The Theme of "Chantage" (Blackmail) in The Possessed: Art and Reality

Nadine Natov, The George Washington University

"... Ложь, принятая за правду, умеет самый опасный вид."
Ф. Достоевский, Дневник писателя, 1873 год.

. . .a lie taken for the truth always assumes a most dangerous appearance."
F. Dostoevsky, "One of the Contemporaneous Falsehoods," (1873)

"History is an approximate account of the past, just as prophecy is an approximation of the future"
Père Lagrange, The Gospel of Jesus Christ

Chantage or blackmail is one of the oldest means of psychological domination by one person over another. Blackmail aims to intimidate a person to the point of debilitating his will or totally destroying it. Here are some select definitions of the term:

          ШАНТАЖ  (франц. chantage) - вид вымогательства, заключающийся в угрозе разоблачения или разглашения компрометирующих или мнимокомпрометирирующих сведений для получения к.-л. политич., имуществ. или иных выгод.  (МСЭ, 3-е изд., 1960, Т. 10, стр. 502).

          Le chantage - action d'extorquer à une personne de l'argent, des faveurs, sous la menace de révélations scandaleuses. (Larousse)

          Blackmail. Law. a. any payment extorted by intimidation, as by threats or injurious revelations or accusations, b. the extortion of such payment. (The American College Dictionary)

Blackmail is used when all usual means of forcing one person to submit to the will of another become ineffective. There are cases when neither subordination to the rules imposed by an organization upon its members nor voluntary acceptance of orders, requests or advice can move a person to commit actions which are required from him by others. Then, through intimi-

4

dation, threats of damaging revelations or false accusations and slander, the blackmail victim submits to the will of the individual seeking control and becomes a blind tool in his hands. Blackmail can take various forms — from extortion of money to political terrorism, coercion, imprisonment or murder. Frequently it masquerades as subtle diplomatic, ideological or political pressure.

A classic example of subtle blackmail is provided by the famous negotiations between Pontius Pilate and the high priests:

"Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Ca-ia-phas.
And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill Him." (St. Matthew 26: 3, 4.)
"And when they bound Him, they led Him away, and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the governor.
And He was accused of the chief priests and elders. He answered nothing.
Therefore when they gathered together, Pilate said unto them: Whom will ye that I release unto you? Ba-rab'-bas, or Jesus which is called Christ?
For he knew that for envy they had delivered Him." (27: 2, 12, 17, 18.)

According to all four Gospels as well as historical data cited by David Strauss, Friedrich Schleiermacher and Ernest Renan, Pilate "was the more afraid" (John 19: 8). He delivered Jesus to be crucified after the Jewish high priests had accused Pilate of opposing Caesar and threatened to denounce him in front of Tiberius: "If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar" (John 19: 12, 15) .

The perfect artistic and dramatic skill with which Mikhail Bulgakov depicted this most poignant drama of human conscience in his novel The Master and Margarita (in chapter 2) is well known.

Despite the great number of articles on Dostoevsky's novel Besy (The Possessed or The Devils) and a few comparisons of its characters with the real individuals Bakunin, Nechaev, and their associates, no attention has been paid to blackmail as one component of the destructive, revolutionary antigovernmental activity in the radicals' struggle for power. Dostoevsky was the first Russian writer to concentrate on this invisible but dangerous means of psychological enslavement of one person by another. In impressively dramatic scenes Dostoevsky revealed the horrifying essence of the phenomenon of "chantage."

In the works written by Dostoevsky before 1870, despite a rich variety of psychological phenomena and subtlety of human re-

5

lations, the phenomenon of blackmail is virtually absent. But the novel The Possessed presents, with an astonishingly profound insight into the hidden motivation behind human acts, various forms of blackmail: several protagonists resort to this means of intimidation in order to achieve their goals. Thus, the pseudo-Captain Lebyadkin blackmails Stavrogin for money; Peter Verkhovensky blackmails his own father and Governor von Lembke; simultaneously, he sets up such idealists as Shatov and Kirillov and tries to lure Stavrogin into his intrigues.

We will begin our analysis with the simplest form of blackmail -- extortion of money for personal profit. Captain Ignat Lebyadkin embodies the unscrupulous crook who places his own well-being above all else.

Relations between Lebyadkin and Nikolay Stavrogin change in the course of the novel. At first, Lebyadkin receives regular payments from Stavrogin to keep silent about Stavrogin's grotesque marriage to Marya Timofeevna, Lebyadkin's half-witted sister. According to Liputin, Stavrogin had placed Marya Timofeevna in a convent to hide her from Lebyadkin. But Lebyadkin found her, returned with her to the city T. and immediately received a large sum of money from an unknown source. The cynic Liputin, while playing the role of an innocent city dweller, makes the noble and naive Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky indignant by revealing Lebyadkin's "secrets." Liputin describes the false "captain" as "an irritable man" who has "bad taste," and says that his lame and mad sister "seems to have been seduced by someone, and Mr. Lebyadkin has, it seems, for many years received a yearly grant from the seducer by way of compensation for the wound to his honor, or so it would seem at least from his chatter." (1) Having excited Stepan Trofimovich's curiosity and anxiety, Liputin adds that he considers the rumors to be mere "drunken talk." Veiling his intentions behind seemingly friendly gossip. Liputin is actually pursuing a twofold aim — to compromise Stavrogin through the latter's mysterious association with the drunken scoundrel Lebyadkin and, by casting a shadow on Dasha's reputation, to confirm Stepan Trofimovich's suspicions that his prospective marriage to Dasha would serve only one purpose -- to "cover the sins of others under the shelter of his honourable name" (p. 85). Later in the novel it is revealed that Liputin is closely connected with the young Verkhovensky, but at first his provocative talk seems to lack any practical purpose: he enjoys seeing the anxiety and fear of Stepan Trofimovich and avenges in this way the offense inflicted upon him four years earlier by the rich landlord Nikolay Stavrogin, whom Liputin hates and envies.

It is Liputin who, in quoting the drunken Lebyadkin, first pronounces the meaningful words "premudryi zmii" (subtle serpent) , in reference to Stavrogin. While drinking with Liputin in Filippov's tavern, Lebyadkin does not yield to Liputin's provocative questions: asked if his "subtle serpent" is mad, Lebyadkin answers: "Yes, yes, only that cannot affect..." Liputin's repeated inquiries as to what it cannot affect fail to elicit a clarification from Lebyadkin.

Lebyadkin aptly perceives Stavrogin's satanic essence; he

6

hates and fears Stavrogin yet also admires him. While depending upon the generosity and mood of the "subtle serpent." Lebyadkin keeps silent concerning his "secret," though he blames Stavrogin publicly and shouts in all the city taverns that Stavrogin has offended "his family dignity." Lebyadkin is paid for his silence; but then by abusing Stavrogin's patience, he continues to extort money from him apparently in hopes of getting his hands on Stavrogin's estate. Liputin even begins to gossip that Stavrogin has sold to Lebyadkin "all his estate formerly of two hundred serfs." (p. 96.)

Nevertheless, Liputin does not know exactly what "the secret" is. Even in a state of inebriation and rage Lebyadkin manages to control himself. When he bangs on Shatov's door with his fists and boasts that his sister is someone of importance, he does not finish his sentence, even after being teased by Shatov and labelled a coward: "I. . .I. ..she's..." falters Lebyadkin but dominates his urge and roaring "Sc-ou-ndrel!" stumbles down the staircase. Shatov remarks: "He won't give himself away even when he's drunk." (p. 12O.) Thus Shatov both summarizes the ugly episode and characterizes Lebyadkin's behavior.

The way in which one person can be reduced to an object of contempt for another with a stronger personality is impressively depicted in the famous "conclave" scene in the drawing-room of Varvara Petrovna Stavrogin. Lebyadkin bursts into the drawing room and, though unsure of himself, passing quickly from embarrassment and fear to insolence, he brags of possessing a secret that everyone is anxious to discover. He enjoys his power over these curious high society people, especially over the first lady of the city, Mrs. Stavrogin. Scoffing at her, he insinuates that he knows the invaluable "secret" concerning money sent to him by Nikolay Stavrogin. He adds that his sister, "Marya Anonyma," is "not at all" what Mrs. Stavrogin supposes. Lebyadkin is overcome with pride in his own importance and feels it is he who is in control of the situation. He brags that "Lebyadkin is cunning" and strong, and decides "to endure family disgrace rather than proclaim the truth aloud." (p. 142.)

Two sudden "coups de théâtre" put an end to Lebyadkin's blackmailing triumph. He stares, petrified, at the young Verkhovensky, who suddenly bursts into the drawing room; then the unexpected appearance of Nikolay Stavrogin and his prompt departure with Marya scares Lebyadkin so much that he tries to slip away. But the young Verkhovensky grasps him by the arm — now the would-be blackmailer will himself be blackmailed and victimized by a stronger blackmailer. Verkhovensky starts to threaten Lebyadkin — Stavrogin's "Falstaff," the discharged clerk in the former commissariat department — by saying that he and Stavrogin both know what Lebyadkin was doing in the city, and that he will be forced to answer for all his acts.

Verkhovensky reveals that Lebyadkin has taken Marya, his own sister, whom he considered his "source of income," from the nunnery and begun impudently harassing Stavrogin. He has even threatened his benefactor with legal proceedings if Marya's pension is not paid straight into his hands. While narrating

7

his story to Mrs. Stavrogin's guests, the young Peter Verkhovensky does not take his eyes from Lebyadkin for one minute. With his scrutinizing glance Verkhovensky dominates the false captain and paralyzes his will.

Frightened by Verkhovensky's threat to start talking about him "in a real sense," Lebyadkin confirms everything but remarks that he has been "asleep for the last four years with a storm cloud" hanging over him. In the doorway he comes face to face with Stavrogin, who, with a single glance, destroys Lebyadkin, leaving him "frozen to the spot," his eyes fixed upon Stavrogin "like a rabbit before a boa-constrictor." (p. 155.)

