Description: War Thunder is a next generation military MMO game dedicated to...
Larisa Iosifovna Bogoraz-Brukhman
(1929-2004)
BOGORAZ-BRUKHMAN, LARISA IOSIFOVNA (b.1929), philologist, public figure.Born in Kharkov on August 8, 1929. Parents - party and Soviet workers, participants civil war, party members. In 1936 her father was arrested and convicted on charges of "Trotskyist activity."
In 1950, after graduating from the philological faculty of Kharkov University, Bogoraz married Julius Daniel and moved to Moscow; until 1961 she worked as a Russian language teacher in schools Kaluga region and then Moscow. In 1961–1964, he was a post-graduate student in the sector of mathematical and structural linguistics at the Institute of the Russian Language of the USSR Academy of Sciences; worked in the field of phonology. In 1964–1965 she lived in Novosibirsk and taught general linguistics at the philological faculty of Novosibirsk University. In 1965 she defended her Ph.D.
God-knowing about the "underground" literary work her husband and Andrei Sinyavsky; in 1965, after their arrest, she, together with Sinyavsky's wife Maria Rozanova, actively contributed to turning public opinion in favor of the arrested writers. The case of Sinyavsky and Daniel laid the foundation for the systematic human rights activism of many of those who took part in it, including Bogoraz herself.
In 1966–1967, she regularly traveled to Mordovian political camps to meet her husband, met relatives of other political prisoners there, and included them in the social circle of the Moscow intelligentsia. Her apartment has become something of a “transit point” for relatives of political prisoners from other cities going on dates to Mordovia, and for political prisoners themselves returning from the camp after serving their sentences. In her appeals and open letters, Bogoraz for the first time put before public consciousness the problem of contemporary political prisoners.
The turning point in the development of the human rights movement was the joint appeal of Bogoraz and Pavel Litvinov "To the World Community" (January 11, 1968) - a protest against gross violations of the law during the trial of Alexander Ginzburg and his comrades ("trial of four"). For the first time, a human rights document appealed directly to public opinion; even formally, it was not addressed to either the Soviet party and state institutions, or the Soviet press. After it was repeatedly broadcast on foreign radio, thousands of Soviet citizens learned that there were people in the USSR who openly spoke out in defense of human rights. Responded to appeal dozens of people, many of which agreed with its authors. Some of these people became active participants in the human rights movement.
Bogoraz's signature also appears under many other human rights texts of 1967-1968 and subsequent years.
Despite objections from a number of well-known human rights activists (which boiled down to the fact that she, as the “leader of the movement”, should not put herself in danger of arrest), on August 25, 1968, Bogoraz took part in a “demonstration of seven” on Red Square to protest against the invasion of troops Warsaw Pact countries to Czechoslovakia. She was arrested there and sentenced to 4 years of exile. served time in Eastern Siberia(Irkutsk region, Chuna village), worked as a rigger at a woodworking plant. Returning to Moscow in 1972, Bogorazne began to take a direct part in the work of the dissident public associations that existed at that time, but she continued from time to time to come up with important public initiatives, alone or in co-authorship. So, her signature is under the so-called. “Moscow Appeal”, the authors of which, protesting against the expulsion of Alexander Solzhenitsyn from the USSR, demanded that the Gulag Archipelago and other materials testifying to the crimes of the Stalin era be published in the Soviet Union. In her individual open letter to the chairman of the KGB of the USSR, Yu.V. This idea became one of the impulses for the creation of the independent samizdat historical collection "Memory" (1976-1984), in which she took an unspoken, but rather active part.
God repeatedly appealed to the government of the USSR with a call to declare a general political amnesty. The campaign for the amnesty of political prisoners, launched by her in October 1986, together with other Moscow dissidents, was her last and most successful "dissident" action: the call for amnesty by Bogoraz and others was this time supported by a number of prominent figures of Soviet culture. In January 1987, M. Gorbachev began to release political prisoners. However, her husband, Anatoly Marchenko, did not have time to use this amnesty - he died in the Chistopol prison in December 1986.
Social activity Bogoraz continued during the years of perestroika and post-perestroika. She took part in the preparation and work of the International Public Seminar (December 1987); in the fall of 1989, she became a member of the recreated Moscow Helsinki Group and for some time was its co-chairman; in 1993-1997 she was on the board of the Russian-American Human Rights Project Group. From 1991-1996, Bogoraz directed an educational seminar on human rights for public organizations Russia and CIS.
Currently - retired. Lives in Moscow.
Alexander Daniel
(From the encyclopedia
BOGORAZ Larisa Iosifovna BOGORAZ Larisa Iosifovna
BOGORAZ Larisa Iosifovna (Bogoraz-Brukhman) (August 8, 1929, Kharkov - April 6, 2004, Moscow), Russian public figure, human rights activist.
Born in a family of party and Soviet workers, participants in the Civil War. In 1936, her father was arrested and convicted on charges of Trotskyist activities. (cm. TROTSKYSM). In 1950, after graduating from the philological faculty of Kharkov University, Bogoraz married Yu. M. Daniel (cm. DANIEL Julius Markovich) and moved to Moscow. Until 1961 she worked as a teacher of the Russian language in schools in the Kaluga region, and then in Moscow. In 1961-1964 - post-graduate student of the sector of mathematical and structural linguistics of the Institute of the Russian Language of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR; worked in the field of phonology. In 1964-1965 she lived in Novosibirsk, taught general linguistics at the philological faculty of Novosibirsk University. In 1965 she defended her PhD thesis.
