Skip to main content Accessibility help

Between Scholarship and Dissidence: The Dissident Historical Collection Pamiat΄ (1975–1982)

  • Barbara Martin and Anton Sveshnikov


This article examines the history of the Soviet dissident historical collection Pamiat΄ through the lens of liminality. It argues that the publication sought to bridge the gap between dissident and professional scholarship, between grassroots memory collection, with its emphasis on the witness's voice, and historical research's reliability and “scientificity.” Although Pamiat΄ was inspired by earlier dissident historiographical projects and its editorial team was closely linked to the human-rights movement, its ambitions of objectivity and representativeness also connect it to later Perestroika projects based on citizen involvement, such as Memorial. Pamiat΄s ambiguous identity and claim to neutrality may have delayed the Soviet authorities’ response to it, but repression eventually hit the publication. By putting into question the state's monopoly on historical scholarship and connecting readers and contributors across the Iron Curtain, Pamiat΄ had clearly overstepped the boundaries of the permissible and acquired a political meaning it disingenuously claimed not to have.



Hide All

1. Ivan Tolstoi and Andrei Gavrilov, “Alfavit inakomysliia. Larisa Bogoraz,” Radio Svoboda, September 27, 2011, at (last accessed September 23, 2017).

2. The signatories’ four demands were: 1) The Gulag Archipelago’s publication in the USSR; 2) the publication of archival materials, which would give “a full picture of the activity” of the secret police; 3) the creation of an “international public tribunal for the investigation of the crimes committed”; 4) the protection of Solzhenitsyn from persecution, giving him the possibility to work in the USSR, see Slovo probivaet sebe dorogu: Sbornik statei i dokumentov ob A.I. Solzhenitsyne: 1962–1974 (Moscow, 1998), 459–60.

3. She spent four years in exile in Siberia for participating in the August 1968 Red Square demonstration. Her first husband, Iulii Daniel΄, and the second, Anatolii Marchenko, were both incarcerated in the Brezhnev era.

4. Tolstoi and Gavrilov, “Alfavit inakomysliia. Larisa Bogoraz.”

5. Bogoraz, Larisa, Sny Pamiati (Kharkiv, 2009), 211–12.

6. The collection Pamiat΄ is unconnected and ideologically distinct from the famous nationalist group of the same name, which emerged during Perestroika.

7. Jones, Polly, Myth, Memory, Trauma: Rethinking the Stalinist Past in the Soviet Union 1953–70 (New Haven, 2013); Kozlov, Denis, The Readers of Novyi Mir: Coming to Terms with the Stalinist Past (Cambridge, Mass., 2013).

8. The term “permitted dissent” belongs to Dina Rome Spechler, see her Permitted Dissent in the USSR: Novy Mir and the Soviet Regime (New York, 1982).

9. Kozlov, Readers of Novyi Mir., 2–3.

10. Medvedev, Roy Aleksandrovich, Let History Judge: The Origins and Consequences of Stalinism, trans. Shriver, George (New York, 1971); Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr Isaevich, Arkhipelag GULag, 1918–1956: Opyt khudozhestvennogo issledovaniia (Paris, 1973).