This "boa-constrictor" and "subtle serpent" — both metaphors clearly suggesting Stavrogin's diabolic nature — will control Lebyadkin's fate and, finally, destroy his blackmailing effortlessly. Lebyadkin's attempt at blackmail is rebuffed when Stavrogin tells him nonchalantly that he has decided to make a public announcement of his marriage to Marya Timofeevna. It is very easy to do because everything has been done "perfectly legally," and both witnesses are in town.

In the crucial episode in the house beyond the river, Lebyadkin plays a different role: he begins to realize that Stavrogin, who "dlia zla liudiam zhivet" (lives to inflict evil on others), might indeed make his marriage public. In so doing, he would deprive Captain Lebyadkin of his sole source of income. Bewildered and confused, but still uncertain about Stavrogin's real intentions, Lebyadkin recalls his former role as Stavrogin's buffoon, his "Falstaff from Shakespeare" and tries to find the most advantageous tone to deal with the master who now holds the key to his fate. In vain Lebyadkin tries to evoke their drunken talks in St. Petersburg, speaking of his absurd desire to imitate the testament of a rich American, and reciting his absurd verses. At last he tries to play his favorite card by complaining that the secret marriage is an offense to his "family honor."

Lebyadkin, who still hopes to extort money from Stavrogin, is stunned by the latter's imperturbable indifference and his calm announcement that he plans to reveal his marriage "to the police and to local society." Lebyadkin complains that Verkhovensky is threatening to denounce him to the police if he disobeys. Lebyadkin describes how, as a member of a revolutionary network, he distributed inflammatory leaflets everywhere — in the capital, in the provinces and in the military barracks — calling for people to take up knives and pitchforks and destroy everything. He still believes, however, that Stavrogin, like Peter Verkhovensky, is only deceiving him and wants to use him. While Lebyadkin stands on the porch of his house, during Stavrogin's talk with Marya, he wonders — does Stavrogin fear being denounced or is he simply setting Lebyadkin up by suggesting that he writes a letter to the authorities and denounces Verkhovensky's revolutionaries? Lebyadkin immediately begins to spin another intrigue, but here blackmail ceases to be only a personal affair; it becomes a political one. At this moment, though aware of Verkhovensky's double game of insinuation and deceit, Lebyadkin does not yet realize that just a few minutes later, his fate will be de-

8

cided by Stavrogin. With the simple gesture of throwing money to the convict Fedor at the bridge, Stavrogin delivers Lebyadkin to Fedor's mercy.

Paradoxically, even the independent, powerful and selfish Stavrogin does not realize at this crucial moment that he, too, has fallen into a web of intrigue and blackmail spun by the experienced "maître chanteur" Peter Verkhovensky, a villain of almost supernatural proportions. Denunciation, false accusation, entrapment based on threats — such are Verkhovensky's methods. He also proves himself a fine psychologist and a perfect master of stylistics by exploiting the meaning of several different levels of discourse simultaneously. Acting according to a well-elaborated plan, manipulating the ambitions and weaknesses of city people, he succeeds in all his malicious intrigues.

Upon his arrival in the city of T., Verkhovensky immediately establishes close contact with local society, worming himself into the confidence of the aristocrat Gaganov, ingratiating himself with Julia von Lembke, the governor's wife, and obtaining unlimited access to Mrs. Stavrogin's house. Verkhovensky is an excellent actor: he always plays a role specially suited to his audience, and is quick to change masks when the need arises. This is how he explains his behavior to Stavrogin: "...But you know I have my policy; I babble away and suddenly I say something clever just as they are on the lookout for it. They crowd round me and I humbug away again..." (p. 179). He manages to become known as a young man "with abilities," who knows everybody and everything. The naive and suspicious governor even invites him to join his staff: "Lembke invites me to enter the service so that I may be reformed. You know I treat him shockingly, that is, I make a fool of him and he simply stares at me. Yulia Mikhailovna encourages it..." (p. 179).

Verkhovensky's buffoonish boast contains a sinister truth: he uses all possible means to dominate the city people, to breed strife, to scorn and destroy all of society's laws, customs and morals for the triumph of the revolution. Stavrogin tries to warn Shatov of the danger: Verkhovensky's gang plans to murder Shatov because he knows too much about the revolutionaries and their doctrine; they will never let him go as Shatov has asked, and they will not release Stavrogin himself who already suspects that he too has been "sentenced to death." In trying to persuade Shatov, who refuses to believe that the danger is real, Stavrogin notes that "Verkhovensky is an obstinate man," and an "enthusiast." Overwhelmed by his doctrine of the merciless destruction of existing society, Verkhovensky might at any moment cease to play the buffoon and would not hesitate at pulling a trigger.

Indeed, Verkhovensky follows his plan of action to the letter and hints with sadistic pleasure at his methods of mocking people, offending and denigrating them — all under the pretext of serving the revolutionary cause and of eradicating the whole of traditional society, its order and civilization, precisely as stated in the "Catechism of a Revolutionary," propagated by Sergei Nechaev and his aides:

9

"He (the revolutionary) despises and hates the prevailing moral code in all its manifestations. Anything assisting the triumph of the revolution is for him moral, anything ' hindering it is immoral and criminal. He knows no mercy for csardom or generally for the whole set-up of society, and he expects from them no mercy for himself."

Peter Verkhovensky's first victim is his own father. The younger Verkhovensky ridicules Stepan Trofimovich in the drawing room of Mrs. Stavrogin: hiding behind the mask of a naive innocent "stranger," Peter Verkhovensky reveals the contents of the letter his "old man" had written concerning his prospective marriage to cover "the sins of another." He aims to create a sensation and ruin his father's friendly relations with Mrs. Stavrogin, thus depriving Stepan Trofimovich of his pension. Moreover, the young man stages this ugly performance to mock the views and behaviour of the entire older generation.

Although the young Verkhovensky overacts by playing his part with open cynicism and vulgarity, he achieves his goal: Stepan Trofimovich is thrown out of the house where he has spent twenty years. Yet the young Verkhovensky is not satisfied with this provocative action and continues to humiliate and slander the old idealist. Anton Lavrentievich G., the chronicler, who witnessed the last meeting between the two, is struck by the mercilessness and cynical vulgarity of the son, but soon understands his aim:

"In my opinion he (Peter Verkhovensky) calculated upon reducing the old man to despair, and thus to drive him to some open scandal of a certain sort..." (p. 241).

Thus the young Verkhovensky methodically steers his father toward an open scandal in order to disrupt the normal life of the city and create confusion and discord.

His second victim is Governor von Lembke. Totally dominated by his possessive and ambitious wife, Julia Mikhailovna, the governor, though indignant at the lack of respect the young Verkhovensky ostensibly displays towards him, tries to consider such behavior, at his wife's insistence, as "traces of old free-thinking habits," a kind of coarse, but innocent jest. Von Lembke has already made two basic mistakes: he gave his novel to the young Verkhovensky, and, with the innocent intention of displaying his liberalism and confidence, the governor also showed him his private collection of revolutionary leaflets and manifestos. Verkhovensky immediately "caught" the loyal administrator and accused him of "agreeing to demolish churches." (p. 246.)

Verkhovensky steadily accumulates material to compromise the governor and works methodically at provoking him to take rash actions. The scene in von Lembke's study, where the young Verkhovensky pops in unannounced as "an intimate friend and one of the family" with the constant support and encouragement of Mrs. von Lembke, provides a classic pattern of a double-level discourse in a most impressive artistic display of insolent and, at the same time, subtle blackmail.

10

Starting with blunt, base flattery and simulating enthusiastic admiration for von Lembke's mediocre novel, Verkhovensky wins the governor's confidence and abuses his credulity. The young nihilist skilfully manipulates the governor for his own purposes. Taking advantage of the tense atmosphere in the city, the conflict between the workers and the administration of the Shpigulin factory, and the confusion caused by the increasing number of inflammatory leaflets found everywhere, Verkhovensky pushes the governor to extreme actions. He declares that the workers "are in rebellion" and accuses the governor of being too soft. The workers "ought to be flogged, every one of them." (p. 272.)

Then, playing the part of an honest, but naive young man who really trusts the governor, Verkhovensky asks him to "save" a student by the name of Shatov, his "former friend" who, driven crazy by misfortunes, has let himself become involved in distributing leaflets "with the sign of hatchet." Verkhovensky controls the double-level discourse perfectly — everything that he says about Shatov, Kirillov, and his ardent desire to "save" his mistaken "friend," has another meaning. By promising the governor to "serve" up to him all seven or ten underground conspirators, Verkhovensky names the price for his "services" — the governor must "spare" Shatov for him and not take any measures for six days. Indeed, Verkhovensky needs six days, not to save Shatov, however, but to avenge himself by killing Shatov.

Though von Lembke has instinctively never trusted the adroit and vulgar young man, this time he is again deceived by the first class artistic performance and gives Verkhovensky the anonymous denudation written by Lebyadkin, thus unwittingly promoting Verkhovensky's plan to murder Lebyadkin. One must agree that Dostoevsky impressively embodied in artistic terms and images the dry, didactic lines of the "Catechism" attributed to Nechaev:

"To reach his aim of merciless destruction the revolutionary is forced to live in society pretending to be completely different from what he really is, for he must penetrate everywhere; into all the higher and middle class circles, into the business world, the great houses, the bureaucracy, the military and the literary world, yes, into the Third Department and even into the Winter Palace of the Csar."

Indeed, Peter Verkhovensky is a talented actor: he is frequently quite successful in "pretending to be quite other than what he is." He penetrates not only into the governor's house and office, but also into other bastions of high society, including the study of the writer Karmazinov, the mansion of the aristocrat Gaganov, the Nobility Club, and even military circles. He twists even the proud and ambitious Mrs. Stavrogin, the long time first lady of the city T., around his finger, intrudes into her drawing room and introduces himself as "one of them." Later he will have several important talks with her. During her decisive meeting with Stepan Trofimovich in Skvoreshniki, which she meant to be their last, Mrs. Stavrogin repeats almost word for word the propagandistic and nihilistic statements of the young Verkhovensky about art

11

and "new ideas" that Stepan Trofimovich has already heard from his son.

