Tchernychewsky

7/31/2019 Tchernychewsky

1/10

$2.00 Tchernychewskys Life and Trial V.1.0

Along with being one of the leading anarchist journals in 19th-century

America , Benjamin R. Tuckers Libertywas a showcase for new European

literature. Tucker himself was a busy translator, as were Libertystalwarts

Victor Yarros and Sarah E. Holmes, and the pages of the journa l wereusually graced by several simultaneous serial translations. Among thefamous works first introduced to English readers in the pages of Liberty,

Nikolai Chernyshevskys Whats To Be Done?was among the mostimportant. This short account of the authors life and the political trial

which led to his imprisonment and exile, was published shortly after

Tuckers translation finished its run in Liberty.

3 3 3

LIBERTY2.0 is a re-presentation of material from Benjamin R. Tuckers

long-running anarchist journal, Liberty(1881-1907): serial stories

collected, some for the first time; key debates assembled; and individualissues transcribed and annotated. All issues are available in pdf form from

the Libertarian Labyrinth archive, and transcription is underway, with thehope of having the entire archive in searchable text form by mid-2010.

http://libertarian-labyrinth.org/archive/Liberty_(1881-1907)

A CORVUS EDITIONcorvusdistribution.org

Liberty presents:

TchernychewskysLife and Trial

Translated from the Russian for Liberty

by Victor Yarros.


2/10


3/10

Tchernychewskys Life and Trial

16

own country. In October, 1883, the joyful and unexpected news spread over

unhappy Russia that Tchernychewsky, the great teacher and hero, had been

pardoned by the czar. Can it be true? the disconsolate subjects of theczar asked themselves, and shook their heads in melancholy doubt. But it

was true. On the twenty-seventh of October, 1883, after twenty years ofexile, N. G. Tchernychewsky returned from Siberia. He lives now in

Astrachan under police surve illance, and this p lace he is not allowed to

leave. His wife is with him. They occupy a small house in the central part of

the city. They lead a very quiet and retired life. The authorities, it is

understood, are instructed to discourage any curious strangers from

visiting Tchernychewsky, nor is Tchernychewsky himself anxious toreceive visitors. For well known reasons no representatives of the Russian

press interviewed him, and absolutely nothing was said in the newspapersabout the event.

A correspondent of the London D aily News visited Tchernychewsky athis home. He was received courteously, though in a somewhat reserved

manner. At first Tchernychewsky impressed him as very vigorous and well-preserved, but the impression was illusive. The expression of mental vigor,

so familiar in Tchernychewskys photographs, has entirely disappeared. He

is extremely nervous; his look is troubled and restless; his eyes wander

continually from one object to another; some of his movements are purelyconvulsive. From time to time a curt, dry remark involuntarily escaped him,

as if his mind dwelt on some past memories, but whether they were of a

painful or pleasant nature it was difficult to divine. His health is ruined. The

twenty years of exile have had a most disastrous effect on the greatest

thinker and writer of modern Russia. His only wish, if he can be said tohave any wishes, is rest, absolute rest. . .

I take my hat off and reverently bow in taking leave of the author of

Whats To Be Done?

eee

SOURCE: Liberty, Nos. 82-85, June 19-July 31, 1886.

Nicholas Govrilovitch Tchernychewsky was born in Saratoff in 1829. His

father, a clergyman, was a very intelligent and benevolent person, whoseexceptional honesty and kindness won him the love and admiration of all

who knew him. The poor had in him a devoted friend and adviser . He was,in short, very little of a priest. Young Tchernychewsky attended the

seminary, where he studied ancient languages and the Bible. His knowledge

of the last was perfect. He was a strict dogmatic Christian so long as he did

not do his own thinking and his brains were not consulted in matters of

faith and religious habits. Soon, however, Tchernychewsky grew sceptical

and began to feel uncomfortable in the close atmosphere in which he movedand lived. His father not objecting, he went to St. Petersburg and entered

college, choosing the philological faculty. He sought to perfect his knowledgeof ancient languages, and diligently read everything recommended by his

professors. He looked up old manuscripts and compiled dictionaries forthem. Philosophical criticism and social science were not then in his line.

