Esenin-Volpin Article

It also set them apart from one of the twentieth century's most distinctive forms of resistance to state power, the civil disobedience campaigns that flourished in places as diverse as Birmingham and Bombay. Civil disobedience, to quote the Dic tionary of the History of Ideas, presupposes a "formal structure of law" and consists of "publicly announced defiance of specific laws, policies, or com mands."1 It was Soviet dissidents who invented the less well known but, in the Soviet context, equally provocative technique of radical civil obedience: engaging in or insisting on practices formally protected by Soviet law?such as freedom of assembly or transparency of judicial proceedings—but frequently subject to the wrath of the regime.  (630)

For Vladimir Bukovskii, who met Vorpin at the Maiakovskii Square poetry readings in 1961 and later be came an international cause c?l?bre in the campaign against Soviet abuse of psychiatry for political purposes, Vol'pin was "the first person in our life who spoke seriously about Soviet laws. [... ]W e laughed at him: 'what kind of laws can there be in this country? Who cares?' 'That's the problem,' re plied Alik, 'Nobody cares. We ourselves are to blame for not demanding fulfillment of the laws.' " 631

Connection between language and legality

In contrast to the antimetaphysical thrust of analytic philosophy in its origi nal Oxbridge setting, Vol'pin's search for a "scientific" language is explic itly directed against the Soviet Union's reigning doctrine of materialism: Materialism consists in the conviction that all phenomena may be re duced to the material state. That this very reduction is unthinkable with out the aid of the intellect is shyly ignored. [ . . .] What shall we say about the obvious error of so-called historical ma terialism, which sees in economically grounded relationships the basis for all others and, in particular, the basis for moral and juridical rela tionships? This cannot for instance be applied to Soviet society, where a powerful state authority can change the economic system from an agrar ian to an industrial one. How then can the state authority remain the "su perstructure over the economic base"?70 Vol'pin's skepticism regarding "materialism" extended to the sacred cow of "realism," the notion that thought and representation ought to orient themselves exclusively to "reality" and lived experience, or as Russians like to say, to "life itself." In the Bolshevik lexicon (but with roots extending back to the nineteenth-century Russian intelligentsia), "estranged from life" was a stock rebuke for perceived formalism or abstraction?or cer tain kinds of ideological rigidity. In two separate instances the "Free Philo sophical Tractate" invokes Vol'pin's adolescent crisis (now two decades old), that allegedly fateful day in April 1939 when he pledged himself to reason over emotion. Now, however, he tellingly recasts it as a "break with my belief in realism, [to which] I never returned again. [ . . . ] Intuition usually makes us lean toward realism, but here we must not trust intui tion until such time as it has been emancipated from language."71 The primacy of metaphysical truths (ideally formulated in the language of mathematical logic) over the "real" world of emotion and experience was encapsulated in a phrase that appears again and again, mantra-like, across Vol'pin's writings: "Life is an old prostitute whom I refused to take as my governess."72 Like the repeated retelling (and reworking) of his adolescent crisis, this phrase, with its suggestion of heroic resistance against tempta tion and struggle for intellectual autonomy, forms a leitmotif in Vorpin's ongoing fashioning of his life story. These recurring vignettes did not, however, form part of a narrative of self-realization or self-emancipation. Just as the "Tractate" describes real ity and thought as amorphous and unbounded, so it rejects the idea of a unitary self: Why must I believe in the unity of my own personality? [ . . . ] I do not imagine myself at all as something unitary! There is within me an entire chain of experiences that are unrelated to each other. They so little re semble each other that no philosophical desire arises to consolidate them into a single ego. [ . . . ] Does not my ego die and revive every minute? I am certainly not the same man who will die at about the age of eighty. My present "I" will be hopelessly lost by that time.73 If read against the background of the Bolshevik crusade to forge a new "Soviet person," this statement can be understood as rejecting not only the goal but the possibility of fashioning a coherent self. …In effect, Vol'pin is replacing the Utopian dream of creating a new type of human being with an analogous dream of creating a new type of language: transparent, ra tional, and unambiguous. Until that time, it seems, we will not be able to "trust our own thoughts," our intuition?or our self from all forms of belief via the con struction of an ideal language. Specifically, it calls for a reform of the Rus sian language so as to make it conform more closely to the requirements of "modal logic"?the branch of logic that classifies propositions accord ing to whether they are true, false, possible, impossible, or necessary.  (646-647)

Vol'pin's most important contribution to the rich interdisciplinary debate taking shape in the USSR during the thaw was based on a practical deployment of the Utopian project of fashioning an ideal language. Rather than developing such a language from mathematical proposi tions, or "reforming" the Russian language as a whole so as to rid it of am biguous meanings, Vol'pin sought to apply modal logic to two human istic fields that he considered most susceptible to "exact methods": jurisprudence and ethics. 648