Peter Verkhovensky reveals to Nikolay Stavrogin his well-elaborated strategy: he declares that enroute to the city T., he "made up his mind to assume the part of a naive fool," but then ended up by "sticking to his own character" — that one of a mediocre man. (p. 175.) While boasting of his mediocrity, he begins to play a new role and does not even conceal the fact that, for some reason, he wants to compromise Stavrogin and entrap him. After Shatov's offense against Stavrogin, Verkhovensky, as he termed it, changed his ideas about Stavrogin: "...now I shall never compromise you in the old way, it will be in a new way now." (p. 177.)

Verkhovensky tries to find out how much Stavrogin is afraid of his past, but realizes that Stavrogin is a fearless man, superior to others in his haughtiness, cold indifference, and disdain for others. Therefore, to use Stavrogin, now an enigmatic and romantic figure, for his purpose, i.e., to exhibit him as the mysterious leader of an international revolutionary center, Verkhovensky must change his previous tactics. To him the best way to achieve his goal now would be to involve Stavrogin in a criminal action — the murder of his lame, halfwitted secret wife.

From that moment, Verkhovensky's satanic urge to possess and manipulate people grows increasingly: he draws all of them into a network of malicious intrigue. The mask of the adroit, lighthearted but rather stupid young man who "dropped from the moon" is gradually replaced by that of an impudent, self-sure political despot, some kind of emissary of a powerful, international organization. Curiously enough, no one at first takes his allusions and hidden threats seriously.

The most blatant example is Shatov's disregard of the danger then hanging over him. Shatov does not listen to Stavrogin's warning:

"Owing to certain circumstances I was forced this very day to choose such an hour to come and tell you that they murder you." (p. 191.)

Shatov does not know that Stavrogin is a member of Verkhovensky's underground organization. Nor does he know that he is surrounded by agents, some of whom do not even realize they are "serving" the organization by giving information about Shatov's every movement. The honest and straightforward Shatov openly declares that he has cut himself off from the underground circle and wants to use his right to freedom of conscience and thought. But neither honesty nor freedom of conscience exists for the cruel and fanatical Verkhovensky whose goal is the destruction and extermination of anyone blocking his road to power.

Verkhovensky lures Shatov into the meeting of revolutionary conspirators at Virginsky's house by promising him that there they will settle the questions of how Shatov can leave the secret society and to whom he must hand over the printing press. Verkhovensky lies with impudence in claiming that he

12

has been working hard to "defend" Shatov, attempting to persuade the other society members to release Shatov, though they still believed that the latter meant to deceive and betray them.

Verkhovensky's talk is a perfect display of double-level discourse: while blackmailing Shatov, Verkhovensky accuses him of blackmailing and deceiving the members of the underground society. He deliberately distorts the meaning of the note in which Shatov announces his refusal to print the leaflet with the revolutionary poem "A noble Personality" (Svetlaia lichnost'). Verkhovensky has already used this note to "prove" Shatov's involvement in revolutionary activities to Governor von Lembke. In so doing, Verkhovensky betrays and denounces Shatov to the authorities. In reply Shatov's indignant remark that he is not afraid of "all those fools," that he despises them because they can not harm him, Verkhovensky says: "Your name would be noted, and at the first success of the revolution you could be hanged." — "That's when you get the upper hand and dominate Russia?" — Shatov ironically remarks but is rebuffed by Verkhovensky's cold warning "don't laugh" (p. 294).

While writing this novel in the nineteenth century, Dostoevsky already envisaged how those who were to dominate after carrying out a successful revolution and seizure of power could treat those who disagree with them: "He who is not with us is against us" — that ruthless rule, a slogan popularized by Bakunin and Nechaev, has remained relevant to the present day.

In a talk with Verkhovensky on their way to the meeting in Virginsky's home, Stavrogin makes the proposal for "cementing" the secret circle together. He specifies the technique which Verkhovensky will use to dominate its members: "Persuade four members of the circle to kill the fifth on the pretense he is a traitor, and you will tie them all together with the blood they have shed. They will be your slaves; they won't dare to rebel or call you to account..." (p. 299).

Verkhovensky's reaction to this "advice" and his remark that Stavrogin should be familiar with the tactics and policy of the secret revolutionary organization since it was he, Stavrogin, who "wrote the rules ("ustav") himself" several years earlier (p. 298) is significant. It suggests that both had discussed doctrines and rules of underground circles. Their manipulation of people they considered "suitable material" and prospective members exploited tendencies widespread in the society of their day -- the fear of one's own opinion and, especially, the fear of not seeming to be "progressive" enough.

Verkhovensky makes use of his previous acquaintance with Stavrogin to force him to play the role of a great leader of a powerful revolutionary organization, while he, Peter Verkhovensky, holds all the executive power. After the meeting in Virginsky's house, Verkhovensky speaks frantically of his political ambitions to Stavrogin, elaborating on the myth of a "new just law" to be established after the complete destruction of the old system, when a few self-imposed rulers will dominate the masses.

13

At this meeting Verkhovensky successfully creates confusion among the city's "progressive elements" -- the flower of the city's "reddest radicalism," in the words of the chronicler. Verkhovensky skilfully directs the excited minds of the "guests," persuading them to commit themselves to any action for the sake of "the common cause." Finally, he asks them his most provocative question: would they give information to authorities if "any one knew of a proposed political murder?" Several people respond immediately to Verkhovensky's challenge by assuring him that they would in no case inform the police, and that they are proud to give proof, in this way, of their progressive liberal views. Shatov is the first to see Verkhovensky' s intention of compromising them all, and he walks out of the meeting. Unfortunately, he again ignores the seriousness of Verkhovensky's threat: "Shatov, this won't make things better for you!" (p. 318).

A few minutes later at Kirillov's lodging, Stavrogin reveals Verkhovensky's double game: Verkhovensky had hoped to expose Shatov as a potential informer, thus cementing the secret circle together with Shatov's blood, and to involve Stavrogin in the murder of the Lebyadkins, so as to gain power over him as well. Stavrogin has apparently forgotten, however, that he himself recently advised Fedor the convict to murder the Lebyadkins, and gave this consent to the crime by throwing money to Fedor while crossing the bridge on his way home from a visit with Marya Timofeevna and the false captain.

Stavrogin has warned Shatov of Verkhovensky's murderous intentions but fails to see the same threat directed at him. Rejected by Stavrogin, afraid that his chance to gain absolute power will vanish with Stavrogin's refusal to collaborate in the realization of his political plans, Verkhovensky shouts now in rage: "Listen, like Fedka I have a knife in my boot." (p. 321.)

A satanic disdain for human beings and the urge for power over them prompts Verkhovensky to turn to arms. The last time he sees Stavrogin, when the latter confesses to Liza that he knew the Lebyadkins were going to be killed but did nothing to stop the murderers, Verkhovensky realizes that his idol is indeed fearless and that there is nothing imaginable that could scare this "Ivan Csarevich." Stavrogin's sudden remark that Verkhovensky is the real murderer of Marya Timofeevna, alarms Verkhovensky: he, the experienced blackmailer, is suddenly seized by panic in fear that the unpredictable Stavrogin will denounce him. Then Verkhovensky seizes his revolver and shouts hysterically: "I will kill you, though you are not afraid of me!" He is apparently stopped only by Stavrogin's willingness to be shot: "Very well, kill me..." (pp. 407-8) .

The same evening, at the meeting of his "quintet" at Erkel's shabby apartment, Peter Verkhovensky intimidates them, announcing that they must execute his commands because everything is in his hands, for if they refuse, certain strange coincidences might occur. Thus, "some Fedka relieves us quite by chance of a dangerous man" by killing Captain Lebyadkin who had denounced them to Governor von Lembke. (p. 417). Finally, Verkhovensky unmasks himself, declaring bluntly that Shatov's letter of

14

denunciation is ready and that by the next day they could all be arrested as incendiaries and political offenders.

Once again, Verkhovensky's blackmail techniques work without fail: indignant and intimidated, the quintet members Tolkachenko and Lyamshin suggest that the time has come to get rid of Shatov — to "send him to the devil." Playing once more on the quintet's devotion to the "common cause" — the bettering of mankind's future by means of a destructive upheaval -- Verkhovensky expounds in a very businesslike manner his plan to murder Shatov and cover the crime with Kirillov's "confession." Nevertheless, they all sense Verkhovensky's true intentions and "feel like flies suddenly caught in a web by a huge spider." (p. 421). They are furious, but tremble with terror. They realize all too well that they have become slaves of this despotic and remorseless man who could ruin them at any time.

Verkhovensky sees that the period of negotiations is over and turns to drastic, violent measures. When Fedor the convict again refuses to respond to blackmail, Verkhovensky aims a revolver at him. Infuriated by the mere fact of Fedor's resolute disobedience, Verkhovensky, panic-stricken, then points the revolver straight at Kirillov's head, fearing that Kirillov too, like Stavrogin, will "run away." Trembling with rage, he stammers: "I'll hang you... like a fly... crush you..." (p. 429) .

Prompted by the same rage and urge to consolidate his power over others while manipulating their dream of "the common cause," Verkhovensky commits the ugly crime of murdering Shatov. He presses the same revolver to Shatov's forehead and coldbloodedly pulls the trigger, while three of the "fighters for the right common cause" and mankind's happiness -- Tolkachenko, Erkel, and Liputin — pin Shatov to the ground.

Before this macabre scene, Verkhovensky had listened to the protests and objections of the three quintet members and fearing their possible disobedience, responds by threatening them and accusing them of serious crimes: "But let me tell you, gentlemen, no betrayal would win you a pardon now. Even if your sentence were mitigated it would mean Siberia; and what's more, there's no escaping the weapons of the other side -- and their weapons are sharper than the government's." (p. 458.)

