In my mind, Samarin is guilty, although I understand, where he comes from. In general, I guess, the cannibalism might be acquitted in a very extreme case - when the threat of a death really existed and if the victim died with his own death - but I don’t think, it is Samarin’s case. First - in the taiga, in summer or in winter, it is very hard to die from a hunger; second – Samarin took the man in the way specially as a potential food, and he killed him as some animal, which he can eat. It is hard to imagine the greater cynicism.
But, as I said, I can see, where he comes from. I think, Samarin ate another man as a test for himself and as an act of the sacrifice for the future Revolution.
I have to say here, James Meek did a really good job on the Russian literature of 19th century. The type like Samarin was described and learnt in detail in several classical Russian books (so, Samarin looks like an old acquaintance for me). I can call at least three literature heroes, where Samarin could come from.
It was an interesting literature investigation in that time, I have to say. The our writers searched the type of the person, who is able to change the existing order, and many of them guessed, it must be the unordinary person, the sort of an “Ubermensch”, and that person must test yourself before he will start to do his great exploits.
The such ideas was very popular in Russia in the first middle of 19th century – it was the consequences of a so named “bonapartism”, the cult of Napoleon Bonapart, who was considered by some intellectuals like the same unusual person, who got over himself and obtained a condition, when he could stay under any laws. The doubtful theory, in my opinion, but it worked.
So, about Samarin’s literature brothers.
First –
Rodion Raskolnikov, “The crime and the punishment” of Fedor Dostoyevsky. Raskolnikov killed the old woman, who was a money-lender, to proof to himself, he can rise under all rules and human customs. But after the killing Raskolnikov didn’t rise under laws, he just lost the bond with the people, and it became for him an unbearable torture.
Second –
Evgeny Bazarov, “The fathers and the children” of Ivan Turgenev. Bazarov was a nihilist, who deliberately refused all human bonds – the friendship, the relation with parents, the love to women. He devoted himself to the medicine and the biology completely and dead from some unsuccessful experiment and only his old parents went to his grave.
Third –
Rakhmetov, “What we have to do?” of Nikolay Tchernyshevsky. Rakhmetov was invented specially as an universal revolutionary type. He prepared himself to the revolutionary actions from his childhood and tried to make his physical essence to submit to his spirit. He trained his body hard, slept on the nails etc, and made himself to refuse any emotional involving with other people (looks familiar, isn’t it? See the tidbit # 11). This book did a very power impression on the intellectual minds in Russia, including young Lenin. I can imagine, the victim of this book could be young Samarin too (although the idea to eat the man as a test didn’t visit any Russian author in fact, thanks God).
But, I think, despite a having of a power ideological and the theoretical basis for his action in the cannibalism area, Samarin is guilty. You can’t kill people only to proof something to himself. And I think, like Dostojevsky, Meek tries to show not only the crime, but the punishment of Samarin too - his aspiration to get rid of the ability to love completely. I don’t think, Meek approached to Dostojevsky here, but the trying was good.

I don't think I have any enemies, really. The scariest enemy is within, allowing yourself to conform to what is expected of you~ Johnny Depp, PE junket in Japan