The beginning of the systematic human rights activities of Bogoraz is connected with the trial of A. D. Sinyavsky (cm. SINYAVSKY Andrey Donatovich) and Daniel. In 1966-1967, she regularly traveled to the Mordovian camps to visit her husband, in her appeals and open letters she drew public attention to the problem of political prisoners. One of key points in the development of the human rights movement was the joint appeal of Bogoraz and P. Litvinov "To the world community" (January 11, 1968) - a protest against violations of the law during the "process of four" (Yu. Galanskov (cm. GALANSKOV Yuri Timofeevich), A. Ginzburg (cm. GINZBURG Alexander Ilyich), A. Dobrovolsky, V. Lashkova). In this document, for the first time, human rights activists appealed directly to public opinion; even formally, it was not addressed to either the Soviet party and state institutions, or the Soviet press.
On August 25, 1968, Bogoraz took part in a demonstration on Red Square in protest against the entry of Warsaw Pact troops into Czechoslovakia. (cm. PRAGUE SPRING), was arrested and sentenced to four years in exile. She served her term of exile in the village of Chuna, Irkutsk region, where she worked at a woodworking plant as a handyman. Returning to Moscow in 1972, Bogoraz did not take a direct part in the work of dissident groups, but from time to time she came up with various public initiatives. She protested against the expulsion of A. I. Solzhenitsyn (cm. SOLZHENITSYN Alexander Isaevich), participated in the publication of the Chronicle of Current Events, in 1975 addressed an open letter to the chairman of the KGB of the USSR Yu. V. Andropov (cm. ANDROPOV Yury Vladimirovich) demanding to open the Lubyanka archives. Bogoraz took an unspoken but active part in the creation and work of the samizdat historical collection "Memory" (1976-1984).
In October 1986, together with other Moscow dissidents, she began a campaign for an amnesty for political prisoners, which was crowned with success under the conditions of perestroika. In January 1987 M. S. Gorbachev (cm. GORBACHEV Mikhail Sergeevich) began to free political prisoners. However, the second husband of Bogoraz - A. T. Marchenko (cm. MARCHENKO Anatoly Tikhonovich)- died in the Chistopol prison in December 1986. In the autumn of 1989, when the Moscow Helsinki Group was restored, Bogoraz became a member of it, for some time she was the chairman of the group, and was active in public work in post-Soviet Russia. Author of several articles on the history and theory of human rights.
encyclopedic Dictionary. 2009 .
Human rights activist, participant in the demonstration on Red Square on August 26, 1968 against the entry of troops of the Warsaw Pact countries into Czechoslovakia.
She was born on August 8, 1929 in the city of Kharkov (Ukraine). She died on April 6, 2004 in Moscow.
Parents - party and Soviet workers, participants in the Civil War, members of the party. In 1936, Father Bogoraz was arrested and convicted on charges of "Trotskyite activity."
In 1950, after graduating from the philological faculty of Kharkov University, L.I. Bogoraz married Y. Daniel and moved to Moscow; until 1961 she worked as a teacher of the Russian language in schools in the Kaluga region, and then in Moscow. In 1961-1964. - post-graduate student of the sector of mathematical and structural linguistics of the Institute of the Russian language of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR; worked in the field of phonology. In 1964-1965. lived in Novosibirsk, taught general linguistics at the philological faculty of Novosibirsk University. In 1965, she defended her Ph.D.
Bogoraz knew about the "underground" literary work of her husband and A. Sinyavsky; in 1965, after their arrest, she, together with Sinyavsky's wife Maria Rozanova, actively contributed to turning public opinion in favor of the arrested writers. The case of Sinyavsky and Daniel marked the beginning of the systematic activity of many human rights activists, including Bogoraz herself.
In 1966-1967 L.I. Bogoraz regularly travels to Mordovian political camps to visit her husband, meets relatives of other political prisoners there, and includes them in the social circle of the Moscow intelligentsia. Her apartment becomes a "transit point" for relatives of political prisoners from other cities going on dates to Mordovia, and for political prisoners themselves returning from the camp after serving their sentences. In his appeals and open letters, Bogoraz for the first time poses the problem of modern political prisoners before the public consciousness. After one of these appeals, the KGB officer, who "supervised" the Daniel family, said: "From the very beginning, we were different sides barricades. But you opened fire first."
These years are a period of consolidation of many previously disparate opposition groups, circles and simply friendly companies, whose activity begins to develop into a social movement, later called a human rights movement. Last but not least, thanks to Larisa Iosifovna's "near-camp" contacts, this process quickly went beyond one social group- Moscow liberal intelligentsia. One way or another, she was at the center of events.
The turning point in the development of the human rights movement was Bogoraz's appeal (together with P. Litvinov) "To the World Community" (01/11/1968) - a protest against gross violations of the law during the trial of A. Ginzburg and his comrades ("trial of four"). For the first time, a human rights document appealed directly to public opinion; even formally, it was not addressed to either the Soviet party and state institutions, or the Soviet press. After it was repeatedly broadcast on foreign radio, thousands of Soviet citizens learned that there were people in the USSR who openly spoke out in defense of human rights. They began to respond to the appeal, many solidarized with its authors. Some subsequently became active participants in the human rights movement.
Signature L.I. Bogoraz stands under many other human rights texts of 1967-1968. and subsequent years.
Despite objections from a number of well-known human rights activists (which boiled down to the fact that she, as the “leader of the movement”, should not expose herself to the danger of arrest), on August 25, 1968, Bogoraz took part in a “demonstration of seven” on Red Square against the entry of troops from the Warsaw Pact countries to Czechoslovakia. Arrested, convicted under Art. 1901 and 1903 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR for 4 years of exile. She served time in Eastern Siberia (Irkutsk region, Chuna village), worked as a rigger at a woodworking plant.
