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.
7/31/2019 Tchernychewsky
2/10
7/31/2019 Tchernychewsky
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
7/31/2019 Tchernychewsky
4/10
Tchernychewskys Life and Trial
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
Tchernychewskys Life and Trial
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
7/31/2019 Tchernychewsky
5/10
Tchernychewskys Life and Trial
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
Tchernychewskys Life and Trial
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
7/31/2019 Tchernychewsky
6/10
Tchernychewskys Life and Trial
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
Tchernychewskys Life and Trial
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,
7/31/2019 Tchernychewsky
7/10
7/31/2019 Tchernychewsky
8/10
Tchernychewskys Life and Trial
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
Tchernychewskys Life and Trial
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
7/31/2019 Tchernychewsky
9/10
Tchernychewskys Life and Trial
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
Tchernychewskys Life and Trial
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
7/31/2019 Tchernychewsky
10/10
Tchernychewskys Life and Trial
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.
Tchernychewskys Life and Trial
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