Despite their indignation and hatred of the tyrannical Verkhovensky, no one fails at the gloomy spot near the abandoned grotto in Skvoreshniki park. After the murder of Shatov, Verkhovensky cynically boasts with "pride" of his contribution to the "common cause." Verkhovensky reiterates to the deeply shaken "quintet" members that their duty is "to watch over one another" and "to bring about the downfall of everything --both the government and its moral standards." He emphasizes that he and those like him, who prepare themselves to take over the state's power, should know that "there will be many thousands of Shatovs to contend with" because the entire generation must be re-educated "to make them worthy of freedom." (p. 463.)

A few hours later, Verkhovensky takes the same revolver with

15

him to Kirillov's. Before running away to St. Petersburg, and, by this act, betraying his revolutionary "quintet," Verkhovensky wants to carry out another satanic act; he wants to see whether the fanatical idealist Kirillov, who considers himself a new "mangod," will in fact submit to his will and act upon his command. Kirillov, contrary to the opinion repeated by many critics since the publication of The Possessed, is not a creation of Dostoevsky's "perverse mind."

Kirillov, though labelled "a maniac" and a "deranged man" by some characters in the novel, is in fact the epitome of the popular philosophical and, especially, antitheistic theories developed by Ludwig Feuerbach, Mikhail Bakunin and the whole pleiad of Russian revolutionary thinkers -- from Belinsky to Pisarev, Chernyshevsky, and many others. An analysis of Kirillov's statements against the background of the dominant materialistic and nihilistic theories of the 1840's-1860's has shown that Kirillov frequently paraphrases Feuerbachian theses. (2)

Kirillov's attempt to apply the Feuerbachian theory of mangodhood and prove his own alleged omnipotence and absolute freedom to liberate mankind from suffering and death ends in tragic failure. Kirillov's anguished plight and his desperate efforts to bring an unfeasible theory into effect are utilized by Verkhovensky with a demonic ruthlessness for his own destructive criminal aims. In the end Kirillov realizes the falseness of the man-godhood idea, but lacks sufficient intellectual and moral strength to accept his failure.

In that moment of intense inner struggle, Kirillov could have changed his views and, consequently, his decision to accept the responsibility for having distributed the revolutionary leaflets. When, shocked at the news of Shatov's murder by Verkhovensky, Kirillov refuses to sign the letter Verkhovensky needs to cover his crime, Verkhovensky immediately aims his revolver at Kirillov. He declares that he will not go away "without any result" — either Kirillov must keep his "promises" and commit "ideological" suicide or die from Verkhovensky's bullet just as Shatov did.

The subsequent dialogue, in which Kirillov makes a final attempt to convince himself of the validity of his ideas, reveals his theory to his last interlocutor in this world — the murderer Verkhovensky -- and demonstrates how an honest idealist can be manipulated by an unscrupulous, coldblooded master of intrigue and blackmail. Finally, in a paroxysm of despair, Kirillov, who now realizes the complete collapse of his theory, is adroitly guided by Verkhovensky into writing a self-incriminating suicide note. Thus, the promoter of mankind's happiness becomes an accomplice to the crime committed by the merciless fanatical despot animated by an evil that strives for elaborate means to achieve its goal.

It should be remembered that after leaving several corpses behind him, the initiator of all these deaths and desasters, Peter Verkhovensky, calmly boards a train for Petersburg. Having performed like a virtuoso the role of blackmailer he must now remove himself from danger. Until the very last bell at the railroad station, Verkhovensky continues to deceive the others

16

and play a double role. Thus, he explains to his devotee, the young socialist-idealist Ensign Erkel, that he is going away "for a work of the first importance, for the common cause," and not to save his skin, as Liputin and other members of his "quintet" imagine, (p. 477.)

x  x  x

A close reading of the text of The Possessed (Besy) and an analysis of the various methods and types of blackmail used by some of its protagonists can provide a new perspective on the significance of this much disparaged and misinterpreted, prophetic and cautionary literary work.

A comparison of the events described in the novel to the historical reality of the nineteenth century shows how much Dostoevsky's novel was misread and how subjective and tendentious was the opinion of a number of its detractors and critics. A study of the pertinent documents -- political programs, leaflets, letters, and reminiscences of Dostoevsky's contemporaries -- shows that Governor von Lembke's observation -- "The fire is in the minds of men and not in the roofs of houses" ("Pozhar v umakh, a ne na kryshakh domov") (vol. 1O, p. 395) — though shouted in a moment of desperation, proved to be correct. Indeed, the dominant idea enthusiastically propagated by the radicals, as well as a number of liberals in various European countries at that time, was the destruction of the existing governmental and social system for the sake of mankind's future happiness.

It is well known that beginning with Vissarion Belinsky the young liberal and radical Russians supported the idea of the annihilation of the old order, an idea which frequently implies the use of violence and terrorism. The concepts born in the French Enlightenment and the Revolution of 1791 were still alive in the mind of Dostoevsky and in the thinking of his contemporaries. At least two generations of young people, who were incited to rebel against the existing order in Russia, echoed and developed these destructive and violent revolutionary ideas. Dostoevsky closely observed the development of the concept of a "right" to violence and destruction for the sake of a better future for mankind, and witnessed the appeal of this concept to radical youth. Dostoevsky showed in his novels how, in a few years, Rodion Raskolnikov's ideological individualistic murder was transformed into a political pluralistic crime in which, through a skilfully spun web of intrigue and threats, Peter Verkhovensky managed to involve several persons of different social standing. From Crime and Punishment to The Possessed Dostoevsky continued to observe and analyze historical events and their reflection in the ideas and theories of his time.

The "Napoleonic" and "Caesarian" ideas of a "right to crime" were well known before Raskolnikov and had been discussed in political, ideological and literary works. The view of destruction as being a "creative passion" was the core of Mikhail Bakunin's ideas and became well known in Russia after Turgenev's protagonist Evgenii Bazarov formulated it with firm

17

conviction.

It is sufficient to recall the popularity in the late 1850's-early 1860's of the idea shared by Bazarov and his disciple Arkady Kirsanov of rejecting everything which had previously been thought worthy of respect. As Arkady explained to his father and his uncle, "A nihilist is a man who does not bow to any authorities, who does not take any principle on trust. no matter with what respect that principle is surrounded." (3) Bazarov, during his decisive "tussle" (skhvatka) with Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov, went much further than Arkady in defining a nihilist as one "who approaches everything from a critical standpoint." This was not only a refusal to "recognize any authorities," but a blatant "rejection of all things," as Bazarov put it. When Nikolai Petrovich Kirsanov remembered somewhat anxiously that the rejection of everything "is a total destruction of everything, while it is still necessary to build up too," Bazarov coldly replied, "First we must clear the site." (4) Turgenev dated this statement, made by his protagonist, May 1859.

Almost simultaneously the critic Dmitry I. Pisarev came forward in his article "Scholasticism of the 19th Century," published in 1861, with a bold statement defining the "ultimatum" of the radicals: everything should be smashed and destroyed. To free people from all antiquated "rubbish" — old morality, authority of traditions, and established order, Pisarev proposed "to strike to the right and to the left." (5)

While Pisarev openly propagated the annihilation of old established ideas and the existing order in Russia, a secret group, "Hell" (Ad), formed in 1866 within Nikolai A. Ishutin's revolutionary circle, offered Sergei Nechaev a good example of a violent, conspiratory organization. The veil of secrecy that cloaked its actions, the mutual spying among its members and the close supervision by the leader over the acts of the entire circle, and the death sentence prescribed for any case of deviation from the group's rules attracted Nechaev's attention. He declared in his manifesto "People's Revenge" (Narodnaia rasprava) that "The basis of our holy cause was laid by Dmitry Vladimirovich Karakazov." (6)

It is well known that the publication of The Possessed in the periodical The Russian Herald in 1871-72, and in book form in 1873, stirred a wave of negative criticism from the radical critics, a wave that has not dried up to this day. But we will not repeat here all the negative opinions expounded by M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, P. N. Tkachev, N. K. Mikhailovsky, D. I. Minaev and others in the reviews published in a number of Russian newspapers in 1871-73, and later expressed by Maxim Gorky in 1913, D. Zaslavsky in 1935 and again in 1959, by M. Gus in 1962, and others. (7)

These reviews, though some contain interesting and valuable remarks, present an obvious case of an erroneous understanding of a work of art, an understanding motivated by divergent ideologies and different political convictions. Historical facts and documents show convincingly that Dostoevsky's novel is not a "wicked pamphlet on revolution," as M. Gus wrote, nor are Dostoevsky's protagonists a mere product of his imagination,

18

to whom the writer attributed his "eccentric ideas." They are neither "fantastic masks and pathological cases," nor do they sit in a "kunstcamera of monsters," as N. K. Mikhailovsky and P. N. Tkachev wrote in their respective reviews and articles. (8) On the contrary, the novel's protagonists and their alleged prototypes were very active, diligent individuals, and Sergei Nechaev was not an isolated fanatic, but an ideologue with predecessors, associates, followers and supporters.

In 1966 Michael Confino published letters to and about Nechaev and certain other documents he had discovered in the archives of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris. These documents prove that Dostoevsky did not "disparage Russian true revolutionaries" -- an accusation which has become a cliché in a number of critical articles on The Possessed in the East as well as sometimes in the West. Dostoevsky, of course, could not have known the contents of all these documents. They prove, however, how correctly he depicted the essence of that historical period, relying on his artistic intuition and personal sense of history, and how perspicacious was his warning, in the form of literary imagery against the theory of using all possible means in the effort to improve mankind's condition.

The problem now is to prove that Dostoevsky with his clear view of history and his ability to closely observe the historical events of this time, created in his novel a persuasive and realistic artistic picture of controversial and diametrically opposed ideas and facts which were ignored or distorted by his critics, and even by a number of his readers.