An accidental acqua intance completely changed his programme of study andmanner of life. He was introduced into one of those highly interesting little

groups that make student life in Russia so attractive and fascinating. The

entertaining and enlivening conversations at the tea-table; the instructive

and hot discussions and the long debates, of which, as Tourguneff says,only the Russians are capable, opened Tchernychewskys eyes to a new and

unknown world. There he first heard of the social and political problems of

the day; there he caught a glimpse of modern life, and with surprise,

interest, and enthusiasm he rushed out of his gloomy and dark quarters

into the broad daylight of social and political life and activity. He left thecompany of the dead for that of the living. Giving up his old manuscripts, he

devoted himself entirely to the study of economics and social science. He

read everything he could lay his hands upon in Russian, German, andFrench. And owing to his great natural abilities, to his strong intellect,splendid memory, and love of dialectics, he soon outstripped his friends and

teachers, and took up the high station in the group which naturally

belonged to him. He appeared a new man among the advanced new types of

Russian civilized society.

In 1850 he graduated, and, obeying his mothers will, went to Saratoff

and took the position of professor in the local gymnasium. This was a verygreat sacrifice on Tchernychewskys part, as he left in St. Petersburg a

number of warm personal friends and admirers, and deprived himself of the


4/10


2

means of continuing his scientific studies. In Saratoff he found an old-

fashioned, ugly school, with a number of antediluvian bigots as teachers and

an old stupid Jesuitical director. In society, even among its most liberal andcultured representatives, he hardly found two or three persons who did not

share the general contempt for the cranky and unconventional newprofessor. In his family, too, he felt himself a stranger, having very little in

common with that quiet nest. Only when alone in his own room did he feel

at ease. There he used to be visited, now and then, by a few, very few

friends and some young students of his class, who were surprisedand

charmed by Tchernychewskys novel way of treatment and unusual

cordiality. He canvassed and discussed all kinds of subjects with them inthe most plain, frank, and unassuming manner, treating them as equals,a

thing never heard of before in Saratoff! Great was Tchernychewskys moralinfluence; much good did he accomplish among his youthful companions. He

always succeeded in breathing new vitality, fresh courage and hope, intothe despondent and despairing young fellows, who easily break down under

unfavorable circumstances, and who have that unfortunate trait in theircharacter of losing all courage and strength after one or two futile attempts

at gaining some end in view. And, to the great horror of the clean and

respectable school authorities, he was known to have occasionally furnished

money and other things to the starving and barefooted students.Thus Tchernychewsky passed two years. His life was not very

interesting, though he tried to make the best of it. Now and then, to please

his loving and beloved mother, Tchernychewsky suffered himself to be

taken to parties and entertainments, or visited his family connections,

where he was oblig ed to pass long, tedious hours in the society ofgovernment clerks, officials, and other dry and lifeless individuals. But so

strong was the influence and magic of this exceptionally bright nature that

even these conservative, musty personages felt uncomfortable and nervousin his presence. Not a few of these were actually converted and saved byTchernychewsky. They reformed their habits, gave up the practice of bribe-

taking, treated their children less tyrannically, and generally sought to live

more honorable and decent lives.

In this sphere Tchernychewsky met a young girl, whom he loved with all

the ardor and passion of a youth. In his lectures and correspondence he

talked about the ennobling influence of love and the charms of married life.They were married in 1853. A short time before the marriage his mother

died. Tchernychewsky was deeply affected by this sudden loss. But as he did


15

government fear such men? It is needless to add that these bold

utterances brought the paper to an early grave. The government feared

Tchernychewskys influence, and, like all blind and maddened tyrants, onlyincreased it by its suicidal policy. His writings were suppressed; no one was

allowed to speak about them or mention his name; but this was preciselythe best method of making his name a peculiar charm to enthusiastic and

spirited youths. Indeed, Tchernychewskys influence and the importance of

the part he played in creating and directing the revolutionary drift that will

yet carry away the whole fabric of barbarism and tyranny can hardly be

over-estimated. We can only wonder how much more he would have done for

the cause of degraded and law-ridden humanity! The government earlydiscovered the danger that threatened established institutions and

determined to extinguish the Tight before it kindled into a blaze. Did itsucceed? Let the history of Russia for the last two decades answer I