Acting on the moral imperative "not to remain silent" in the face of perceived injustice?and encouraged by interrogators trained in the art of extracting information?arrestees often used the opportunity to argue their positions, with occasionally catastrophic results for themselves and their acquaintances. For Vol'pin, interrogations provided rich material for thinking about language and ethics: when to tell the truth to one's in terrogator and when to remain silent; how to refuse to answer a question, even under pressure; and how to avoid lying, that is, how to avoid com promising oneself. Most dissidents, it should be noted, regarded lying as a perfectly legitimate technique of self-defense vis-?-vis the KGB and other state organs.79 By contrast, more than a decade before Solzhenitsyn issued his ringing injunction to Soviet citizens to "Live Not by the Lie," Vol'pin had concluded, in his quest for a language free of ambiguity, that "the fundamental task of ethics" was the eradication of lying.80

The code had undergone a major revision in the late 1950s in response to the rampant abuse, not to say complete lack, of procedural rules in the administration of justice under Stalin. Vol'pin found in the revised code a surprisingly dense web of protective measures designed, at least in theory, to constrain the power of prosecutors and ju dicial investigators over defendants and witnesses. It explicitly banned "leading questions"; it granted individuals under interrogation the right to write down their own responses (rather than have an official transcribe their words), to request explanation of terms used by their interrogators, and in certain cases, to refuse to answer questions. In other words, this cat and-mouse game had rules, a kind of formal grammar governing speech between the citizen and representatives of the Soviet state. They were im perfect rules, to be sure, and often ignored in practice, but nonetheless they were designed to regulate verbal exchanges a nd the meaning of spe cific words. One could learn and exploit them. Vol'pin's strategies for successful interrogations (649)

Vol'pin's strategies for successful interrogations eventually found ex pression in his renowned 'Juridical Memorandum," one of the most widely circulated samizdat texts in the Soviet Union in the late 1960s and 1970s?so widely, in fact, that there were cases in which frustrated KGB investigators abruptly cut off interrogations with the words, "They've read too much Vol'pin!"81 )649-650

Vol'pin had special reason to react strongly to the arrests: he himself had published abroad works critical of Soviet society and had earlier been imprisoned for allegedly "anti-Soviet" poems. And yet his response dis played a curious combination of boldness and restraint. He refused to read works by either writer, considering their content to be at best irrele vant and at worst a distraction from the real issue, which was juridical rather than literary.100 Bypassing the all too familiar drama of state perse cution of writers, Vol'pin focused instead on a single issue: forcing the re gime to obey the Soviet Constitution's provisions regarding public access to judicial proceedings. "Let them go ahead and convict those fellows 97. [Siniavskii and Daniel'], but let the words, such as those expressed by Shatunovskii at my court case against him?'From our party-minded point of view, the conventional definition of "slander" is irrelevant'?let this entire pseudo-argumentation be heard loud and clear. [ . . . ] The more such occasions [arise], the more quickly will an end be put to simi lar repressions."101 If this agenda struck many of Vol'pin's acquaintances as strangely minimalist, the means by which he proposed to realize it did not: a public "glasnost' meeting" in advance of the trial, demanding judi cial transparency. Together with his friend Valerii Nikol'skii, Vol'pin be gan to plan a gathering in Pushkin Square, across the street from?and thus offering the hope of media exposure by?the office of the newspa per Izvestiia (News), to be held on 5 December, the official holiday cele brating the ratification of the 1936 "Stalin" Constitution by the Congress of Soviets. The meeting itself would exemplify strict obedience to the Constitution (Article 125 of which, "in conformity with the interests of the toilers and in order to strengthen the socialist system" guaranteed "free dom of assembly and meetings"), restricting participants to the single de mand for an open trial for Siniavskii and Daniel' (as per Article 111: "ex amination of cases in all courts shall be open, in so far as exceptions are not provided for by law") ,654-655

Hayward, Max, translator. On Trial: The Soviet State versus "Abram Tertz" and "Nikolai Arzhak." New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1966.