To begin with the question of conformity to historical facts, one should keep in mind that numerous statements and actions of Dostoevsky's protagonist Peter Stepanovich Verkhovensky reflect the principles expounded in "The Catechism of a Revolutionary," published in Petersburg, in Herald of the Government (Pravitel'stvennyi vestnik, 1871, No. 162) during the trial of Nechaev's followers in July-August of 1871. This Catechism was modeled on several revolutionary catechisms that abounded in France during the revolutionary years 1791-94. Of the several dozen catechisms extant at that time, some were parodic; in others the authors tried to create a new code of morality based on republican, materialistic and atheistic principles to replace traditional religious catechisms. (9)

However, the Catechism now known as "Nechaev's Catechism" was written exclusively for the purpose of undermining and destroying the entire existing order by all possible means in order to seize power.

A lot of ink has been spilled by contemporary historians and critics in order to dissociate Nechaev from other revolutionaries of his time and to separate his ideas and methods from those of his contemporaries, including Mikhail Bakunin. (10)

"The Catechism of a Revolutionary," which was confiscated in 1869 during the arrest of Nechaev's associate Peter Gavrilovich Uspensky, and published in St. Petersburg, in The Herald of the Government, (11) provoked a discussion concerning the authorship of this document, a discussion which to this day

19

has not resulted in a definitive solution. The famous Russian lawyer Vladimir Danilovich Spasovich, who served as a defender at the trial of Nechaev's followers in Petersburg in July-August 1871, dissociated Nechaev from the author of "The Catechism." He said: "There is an enormous difference between the author of 'The Catechism' and Nechaev, the same difference which exists between a revolutionary of action and a revolutionary of thought. Nechaev was the revolutionary of action..." Spasovich considered "The Catechism" a purely theoretical work and insisted that the abstract theories expounded in it were originally created by an emigre theoretician, and that only a few of the statements in the document were actually accepted by Nechaev as guiding principles.

The publication of Bakunin's long letter to Nechaev revived the question of the authorship of "The Catechism of a Revolutionary" which served as one of the major pieces of evidence in the trial against Nechaev, explaining the activities of his followers and the motive for the murder of the student Ivanov.

The purpose of the present study is not to resolve the problem of the authorship of the "Nechaev Catechism" found at Uspensky's home: in the last fifteen years several serious articles based on the new archival discoveries have been written and the problem has been discussed thoroughly. (12)

It is important to note, however, that during the almost century-long discussion of the Catechism's authorship, Nechaev's contemporaries and historians mentioned a number of different persons as alleged authors or co-authors of this curious, provocative and cruel work.

This fact alone proves that many people were involved in such activities, and, apparently, supported identical or similar violent and merciless methods. In Nechaev's time, the 1860's, a number of revolutionary circles and organizations used to set their programs and principles down on paper under various titles such as "rules," "ABC-books," programs for action, catechisms, etc. The term "catechism" was especially popular. Even Chernyshevsky's novel What Is To Be Done? (Chto delat'?) was sometimes labelled as the "catechism" of young radicals. (See The Possessed, PSS, v. 1/, p. 238.) It should be noted that as early as 1864, Mikhail Bakunin had already used the title "Revolutionary Catechism" (Revolutsionnyi katekhizm) in his draft of the program for a prospective conspiratory society which he called "International Fraternity" (Internatsional'noe bratstvo). One of the most recent such programs is "ABC of Communism," edited by Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin and Evgenii Alekseevich Preobrazhensky in 1918.

Therefore, it would be correct to conclude that the coded copy of the "Catechism of a Revolutionary," found in the apartment of Peter G. Uspensky at the time of his arrest, was only one of many revolutionary programs whose common goal was the abolition of the existing order and the destruction of all previous ideologies and morality.

Mikhail Bakunin's letter to Nechaev of June 2, 1870 from Locarno, first published in Russian in Paris in 1966, (13)

20

prompted many comments. Once again the problem of hermeneutics arose in deciding how to interpret Bakunin's efforts to dissociate himself from Nechaev, his program, and his methods. Soviet critics deny any connection between Nechaev's activities and those of other members of revolutionary circles and organizations. At this writing, Bakunin's letter has not yet been published in the Soviet Union, but the Paris publication has been cited by Natalia M. Pirumova, and Yurii V. Davydov. These authors along with B. Bialek, to name only the authors of the most recent articles, like many other Soviet critics, dismiss the Nechaev phenomenon, characterizing his tactics as superleftist and extremist. By neglecting certain historical facts of the last hundred years, they continue to regard Nechaev's activities and his program as an isolated case of "fanatic extremism" and "pseudorevolutionary" acts. (14)

But how can one determine who is a real revolutionary and who is a pseudorevolutionary? Here it is appropriate to remember Crime and Punishment and the conversation at Porfiry Petrovich's apartment, were Razumikhin had brought Raskolnikov. On the eve of this visit with Porfiry, Razumikhin's guests at his "housewarming party" had discussed the problem of "whether there is such a thing as crime." Razumikhin had summarized for Raskolnikov the essence of the socialist doctrine supported by many of his guests: "Crime is a protest against the abnormality of the social organization and nothing more; no other causes are admitted..." (PSS, vol. 6, p. 196). Razumikhin had disagreed with this opinion, saying that this theory of social environment does not take into account human nature and justifies any act of violence against the existing social system.

In this connection Porfiry mentioned Raskolnikov's article on crime, published two months previously. He listened attentively as Raskolnikov explained his theory of "ordinary men" — men from the masses, "material," who must live under the control of others and obey the law — and "extraordinary men," proponents of lofty ideas, the makers of laws for the others. These superior persons have a right to commit crime; they may transgress the law for the sake of their "progressive idea," and are "forced" to destroy the present and to step over corpses or wade through blood for the sake of a better future.

Porfiry was immediately aware of the ambiguity in Raskolnikov's division of mankind into two unequal groups and rightly asked how one can distinguish those extraordinary people from the ordinary ones? He mockingly asked for "more exactitude" and more definition as there might be "a confusion" and it could be very alarming if there were a great many of those "extraordinary" men, eager to "eliminate all obstacles" at any price. (PSS, vol. 6, pp. 200-201.)

It is doubtful that the identity of the author of the work now usually designated as "Nechaev's Catechism," will ever be established for certain. For the purpose of this present study it is not so important whether this "Catechism" was the product of a joint authorship and written by Bakunin and Nechaev, by Nechaev alone under the strong influence of the ideas and conspiratorial tactics of Peter Tkachev, or the

21

ideas and methods elaborated by Georgii Petrovich Enisherlov, or, finally, as the historian Yurii Davydov recently said, that "The Catechism of a Revolutionary" is a product of the joint efforts of Nechaev, Enisherlov and Bakunin." (15)

The important point is that many of the principles and methods of struggle against the existing governmental and state system outlined in this Catechism were regarded as acceptable by many radicals and revolutionaries of the 1850's-70's.

In 1868, Sergei Gennadievich Nechaev actively participated in the student unrest that started in Petersburg's Medicosurgical Academy and spread to Moscow, Kiev and Kharkov. In his speeches Nechaev propagated the theory of an imminent struggle against the entire established educational system. This was the time when Nechaev created the legend of his arrest and subsequent escape from the Peter-and-Paul fortress. He skilfully used this legend -- his first mystification — to blackmail and deceive Russian emigrés abroad and to attract the attention of the revolutionary leaders Bakunin, Herzen and Ogarev to gain their support for his sham "Russian Revolutionary Committee."

This legend helps to explain why, when Nechaev appeared in Geneva for the first time in March of 1869, Mikhail Bakunin and Nikolai Ogarev received him as a dedicated revolutionary. Nechaev became for them the epitome of the revolutionary emigrés' ideal "man of action" -- a fighter, an energetic and decisive young man, totally devoted to a unique aim — the destruction of the Russian government and social order by all possible means. Many radical and liberal Russian emigres saw Nechaev's extremist intentions as a dose of needed energy injected by the young generation into the revolutionary movement.

It is also necessary to note that at that time Bakunin was elaborating his revolutionary plans and a appealing for immediate revolutionary actions, for rebellion and destruction of the old order in the name of liberty. In a stylistic analysis of "Catechism of a Revolutionary" published in 1976, Philip Pomper compared that work to several articles by Bakunin and found, particularly in the first part of the Catechism, echoes of many ideas first propagated by Bakunin. Pomper concluded:

"Both Bakunin and Ogarev met him (Nechaev) more than halfway..."; Nechaev "had an awesome quality of command, to whose power are numerous testimonials. Finally, he communicated the authentic rage, the destructive strast', the unleashed power for which Bakunin longed." (16)

This attitude explains why later, when Nechaev appeared in Geneva for the second time in December 1869, having escaped Russia after murdering the student Ivan Ivanov, Bakunin did not pay enough attention to the warnings of German A. Lopatin. Lopatin, who in 1866 had been exiled to his native Stavropol', knew about Nechaev's activity. According to historian B. P. Koz'min, Lopatin corresponded from Stavropol' not only with his friends Mikhail Negreskul and Nikolai N. Lubavin, but also with Bakunin and Nechaev. From Geneva Nechaev sent to Stavropol' a package of revolutionary manifestos.