Of Tchernychewskys life in exile very little is known. He passed sevenyears in the Zala ikalsky d istrict, working at various occupations. In the

mines he actually worked only a few weeks. After 1871 he lived in Viluisk(near Iakutsk) as a convict settler. He occupied a small hut with an

adjoining garden, where he worked several hours every day. The peasants

called him saint. Sometimes he visited them and talked with them about

the conditions of life in that part of the country, but this had to bediscontinued, as the authorities accused him of spreading revolutionary

ideas among the peasants. During the first few years Nekrasoff and his

other co-workers on the Sovremennic supplied him with money;

afterwards the government allowed him two hundred roubles a year. As

everything is very cheap in that region, he found this sum sufficient tosupply his few and simple wants. No correspondence with his wife or

friends was allowed. He had some volumes of poetry and a few other books,

but Byron was the most serious writer whom he was allowed to enjoy. Ofnewspapers he had a small local publication and the Illustrated LondonNews. On the whole, Tchernychewsky appears to have been treated

decently by the local authorities, although, of course, his movements were

strictly watched. Now and then he would write something, but he burned all

his manuscripts.

Thus Tchernychewsky passed twenty years of his life. What a tragical

fate for such a man! Who can measure the intensity of the sufferings heunderwent during these long years of enforced idleness and helplessness?

No wonder that the reports of his insanity found so many believers in his


5/10


14

exercised exceptional power over the youth of the country, whom he

endeavored to convert into adherents to his extreme socialistic and

materialistic views, advocating the forcible overthrow of the existinggovernment a& the means of realizing those ideas, and thus was a

particularly dangerous agitator, and considering his obstinate refusal toadmit the truth of the charges in spite of the overwhelming evidence, the

Senatorial Council thinks it necessary that Tchernychewsky should suffer

the severest penalty of the law, and sentences titular councillor N. G.

Tcheruychewsky, aged thirty-five years, to fourteen years of hard labor in

the mines and, at the expiration of that term, to banishment to Siberia for

life.9 a. m., June 13, 1864, was the time fixed for the reading of the

decision. In spite of the heavy rain that commenced at daybreak, MistinSquare was thronged at the appointed hour. The outward appearance of the

crowd indicated that they belonged to the cultured classes of society. Fewgained admittance into the court room. Tchernychewsky was greatly

changed. He looked pale and haggard. He did not utter a word. When theofficial conspirator began to read the shameful government fraud,

Tchernychewsky turned his face to the wall, and remained so till the

sentence was pronounced. Then his hands were put through two iron rings

attached to a scaffold. A sabre was broken. At this moment a bouquet wasthrown at Tchernychewskys feet. . . . . Nicholas Govrilovitch

Tchernychewsky was hurriedly led out and transported to the Siberian

mines. . . .

This incomplete sketch of Tchernychewskys early life and trial

represents all that could be gathered from private sources. Since 1862Russia has virtually been under a reign of terror. The world has heard

much about the Lopoukhoffs, Kirsanoffs, Rakhmetoffs, but nothing about

their author. For more than twenty years Tchernychewskys name was notonce mentioned in the press; but he was not forgotten by young Russia.The famous revolutionist Mishkin made an attempt to rescue

Tchernychewsky, but the plot was discovered at the last moment, and

Tchernychewskys lot was made bitterer and sadder than before. The

international literary congress assembled in Vienna petitioned for

Tchernychewskys release, but no attention was paid to it by the czar. A

radical Russian newspaper was bold enough to take up the matter, and in avery able article urged the government to set Tchernychewsky free. He

was an honest and brave man, said the writer ; can any honest


3

not express his grief in such manifestations as would fully satisfy the

respectable and virtuous provincial society, as he did not wail and sob in

church, did not fall on the coffin in a deep swoon, and was shameless andimpudent enough to leave his father at such a time and contract marriage

before the term of mourning fixed by provincial etiquette had expired,thebon ton society of Saratoff with exceptional unanimity declared