Intro:

made it to WEst by "undisclosed channels, but is of indubitable authenticity." (1)

on Sinyavsky: "It is true that, like most Russian intellectuals of his generation, he was deeply affected by Khrushchev's revelations at the 20th Party Congress in 1956 about the horrors of the Stalinist past, and reacted with all the inevitable outrage of one who had, albeit with some qualms of intellect and conscience, beleieved. This was a turning point for many younf Russians, who had hitherto tended to excuse the excesses of the Stalin era on the grounds of revolutionary expediency." 4

arrested on Sept. 13, 1965

"For the next two months, numberous anxious inquiries, both public and private, from leading Wester writers and organizations were addressed to Kosygin, Surkov (Secretary of the Union of Soviet Writers) and others. They were met by silence. Only on November 22 did Surkov (Secretary of the Union of Soviet WRiters) and others. They wre met by silence. Only on Novemeber 22 did Surkov admit the arrests at a press conference in Paris, at the same time giving a solemn assurance that 'legality' would be observed. (22)

"Ivestia tried to run a follow-up campaign of 'massive indignation' in response to Eremin's article. but it could produce only three or four rather unconvincing expressions of outrage from an ill assorted collection of 'average citizens.' The classical orchestration was lacking." (25)

"There were several unusual features about it and in one respect it was unprecedented, namelt, that it was the first time in the history of the Soviet Union that writers had been put on trial for what they had written." (26)

"The second unusual  feature was a striking difference in the way the case was reported in the fovernment newspaper Ivestia and the way it was reported in the party newspaper Pravda....The pieces are writeen in the classical style of the Russian satirical feuilleton, speak with heavy sarcasm of the accused, quote their words in order to mock them, and in general assume the guilt of the two men before the court reached its verdict. The defendants are presented as cowwardly felons who squirmed under the withering attack and the iron logic of the prosecution." (27)

More available about illegality of trial on 27

"The third unusual feature of the trial is that the accused did not plead guilty. This evidently took the prosecution by surprise and may partly explain the the very maladroit handling of of the trial, and the gingerly way in which it was reported by Pravda." (28)


"What is tragic about this trial is not only that the two men have been tried and sentenced for heresy, sacrilege and blasphemy, but that the trend toward and improvement in the administration of justice, the frequently expressed desire to do away with 'distortion of justic; as part of Stalin's legacy-- all this has recieved a sever setback. Sinyavsky and Daniel's trial could have been a test case to show that 'socialist legality' had really been established, that the earnest debate among Soviet jurists in recent years about the need to see that due legal procedures wer observed really counted for something." (32)

Article 70: "Agitation or propaganda carried out with the purpose of subverting or weakening the Soviet refime or in order to commit particularly dangerous crimes against the state, the dissemination for the said purposes of slanderous inventions defamatory to the Soviet political and social system as well as the dissemination or production or harboring for the said purposes of literature of similar content, are punishable by imprisonment for a period of from sic months to seven years  and with exile from two to five tears, or without exile, or by exile from two to five years." (42)

"In the novel The Trial Begins, Sinyavsky, under the guise of criticism of the cult of personality, sneers at the Soviet system and the principles of MArxism-Leninism." (45)

Daniel: "Stalin had not been dead all that long. We all remembered well what were called 'violations of socialist legality.' And I saw again all the symptoms: there was again one man who knew everything again one man who knew everything, again one person was being exalted, again one person was dictating his will to agricultural experts, artists, diplomats and writers. WE saw again how one single name appeared on the pages of newspapers and on posters, how the most banal and crude statement of this person was being held up to us as a revelation, as the quinesence of wisdom."  (61)

Daniel: "Even the statutes of the Writers oUnion don't require writers to write about only novle, intelligent people." (68)

Daniel: "I was asked all the time what I wrote my story This is Moscow Speaking. Every time I replied: Because I felt there was a real danger of a resurgence of the cult of personality. To this the answer was always: What is the relevance of the cult of personality, if the story was written in 1960-61? To this I say: It was precisely in these year that a number of events made one feel that the vult of personality was being revived. This was not denied; I was not told. 'You are lying, this is not true'--my words were simply ifnored as though I had never said them." (150)

Chalidze, "Important Aspects of Human Rights in the Soviet Union."

Chalidze, Valerii. "Important Aspects of Human Rights in the Soviet Union." In The Political, Social and Religious Thought of Russian 'Samizdat'- An Anthology.  Edited by Michael Meerson-Aksenov and Boris Shagrin. Translated by Nicolas Lupinin. 19-46. Massachusetts: Nordland Publishing Company, 1977.


Dec. 10 1970


"Soviet jurists are working together with their Western colleagues to draft U.N. instruments on human rights. In view of the refusal to collaborate in oter fields of law, this fact is so important that the reaction of the press and official organs to this cooperation of countries with different legal doctrines does not matter at all...It is important that Soviet legislators and jurists recognize the general significance of fundamental human rights." (M-A, 204)


"Article 4 of the former civil code of the R.S.F.S.R declares: 'In order to develop the productive forces of te country, the R.S.F.S.R. grants civil legal capacity (the capacity to enjoy the rights  and obligations of a citizen) to all citizens not restricted in their rights by a court.' We should not be surprised if people have distorted idea of human rights in a country where, for more than forty years, the rule prevailed that a man enjoys civil rights not simply because he is a man, but because they are granted by the state." (M-A, 204) 


