The Russian Century: A Hundred Years of Russian Lives

At about 8:00 AM on September 30, I was taken to a building in the political prison where I was “welcomed” by the MVD [Ministry of Internal Affairs]. As at my arrest, I was taken to a neighboring windowless room. One of the guards told me to undress, squat, bend over, spread, while another, meanwhile, carefully examined the contents of my pockets.

“And what is this?”

“The accusation and notes on my case.”

“That’s not allowed.”

“What do you mean, not allowed? You’re taking me to court.”

I declared that if my papers were taken away from me, I would not go to court.

“You’ll go,”—and the handcuffs clinked in his hands. Luckily, the officer on duty came around and explained to the sergeant that I was right.

A prison “black mariah” stood in the yard. I must say that the soldiers of my escort unit—even though they were rotated daily—radically changed their attitude toward me after the first day. They brought me parcels, notes, cigarettes, and expressed their sympathy in many ways. When alone, and without informers around, they asked me many questions. On the way to court and back, they left a door open in the vehicle and I hungrily peered at

Kirill Kostsinskii [K.V. Uspenskii], A Dissident’s Trial

287

the life of the city. I reveled in the beauty of Leningrad with an unexpected painful acuity.

The trial went on for five days. My request to subpoena the experts who labeled my unfinished works as being anti-Soviet was summarily dismissed. I asked that three well-known writers, Iu. P. German, V. F. Panova, and A. I. Panteleev, who could provide an objective analysis of my literary work, be called. This solicitation was also refused. Subsequently, everything flowed within the predetermined channel. With minor exceptions, all witnesses repeated what they had said at the preliminary inquest.

I began my testimony poorly, declaring that I recognized the objective harm of many of my pronouncements. But I could not have or did not have any “desire” or “intent” to “weaken the Soviet State.” If I had been intent on an anti-Soviet line, I would have been secretive to the maximum. Furthermore, I assumed that the decrees of the Twentieth Party Congress signified a return to Leninist norms of democracy. That was why I had spoken openly regarding those deficiencies which impeded the normal development of our society, specifically in literature. I was trained as an intelligence officer and knew well the techniques of counter-espionage. I knew that my mail was being read, that the phone was tapped, and via an anonymous letter, that my apartment was bugged.

“What kind of listening devices?” examined the judge.

“What form of bugging?” roared the prosecutor.

“What are you talking about,” screamed the female attorney, grabbing her head.

“I’m only speaking of the letter which I received.” I continued: “The charges against me, with reference to the witness, Pavlovskii, state that ‘in the Writer’s Union everyone knew of Uspenskii’s anti-Soviet feelings.’ But even the tendentious characterization of me sent by this very same union does not contain this assertion. This fact was not confirmed by a single witness. All this speaks of the tendentiousness of the investigation which rejected testimony favorable to me. What anti-Soviet element was there in my pronouncements concerning the necessity of greater freedom in literature? Lenin and Gorky spoke of this as did even Stalin in his famous letter to Bel’-Belotserkovskii.”

I also spoke of collective farms and the right to leave them, of the necessity of a free market, and of workers’ councils in factories and enterprises. Why can’t we introduce this type of experiment at one or two of our factories so we can verify the experiences of Yugoslavia which is, as Khrushchev recently announced, a fully socialist country. I also spoke of a two party system; such an arrangement had already existed under Soviet rule.

288

Chapter Thirty

Then Gorbenko, the city’s assistant prosecutor, with scholarly accuracy, traced my long-term anti-Soviet convictions. He evaluated my criminal activity as being worth seven years of incarceration.

Otliagova, the defense attorney, gave an excellent speech and asked that a punishment be chosen which did not entail loss of freedom. She was applauded.

I said something very brief in my last remarks. By this point nervous tension had become so overwhelming that I simply do not remember my own words.

Finally, on October 3, at about seven in the evening, the verdict was finalized. I was led via stairs, corridors, and connecting passageways to the main hall on the first floor complete with marble fireplace and columns. Through the mirror-like windows I could see the engineers’ union building and the gold and red leaves of maple trees.