Returning to Moscow in 1972, Bogoraz did not take a direct part in the work of the then existing dissident public associations (only in 1979-1980 she joined the defense committee of T. Velikanova), but continued from time to time to come up with important public initiatives, alone or in collaboration. So, her signature is under the so-called "Moscow appeal", the authors of which, protesting against the expulsion of A. Solzhenitsyn from the USSR, demanded that the "Gulag Archipelago" and other materials testifying to the crimes of the Stalin era be published in the Soviet Union. In her individual open letter to the chairman of the KGB of the USSR, Yu. V. Andropov, she went even further: noting that she did not hope that the KGB would open its archives of her own free will, Bogoraz announced that she intended to start collecting historical information about the Stalinist repressions on her own. This idea became one of the impulses for the creation of an independent samizdat historical collection "Memory" (1976-1984), in which Larisa Iosifovna took an unspoken, but rather active part.
Occasionally L.I. Bogoraz published her articles in the foreign press. So, in 1976, under the pseudonym "M. Tarusevich", she published in the journal "Continent" (in collaboration with her second husband A. Marchenko) the article "The Third Given", dedicated to the problems of international detente; in the early 1980s, her call for the British government to treat imprisoned Irish Republican Army terrorists more humanely sparked public debate.
Bogoraz repeatedly appealed to the government of the USSR with a call to declare a general political amnesty. The campaign for the amnesty of political prisoners, launched by her in October 1986, together with S. Kallistratova, M. Gefter and A. Podrabinek, was her last and most successful "dissident" action: the appeal of Bogoraz and others for amnesty was this time supported by a number of prominent figures of Soviet culture. In January 1987, M. Gorbachev began to release political prisoners. However, the husband of Larisa Iosifovna, A. Marchenko, did not have time to take advantage of this amnesty - he died in the Chistopol prison in December 1986.
Bogoraz's social activities continued during the years of perestroika and post-perestroika. She took part in the preparation and work of the International Public Seminar (December 1987); in the fall of 1989, she became a member of the reconstituted Moscow Helsinki Group and for some time was its co-chairman; in 1993-1997 served on the board of the Russian-American Human Rights Project Group. In 1991-1996 the human rights activist led an educational seminar on human rights for public organizations in Russia and the CIS. L.I. Bogoraz is the author of a number of articles and notes on the history and theory of the human rights movement.
Born in the family of a repressed economist. The uncle is a well-known Narodnaya Volya, ethnographer and linguist V. G. Bogoraz.
In 1950 she graduated from the Philological Faculty of Kharkov University.
Until 1961, she worked as a teacher of the Russian language in schools in the Kaluga region, and then in Moscow. In 1961-1964 she studied at the graduate school of the sector of mathematical and structural linguistics at the Institute of the Russian Language of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In 1964-1965 she taught general linguistics at the philological faculty of Novosibirsk University. In 1965 she defended her PhD thesis.
It had a huge impact on the development of events after the arrest of Sinyavsky and Daniel. She completed her first letter to the Prosecutor General of the USSR with the demand "observance of the norms of humanity and legality." In February 1966, together with Maria Rozanova, she took the transcript of the court session in this case. Subsequently, these notes formed the basis of the White Paper on the case of A. Sinyavsky and Y. Daniel.
In 1968, together with Pavel Litvinov, she prepared the first letter addressed to the "world community" - about the "process of four" (Yu. Galanskov, A. Ginzburg, A. Dobrovolsky, V. Lashkova).
Bogoraz took part in the famous Protest Demonstration on August 25, 1968 against the entry Soviet troops to Czechoslovakia, held on Red Square. For this, she received 4 years of exile in the Irkutsk region (1968-1971).
Ivan Tolstoy, Andrey Gavrilov
Ivan Tolstoy: In one of Yuli Kim's songs there are these lines:
Get the bandura, Yura,
confiscate from Galich.
Where are you, censor-fool?
Come on, sing like this.
Oh, one more time
many, many more times
more Pashka,
and Natasha
and Larisa Bogoraz!
There were times when intelligent person in Russia (more precisely, in the Soviet Union) he unmistakably understood who Pashka and Natashka were. I doubt it will be easy now. Litvinov and Gorbanevskaya will soon be perceived as some kind of distant members of the People's Will. And for you, Andrei, when did the name of Larisa Bogoraz sound?
Andrei Gavrilov: The name of Larisa Iosifovna Bogoraz sounded to me like in Kim's song - in one company. Maybe I heard about it before, but it didn't stay in my memory at all. Despite the process of Sinyavsky and Daniel, despite the appeals related to the process of Ginzburg and Galansky, I do not remember this name. But as for the demonstration on Red Square - Litvinov, Gorbanevskaya, Larisa Bogoraz and their friends - after that, of course, I could not forget this name.
Ivan Tolstoy: And I can say for sure that for the first time I met the name of Larisa Bogoraz in the fall of 76, when my fiancee brought me to her house and introduced me to her future mother-in-law. The mother-in-law asked without long words, not even allowing her to sit down: "Do you know Ginzburg? And Sharansky?"
I was somewhat taken aback, but for some reason I knew these names, although I was not at all a regular listener of Western radio in those years. So somehow, the whole country, in my opinion, knew about these people. It was in that conversation that we reached Larisa Bogoraz and the demonstration on Red Square. And I was favorably received in the family of my future wife.
Larisa Iosifovna Bogoraz was given a real full life with all the dramas and losses due, but, probably no less important, she lived to see political freedoms, to new Russia and managed to contribute to our lives. So it was possible to talk with her about past times without hiding at all.
Let's go in order. Eleven years ago, in her Moscow apartment, I recorded a long biographical interview with our today's heroine. Here Larisa Iosifovna talks about her family.
Larisa Bogoraz
Larisa Bogoraz: My parents are from Ukraine, both father and mother, but from different places in Ukraine. They are active Soviet party workers, as it is now called ... the elite, or something. My father was engaged in political economy (of socialism, of course), and my mother was in ideology (of socialism, of course). We lived in the city of Kharkov, I was born there and lived there almost all my life.
Ivan Tolstoy: Are you born...?