"The progress of law, spurred on by the struggle for rights, led to the principle 'anything not prohibited is permitted.' This means that a man may lawfully do anything that is not prohibited by statute" (M-A, 204-205)


"There are always difficulties in the correct interpretation of legal norms if only because of the poor language of the legislation and naturally the improvement of this language is desirable. Sufficient examples of imprecise laws (perhaps intentionally imprecise) are known. In recent years public appeals have directed attention to major defects in Articles 70 and 190-1 of the Criminal Code of the R.S.F.S.R.' in particular to the understanding of such concepts as 'dissemination,' 'deliberate fabrication,' 'anti-Soviet propaganda.' 'Soviet system' and others. This criticism is timely. This imprecise prohibition impairs the guaranteed (here a constitutional guarantee) of free speech and makes persecution for beliefs easier." (M-A, 208)


"Here is an example of a construction which abolishes a right guaranteed by law. Article 479 of the Civil Code of the R.S.F.S.R. guarantees the right of an author 'to the publication, reproduction and dissemination of his works by all means permitted by law.' A commentator connects this right exclusively with the impermissibility of publication without the author's consent although this safeguard is not contained in the article cited (it might have read 'only the author of the work enjoys the right...') The guarantee of the author's right of publication disappears in the commentary: 'Without the author's consent, the publication of his work is prohibited, but as to the necessity of publishing his work-this question is decided by the socialist organizations responsible for the selection and dissemination of useful works...' The author's right cited above, which the commentator annuls, includes not only the right of publication but also the right of dissemination by all legal (here it is to be supposed 'not prohibited') means. The abrogation of this right can place in jeopardy in the U.S.S.R. the freedom to produce copies on a typewriter and the freedom to indulge in amateur photgraphy and therefore the right to produce samizdat. But published acts of the R.S.F.S.R. do not contain any restriction on the reproduction of texts on a typewriter or by photocopying...


Another commentator provides an example of a construction which restricts the extent of the right guaranteed. Article 125 of the Constitution provides, in part: 'In conformity with the intersts of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R are guaranteed by law:
a. freedom of speech
b. freedom of press
c. freedom of assembly and meeting
d. freedom of street processions and demonstrations.'


In the above text the legislator states that the legal guarantees in question correspond to the interests of the working people and to the foal of strengthening the socialist system. The commentator found it possible to twist the meaning of the law: 'The Constitution of the U.S.S.R., guaranteeing citizens freedom of speech, press, assembly, meeting, street processions and demonstrations, requires that these freedoms be excersised in conformity with the interests of the working class and in order to strengthen the socialist system.' P Litinov (when he was on trial) called attention to similar distortions of interpretation." (M-A, 211)


"We must strive for publicity in all matters pertaining to the defense of rights. Open court proceedings, public discussion of administrative decisions on rights, press coverage of the problem of rights--only when all this becomes customary can we hope for increasing effective protection of human rights. The last five years have demonstrated the great interest of society in the protection of human rights--individuals have suffered many hardships but they have never ceased to speak out publicly expressing their views on violations of the law and on human rights. Thanks to this society has found out about the most important court proceedings and about extralegal violations of human rights." (M-A, 218) 

Hopkins- Vol. 2 "The Spark"

21: Baptist newspaper since '64

"From the start, then, the Chronicle was set apart from other and plentiful samizdat literature, political tracrs, petitions, statements and reports...Soviet and foreign journalists could get this type of information in Moscow in the late 1960s only on a sporadic basis and only if they were involved in samizdat and dissident circles. Even then, sometimes incomplete. If one were outside established dissident circles, the most one knew about official actions besides rumors was contained in cryptic Soviet reports. They told virtually nothing except that something had happened. (H, 22)"

-alternative to official information

"The style of the Chronicle was heavy on facts--names, ages, dates, places, specific events. It was light on both judgements and speculation or opinion (H,22)"

NG: "Basically there was an attempt in all the letters to be very exact, to lay out the facts, to describe the violations of rights, to quote articles of law. Nothing was exaggerated. The love for objectivity was in the air. (H, 23)"

"The first issue drew heavily on actions against the Chronicle group and its friends and acquaintances. Besides the Galanskov-Ginzburg proceeding with  which some of the Chronicle people were closely connected, protest statements reproduced in that first issue revealed a pattern of signatures. Many of those who encouraged founding of the Chronicle turned up as co-authors of grievances...This is to sat that Gorbanevskaya used what was available, and most of that information came from or was collected by one relatively small Moscow group. (H,25)"

"Production of the Chronicle came from the very first was along the lines of a "chain letter." Gorbanevskaya typed the first seven copies. One went to a Western correspondent, another was saved in order to produce more copies, and the remaining five copies were given out. In the already established form for distributing samizdat, recipients were expected to reproduce further copies. Commonly these were typed, but homemade photocopying of samizdat was increasingly popular. How many copies of a particul samizdat item were made could not be said, the work being done privately and separately. (H, 26)