22

He also sent another thousand such packages to various addresses in Russia. When Lopatin escaped from Russia and arrived in Geneva in May of 1870, he objected to Nechaev's methods and tried to "open the eyes" of Bakunin and Ogarev. Lopatin's letter to Bakunin from Paris dated May 26, 1870, contains information about a net of intrigue centered around Bakunin's commitment to translate the first volume of Karl Marx's Das Kapital and also Nechaev's claim to be the leader of the "Russian Revolutionary Committee, Narodnaia Rasprava (People's Justice, Justice du Peuple, Volksgericht)." Lopatin also informed Bakunin of a complex knot of lies and mutual accusations made by a rather large group of Russian revolutionary emigres. (17)

Several pamphlets were issued by Bakunin and Nechaev in Geneva between April and August 1869 — some anonymous, some signed by Bakunin, some by Nechaev, and one known to be written by Ogarev. The pamphlet "Principles of Revolution" says ruthlessly:

We recognize no other activity but the work of extermination, but we admit that the forms in which this activity will show itself will be extremely varied — poison, the knife, the rope, etc. In this struggle revolution sanctifies everything alike. (18)

One of Nechaev's articles of that period was entitled "Kto ne za nas, tot protiv nas" (He who is not with us, is against us). In it he discussed the expediency of political murder. (19) Now it may sound like a cliché to say that this slogan, the epitome of despotic intolerance, was fully implemented only in the twentieth century. Yet the course of historical events and the development of radical ideology proved that Nechaev was not an isolated fanatic and that his methods were nothing exceptional or fantastic; unfortunately they have become an almost everyday occurrence in the modern struggle for power by ambitious men frequently motivated by the urge to take vengeance on society and the existing social system.

While the authorship of "The Catechism" may still be in doubt, the author of the famous "Certificate No. 2771" (Mandat) issued in 1869 was obviously Mikhail Bakunin, "The Head of the World Revolutionary Alliance" (Vsemirnyi revolutsionnyi soiuz) as he signed it. The certificate was issued to Nechaev and reads: "The bearer of this is one of the accredited representatives of the Russian section of the World Revolutionary Alliance. No. 2771" (Podatel' sego est' odin iz doverennykh predstavitelei russkogo otdela Vsemirnogo revolutsionnogo soiuza No. 2771) . The seal affixed to this certificate bears the words: "European Revolutionary Alliance: Central Committee."

Thus, a second lie was invented and a far-reaching campaign of blackmail was prepared: the impostor was certified as legitimate with an "official document" of prime importance. In this way, an excellent foundation for Nechaev's future activity as the head of a mighty secret revolutionary organization, "People's Revenge," was laid by the internationally known revolutionary leader. The mysterious "committee" to which Nechaev had already referred prior to his trip to Europe,

23

now seemed to acquire a real existence.

Nechaev returned to Russia at the end of August 1869 with a reputation as a very important revolutionary leader, a reputation built with the help of Bakunin, Ogarev and the emigré community abroad. Bakunin's "certificate" — impeccable credentials to impress Russia's radical youth — enabled Nechaev to assume an authoritarian organizational role, while "The Catechism" provided him with powerful and precise theoretical rules which he put into practice.

Thus, the facts prove that it was through the support of notorious and well-known revolutionary leaders that Nechaev developed in Russia dictatorial subversive activity that ended with the coldblooded murder of the student Ivan Ivanov November 21, 1869.

When news reached Switzerland in December of 1869 of the numerous arrests of young radical Russian people following the Ivanov murder in Moscow, Bakunin was very worried about the fate of Nechaev. Upon receiving Ogarev's letter of January 12, 187O, announcing the arrival of the "Boy" in Geneva, Bakunin "jumped for joy so that he nearly broke his head on the ceiling," as he wrote back to Ogarev. Bakunin invited Nechaev to join him in Locarno, where Nechaev came in January of 187O. Here again, Nechaev resorted to mystification and lies, saying that he had been "caught" by the Czar's police, but had again successfully escaped abroad. Thus, Nechaev returned from Russia a revolutionary hero, and the fact of his perfidious murder of Ivanov, who had dared to object to Nechaev's actions, was not even mentioned. Nechaev again invented a lie — Ivanov had been a "traitor" to the common cause whom it had been necessary to eliminate. This new lie by Nechaev was accepted uncritically in radical emigré circles.

What Nechaev did in Switzerland during his second sojourn, after fleeing arrest for the murder of Ivanov, is known from Bakunin's letters to Nechaev, to his friend Ogarev, Nathalie Herzen and other correspondents; from German Lopatin's letter to Bakunin from Paris on May 26, 187O, and to Nathalie Herzen June l, 1870; from Nathalie's Reminiscences and diaries, and a number of other documents.

In a now famous letter to Nechaev dated June 2, 187O, Bakunin criticized Nechaev's methods in Switzerland, referring to Nechaev' s dictatorial and conspiratorial tactics as "Jesuitism" and "Machiavellism." But, at the beginning of his letter, while reproaching Nechaev for his deceit and lies, Bakunin assures his "dear friend" that he is not angry with him:

I am not angry with you and I do not reproach you, knowing that if you lie or hide the truth, you do it without self-interest and only because you consider it useful to the cause. I, and all of us, love you sincerely and have a great respect for you because we have never met a man more unselfish and devoted to the cause than you are. (Letter, p. 239.)

It should be noted that Bakunin wrote this letter after being deceived and humiliated by Nechaev. To name only some of the

24

facts that contributed to Bakunin's disappointment in his "boy," his "dear friend," there were Bakunin's financial difficulties, the transfer of the Bakhmetev fund to Nechaev, the publication of six issues of The Bell (Kolokol) in the spring of 1870 by Nechaev without Bakunin's participation, the story of the translation of Marx's Kapital that Bakunin was compelled to abandon, and other unpleasant events that hurt Bakunin.

Bakunin emphasized that his program -- "total destruction of the framework of state and law and of the whole of so-called bourgeois civilization" — was also that of Nechaev when they met. Describing his "ideal of the conspirator destined to be a member of the nucleus of the secret organization," Bakunin added that Nechaev belonged to "the number of these rare people." Bakunin urged Nechaev to renounce his system and saying that "in this case, I repeat, we shall acknowledge you as a valuable man and will gladly recognize you as our leader for all Russian activities." (Letter, pp. 263-64.)

In 21 paragraphs Bakunin set forth his program for the "People's Cause (Narodnoe delo)" and the creation of the "People's Fraternity (Narodnoe bratstvo)": This controversial Utopian ideal of a complete "mutual fraternal trust" and "general fraternal control of each other" was to replace Nechaev's system of control.

3. Complete frankness among members and proscription of any Jesuitical methods in their relationship, of all ignoble distrust, all perfidious control, of spying and mutual accusations, the absence and a positive strict prohibition of all tattling behind members' backs. When a member has to say anything against another member, this must be done at a general meeting and in his presence. General fraternal control of each other, a control which should not be captious or petty and above all not malicious. This type of control must take the place of your system of Jesuitical control and must become a moral education, a support for the moral strength of each member. It must be the basis of mutual fraternal trust on which rests all the internal and, therefore, external power of the society (Let., p. 264).

There are many contradictions in Bakunin's program for his "People's Cause" and "People's Fraternity" which he limited to a minimum of 40, and no more than 70 members, or "Brothers." While rejecting Nechaev's system of deceit and entrapment, Bakunin accepted the same methods for his "Fraternity." He wrote :

The whole society constitutes one body and a firmly united whole, led by the C.C. and engaged in unceasing underground struggle against the government and against other societies either inimical to it or even those acting independently of it. Where there is war, there is politics, and there inescapably arises the necessity for violence, cunning, and deceit. (Letter, p. 268.)

Bakunin contrasted his idea of a secret society of freely united people with Nechaev's despotic treatment of his fol-

25

lowers, all devoted to Nechaev's aim:

You try to subdue them, frighten them, to tie them down by external controls which mostly prove to be inadequate, so that once they get into your hands they can never tear themselves free. (Letter, p. 243.)

While rejecting Nechaev's dictatorial actions, Bakunin elaborated his principle of "collective dictatorship" of a secret organization.

We are bitter foes of all official power, even if it were ultrarevolutionary power. We are enemies of all publicly acknowledged dictatorship; we are social-revolutionary anarchists. But you will ask, if we were anarchists, by what right do we wish to and by what method can we influence the people? Rejecting any power, by what power or rather by what force shall we direct the people's revolution? An invisible force -- recognized by no one, imposed by no one -- through which the collective dictatorship of our organization will be all the mightier, the more it remains invisible and unacknowledged, the more it remains without any official legality and significance. (Letter, p. 259.)

All other organizations were to be subdued and subordinated to Bakunin's "Brothers":

Societies whose aims are near to ours must be forced to merge with our society or, at least, must be subordinated to it without their knowledge, while harmful people must be removed from them. Societies which are inimical or positively harmful must be dissolved, and finally the government must be destroyed. All this cannot be achieved only by propagating the truth; cunning, diplomacy, deceit are necessary. Jesuit methods or even entanglement can be used for this — entanglement is a necessary and marvellous means for demoralizing and destroying the enemy, though certainly not a useful means of obtaining and attracting a new friend. (Let., p. 268).

Thus, Bakunin criticized Nechaev's methods when applied to members of his own circle of revolutionaries, but accepted and approved the same methods when used against groups inimical to society or individuals considered to be enemies.

Bakunin never broke absolutely with Nechaev. Though he informed Nechaev that their former relationship and mutual obligations were at an end, Bakunin immediately offered Nechaev "new relations on a different basis" (Letter, p. 276). While criticizing Nechaev's "methods — lies, cunning, entanglement, and if necessary, violence towards enemies," Bakunin continued to emphasize Nechaev's qualities as a revolutionary leader, "A man passionately and wholly devoted and consecrated to the cause of popular liberation." In letters to his friends Bakunin repeatedly praised Nechaev — "our boy, our friend the Baron," "this passionately devoted jewel of a man." In his letter to Nikolai Ogarev, Nathalie Herzen, Vladimir Ozerov and Semen Serebrennikov of June 10, 1870, Bakunin wrote:

26

I repeat for the hundredth time -- he is an invaluable person, the most energetic and committed of all the Russians of our acquaintance. He is extremely obstinate, true, but very clever with it, though hardly wise; therefore, by preserving all his valiant features, above all his iron energy, ruthless even to himself, his utter self-abnegation and his passionate and total devotion to the cause — he can change all that is bad in himself. (Letter, p. 282.)