Tchernychewsky a heartless, soulless, unfeeling, and indecent son. The old

gentleman, however, thought otherwise. He was very proud of his Nicholas,

and was glad that he went to St. Petersburg, as he well knew that a fuller

and better life was in store for him in the capital. When, in 1862, his father

died, surrounded by friends and admirers, Tchernychewsky was againroughly handled by public opinion. He was charged by society with nothing

less than parricide, as it was universally agreed that his pitilessindifference and ingratitude were the cause of the poor old gentlemans

death.Meantime Tchernychewsky, depressed and moneyless, struggled hard in

St. Petersburg. He gave lessons in some government military school,translated novels for the Russian magazines, and worked away the rest of

his time at a dissertation On the sthetical Relations of Art to Reality, by

which he was to obtain a diploma of master of arts. He proper ly passed the

examination, and ably defended his masterly dissertation. The minister ofpublic education, the conservative professors and learned officials, did not

at all like the views and ideas of this bold and supercritical young man . . .

They detected in his dissertation a dangerous tendency to belittle the role

and importance of pure, ideal art. Self-confident and smiling,

Tchernychewsky sarcastically answered the timid savants. He made fun ofthe absolute importance of the Ideal, and showed very little respect for old

traditions and authorities. This, of course, could not be tolerated, and

Tchernychewsky was not awarded the diploma. Just about this time hequarrelled with the liberal authorities of the military school, and, inconsequence, gave up his professorship there.

After that he devoted h imself to literary work exclus ively. H is first

notable paper was a review of a pamphlet On Aristotle, written by a

renowned Moscow professor. The paper was hurriedly wr itten, with little

care and in a very short time; but the learned professor was deeply hurt,

and keenly felt the well-directed criticisms of the young philosopher. His ill-fated dissertation On the sthetical Relations of Art to Reality made him

famous. It made his views and tendencies familiar to the best literary


6/10


4

circles and leading journals of the day, who at once recognized in him a

superior talent and a great mind. The Sovremennic (Contemporary)

engaged him permanently on its editorial staff, and gave up into hismanagement the best two departments of the magazine,the critical and

political. The Sovremennic was the most radical and brilliant periodical ofthat time. Here Tchernychewsky found his opportunity for the highest and

fullest development of his remarkable intellectual powers. Here was a broad

and magnificent field for active work; here was a channel for the full

expression of his best thoughts. And, indeed, soon the splendor and lustre

of his genius was revealed. His writings were widely and eagerly read. He

inspired the youth of the country with enthusiasm for intellectualdevelopment and moral culture; he made life worth living for the mature

elements of society, and raised literature to a very high standard. Who doesnot remember his series of articles On the Poushkin and Gogol Period in

Russian Literature, which surprised everybody with its deep and extensiveknowledge, clearness and force of expression, its dash and boldness in

smashing and annihilating old literary idols? Those articles haverevolutionized Russian literature. Many were charmed and filled with

unbounded admiration for the new and young literary hero; some were

displeased and angered; but no one remained indifferent, no one ignored the

new drift. His teachings and methods were alike novel and fascinating.This wondrous and extraordinary success did not turn

Tchernychewskys head. He was neither proud nor vain. He worked very

hard; from early morning till night he was at his desk. He loved his work for

its own sake, and was utterly indifferent to public opinion. Being neither

proud nor vain, he kept aloof from the lite of the literary world and passedhis leisure hours in the society of struggling young journalists and students

unknown to fame. He was ambitious, but his ambition was of the noblest

and highest order. With the death of Nicholas I. a new era dawned uponRussia. The Crimean war had stirred up the sleeping giant, given a strongimpulse to Russian political life, and brought many burning questions to the

front. Alexander II. was posing as a liberal ruler and liberator. The air was

filled with reform perfumes. The liberal monarch soon tired of this comedy

and tore off the mask of civilization he had worn; but, while this spell

lasted, Tchernychewsky accomplished much. He grew bold and outspoken.