-expected it to be short

-28: -end of '68, assert legality
-how to submit info

29: ""The price for that system, however, was a secrecy and confidentiality that amounted to an underground publication (H,29). "

"If the Chronicle was legal, why be secret? If the Chronicle was secret could it be legal? (H,29)"

"Not only the now standard arrests and interrogations were reported; political documents and statements, internal disputes involving Soviet policy, and protests and grievances from among an increasingly broad spectrum of the Soviet population were reported as well. The information, moreover, was assembled in one readable source, in direct and unambiguous Russian. There was no need to read between the lines as Soviets routinely did when the official Soviet press reported some specially sensitive issue." (H, 30)

31:  samizdat news

"The information flow to and from the Chronicle developed in important ways under Gorbanevskaya. First the volume of facts increased as friends and readers caught on to what the Chronicle wanted and was willing to publish. Also, a sort of "beat" system of reporting emerged. It was not planned but developed simply because of personal interests and contacts. (H, 33)."

Ei: Tartars- Grigorkenko
Jews Takir
Ukraine-Alexeyeva

34: Amalrik, Litinov, Yakir

"Through this connection, the contents of the Chronicle moved through an already established information network of Moscow correspondents, Western news agencies and newspaper, radio, and television reports to editorial offices and media abroad. Abroad, foreign shortwave broadcasters picked up Chronicle information, and individual news reports based on Chronicle items or contents of whole issues found their way back to the Soviet Union in Russian-language broadcasts of the BBC, Deutsche Welle, and Voice of America. Radio Liberty broadcast readings of entire issues of the Chronicle. (H, 34)

"Although foreign radio signals were heavily hammed from the summer of 1968 to the fall of 1973, broadcasts could still be generally served the Chronicle well, as audiences numbering in the tens of millions in the Soviet Union heard the news from the Chronicle. (H, 34)"

36: implications of Red Square

"In the aftermath of the invasion, in the three years leading up to the twenty-fourth Communist party congress in 1971, at which General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev renewed a policy of coexistence and cooperation with the West, important debates were held over the implications of this policy. On the one side, the benefits of detente in terms of Western trade and financial assistance for the lagging Soviet economy were attractive to a number of groups in the Soviet Union. But there also was the argument, frequently made in the Soviet press, that in times of closer relations with the West, greater vigilance was required within the country. This was an old problem for Soviet leaders-... Not great on the re-freeze"(H, 37)

41-42: Gorbanevskaya trial

Notes of a Revolutionary

Amalrik, Andrei. Notes of a Revolutionary.  New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1982.

NB: He has a complicated reln. w/ western journalists. Needs them, but thinks they were manipulated.

Intro by Susan Jacoby: "My former husband, then the correspondent of the Washington Post, was among the minority of journalists who were willing to meet with dissenters. Most of the press corps was content to get its "unofficial" news secondhand, from less timid. Andrei Amalrik, who was a reliable source of news about official persecution of other dissenters, was the first--and for many years the only-- Russian dissident to discuss publicly what he considered to be the inadequacy of western news reporting from Moscow." (A, xii-xiii)

Ginzburg asks for help getting in touch w/ the west

" But I never asked him to let me read it, partly so that if an investigator asked me if I had seen it, I couls say I knew nothing about it. I figured the authorities would not stand upon ceremony with either Ginzburg or me. And apparently Ginzburb had the same idea, which might explain why he didn't risk going to see the foreign correspondent. Or perhaps he thought the latter would be frightened if he came to see him. Because in those days, all of us were a little afraid: afraid of the regime; afraid that people who feared the regime would take us for provocateurs; and afraid of provocateurs.

Nonetheless, I agreed to put the correspondent in touch with Ginzburg and thereby took upon myself to a role that I played until the autumn of 1969--a role that involved me, to some extent, in what was later called the Democratic Movement...Ginzburg met with the journalist at our place. Since my wife and I had no curtains for our windows, we came up with a naive conspiratorial strategy just in case someone tried to photograph us from outside: we covered the windows with paintings." (A, 3)

7: met W. through wife's arts

"The Soviet authorities are stern. They don't like girls' panties hanging on cherry trees, Russians going as guests to the homes of Americans, or foreigners buying and selling paintings. And above al, they don't like when foreign correspondents stay in Russia to long: because the longer a correspondent lives there, the better he understands the situation." (A, 9)

20: sets up interviews for Ginzburg's mother

2 generations of dissidents

"The 'generation of 1956' was influenced by de-Stalinization, by disturbances in Poland, and especially by the Hungarian uprising in October 1956. I recall my impatience while waiting for the news from Hungary. If at that time there had exited some organization that asked me to take up arms agasint the regime, I would have agreed without giving it a second thought. But there was no such organization.