Larisa Bogoraz: I have two surnames, this is also a separate story - Bogoraz-Brukhman. Here is how it was. When I was born, then marriages were not registered, the marriage was not registered between the parents, but they recorded me as Bogoraz in the metric. Then my father was arrested, my mother decided that it was better for me to have a different surname, Brukhman, her surname, and she entered the second surname in the metric herself. Then the anti-Semitic movement began, and it became not obvious which was worse. While it was her choice - to enroll in a school there - she wrote down one last name, then another, depending on the situation. So I have two surnames. And when I received my passport, no one asked anything, they wrote what was written in the metric - Bogoraz-Brukhman. This is my last name now. But since I graduated from university as Bogoraz, I have already got used to this surname.
Ivan Tolstoy: What was the fate of your father?
Larisa Bogoraz: He stayed in Vorkuta until the Khrushchev amnesty. Although he had a short term, they said that five years was enough to sit on the potty. He got free, got out. She and her mother separated even earlier, even before his arrest. When my father was released, I did not know him, he was sent to jail when I was still very young. But my mother continued to work. Then I met my father, who had a huge influence on me, just a very big one, he was a very smart, wise Jew, you know, one of the wise Jews, he understood everything even before his arrest. He did not impose his point of view, his position, somehow corrected it slightly, and I was against his position, I was a very active Komsomol member, a very ideological Komsomol member, as they say.
Andrey Gavrilov: Larisa Iosifovna always spoke very frankly, honestly and openly about her life, however, I don’t want it to be thought that she was a hereditary dissident, she saw so much, she knew everyone and it’s very easy to think that in connection with the fact that her family was repressed, from childhood she was immediately ready to go to the barricades. Nothing like this. I want to recall her own story about 1946. Larisa Bogoraz is a freshman and, as she herself said (I will now read a few words from her interview):
“At the seminar, we had to approve Zhdanov’s decision on Akhmatova. Julius Daniel said: what kind of fool would suddenly approve this decision? I said that I. He asked me: have you read Pasternak? I said: no. : No. Have you read Zoshchenko? No. Do you want to read it? I said yes. He began to read Pasternak to me. And I ... I understood nothing in these verses. Absolutely nothing. I was not prepared for the perception of poetry. However, I I realized that everything that is said in Zhdanov's report has nothing to do with poetry.
By the way, after that, at the seminar, Larisa Bogoraz nevertheless spoke in the spirit of Zhdanov’s decree, and she was defeated by those who studied next to her in the first year, but were older than her, because they went through the war - those whom she called "" guys - front-line soldiers "". They crushed her to smithereens, and one can say that here she had grains of doubt about the correctness of this very line. But more, to be honest, I like her phrase ""I said that I want to read Akhmatova and Zoshchenko"". I think that this desire to honor the one who is being scolded, this desire to figure it out, to get to the bottom of the matter, is what defines people who are independent, who freely dissent.
Ivan Tolstoy: Another fragment from a conversation in 2000. Larisa Iosifovna talks about where and how she worked after graduating from the Russian Department of Kharkov University.
Julius Daniel
Larisa Bogoraz: At first, at school for many years, but not in a row - they were fired, then they took it, then they didn’t take it. There were all sorts of difficulties, and national ones, so for various reasons they did not take it. After school I am very a short time worked as a freelance correspondent in the magazine "Friendship of Peoples". I think, just because I knew Ukrainian well, there were no other reasons, I was a bad journalist. And then I entered graduate school, graduated from graduate school, went to work in Novosibirsk, taught at the university, where Daniel was arrested, and I had to go to Moscow to broadcast. Here GB helped me to triple my job in Moscow. I came to work at 8 or 9 - here I am, I leave at 6 - here I am. It was the newly established Scientific Research Institute for Information Coding. My specialty is structural linguistics, that is, search engines. This is the institute I worked in. There I stole one document - technical specifications or a patent for barbed wire, I have it somewhere.
Ivan Tolstoy: Created in the depths of your institute?
Larisa Bogoraz: No, we only dealt with documents, only a search engine, a search for patents. And then, in 1968, I was in exile, worked at a woodworking plant as a loader, I liked this work - at least the result is visible. Then, when I returned from exile to Moscow, there was no work wherever I went.
Ivan Tolstoy: What year is this?
Larisa Bogoraz: 1971, I think. So that I would not be a parasite, my friend, a researcher, registered me as a housekeeper, but I was just listed with her. But you also need to work, earn money. I see an ad - in kindergarten need a new nanny. It suited me very well. My parents were seriously ill at that time, it was in our yard, at night I was in kindergarten and I could at any time look at my parents, like my father and stepmother. I wasn't hired. Ideological work - to take out the pots. First they took it, then looked at the questionnaire, managed to do it somewhere. Then they took me to work as a concierge - wash the elevators, clean the landings. There I finished working until retirement - all my work experience.
Ivan Tolstoy: During a conversation in 2000, I asked Larisa Iosifovna when her father died.
Larisa Bogoraz: In 1986, already a very old man.
Ivan Tolstoy: How did he react to all your tricks?
Larisa Bogoraz: I tried not to tell him everything, I was afraid that he would be very nervous. My mother was gone, my mother died in 1950. My father had another wife. Both of them were very worried about me, I tried not to tell them everything. And here is the year 1968, the trial of Ginzburg and Galanskov, our treatment of Litvinov. Of course, I did not say anything that I was going to write or wrote. The process was over, my father called me, and I heard in his voice that he heard the sounds of a battle trumpet - he was pleased, although he understood the danger for me of this. But for him it was a positive thing. It’s not that he supported me (who will support a daughter who climbs into a noose?), but I heard that he reacted like a war horse to this. This was before the beginning of 1968.
