1 The complete edition of the trial documents is cited in full as follows: Delo Petraševcev (Akademija nauk SSSR: Institut istorii, Leningradskoe otdelenie. Filial central'nogo gosudarstvennogo voenno-istoričeskogo arkhiva SSSR v Leningrade. Izdatel'stvo akademii nauk SSSR. M.-L. 1937–1951), Vols. I—III.

2 Sladkevič's, N. review was published in Voprosy istorii, No. 10 (October, 1951), pp. 131–36.Google Scholar

3 To see the other extreme, the view that the Petraševcy were perfect Fourierists divorced from Russian reality, read the discussion of the group in K. PaŽitkov, Razvitie socialisticeskikh idei v Rossii ot Pestelja do gruppy “OsvoboŽdenija Truda” (2nd edition, Petrograd, 1924).

4 Petraševskij participated in the second unfinished edition of the dictionary, that of April, 1845, while Valerian Maikov was primarily responsible for the first edition. Naturally the Petraševskij dictionary is now a rarity. To the best of my knowledge there is only one copy of it in the United States, at the Library of Congress: Karmannyj slovar’ inostrannykh slov, vošedšikh v sostav Russkago jazyka (N. Kirilov, St. Petersburg, 1845). See V. Semevskij's chapter on the dictionary in Semevskij, V., M. V. Butaševič-Petraševskij i Petraševcy (Moscow, 1922).Google Scholar

5 Semevskij, op. cit., pp. 168–70. See also Delo Petraševcev, I, 559–77.Google Scholar

6 Obščcestvo propagandy v 1849 godu, in MeSdunarodnaja biblioteka (Leipzig, 1875), IX, 79–81.Google Scholar

7 It is remarkable how easily and how widely Fourierism, as well as other radical doctrines of Western Europe, penetrated the reactionary Russia of Nicholas I. In his reminiscences Annenkov wrote on that subject: “Thus when I arrived in St. Petersburg in the autumn of 1843 I had by no means settled my accounts with Paris, but, on the contrary, I met at home a reflection of numerous aspects of Parisian intellectual life. Proudhon's book De la Propriété, then already practically dated, Cabet's Icarie, little read in France itself, with the exception of a small circle of dreamy, poverty-stricken workers, the much more widespread and popular system of Fourier—all that served as material for study, heated disputes, questions, and hopes of every sort…. At that time the books of the authors mentioned above were in everybody's hands; they were subjected to a thorough analysis from various angles, let to discussions and created, as Schelling and Hegel had done before them, their own orators, commentators, expounders, and a little later, something that did not happen in the case of earlier theories, also their own martyrs.” Annenkov, P., “Zamečatel'noe desjatiletie,” in Vestnik Evropy (1880), Book II, pp. 506–7.Google Scholar And Liprandi, the high official who was used for special assignments and who was largely responsible for the arrest of the Petraševcy, complained: “In this connection it is very important to note that all kinds of pernicious works of contemporary Western propaganda were sold with impunity in our bookstores and were sent all over the breadth of the country. A chance occurrence led to my placing under surveillance just a single bookseller, and he was found to possess 2,500 volumes of such books, and where?—simply on the shelves in his store! And from his correspondence and his business accounts over a ten-year period it is evident that all these forbidden books were in demand and were sent in a considerable quantity over the entire length and breadth of the country. And that from a single bookseller; how many of those are there, and even much more important ones, in St. Petersburg alone? From official reports of the governors it is clear that forbidden books have been sent into the provinces directly by mail from Riga and from Dorpat.” Obšx010D;cestvo propagandy, P 34.

Although the Petraševcy were the first group of Fourierists in Russia, there is considerable evidence of interest in Fourier on the part of various Russians prior to the formation of their circle. As attested by the above quotation from Annenkov's reminiscences, as well as by other evidence, Fourier's name came up constantly in conversation and Fourier's books were popular in Russia. At least one professor, Porošin, who taught political economy at the University of St. Petersburg, discussed favorably and at length Fourier's theories in his lectures and, incidentally, influenced some of the Petraševcy; such radicals as Herzen and Ogarev were also interested in Fourier. See: Sourine, G., Le Fourierisme en Russie (Paris, 1936)Google Scholar, Bljumin, T., “Fur'erizm v Rossii,” in Troblemy èkonomiki (1937), Volumes V-VI.Google Scholar

8 Delo Petraševcev, I, 522.Google Scholar

9 Delo Petraševcev, III, 19–20. And to present, by contrast, a most direct emotional appeal from another speech at the same dinner: ”… to transform this entire life of torment, calamities, misery, ignominy, and shame into a life of luxury, harmony, joy, plenty, and happiness; and to cover this beggarly earth of ours with fruits and with palaces, to beautify it with flowers—this is our goal …,” Delo Petraševcev, III, 113. The speech was made by Akhšarumov.