He preached socialistic doctrines, proposed reform measures, spoke ofradical transformations in many national institutions, confident in the

sincerity of the governments professions and trusting to the influence of


13

connections between them, all of them being professional writers, but no

other. The letter and note he pronounced counterfeits, and he petitioned for

permission to collate the handwritings with the aid of a strong magnifyingglass. This was not granted, as the Senatorial Commission was satisfied

that all due accuracy was observed and the law strictly complied with in theinvestigation.

After careful consideration and dispassionate deliberations the

Senatorial Commission submits the following:

The prisoner is charged with three offences:

I. Unlawful connection with the political offender and exile, Herzen, who

is undermining the existing forms of government, and participation in thelatters criminal designs. This charge is based on unsatisfactory evidence,

and therefore declared unproven.II. Authorship of a manifesto addressed to the serfs, of the most

seditious character, which was intended for publication and wide circulationamong the peasants. The proofs of this charge are: (a) the testimony of V.

Kostomaroff, who gave a full account of the matter; (b) the note left byTchernychewsky at Kostomaroffs quarters, requesting him to change some

expression in the text of the manifesto; (c) the testimony of the convict

Michailoff; (d) the testimony of Iakovleff, who was in the employ of V.

Kostomaroff.III. Inciting to riot and plotting against the government. Material proof

of this is found in the letter to journalist Plescheieff, which substantiates all

the other charges, and clearly shows that Tchernychewsky is legally guilty

as well as morally. In that letter he reproaches his friend for his neglect

and tardiness, and informs him that other arrangements were madeconcerning the publication of his revolutionary manifesto. We thus find that

Tchernychewsky cultivated the acquaintance of other conspirators, who

were disturbing pub lic peace by their incendiary litera ture.This evidence leaves no doubt as to the existence of a plot to overthrow

the government, in which Tcheruychewsky played a very important part.

This crime comes under the head of Article 283, Vol. XV, of the code of

capital crimes. But owing to the consideration that these plots were

discovered in time to prevent any actual disturbance from taking place, and

considering that nothing serious had occurred in consequence of their

propaganda, Tchernychewsky is subject to the penalty provided by the thirdor fourth degree of Article 284. Bearing in mind that Tchernychewsky,

being a popular writer and one of the directing minds on the Sovremennic,


7/10


8/10


6

complain of Tchernychewsky and accuse him of all possible offences and

conspiracies. Tchernychewsky was peremptorily arrested. The government

had accomplished its object, it had torn Tchernychewsky from theSovremennic. But it found itself in a very awkward and distressing

position: there were no charges proven and no evidence whatever ofTchernychewskys guilt. In fact, there was absolutely Clothing to show

against him. As to the fraudulent anonymous letters, there is a statute

distinctly excluding all such evidence and disallowing any action on its

weight. What was to be done? A happy thought struck the long heads of the

official cut-throats. I. Arsenieff was instructed to make an inculpatory

review of Tchernychewskys writings, to detect in them a revolutionaryspirit and criminal tendencies. This was most ambitiously done, but proved

unsatisfactory. All of his writings, previous to their publication, weresubjected to a most vigilant censorship, and could not, in face of shame and

decency, serve as a basis for indictment. The government would not permitsuch a trifle as the absence of legal evidence to stand in its way. Charges

were invented. Fraud and tr ickery, l ibel and falsehood, were brought intoplay. The notorious V. Kostomaroff, that sham political prisoner, who had

rendered such invaluable service to the authorities in the case of that other

Russian man of letters, Michailoff, appeared on the scene. The two official

conspirators, Golitzin and Potopoff, solicited the advice aud cooperation ofthis informer. He had a plan. He knew a person in Moscow, a certain

lakovleff, who would do anything for money. He could be induced to come to

St. Petersburg and appear before Potopoff to denounce Tchernychewsky as

an agitator and revolutionary socialist. He was to relate how, together with

other peasants, he used to visit Tchernychewsky, who ridiculed theirrespect for the law and sneered at their admiration of the Czar-liberator,

asking them how they liked freedom and inciting them to riot and rebellion.