Of course, he knew that I was taking part in the transfer of information, he listened to "Freedom" always, of course, knew about it. I say: "Dad, I can't tell you everything on the phone." "You don't come, you rarely visit me. Where are you?"" I say, "I can't always tell you." "" And you tell me: "" I went to a restaurant "". We arranged such a small conspiracy.
Then August 1968 approached - I can’t say anything either. Before going to Red Square, I left notes to my father, stepmother, son, asking for forgiveness, well, of course. He supported my son, who was 17 years old, then they came to me in exile. Further, we already had an absolute mutual understanding with my father, complete. I can’t say that they were happy that I ended up in exile, but when they came to me, they walked around this village, my father and stepmother, who was also in prison, and said: ““ How it looks like Igarka, my God ! What about Vorkuta? Look, the same stacks of firewood near the fences! In general, for them it was a familiar and not terrible picture. Although they survived everything, including the brick factory in Vorkuta.
When Gorbachev appeared (his father still had time to catch Gorbachev), he said: "There is something in this guy after all." I say: "What are you, dad, how much you can fool you! Well, I stroked the child on the head in St. Petersburg. Have you seen a few of them?" He became ashamed of his attitude, but did not change it. Then he told me: “You know, a hungry childhood in the countryside cannot be in vain. Still, there's something about this guy.
Ivan Tolstoy: Let's give the floor to an old friend of Larisa Iosifovna, and in many ways a colleague, Arina Ginzburg.
Arina Ginzburg: We met her in the 60s, more precisely in 1965, when her husband, writer Yuri Daniel, and his friend, writer Sinyavsky, were arrested for publishing their works in the West. This case then caused a wide resonance in the post-thaw country, it greatly excited the minds, and, to be honest, it really seemed to us then that maybe we were present at the birth of civil society in our country.
Then Larisa stood (indeed, she was one of the first who took part in this) at the origins of this possible birth of civil society: they (she and Sinyavsky's wife Maria Rozanova) wrote down this process, a closed process, on paper, and then friends reprinted it in the evening all this on a typewriter, and the very next day typewritten notes of this process went around, rustling leaves such as I remember now, and this was added to open appeals in defense of the arrested writers. And then, when these books, all these leaflets, all the newspaper clippings of the Western press were later collected, and Alexander Ginzburg compiled the collection "White Book" on the case of Sinyavsky and Daniel, it still seemed that there was some kind of hope, that something that will be. But the compiler, like his heroes, was also arrested after the collection appeared in the West, and a year and a half later ended up in the same camp in Mordovia with a very cozy name "Lake". Julius Daniel was already sitting there, and there they all ended up together.
After that, we got along with the family of Daniel and Bogorazov just like relatives. And here is one peculiarity, if we talk about this time ... It was, in general, as they say now - arrests, searches, interrogations, trips to camp visits, very rare, by the way, it was scary, certainly scary, but there was in all this some, if you like, by analogy with the Prague spring, some kind of Moscow spring. Still, there was some kind of hope, you understand, and it seemed that all this was not in vain, all these actions, all these events were not in vain. In general, this was an amazing brotherhood of the 60s, it was so cheerful, fearless and very kind.
And most importantly, and I want to emphasize this, because now a lot of lofty words are spoken, and they seem to be correct, but at the same time, in these people, in this brotherhood of ours, there has never been any posture, no one sense of their own heroism, no animal seriousness. And when they talk about Lara now "" godmother human rights movement", ""honor and conscience of the country"", I don't want to argue with that at all, it's true, but only I know that she herself never defined herself in these terms. They simply could not, having once understood the hypocritical essence of this system, could not and did not want to coexist with it, they lived according to normal human, if you like, Christian laws, and this was their strength, contagious strength, their charm, what is called democratic movement, dissidence, dissent. It was not a political impulse, but a purely moral one. But this is where this moral charge has gone, because it is not in demand now, and this causes me great bewilderment. Why did society somehow run out of steam, give up this spirit?
Ivan Tolstoy: Arina Ginzburg. From a performance in Karen Agamirov's program in 2004.
Andrei, Larisa Iosifovna is dedicated to one poignant lyrical song.
Andrei Gavrilov: I want to say that she became very close to her stepmother, who was killed by Olga Grigoryevna Olsufieva. Her literary pseudonym was Alla Zimina. According to Larisa Bogoraz herself, Alla Zimina became a poetess after the camp, wrote many poems and songs and performed them with a guitar. ""When I was at the opening of the monument - a stone from Solovki," Larisa Bogoraz later wrote, "I thought that many of Olga Grigorievna's songs would be appropriate there. For example:
"Closed from the world, a frowning mine,
Didn't you teach us the romance of everyday life,
So that the heart is not given to malice and revenge,
And friendship of high and knightly honor.
Unfortunately, there are very few recordings of Alla Zimina, I don’t even know in what circumstances these recordings were made, it looks like it was a cheap Soviet tape recorder somewhere in the room, in the apartment.
Dedicated to L.Bogoraz.
A barge runs along the Yenisei
And clouds overhead.
Displays the song "About Russia"
White-headed helmsman.
And the captain lies on the bench,
He doesn't care about the song
He has been living on the certificate for ten years,
He can't see Russia
He will not be in Russia.
His wife disagrees with him
Let her be a sailor now
But she didn't lose hope.
Though life has passed and at random.
She stands pumping the pump
Not leaving the water
And the helmsman is deliberately loud
Sings about summer gardens
Sings about Russian gardens.
And she imagines Kaluga
And young freedom
And the shepherds go through the meadow,
And black-and-white herds.
And suddenly picks up subtly,
With some squealing from above,
Like that crazy girl
That rushed through the meadow to the shepherd.
(Moscow-Chuna, March 1970)
Ivan Tolstoy: Alla Zimina sang.