The 'generation of 1966' was formed under the influence of the Sinyavsky-Daniel trial of 1966, the Czechoslavak reforms of 1967-68, and (finally) the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.

The 'generation of 1956' was one of 'dropouts.' I use the word in quotes, because it is the Soviet press's favorite epithet for us. It can, however, also be used without quotes, because in fact we began our protests at such an early afe that we were not allowed to complete our education. Galanskov, Ginzburg, Vladimir Bukovsky, myself, and many others were expelled from universities on several occasions; in some cases, expulsion was either preceded by arrest or followed by it.

By contrast, the 'generation of 1966' consisted of 'establishmen' people. Instead of half-scholars, it included doctors of science; instead of poets who had never published a single line, it included longtime members of the Union of Soviet Writers; instead of "persons with no specific occupations,' it included old Bolsheviks, officers, actors, and artists. For many of them, the years of 1953-1956 had also been decisive. But they still had hopes for improvement; and it was not until the unmistakable regression toward Stalinization in 1965-1966 that their inner dissent was strengthened and their protest provoked." (A, 21)

29: at a trial he met Karel van het Reve-Het Parol University of Leyden, published his books abroad

"Although it was against the law, the witnesses were taken out of teh courtroom after terrifying. even Galanskov's sister was removed. Such things made the atmosphere very tense. On the fourth day, near the courthouse, Larisa Bogoraz and Pavel litinov handed out to correspondents their statement: "To the World Public." That declaration was drafted in strong language. It demanded "condemnation of this shameful trial," "realease of the degendents from armed custody." and "stripping the judge of his judicial powers.

In one leap we had overcome a difficult barrier. We had addressed ourselves to public opinion rather than to the regime; and we had spoken up in the language of free persons, not in that of loyal subjexts, thereby overcoming a centuries-old complex: the idea that no Russian--and least of all, a Soviet-Russian should address apeals to foreigners. ("We are we, and they are they." "Don't wash your dirty linen in public." "It's better to get a blow from your master's club than a piece of bread from a stranger.") That same evening, on the BBC, we heard the statement translated back into Russian. Esenin-Volpin, sitting with the text in his hands, kept repeating: 'Right! That's it! Exactly!' Huddled around the radio, we resembled a painting we had been familiar with since our youth: Behind the Fascist Lines, Members of the Young Guard Listen to Radio Moscow.


The importance of the statement was understood in the West. It was reprinted, fully or in part, in many newspapers, and The Times of London devoted an editorial to it. The flow of statements and appeals that followed it during the next two months raised hopes that a social movement of sorts had surfaced in the USSR and that something would happen at any moment. It was rather like the hopes raised in 1956 by the theory of liberalization known as 'The Thaw.' (A, 31)

36-37: Attempt to hold press conference, KGB discovers it

"No foreign journalist in the USSR can really feel and believe that he is a "noninvolved" chronicler "looking upon both good and evil with indifference" primarily because he himself is an object of manipulation by the Soviet system. Naturally, the authorities realize they cannot manage the foreign press as they do the Soviet media. But to some degree they are able to control the information that foreign correspondents send abroad from Moscow. This accomplished in two ways: by isolating the correspondents and by employing stick-and-carrot policy. (A, 38)"-examples if need be

"The role played by foreign journalists in the USSR as a source of information has been, and still is, crucial. And many journalists, despite all difficulties, have resisted blackmail--a fact confirmed inter alia by the long list of correspondents expelled from Moscow in the past fifteen years...

Lots of thoughts on Western journalists, carrots and sticks-flogging

"We had been sending our declarations and articles to the outside world because that was hte only way we could make them public without censorship. Our aim was to give the world a better idea of the state of affairs in the USSR and to reach the Russian people via Western radio. And in that we succeeded. The number of listeners to foreign radio broadcasts increased several times over. We could not, of course, instruct the Western papers and radio stations how to publish and broadcast our material. And sometimes they wrote and broadcast the opposite of what we wanted people to hear." (A, 52)

59: VOA on Czech invasion
60: brings names of protestors

73: "In that cold spring of 1969 we often met with Anatole Shub of the Washington Post, who tried to convince me that the USSR would soon have to make some changes, however slight, in order to find a common language with the West. But Shub, as an American, had too much faith in common sense. The Soviet system is basically senseless."

74: Will the Soviet Union Survive until 1984?