This plan was enthusiastically endorsed by the upholders of l aw and justice,but unfortunately it was not triumphantly carried out. The reliableMoscovite did not prove trustworthy. He came to St. Petersburg, got drunk

on the money paid in advance by Kostomaroff for his services, and

disclosed all. He boasted that a g ood reward was promised him if successful

and smart, and wondered why it was so necessary to belie

Tchernychewsky. The rumor of this foul plot spread rapidly in St.

Petersburg and filled everybody with indignation. Tchernychewskys co-workers on the Sovremennic hastened to in form Potopoff about i t in


11

conclusion, the author recommends secret organization of the peasantry,

the militia, and the city laborers for the purpose of violent overthrow of the

government when the proper time comes and a signal is given by the authorto rise.

The officer in charge of Kostomaroff, while en route, reported that aman named Iakovleff visited Kostomaroff when the latter was ill and had a

very long conversation with him, from which the officer gathered the

knowledge that Iakovleff knew the exact character of the relations between

Kostomaroff and Tchernychewsky. Believing that some useful information

could thus be produced, the officer requested Iakovleff to prepare a written

statement of the matter, to which the latter readily consented. Thisstatement was duly forwarded to the third department, Iakovleff testifies as

follows. In the summer of 1861 he was employed by Kostomaroff as a clerkand copyist of manuscripts. Kostomaroff used to be visited quite often by a

gentleman who was spoken of as the celebrated St. Petersburg journalist,N. G. Tchernychewsky. Once, while they were promenading arm-in-arm in

the garden, Iakovleff heard them talk of publishing some circular fromTchernychewskys pen. Tchernychewsky then used the following

expression: Best compliments to the serfs from their well-wishers. You

have expected freedom from the czar; now you have got it. He paid no

attention to the remark, for, not suspecting anything, he out halfunderstood the meaning of the words. But now, having heard that

Kostomaroff is charged with conspiracy and plotting against government,

he regards it as a duty to report all he knows. It was afterwards

ascertained that Iakovleff intended to appear personally before Potapoff,

and with this end in view had left for St. Petersburg, but was locked up on acharge of drunkenness and turbulence. He was promptly brought before the

authorities and cross-examined. He repeated his former statements, and

recognized in Tchernychewsky that visitor of Kostomaroff whom hedescribed.

Michailoff, the journalist who was convicted of revolutionary

propaganda and sentenced to hard labor in the mines, admitted in the

course of his trial that he knew of the circulars To the serfs and To the

soldiers, that he had copied and corrected them, but persistently refused to

reveal the names of his associates.

The minister of justice directed the attorney general to lay a letterreceived at the third department before the Commission for careful


9/10


10

others misconduct, and I keenly feel this injustice. Endeavoring to throw

off all suspicion from Tchernychewsky, I have sacrificed my own liberty and

honor. I am fully conscious of the enormity of the sin I have committedagainst myself and society. Tchernychewskys teachings are poisonous, his

influence upon youthful enthusiasts extremely pernicious.This letter caused the third department to order Kostomaroff back. He

wasn immediately ordered to appear before the St. Petersburg authorities

for examination. On his person (?) was found a note signed T, and

addressed to himself, in which he is requested to correct a certain phrase in

the proclamation To the Serfs. Kostomaroff explained that the note was

left at his rooms by Tchernychewskv, who called on him, but did not findhim at home. Tchernychewsky denied alike the authorship of the

proclamation To the Serfs and the alleged visit to Kostomaroff for thepurpose of making some alteration in the original text. The note, he

declared, was a counterfeit. The clerks of the Senate, comparingTchernychewskys handwriting with that of the said note, have expressed

the opinion that, although there is no likeness in the general character ofthe handwritings, and the first impression is likely to be favorable to

Tchernychewskys statement, yet a considerable number of separate l etters,

namely, twelve out of the twenty-five, the whole number of letters in the

note, are similar to Tchernychewskys. The Senatorial Council decided thatboth in separate letters and in the general character of the handwritings

there is a perfect similarity.