10 Delo Petraševcev, III, 19–20.Google Scholar

11 Delo Petraševcev, I, 76.Google Scholar

12 Karmannyj slovaf, pp. 316–19.Google Scholar

13 Ibid., p. 203. Italics in the original.

14 Ibid., p. 211. Italics in the original.

15 Delo Petraševcev, III, 19.Google Scholar

16 Delo Petraševcev, II, 343.Google Scholar On one occasion Petraševskij concluded that “the most humble inhabitant of a phalanstery—will be happier … than the most powerful ruler in the world,” Delo Petraševcev, I, 79. Indeed: “If one were to describe even a single day of phalanstery life it would surpass the narrative of the Thousand and One Nights,” ibid., p. 81.

17 Delo Petraševcev, I, 44–46 Google Scholar. Petraševskij tried hard and repeatedly to enlighten his judges about socialism in general as well as about Fourierism in particular. For instance: “Cast your eyes at the houses of the Lord, where everybody prays gratis, at public festivals, at asylums, barracks, public educational institutions, and so on: everywhere, where there exists some advantage accessible to the many, you will find the spirit of socialism,” ibid., p. 95. Several of the arrested Petraševcy produced, on demand, outlines of Fourier's system which were more intelligent and better constructed than Petraševskij's own summary of the socialist's views. Especially remarkable are the outlines written by Danilevskij, in Delo Petraševcev, II, 290–319 Google Scholar, and by Beklemišev, in Delo Petraševcev, II, 350–62.Google Scholar

18 Ibid., p. 84. According to Petraševskij's will, made in prison, one-third of his estate was to go “to Considerant, the head of the Fourierist school, for the founding of a phalanstery,” Delo Petraševcev, I, 183–84.Google Scholar

19 Delo Petraševcev, I, 530.Google Scholar

20 Karmannyj slovar', p. 290. Italics in the original.

21 For a highly critical discussion of the problem of the emancipation of the serfs in the movement of the Petraševcy see L. Rajskij, Socialnye vozzrenija Petraševcev (Leningrad, 1927). Beklemišev's emancipation project was published in Delo Petraševcev, II, 394-97.

22 Quoted from Semevskij, op. cit., p. 162.Google ScholarPubMed

23 Rajskij, , op. cit., p. 79.Google Scholar See also: Delo Petraševcev, I, 514–15Google Scholar; and III, 385–87.

24 Karmannyj slovar', p. 223.

25 Ibid., pp. 223–25.

28 Ibid., p. 257.

27 Ibid., p. 283. Italics in the original.

28 Ibid., p. 301. Italics in the original.

29 The words belong to Petraševskij and are quoted from Ščegolev, P., Petraševcy: ‘ Materialy (Moscow-Leningrad, 1927), II, 18 Google Scholar. See also Delo Petraševcev, I, 548 Google Scholar, as well as Balasoglo's, most extravagant praise of Russia in Delo Petraševcev, II, 18–19, 41–44.Google Scholar

30 A particularly violent attack on Nicholas I was made by N. Mombelli in his paper on “The Foundation of Rome and the Reign of Romulus,” read at a meeting of the Petraševcy: “No, the emperor Nicholas is not a human being, but a monster, a beast; he is that Antichrist of whom the Apocalypse speaks…. How strangely the world is organized: one loathsome man and how much evil he can do, and according to what right?” Delo Petraševcev, I, 280.

31 Spešnev, an intelligent and able member of the group about whom very little is known, was evidently much more radical than Petraševskij. He chose to call himself a “communist” rather than a Fourierist and at times argued for “communism” as against Fourierism, but the nature of his “communism” remains highly debatable. Spesnev exercised an influence on some other Petraševcy, for instance, on Timkovskij, who proposed to organize the society of the future half on “communist” and half on Fourierist basis, and concluded cheerfully that each part will have something to learn from the other. See Semevskij, , op. cit., p. 126 Google Scholar; Delo Petraševcev, I, 326.Google Scholar Petraševskij, reacted violently to Timkovskij's insolent proposal, Delo Petraševcev, I, 533–35.Google Scholar Timkovskij, himself, after his arrest, blamed this controversy on a “misunderstanding,” Delo Petraševcev, II, 432–34.Google Scholar

32 The Populists too were influenced by Fourier, and sometimes, it appears, with the assistance of the Petraševcy. Khanykov, for instance, turned Černyševskij's attention to the French master. Several specialists noted the persistence of Fourierist ideas in the Russian radical and revolutionary movement. E.g., Sourine wrote: “It was again the system of the phalanxes which Cernysevskij placed at the base of his theory when he proceeded to revise the work of the classical economists; finally, the novel What Is to Be Done? spread the ideas of Fourier all over Russia,” Sourine, , op. cit., p. 113 Google Scholar. The Populists, whose personal background and socialist convictions were similar to those of the Petraševcy, continued both the Utopian idealism of the latter, and, in a much more radical manner, their opposition to the Government of Russia. The connection between the two groups should not be overstated, however, and it needs further careful study.