In 1965, when her husband, writer Yuli Daniel was arrested, Larisa Iosifovna, together with Sinyavsky's wife Maria Rozanova, took shorthand in the courtroom. And since it was forbidden to do this and it was necessary to constantly hide paper and pencils, the notes involuntarily came out incomplete and in the evenings two straw widows compared their notes and remembered what they missed.
We will not dwell on the activities of Julius Daniel now, an independent program in the series "The Alphabet of Dissent" will be devoted to him, today it's just short review Larisa Iosifovna about her first husband:
Larisa Bogoraz: He had talent. The talent is not writing, I mean, but the talent of communicating with people. She was always the center of communication - both before the arrest at large, and in the camp, and after the camp too. This is the talent that manifested itself in this book - the talent of communication. He was interested in everything, all people were interesting. Therefore, it was of interest to many.
Ivan Tolstoy: In the Mordovian camp, another prisoner became friends with Daniel - Anatoly Marchenko. When he was released, he became the second husband of Bogoraz. His book about the camp, My Testimony, was to a certain extent co-authored with Larisa Iosifovna.
Transcript of the court and additional materials on the case of Sinyavsky and Daniel, collected by Alexander Ginzburg in "" white paper"", they brought him to the camp, and then Larisa Bagoraz and Pavel Litvinov for the first time addressed their protest not to the authorities, but to the "world community." This appeal caused a wave of individual and collective letters of protest - what was called the "epistolary revolution" of the spring of 1968, from which the Chronicle of Current Events was later born.
Spring didn't last long. On August 25, after the repeated conviction of Marchenko, after the entry of Soviet troops into Czechoslovakia, Larisa Bogoraz, together with friends and like-minded people, went to a demonstration on Red Square.
Andrey Gavrilov: What I did not know and what shocked me now, when we were preparing for the program dedicated to Larisa Bogoraz... It seemed that I read quite a lot, I probably read almost everything over the years of my life that was connected with the name of Larisa Bogoraz, and there was one detail that I criminally did not pay attention to, and only a couple of days ago, while preparing for the program, I noticed this. The fact is that Larisa Bogoraz, everyone noted, was a pathologically honest person - so much so that she did not lie even to investigators during interrogations. This does not mean that she answered their questions, this does not mean that she honestly told everything. It's just that in most cases she closed herself and said that she would not answer the question. But she didn't lie.
So, on August 22, 1968, Larisa Iosifovna Bogoraz warned the directorate of the institute where she worked that she was declaring a strike in protest against the entry of troops into Czechoslovakia, and on August 23 she handed over a written statement to the trade union committee and the directorate of the institute.
As we know, there were few people at the demonstration on Red Square, but, nevertheless, these are people who turned history upside down, that is, it was not alone. But I don't know of a second case in our history when a person declared, especially in 1968, a strike in connection with Czechoslovakia or something similar, and wrote a written statement about it.
Ivan Tolstoy: We will also dedicate a special issue "The Alphabet of Dissent" to the chronicle of the events on Red Square. Today we will focus on the portrait of Larisa Bogoraz. In the best traditions of human rights movements, the last word of Larisa Iosifovna at the trial has been preserved. It sounded in October 1968, and it sounded on the air of freedom more than once. Today we picked up an announcer's reading from the early 70s.
Bogoraz: First, I am forced to state something that is not related to my last word: my friends and relatives - mine and other defendants - are not allowed into the courtroom. Thus, Art. 18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure guaranteeing publicity judicial trial.
AT last word I do not have the opportunity and do not intend - here and now - to substantiate my point of view on the Czechoslovak question. I will only talk about the motives of my actions. Why did I, ""disagreeing with the decision of the CPSU and the Soviet government to send troops to Czechoslovakia"," not only filed an application about this at my institute, but also went to a demonstration on Red Square?
Judge: Don't talk about your beliefs. Don't go beyond litigation.
Bogoraz: I do not go beyond the scope of the trial. There was a question from the prosecutor. In the course of the trial, the question of motives was raised, and I have the right to dwell on this. My action was not impulsive. I acted deliberately, fully aware of the consequences of my action.
I love life and value freedom, and I understood that I was risking my freedom and would not want to lose it.
I don't consider myself public figure. Public life is far from being the most important and interesting side of life for me. Especially, political life. In order for me to decide on a demonstration, I had to overcome my inertia, my dislike of publicity.
I would prefer not to. I would rather support my like-minded people - famous people. Known for their profession or their position in society. I'd rather add my nameless voice to these people's protest. There are no such people in our country. But my beliefs haven't changed.
I was faced with a choice: protest or remain silent. For me, to remain silent meant to join in the approval of actions that I do not approve of. To remain silent meant to me to lie. I do not consider my course of action to be the only correct one, but for me it was the only possible solution.
It was not enough for me to know that there was no my vote "for" - it was important for me that there would be no my vote "against".
It was the rallies, radio, press reports of universal support that prompted me to say: I am against it, I do not agree. If I had not done this, I would consider myself responsible for these actions of the government, just as all adult citizens of our country are responsible for all the actions of our government, just as all of our people are responsible for the Stalinist Beria camps, for death sentences, for ...
Prosecutor: The defendant goes beyond the scope of the indictment. It has no right to speak about the actions of the Soviet government, the Soviet people. If this happens again, I ask that the defendant Bogoraz be deprived of her last word. The court has the right to do so by law.
Lawyer Kaminskaya: There is some misunderstanding of what Bogoraz is saying. She talks about her motives for her actions. When the court makes a decision in the deliberation room, it will have to take into account these motives, and you must listen to them.
Lawyer Kallistratova: I join Kaminskaya. On my own behalf, I want to add: the prosecutor is wrong when he talks about the possibility of depriving the defendant of the right to the last word. This is not in the code. The law only says that the presiding judge has the right to exclude from the defendant's speech elements that are not relevant to the case.
Judge: I think the prosecutor's statement is sound. (To Bogoraz): You always try to talk about your beliefs. You are judged not for your beliefs, but for your actions. Talk about specific actions. The court is reprimanding you.