84: Western correspondents assumed he was KGB
"They took it for granted that Russians were afraid to socialize with foreigners and that the KGB would send agents to contact them. From this it followed that a Russian whou held no official position and yet was so manifestly willing to meet with them must--or could--be a KGB agent. (A,91)"

91: search of Natalya Gorbanevskaya's house

92: "After Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984? was published, I gave my first interviews to American correspondents: to James Clarity of the New York Times and William Cole of CBS...We established good relations with both of them and were invited to their homes for dinner on several occasions. (A, 92)"

"I regarded the interview with William Cole as very important, since it was the first TV interview weith a dissident and millions of people would be able to see an gear me. It was a terrible blow when I learned that the video tape had been confiscated Sheremetovo Airport. (It was shown at my trial as one of the most damning pieces of evidence.) I thought that Cole would be mortally frightened by all this, but he suhhested that we repeat the interview. I agreed, with the proviso that he not try and get the videotape out of the country himself. This time I invited Petr Yakir to take part, and he invite Bukovsky, and a taped talk by Ginzburg was smuggled out of his prison camp. (A, 93)"

93: CBS never shows it, it's in Russian , why people dislike America

"I have never understood the notion that Brezhnev is a "liberal," or what meaning his admirers attach to that word. After each crisis resulting in more power for Brezhnev, I was arrested. I was taken in after he became First Secretary in late 1964, after he prevailed in the crisis of 1970, and after he triumphed over his opponents in 1972-1973 in the matter of detente. Of course, there were many other involved besides me; it's just that each of my arrests was a symptom of increased repression. (A, 97)"

107-108-legality

"I told Kirinkin that in my opinion there was nothing either anti-Soviet  or libelous in my writings, and that I would give no testimony during the investigation." (A, 108)

141: legality issues w/ the trial

142-143: getting statement to wife, it was eventually published in the Chronicle

Hopkins Vol. 1 "Resistance"

Hopkins, Mark. Russia’s Underground Press: The Chronicle of Current Events.” New York: Praeger Publishers, 1983.


"They were all acutely aware that information five to Western correspondents in Moscow about arrests and trials about ominous reports of hunger strikes in labor camps, and of life there among political prisoners could be transmitted in foreign broadcasts. Sometimes it was just a matter of hours after a document was given to an American news agency in Moscow that a foreign radio report about the event could be heard in shortwave programs in Moscow. The British Broadcasting Corporation, Radio Livbery, Duetsche Welle and Voice of America Russian-language broadcasts circumvented the Soviet censorship administration for the press, radio, television, literature and general publishing. These reports in turn attracted new sources of information, nurturing a grapevine of civil rights news. Khushchev had halted blanket jamming of foreign radio broadcasts in Russian in 1963, with the exception of the officially despised Radio Liberty, whose special focus on internal Soviet political events made it a category unto itself. People could listen to all the foreign news they wanted in the mid-1960s in the Soviet Union. The tacit foreign radio stations was creating a vast information network reporting to the mass Soviet audience independently of the Glavit organization.

"The information network among the dissidents themselves operated on the basis of personal knowledge and trust and sometimes out of sheer chance. It happened like this: Larisa Bogoraz, wife of Yuly Daniel, was on the train traveling to see her imprisoned husband. She met the wife of Valery Ronkin, who also, it turned out, was on a trip to visit her husband in the same Siberian labor camp. Ronkin was an unfamiliar name to Moscow dissidents. A Leningrader, Ronkin had been arrested in 1965 for antistate activities after the KGB broke up a clandestine and preached a truly workers' state. It was called the Union of Communards and preached a truly workers' state. In the conspiratorial fashion of earlier illegal Russian Marxist circles, the group met in secret. It published a samizdat journal called The Bell on a clandestine printing press...Even after the KGB penetrated the Union of communards and imprisoned Ronkin, not many in the Soviet Union, let alone the outside world, knew about him or his group, such was the compartmental quality of of Soviet life, especially concerning dissident political and police matters. The Moscow dissidents thus learned of the Ronkin case only when two wives met to share common information about their imprisoned husbands. (H, 8-9)" 

"What was happening, then, as trials picked up in the Soviet Union of the late 1960s and as dissidents met and talked was a growing awareness of a pattern of events. That some of this information was obtained by Western correspondents and that some of it was broadcast back to the Soviet Union in Russian served to document and enlarge the dissidents' picture of their society. For they suffered from a sense of isolation and ignorance of daily events in the Soviet Union, where authorities ensure that the mass media present a narrow and particular portrait of the country. In the late 1960s, Soviet dissidents only graduating assembled facts to convince them that the post-Khrushchev leadership was undertaking a deliberate policy of repression. (H,9) 


10-11: Dologprudny meeting


"There were a series of get-togethers among the increasingly active dissidents in the late winter and early spring of 1968. There was no organization, no specific leaders, no agendas, no records-none of the paraphenalia that goes on with planned, orderly action. Natalia Gorbanevskaya remembers talking with Ilya Gabai, among others, before the first issue of "The Chronicle" appeared and deciding that a bulletin of some kind must be issued to publicize the mounting information they had on hand... (H, 10)"