Ten days later, on June 20, Bakunin wrote to the same addresses that he was very concerned that they had begun "to take too unfavorable a view of our friend the Baron" and assured them that he had not ceased to regard Nechaev as the most valuable man among all of them. (Confino, p. 292.)

When it became evident that Russian police agents, together with Swiss police, were searching for Nechaev because the Russian government had asked for his extradition, Nathalie Tuchkova-Ogareva wrote in her Memoirs, all Russian emigrés knew about Nechaev's murder of Ivanov, though no one had ever heard a word about it from Nechaev himself. The emigres were split into two groups: a number of them intended to send a petition to the Swiss government, asking that Nechaev not be extradited and declaring their sympathy for him. The others were unable to form a true idea of the affair, since they had heard nothing from Nechaev himself. Consequently, when Nechaev came to their house, both Tuchkova-Ogareva and Nathalie Herzen allowed Nechaev to stay with them to hide himself from the police. (2O)

This attitude toward Nechaev was also typical for Russian radicals at home. All four of Nechaev's accomplices in the murder praised their "leader": in a speech at the trial in Petersburg in 1871, Peter Gavrilovich Uspensky glorified Nechaev and tried to justify their murder of the student Ivan Ivanov by the fact that Nechaev had regarded Ivanov as a potential traitor who had to be eliminated. Not only Uspensky and the three other accomplices to the murder — Kuznetsov, Pryzhov, and Nikolaev, but several other members of "The People's Revenge" justified Nechaev's criminal action as necessary for the triumph of the "common cause." In the heated atmosphere of that time, imbued with the revolutionary ideas of the destruction of everything established, and Utopian hopes for the emergence of an ideal human brotherhood, equality and happiness as a result of violence and the seizure of power, Nechaev appeared to Russian emigrés and to liberals at home as a leader fighting the existing state system, and many of them acknowledged that "the end justifies the means." Some of Nechaev's supporters ignored the ugly truth about the murder of Ivanov; they emphasized only its consequences -- the arrest of a number of revolutionaries in Russia in 1869 and their trial in July-August of 1871.

Thus, M. F. Frolenko wrote in his Memoirs that young people attending Nechaev's trial regarded the defendants as fighters for people's happiness, and were delighted by the bold speeches directed against the Russian government. (21)

It is also important to note that some members of Alexander V. Dolgushin's circle, formed in the fall of 1869 in Peters-

27

burg, had contacts with Nechaev and some supported Nechaev's ideas of a sudden, popular uprising. N. V. Chaikovsky regarded Dolgushin as one of Nechaev's followers. Dolgushin and his wife were arrested together with four members of his circle in January 187O during preparations for the trial of Nechaev's group, but were soon freed for lack of evidence.

When Nechaev was finally arrested in August of 1872 in the suburban "Müller's Caféhaus" near Zurich, Bakunin expressed his concern and grief in a letter to Nikolai Ogarev dated November 2, 1872:

So then, my old friend, the unheard-of has come to pass. The Republic has delivered up the wretched Nechaev. What is saddest of all is that our government will doubtless resume the Nechaev trial and there will be new victims. (Confino, p. 323.)

Bakunin was sure that this time Nechaev would perish, but declared that he "will perish a hero, and this time will betray nothing and no one." Bakunin acknowledged that though no one had done him, "and deliberately done" him, so much harm as Nechaev, he still felt "dreadfully sorry for him" and continued to praise Nechaev as "a man of rare energy, of love for our poor, oppressed people..." (Confino, p. 323).

All the above proves convincingly that Nechaev was now an isolated fanatic, or some kind of exception. He was a typical product of a particular period in Russian history, and a typical bearer of ideology that still remains relevant in our day.

x  x  x

And now let us look once more at how Dostoevsky himself explained and interpreted the links between his artistic work and the historical reality of his century. In this connection it is necessary to cite once again two passages often quoted by Dostoevsky scholars, including Professor Edward Wasiolek. (22)

During the process of writing The Possessed, Dostoevsky wrote to Mikhail N. Katkov, editor of the Russian Herald, on October 20, 1870:

One of the most important events of my story will concern the well-known murder of Ivanov by Nechaev in Moscow. I hurry to make this qualification: I have not known, and, except for what I have read in the newspapers, I do not know Nechaev or Ivanov or the circumstances of this murder. Even if I knew, I would not use them. I take only the completed act. My imagination can in the highest degree differ from what actually happened, and my Peter Verkhovensky can in no way resemble Nechaev; still I believe that my imagination has created that person, that type, which corresponds to the crime. (23)

Three years later, after the trial of Nechaev's group in Petersburg in 1871, Dostoevsky wrote another frequently quoted state-

28

ment in his Diary of a Writer:

My Nechaev is not, of course, like the real Nechaev. I wanted to pose this question, and as clearly as possible in novel form give an answer to it: In our surprisingly progressive and contemporary society how do not only a Nechaev but Nechaevs come into being, and in what way does it happen that these Nechaevs are able to gather followers? (24)

Both passages are self-explanatory and should be referred to by anyone who writes on The Possessed. However, the two statements differ in nature and require different interpretations.

The statement in the letter to Katkov offers insight into the complex processes that take place in the mind of a creative person who closely observes the phenomena of life around him and wants to make the artistic text of his imaginative work correspond to the context of historical reality. The statement from Diary of a Writer shows that the author, while basing his artistic work on real facts and events of his time, did not copy these facts, but elevated their significance and intrinsic essence to the level of another universal reality. Dostoevsky was especially concerned about the future development of Nechaev-like ideologies and methods, and explored the problem of how Nechaev, or Nechaevs, "were able to gather followers." Dostoevsky's artistic talent, historical clairvoyance and rich personal experience allowed him to find an answer to the psychological, social and political problem of how and why intelligent and idealistic young people can become followers of a man like Nechaev.

In the same article from the Diary, Dostoevsky wrote that people like Nechaev — or "Nechaevs" in the plural — may be very gloomy creatures — disconsolate and distorted ones --with a thirst for intrigue of a most complex origin and for power, with a passionate and pathologically premature urge to reveal their personalities..." However, they are not "idiots" (as one critic from the periodical Russian World asserted), but intelligent, clever individuals who know how to manipulate idealistic young people, exploiting their passionate longing for the ideals of a "universal brotherhood of man" and "universal progress."

Speaking of his own experience, Dostoevsky said that as early as the 1840's "a certain cycle of ideas and conceptions" "had a strong grip upon youthful society. We were contaminated with the ideas of then prevailing theoretical socialism." Young people were enraptured by that idea of a rosy and paradisiacally perfect world, especially when "socialism in its embryo used to be compared by some of its ringleaders with Christianity and was regarded as a mere corrective to, and improvement of, the latter, in conformity with the tendencies of the age and civilization. All these new ideas of those days carried to us, in Petersburg, a great appeal; they seemed holy in the highest degree and moral, and — most important of all --cosmopolitan, the future law of all mankind in its totality." Dostoevsky remarked, however, that later, when many of these young enthusiastic promoters of universal happiness realized how, "under the guise of regeneration and resurrection" "gloom

29

and horror" were being prepared for humankind, they came to renounce "this chimeric frenzy." Dostoevsky emphasized that this was precisely the way in which the murderer Nechaev characterized for his followers the murder of Ivanov — "as a political affair, useful to the future universal and great cause." (V. 21, p. 131.)

Dostoevsky's opinion is supported by newly discovered letters and documents. He could not have known what Bakunin wrote to Nechaev in a now famous letter dated June 2, 187O. Yet in his work of art he made his imaginary character Peter Verkhovensky act precisely as Sergei Nechaev did. Bakunin wrote:

You, my dear friend -- and this is a terrible mistake --have become fascinated by the system of Loyola and Machiavelli, the first of whom intended to enslave the whole of mankind, and the second to create a powerful state (whether monarchist or republican is of no importance, it would equally lead to the enslavement of the people). Having fallen in love with police and Jesuitical principles and methods, you intended to base on them your own organization, your secret collective power, so to say, the heart and soul of your whole society. You therefore treat your friends as you treat your enemies, with cunning and lies, try to divide them, even to foment quarrels, so that they should not be able to unite against your tutelage. You look for strength not in their unity but in their disunity and do not trust them at all. You try to collect damning facts or letters (which frequently you have read without having the right to do so, and which are even stolen), and try to entangle them in every way, so that they should be your slaves. At the same time you do it so clumsily, so awkwardly and carelessly, so rashly and inconsiderately, that all your deceits, perfidies, and cunning are exposed very quickly. You have fallen so much in love with Jesuit methods that you have forgotten everything else. You have even forgotten the aim which led you to them, the passionate desire for the people's liberation. (Letter, pp. 268-69.)

In Dostoevsky's novel Peter Verkhovensky uses similar methods more adroitly as illustrated by the scene of the meeting at Ensign Erkel's apartment, to which we have already referred. By manipulating his followers' blind devotion to the concept of the "common cause," and using concealed but firm threats, Verkhovensky not only subjugated those who protested against his violent methods, but even prompted some members of his "quintet" to propose the murder of Shatov to prevent him from denouncing their organization.

Dostoevsky clearly explained his creative intention and his message to the future generation. In the above-cited article he wrote :

And in my novel The Possessed I made the attempt to depict the manifold and heterogeneous motives which may prompt even the purest of heart and the most naive people to take part in the perpetration of so monstrous a villainy. The horror lies precisely in the fact that in our midst the filthiest and most villainous act may be com-

30

mitted by one who is not a villain at all!

Dostoevsky added that this "happens not only in our midst but throughout the world"; he expressed his deep concern that the perpetration of this kind of villainy had become a major calamity of his day. Unfortunately, the writer's warning did not prevent this kind of gloomy phenomena from continuing into our time. Thus, The Possessed is, as Professor Wasiolek has remarked, an example of "art reflecting itself in history." (25) Yet it is also an extremely important part of history reflecting itself in art.