Bogoraz: Okay, I'll take that remark into account. It is all the more easy for me to take it into account because so far I have not even touched on my convictions and have not said a word about my attitude to the Czechoslovak question. I spoke exclusively about what prompted me to the actions of which I am accused.
I had one more consideration against going to the demonstration (I insist that the events in Red Square should be called by this very word, no matter how the prosecutor calls them). This is a consideration of the practical uselessness of the demonstration, that it will not change the course of events. But I decided, in the end, that for me this is not a matter of benefit, but a matter of my personal responsibility.
When asked if I pleaded guilty, I replied: "No, I don't." Do I regret what happened? Fully or partially? Yes, I'm partially sorry. I am extremely sorry that Vadim Delaunay turned out to be next to me in the dock, whose character and fate have not yet been determined and can be crippled by the camp. The rest of the defendants are quite mature people capable of making their own choice. But I regret that the talented, honest scientist Konstantin Babitsky will be cut off from his family and from his work for a long time.
(From the audience: ""You are talking about yourself!"")
Judge: I demand to stop shouting immediately! If necessary, I will immediately remove from the hall. (K. Bogoraz): The court makes a third remark to you. Talk only about things that concern you personally ...
Bogoraz (sharply): Shall I give you a summary of my last speech? I don't understand why I can't talk about the other defendants.
The prosecutor ended his speech with the assumption that the sentence he proposed would be approved by public opinion.
The court does not depend on public opinion, but must be guided by the law. But I agree with the prosecutor. I have no doubt that public opinion will approve this verdict, as it has approved of similar verdicts before, as it would have approved of any other verdict. Public opinion will approve three years of camps for a young poet, three years of exile for a talented scientist. Public opinion will approve the guilty verdict, firstly, because we will be presented to it as parasites, renegades and promoters of a hostile ideology. And secondly, if there are people whose opinion differs from the “public” one and who find the courage to express it, they will soon be here (points to the dock). Public opinion will approve the massacre of a peaceful demonstration, which consisted of several people.
Yesterday, in my defense speech, defending my interests, I asked the court for an acquittal. Even now I have no doubt that the only correct and only legal verdict would be an acquittal. I know the law. But I also know judicial practice, and today, in my last word, I ask nothing of the court.
Ivan Tolstoy: For participating in the demonstration, Larisa Bogoraz was sentenced to exile in Siberia.
Andrei Gavrilov: Ivan, we discussed many times with you how people become dissidents, which was the impetus. And many times we came across the fact that, oddly enough, the impetus was the idiocy of the authorities, some kind of surreal, in the spirit of some kind of dystopian idiocy. Here is how Larisa Bogoraz writes about it:
“I knew that what Julius Daniel did was not a hostile act. He did not pursue political goals. It was an act connected with his professional conscience and honor. But Sinyavsky and Daniel were accused of undermining Soviet power. And it turned out: yes! Not because they did it. But because of what they did to them. "
One of the most common works of Larisa Bograz in samizdat at one time was a book, a brochure "On a Trip", where she talks about how she went to the camp with Yuli Daniel. This is a rather long story, which today, unfortunately, is considered very recognizable. But I want to quote a few phrases from there that cannot but amaze. Larisa Bogoraz writes what rules were written on the wall near the information room. There are five of them:
"Let's make a statement. Wait for an answer"".
""Leave all the food and things - it's not allowed to feed on a date"".
""Don't send anything"".
""Speak only in Russian"".
And the most important thing:
"You can't read poems on a date."
It seems to me that there is not even anything to add here, it can be hung on the wall in a frame and it will be such an illustration of the fact that there is Soviet power, that there is a Soviet machine that crushed everyone and was afraid of poetry.
Ivan Tolstoy: Neither exile, nor new worries and hardships have ever stopped Larisa Bogoraz from actively experiencing the country's social, political, and moral problems. In 1975, she addressed the head of the KGB, Yuri Andropov, with an open letter. The announcer of "Freedom" reads.
Dear Chairman of the State Security Committee,
As you should be aware, more than a year ago a group of Soviet citizens issued the Moscow Appeal - a call to investigate and publicize the crimes of the recent past related to the activities of your organization and those organizations for which the KGB is responsible by inheritance. The Moscow Address also bears my signature. Per last year two books, The Gulag Archipelago, were also published in the West. This remarkable work largely fills a gaping gap in national history. However:
"GULAG Archipelago" is a documentary and artistic research. According to the conditions of its creation, it is inevitably incomplete, some cases are possibly unreliable. Both of these in the highest degree correctly stated by the author himself. It needs to be supplemented with other materials.
"The Gulag Archipelago" was not published in the USSR, therefore the circle of its readers is not wide, and also because its reading and distribution are prosecuted by your organization up to criminal liability.
Following the release of "The Gulag Archipelago", and even simultaneously with it, even anticipating it, a number of official rumors appeared, attempts to directly and indirectly discredit this work. All this speaks of the intention of the Soviet official organizations to continue to falsify history, getting rid of the inadvertently emerging truth with fluent and non-specific tongue twisters such as "cult of personality" and "violation of socialist legality"". And then, the further - the less often.
Thus, there are no visible barriers to distorting the history of our country within itself, except perhaps human memory, but you are also trying to drive this instrument of history, which is weakening over time, underground. During several of her conversations with me, our employees said several times: "" Those times are over and there is nothing to constantly remember and remind about them "". This is even better. And your investigator Kantov, for example, said otherwise: "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" is an anti-Soviet work, there was nothing to print it. Think! It wasn't like that in the camps! That's what the camp "". Today, on the day of the 30th anniversary of the victory over German fascism, I want to repeat: forgetting our own recent past means not only betraying the memory of the millions of dead and tortured, but also betraying ourselves and our children. The Nuremberg trials do not seem to me an act of revenge, but a symbol of the nationwide moral condemnation of fascism, its ideology, its practice. Sooner or later, such a process must take place in our country. That is why I am addressing you, citizen Andropov, with the question: does your organization intend to publish its archives, to open them for free access?