The proclamation To the Serfs, a copy of which, in some unknown

handwriting, was attached to the file of documents of Kostomaroffs case,

the latter declares to be the production of Tchernychewsky. In thisproclamation, apparently written for the peasantry and all sorts of illiterate

laborers, the Ukase of the 19th of February is deliberately and wilfully

misreported and misrepresented. The author asserts that the serfs weredeceived and betrayed by the czar; that, instead of the freedom he promisedto give them, instead of the improvement they expected from the Ukase,

they are, in virtue of the Ukase, still more enslaved and impoverished; that

true freedom and real improvement can never be had under the czars, as

the people can easily be shown; real freedom exists only in those countries

where there is no compulsory military service, no heavy taxes, no passport

system, as, for instance, in France or England. There the will of thecommon people rules supreme, and the nominal rulers, or kings, are directly

elected by the people, in whom also lies the power of replacing them. In


7

order to warn him against malicious slanders and false testimony against

Tchernychewsky, whose case was in his hands.

It was a desperate case, and the plotters resolved to try a desperatemeans. A circular of the most incendiary and revolutionary character was

printed in the secret police department and addressed to the serfs. Themanuscript of the circular counterfeited Tchernychewskys hand-writing. A

note was written in the same hand-writing to journalist Plescheieff, which,

though containing nothing positively offensive to the govern ment, had a

good deal between the lines and many obscure, suspicious expressions, as,

for instance, this is a time for action, not reflection.

This was all. There was and could be no other evidence againstTchernychewsky. Thus was made up a case, which was deliberately

dragged along two years in the expectation that the prisoner would beforced to confess to some offence in order to bring his sufferings and

terrible suspense to an end. In prison he suffered intensely. The tyrannyand cruelty of the authorities knew no bounds. He was not allowed to pass

five minutes with his sick and helpless wife except in the presence of sometitled ruffian. He was often reduced to the necessity of refusing food several

days in succession to gain some point or concession from his heartless

torturers.

But Tchernychewsky was firm, bold, and defiant to the last. He denied allknowledge of the secret circular and the note to Plescheieff. He denounced

his persecutors at every interview, accused them of conspiracy and fraud,

and in every way expressed his contempt and abhorrence of these

miserable cowards. The astonished journalist Plescheieff emphatically

denied that he ever received any such notes from Tchernychewsky, anddeclared the hand-writing to be a counterfeit of Tchernychewskys. Many of

the official clerks and secretaries who were ca lled in as experts were

obliged to admit this.We reproduce here the officia l document of the case. It wil l throw some

light on Russian law and justice.

Titular councillor N. G. Tchernychewsky, a journalist by profession, was

one of the editors of the Sovremennic. The tone and tendencies of that

periodical have attracted the attention of the government. It had chiefly

propagated materialistic and socialistic ideas aiming at the complete

negation of authority, religion, and morality. The government deemed itproper to temporarily stop the publication of that periodical. At the same


10/10


8

time certain facts were disclosed which led to Tchernychewskys arrest, it

being proved that he is one of the dangerous agitators and rebels to the law.