In conclusion it should be said that Dostoevsky's poetic imagination embodied abstract concepts and statements found in political programs, leaflets and manifestos of his time in impressively concrete literary figures and imagery. He investigated the historical background of his time and analyzed the psychological mechanism through which lofty ideas on bettering the human condition and establishing social harmony are transformed into a pragmatic effort to seize power by all possible means. To reach that goal revolutionary leaders needed people, "ordinary men," and frequently they recruited idealistically minded romantic young people, such as Dostoevsky's Ensign Erkel. Only a few of these young people realized that they were being deceived and that the lofty words that so attracted them served as a cover for tyranny and violence.

Thus, the present analysis shows how masterfully Dostoevsky visualized the blackmail tactics implied by some of the novel's protagonists who skilfully manipulated the two sides of man's psyche and ideology — the diabolical and the ideal — exploiting them for their own purpose. Mankind's eternal striving for a harmonious ideal society based on justice, personal freedom, and mutual love and respect degenerated into a ruthless struggle for power and domination by a small, selfstyled elite over the others. In the course of such struggle, as Dostoevsky has shown, intrigue, blackmail, coercion and crime can be used and justified by the necessity of working "for the good of the common cause."

NOTES

1.  F. M. Dostoevskii, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v tridtsati tomakh, Leningrad 1974, Besy, Vol. 10, p. 79. All page references to Besy (The Possessed) in the text are to this edition.
2.  See N. Natova, "Rol' filosofskogo podteksta v romane Besy". Translations of the Association of Russian-American Scholars in the U.S.A. New York 1981, vol. XIV, pp. 69-100. Also: Nadine Natov, "Philosophical subtext in the novel The Possessed." Actualité de Dostoevskij. Genova 1982, pp. 21-33.
3.  Ivan Turgenev, Otsy i deti, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem v dvadtsati vos'mi tomakh. Moskva-Leningrad 1964, vol. 8, p. 216.
4.  Ibid., p. 243.
5.  D. I. Pisarev, "Skholastika XIX veka." Sochineniia v chetyrekh tomakh, Moskva 1955, vol. 1, p. 135. This statement became widely known:
    
    

   31

   
    
     "Словом, вот ultimatum нашего лагеря:  что можно разбить, то и нужно разбивать; что выдержит удар, то годится, что разлетится вдребезги, то хлам; во всяком случае, бей направо и налево, от этого вреда не будет и не может быть."
6.  Quoted from N. Pirumova, "M. Bakunin ili S. Nechaev?". Prometei, Moskva 1968, vol. 5, p. 172.
7.  See: F. M. Dostoevskij, PSS, "Primechaniia" (Notes), vol. 12, esp. pp. 257-27O; F. I. Evnin "Roman 'Besy'", Tvorchestvo F. M. Dostoevskogo. Moskva 1959, pp. 215-264; N. Natova, "Stoletie 'Besov' Dostoevskogo", Novyi Zhurnal, New York, September 1973, No. 112, pp. 102-117.
8.  See: M. Gus, Idei i obrazy F. M. Dostoevskogo. Moskva 1962, p. 366; N. K. Mikhailovskij, "Kommentarii k 'Besam'" and "Literaturnye i zhurnal'nye zametki" in Otechestvennye Zapiski, 1871, No. 2 and 1873, No. 2; P. N. Tkachev, "Bol'nye liudi," Delo, 1873, Nos. 3 and 4.
9.  See: Emmet Kennedy, "The French revolutionary catechisms: ruptures and continuities with classical, Christian, and Enlightenment moralities." Studies on Voltaire and The Eighteenth Century, Oxford, 1981, vol. 199, pp. 353-362.
10.  In addition to the above cited works see, among the most recent articles, B. Bialek, "K sporam o 'Besakh'. Polemicheskie zametki." Voprosy literatury, Moskva 1983, No. 1, pp. 136-176.
11.  "Katekhizis revolutsionera" was published in Russian by the newspapers Pravitel'stvennyi vestnik, 1871, No. 162 and Golos (Voice), 1871, No. 186 during the trial of Nechaev's associates in July-August of 1871. After the Revolution of 1917, "Katekhizis" was published by A. Shilov, "Katekhizis revolutsionera" (Catechism of a revolutionary: on the history of the Nechaev case). Bor'ba klassov, Leningrad 1924, Nos. 1-2, pp. 262-272.
    With the omission of the first part, "Katekhizis" was included in the Russian edition of Works by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. See K. Marx i F. Engels, "Alliance i Mezhdunarodnoe Tovarishchestvo Rabochikh," Sochineniia, Moskva 1961, tom 18, pp. 415-419. Marx and Engels wrote the brochure "L'Alliance de la démocratie socialiste et la Société Internationale des Ouvriers" in 1873.
    "The Catechism of a Revolutionary" was published in English by: M. Prawdin, The Unmentionable Nechaev (long quotations), London 1961, pp. 63-67; in full by Michael Confino in his book Daughter of a Revolutionary. La Salle, Illinois, 1973, pp. 221-230; by Philip Pomper, as "Appendix" to his article "Bakunin, Nechaev and the 'Catechism of a Revolutionary': The Case for Joint Authorship." Canadian-American Slavic Studies, X, 4 (Winter 1976), pp. 546-550.
12.  To cite only a few of those articles, we will name: Michael Confino, "Bakunin et Nečaev," Cahiers du Monde Kusse et Soviétique, 7, No. 4 (Oct.-Dec. 1966), pp. 581-699; Michael Confino, "Bakunin et Nečaev: La Rupture, Lettres Inédites de Michel Bakunin et Natalie Herzen." Cahiers du Monde Russe et Soviétique, Paris, Vol. VIII, No. 1 (Janvier-mars 1967), pp. 56-85;
    N. Pirumova, "M. Bakunin ili S. Nechaev?", Prometei, vol. 5, 1968, pp. 168-181; Bakunin, Moscow 1970, pp. 287-332.
     
     

    32

    
     
     Philip Pomper, "Bakunin, Nechaev, and the 'Catechism of a Revolutionary': The Case for Joint Authorship." Canadian-American Slavic Studies, Vol. 10, No. 4, Winter 1976, pp. 535-551; Jacques Catteau, "Bakounine et Dostoievski." In Bakounine: Combats et Débats. Paris 1979, pp. 97-1O5.
13.  The original Russian text of Mikhail Bakunin's letter to Nechaev was published by Michel Confino in his article "Bakunin et Nečaev: Les débuts de la Rupture. Introduction à Deux Lettres Inédites de Michel Bakunin - 2 et 9 Juin 1870." Cahiers du Monde Russe et Soviétique. Paris, vol. VII, No. 4, octobre-décembre 1966, pp. 624-696. The text of this letter is given in Russian with the parallel French translation. In English Bakunin's letter is available in "An Unpublished Letter: Bakunin to Nechayev," published and prefaced by Michael Confino. Encounter, July 1972, I part, pp. 81-91; August 1972, II part, pp. 85-93; and in Michael Confino, Daughter of a Revolutionary: "Michael Bakunin to Sergey Nechaev. Locarno, 2 June 1870," pp. 238-28O. The quotations from Bakunin 's letter are from this edition: they are marked in the text of my article in parentheses: (Letter, p...). References to other letters and documents from this book are marked in the text: (Confino, p...).
14.  See both works by Natalia M. Pirumova, quoted above; also Yurii V. Davydov, German Lopatin, ego druz'ia i vragi. Moskva, 1984, pp. 40-47; and Yurii F. Kariakin and Evgenii G. Plimak, "Nechaevskoe delo," in the book by A. I. Volodin, Yu. F. Kariakin, E. G. Plimak, Chernyshevskii ili Nechaev? 0 podlinnoi i mnimoi revolutsionnosti. Moskva, 1976, pp. 246-284.
15.  See V. Davydov, Op. cit., p. 19. Also N. Pirumova's article "M. Bakunin ili S. Nechaev?" in Prometei, vol. 5, 1968, pp. 177-181. Pirumova quotes the unpublished manuscript of the Memoirs of Georgii Petrovich Enisherlov, who was closely associated with Nechaev in 1868-69, and was also among the defendants at the trial of Nechaev's associates, but was soon released.
16.  Philip Pomper, Op. cit., p. 539.
17.  Michel Confino, "Autour de 'L'Affaire Nečaev', Lettres Inédites de Michel Bakunin et de German Lopatin." (Includes also two letters by Lopatin to Nathalie Herzen.) Cahiers du Monde Russe et Soviétique, Paris, Vol. VIII, No. 3, juillet-septembre 1967, pp. 452-479.
    See also Tatiana Bakounine et Jacques Catteau, "Contribution à 'la Biographie de Serge Nečaev: Correspondance avec Nathalie Herzen." Cahiers du Monde Russe et Soviétique, Paris, Vol. VII, No, 2, mars-juin 1966, pp. 249-264.
18.  See E. H. Carr, Michael Bakunin, New York 1975, pp. 375-393.
19.  See Yurii F. Kariakin and E. B. Plimak, Op. cit., p. 251.
20.  See N. Tuchkova-Ogareva, "Memoirs" and Nathalie Herzen, "Reminiscences," pp. 350-372, and pp. 372-386, respectively, in M. Confino's Daughter of a Revolutionary.
21.  See Boris S. Itenberg, Dvizhenie revolutsionnogo narodnichestva. Moskva 1965, pp. 135-36; 160 and 169.
22.  Edward Wasiolek, Dostoevsky: The Major Фiction. Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1964. pp. 135 and 136.

33

23.  F. Dostoevskij, Pis'ma (Letters). Moskva-Leningrad 193O, vol. II, p. 288.
24.  F. M. Dostoevskij, "Odna iz sovremennykh fal'shei," Dnevnik pisatelia 1873. PSS, vol. 21 (1980), p. 125. Other references to this article are given in my text in parentheses.
25.  Edward Wasiolek, Op, cit., p. 135.