""I would like to call everyone by name,
Yes, the list was taken away and there is nowhere to find out "".
Addition.
I perfectly understand that my question is rhetorical. No, you do not intend to name either the number of victims or the names of the executioners. Still would! Therefore, firstly, this letter is open. Secondly, I inform you that I myself intend, to the best of my ability, to create and publish the archive using the means available to me. In the near future I will publish a questionnaire on which I hope to collect materials. I have both a civil and a personal right to such amateur activity - out of the sixteen members of the older generation of my family in the 30s, seven people were convicted under Article 58, three of them died. Of the nine people of my generation for political dissent, but simply for dissent, five were convicted, while one died.
May 9, 1975
Signature: Larisa Bogoraz, Moscow B-261, Leninsky Prospekt, 85, apartment 3.
Ivan Tolstoy: Years passed, Soviet power collapsed. In 2000, I met Larisa Iosifovna in Moscow and asked what she did in her first free decade, that is, in the 90s.
Larisa Bogoraz: When perestroika had already begun, I thought that we had not completed our human rights work - the population is as far from the right as it was before. That interfered with the state, and now the population itself does not perceive it. I decided that I should do (I'm a teacher after all) enlightenment. I organized an educational seminar for human rights activists - "What are human rights?". The workshop ran from 1991 to 1996 or 1997. Twice a year there were classes where lawyers spoke, but not only.
I had such an idea. It suddenly turned out that I was popular when perestroika began: tell us how did you come to the square? Those know, these know, many know. I think: well, I must get some profit from this. If I turn to a lawyer such and such, he will not refuse me to speak at the seminar.
So it was - never once no one refused. Large, prominent lawyers, and not only lawyers, but employees of the law enforcement system, spoke. Soros gave the first money. A lot of human rights groups have formed all over the country, people came to us with Far East human rights activists from Ukraine, from Moldova, from Komi, in general, from all over the country. We organized such seminars where prominent lawyers spoke.
What have I been able to do? I take credit for this. I was able to program well. That is, I was not interested in having a major lawyer give us a lecture. I was interested in contradictions in the very idea of human rights - contradictions, disputes, clarifications. This is what happened, the result turned out to be very good, more competent human rights groups have already formed. And, most importantly, they met each other at seminars.
I cannot say that I have completed this work. I have finished - I no longer have the strength for this, because for each seminar you need to raise money, for each seminar we published a collection of seminar materials. They are all published.
Ivan Tolstoy: Do you have an answer to our eternal damned question: why does our population not perceive legal norms?
Larisa Bogoraz: Because he prefers other ways of solving the problem, more reliable, from his point of view. For example, when I was in exile, then a law was passed Soviet Union on labor law, a completely brutal Stalinist law.
The workers are read this law, they must vote "for"". Vote.
I think what are they doing? They hang a yoke around their necks! Then I talked with my fellow workers, they told me: "" Larisa, you're done well for voting "against".
I say: "" Volodya, why did you vote "for"? You have put a yoke around your neck!"
He says, "Yes, I am a dark person."
I say: “Come on, don’t hang noodles on my ears. You were in the army, you are literate, you understood. And why didn't you come forward?"
He couldn't answer.
I then asked myself this question. Because he decided that the law is absolutely brutal, but he will have a godfather in the police, a matchmaker in the trade unions, an acquaintance somewhere else. Any problem is easier to solve. Used to solve the problem in a different way, not legal. The country has never relied on the law. In my opinion, there was no such time that she relied on the law. And problems arise for everyone and every day. And it entered the consciousness of the population that all problems of relationships are solved differently. Why do we need a law? I think it played a role. And continues to play a role today.
Ivan Tolstoy: This is what Larisa Iosifovna Bogoraz said in an interview in 2000. Four years later she was gone.
Andrei Gavrilov: You know, Ivan, I really want to finish our program about Larisa Iosifovna Bogoraz in an unusual way. The fact is that Larisa Iosifovna wrote an auto-obituary, it takes about a page and a half. She writes that she knew so many people who had already left this life that very often she was asked to write an obituary about one of her friends who left us, and at some point she thought and decided to write an obituary about herself because who knows a person better than he himself? I won't read it all out, but there are a few phrases in it that I think will be very relevant towards the end of our program.
“But now, while I'm still alive, writing this obituary, let me tell you something important for me, and maybe for you too. I lived a long time and sinned a lot, causing pain and evil to one of you. I remember all these sins of mine, but I will not talk about them now: I am not a supporter of public repentance. I will repent before the Almighty - and you, my near and far, I ask: forgive me my faults before you, “as well as I, a sinner, I forgive our enemies” - to everyone, if anyone thinks that he is guilty of something before me. I give you my word that I don’t remember their faults to anyone, but only my own. Forgive and forgive.
I also want to say that I was happy in my life. Fate gave me all of you, your friendship and love and my love for you. If there's a reason other than purely biological fear that I wouldn't want to leave, it's that I don't want to leave you. But each of us is mortal, and each of us knows about the upcoming separation. The only thing left to do is calm down.
And what I regret is that I won’t know, I won’t see with my own eyes how the life of my younger descendants, who live today and who have not yet come into this life, will be arranged. My life, one might say, took place, and it took place, though not easily, but, as I said, more happily than I deserved it. And you, my dear ones, have yet to live each of your difficult lives. Don't grumble, don't get discouraged. As they say, God sends us trials and He also gives strength to overcome them.
Hold on!”
Radio Liberty © 2011 RFE/RL, Inc. | All rights reserved.