At the third department of His Imperial Majestys Police an anonymousletter had been received, in which the government was warned against

Tchernychewsky, that cunning socialist and traducer of youth, whoboasted that he will never be detected in his crimes. Tchernychewsky,

says the writer, is a revolutionary propagandist, repudiated by all his

former friends. If you do not restrain him, there will surely be serious

trouble and bloodshed. Everywhere secret societies are being organized, and

the youth are inflamed by their incendiary talk. These demagogues and

desperadoes are capable of any beastly deed. Even if they shall eventuallybe crushed out, many innocent lives will have been sacrificed. Rid us of

Tchernychewsky in the interest of public peace and order.In June, 1862, information was received at the third department that a

certain Vetoshkin, a friend of Herzen and Bakounine, was on his way toRussia from London, carrying correspondence from the above-mentioned

exiles and a lot of revolutionary publications. The police succeeded inarresting Vetoshkin, and among other things found in his possession was a

letter from Herzen to Serno-Soloviovitch, in which the latter is urged to

push the revolutionary propaganda in Russia with more vigor, and in which

Herzen takes occasion to inform him of his and Tchernychewskys intentionto publish the Sovremennic somewhere outside of Russia.1

In consequence of this letter Tchernychewsky was arrested and his

apartments carefully searched. Among the confiscated things bearing upon

the case are: (1) An anonymous note in regard to the manifestation at

Moscow at a lecture of Professor Kostomaroff in March, 1862, stating thatthe case will not be investigated, and that nobody need fear any trouble; (2)

A letter from Moscow in Bartukoffs handwriting, s tating that the city is

deeply agitated over the Tver troubles, and that a revolution is feared; (3)An unaddressed letter from Herzen, critic ising Tchernychewskys advicenot to enlist the youth in any literary societies, and proposing in vague

expressions some plan of a secret organization with branches in the

provincial towns; (4) An unsigned threatening letter to Tchernychewsky, in

which he is charged with the intention to destroy the existing State and

1This Herzen pronounced a lie. He did publicly offer to publish the Sovremennic at

his expense in London or Geneva after it was temporarily suppressed by the

government, but his offer was never accepted or considered by the editors.


9

establish a democracy; (5) An alphabetical key on some pieces of paper and

a diary which appears to have been written before his marriage.

In the diary was found what appeared to be a copy of a letter to hisbetrothed, in which the following paragraph and the thoughts expressed

therein attract attention: I am liable to be taken at any moment, whatever Imay do. Nothing would be found, but I have numerous and powerful

enemies; I would restrain myself and say nothing; but I shall hardly be able

to stand it very long. Sooner or later I should certainly lose patience and

speak my mind freely and openly; then, of course, farewell to freedom! I

could never hope to be outside of the prison walls. When already in prison,

Tchernychewsky, in a letter to his wife, wrote as follows: Our lives will berecorded in history. Centuries will pass and our memory will still be dear to

the hearts of men who will not cease to love us and think of us withgratitude. Further, explaining to his wife that he intends to publish an

encyclopaedia of knowledge and life, he writes that no work of suchmagnitude has been undertaken since Aristotle, and that, like Aristotle, he

will be a guide and teacher to humanity for many centuries.While Tchernychewskys case was being investigated, B. Kostomaroff

was tried and conv icted for c irculating revolutionary literature at Moscow.

On his way to Siberia he was suddenly taken ill. He wrote a letter to a

friend of his, a certain Sokoloff, which the officer in charge of himforwarded to the St. Petersburg police authorities. Kostomaroff tells his

friend how Tchernychewsky brought all the trouble upon h is head. He

declares that the proclamation addressed to the serfs was wr itten by

Tchernychewsky and Michailoff, and the proclamation To the soldiers by

Colonel Shelgunoff. Characterizing Tchernychewsky as an agitator, who hadled astray a number of young, inexperienced people, he says: The biblical

Samson fell together with the temple whose pillars he had shaken loose and

was buried beneath its ruins, while our Samson knows better than that: hewill have others do the dangerous and destructive work, and sit quietly by,watching the end. If they succeed in demolishing the old s tructures, he will

go to superintend the erection of new ones. If they fail, and are crushed in

the attempt, he remains safe and undisturbed. You must not blame me,

continues Kostomaroff, for my seemingly strange and inexplicable conduct

during the trial. I had documents in my possession, which would have

cleared me and exposed the true offenders, but it was impossible for me toact otherwise than I did. So I silently took the responsibility of the matter

upon myself. Now, when it is all over, it seems very unjust to suffer for

Tchernychewsky

Documents

Transcript of Tchernychewsky