manner; and among the men even, Bogolyùbov alone (sentenced to fifteen years’ “katorga” on account of the demonstration in the Kazan Square of December, 1876) had suffered this indignity. And since, to avenge him, Vera Zassoùlitch had fired at and wounded Trèpov, and had been acquitted by a jury, in all the twelve years that had elapsed no attempt had ever again been made to inflict corporal chastisement on a political prisoner. Certainly it had been repeatedly threatened in cases of attempted escape; but the threat had never been carried out, only lengthened terms of imprisonment imposed. It seemed therefore impossible to believe that such treatment of a woman should be meditated. On the other hand, in view of the Yakutsk tragedy, the victims in which had been mere boys and girls, we could not but fear that the Government of the “peace-loving Tsar” would shrink from no barbarity.

Terrible days followed for us, but our uncertainty was not of long duration. In the beginning of November we learned that the Governor-General’s order had actually been executed.