-it was an informal decision 10-11

"The Dolgoprudny meeting ended with an understanding that Natalia Gorbanevskaya would produce some sort of "bulletin" reporting information from friends of the group and anyone else about the persectutions underway. It still had no name. It would be typed because that was how virtually all samizdat was produced in the Soviet Union. The general Soviet public, then or now, did not nor does not have access top printing presses or even mimeograph machines, let alone electonic copiers. Anything produced on Soviet state presses, in any case, is censored by Glavit. This is to say that the talk in 1968 of putting out a private, unofficial "bulletin" readily translated in the minds of those involved into a few typed carbon copies of the samizdat that would be circulated among friends, one of the copies being reserved for a contact in the Western press corps in Moscow. (H,12)


Paradox: "Its main intent was to publicize violations of human rights in the Soviet Union, especially the lesser known incidents, and thereby draw what dissidents thought would be curative world opinion to the Soviet malady. The group set out to be neither clandestine on public activities and confined itself scrupulously within the limits of written Soviet law. (H,12)  


12: didn't think it would survive


"The Chronicle group shunned conscious, planned secrecy. They regarded that tactic as too similar to the Bolsheviks, to the Leninst concept of a political movement" (H,13)


"The Chronicle group believed more in public action, in holding a mirror to the the Soviet social syste built by Stalin. They wanted little more than the civil liberties ensured in the 1936 "Stalin constitution."  (H,13)


"Yet, as Gorbanevskaya began preparing the first issue of the Chronicle, the work was per force and by habit and practice more of a clandestine operation than a public petition. It was the opposite of how the dissidents, in their more idealistic moments, hoped to function." (H, 13)


"Two specific phrases proved important to the Chronicle-in article 70, the words "slanderous fabrication that discredit," and in article 190-1, "deliberately false statement derogatory" to the Soviet state. The KGB and Soviet courts were to use these time and time again to argue that the Chronicle was an illegal publication." 


"In compiling a bulletin bout protests and objections to the Soviet government and about  reprisals against individuals who challenged authorities, Gorbanevskaya had to conduct herself carefully. She could not use the telepone to obtain information, for everyone knew that the KGB tapped private phones. She could not, without some risk, carry notes with information on her person. It was risky for her, and it was risky for those who supplied her. KGB experts could trace people by their handwriting. Traveling around spread-out Moscow in crowded buses or the metro took hours our of a day if one wanted personally to talk with friends. Gorbanevskaya had to keep a file of information in her apartment. The KGB could search apartments whenever they chose. She had no readily available  reference books on Soviet law to check criminal proceedings. She had no archive, no file of newspaper or magazine clippings against which to check names, dates, places and events. It was like putting together a bulletin out of a shoebox, relying on one's own memory or the memory and exactness of others." (H, 15) 


"The KGB could connect documents and typewriters. Each machine, like fingerprints, has its own its own typeface characteristics. One had to be careful in writing samizdat that it could not be traced through other items typed on the same machine." (H, 16)


17: Human Rights Year


17: she gave birth, came back and finished it up

Uncensored Russia Vol. 2- S & D

"Two important points emerge. First, the Chronicle's aim is openness, non-secretiveness, freedom of information and expression. All these notions are subsumed in the one Russian word glasnost. (R, 26)"

"The Chronicle regards itself as lefal because it merely compiles an accurate recrod of events and there is truth there can--legally speaking--be no 'libel'. 'anti-Soviet' or otherwise( R, 26)."

"Anonymity, let us recall, has seemed to the Chronicle's editors a regretabble necessity, forced on them by the authorities regard for legality. (R, 29)"

That confidence has grown still more when the maximum cross-checking against the Soviet press, reports from Western documents has confirmed the Chronicle's accuracy and revealed no serious errors at all (R, 29)."

R. is GLOWING

"As for the correspondents' own sources, these vary widely. In the compiling of trial accounts, for example, many people--including defendants witnesses and lawyers-- who have been present either at the original trial or at the appeal hearing, can help. In addition leaks of information and even of documents (176-183) sometimes provide material from official institutions...(R, 30)"

30: Correspondent's network-look how impressive
reaches the west 2 weeks to 2 months

32: audience

33: KGB

54 (1)": We are not illegal, how to send them info

55 (2): discussion of their tone
"Samizdat had a dual right to figure in the Chronicle: first, in so far as a part of expressly devoted to te question of human rights; secondly, the whole of samizdat is an example of freedom of speech and the press of creative freedom and freedom of conscience, put into practice.

58 (7): please be careful about submitting information-avoid inacurracies

61-64: letter re: S & D

66: White book and subsequent protests