11. The following memoirs of participants of Pamiat΄ have been published: Larisa Bogoraz, Sny pamiaty; Alloi, Vladimir, “Zapiski Autsaidera (Part 1),” Minuvshee. Istoricheskii al΄manakh, no. 21 (1997): 104–52; (Part 2), Minuvshee. Istoricheskii al΄manakh, no. 22 (1997): 112–61; (Part 3), Minuvshee. Istoricheskii al΄manakh, no. 23 (1998): 159203 . Other sources include: Dobkin, Aleksandr I. and Sorokina, Marina Iu., eds., In Memoriam: Istoricheskii sbornik pamiati F. F. Perchenka. (Moscow, 1995); In Memoriam: Istoricheskii sbornik pamiati A.I. Dobkina (Saint Petersburg, 2000); Perchenok, Irina and Perchenok, Marina, eds., Voskresi! Svoe dozhit΄ khochu: Nasha kniga o Felikse (Saint Petersburg, 2011). Pamiat΄ is also mentioned in Vaissié, Cécile, Russie, une femme en dissidence: Larissa Bogoraz (Paris, 2000). Fragments of memoirs by Roginskii and Dediulin have appeared in Sergei Dediulin, ed., Drugoi Gid (Special issue: Dekabr΄skii sbor druzei), no. 12 (2010); Prava cheloveka v Rossii, “Arsenii Borisovich Roginskii, March 29, 2006, at (last accessed September 23, 2017). Finally, Dediulin has released his own account of Pamiat΄’s history: Dediulin, Sergei, Pamiat΄: Istoricheskii sbornik (Paris, 2005), available online at (last accessed October 13, 2017); and its later version, Dediulin, Sergei, Pamiat΄”: Istoricheskii sbornik, 3rd edition, corrected and enlarged (Paris, 2010). An interview with Aleksandr Daniel΄ was also published online in 2015: “Aleksandr Daniel΄: “Bez dissidentov politika stala melkoi, kak luzha: Dissidentsvo kak istoricheskii fenomen glazami odnogo iz uchastnikov i issledovatelei,” Colta, February 25, 2015, at (last accessed September 23, 2017). For a long time, the only academic publication on Pamiat΄ was Maria Ferretti’s account in La memoria mutilata: La Russia ricorda (Milan, 1993), 77–111. More recent publications by the authors of this article include: Barbara Martin, “History as Dissent: Independent Historians in the Late Soviet Era and Post-Soviet Russia: from ‘Pamiat΄ to ‘Memorial,’” in Dissent! Refracted: Histories, Aesthetics and Cultures of Dissent, ed. Dorfman, Ben (Frankfurt am Main, 2016); and a volume of research and interviews in Russian: Martin, Barbara and Sveshnikov, Anton, Istoricheskii sbornik Pamiat΄: Issledovaniia i materialy (Moscow, 2017).

12. This concept, developed by Arnold van Gennep and Victor Turner, originally applied to rites of passage. They identify three phases of transition: separation, when the individual/group becomes detached “from an earlier fixed point in the social structure”; followed by a “liminal” period when “the characteristics of the ritual subject are ambiguous”; and, finally a third phase of “reaggregation or reincorporation” when “the passage is consummated.” See Turner, Victor, “Liminality and Communitas,” in The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (New Brunswick, 2008), 359.

13. Yurchak, Alexei, Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More: The Last Soviet Generation (Princeton, 2006), 127–28.

14. Ibid., 127.

15. Nathans, Benjamin and Platt, Kevin M. F., “Socialist in Form, Indeterminate in Content: The Ins and Outs of Late Soviet Culture,” Ab Imperio no. 2 (2011): 316–17.

16. Ferretti, “Diventeremo tutti mankurty?” in La memoria mutilata, 80.

17. On Tartu University and Iurii M. Lotman, see Waldstein, Maxim, “Russifying Estonia?: Iurii Lotman and the Politics of Language and Culture in Soviet Estonia,” Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 8, no. 3 (Summer 2007): 561–96.

18. Roginskii explains this circumstance by the lack of available positions, rather than by discrimination due to his Jewishness or family history of repression, see Martin and Sveshnikov, Istoricheskii sbornik Pamiat΄, 286. For a list of Roginskii’s publications before 1981, see Roginskij, Arsenij, “Ma dernière déclaration,” Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique 23, no. 1 (January–March 1982): 123–34.

19. Dediulin wished to constitute a corpus of reliable information on a body of activists who were indiscriminately demonized by the Soviet press and heroized by western media. However, the dictionary disappeared during a KGB house search in 1979, see Martin and Sveshnikov, Istoricheskii sbornik Pamiat΄, 204–7. The Biographical Dictionary of Dissidents in The Soviet Union, 1956–1975, de Boer, S.P., Driessen, E. J., and Verhaar, H.L., eds., (The Hague, 1982), contains a dedication: “To Sergej Dedjulin, Leningrad biographer of the dissident movement in the Soviet Union, whose files were confiscated by the KGB on March 6, 1979.”

20. Martin and Sveshnikov, Istoricheskii sbornik Pamiat, 210.

21. Ibid.

22. Dolinin, V.E. et al. , eds., “Perchenok, Feliks Fedorovich,” in Samizdat Leningrada 1950-e -1980-e: Literaturnaia entsiklopediia (Moscow: 2003), 302 ; Ivan Tolstoi, “Mify i reputatsii. Uchitelia.,” Interview with Marina Sorokina, Radio Svoboda, July 1, 2012, available at (last accessed September 23, 2017).

23. Bogoraz, Sny pamiati, 212; Dediulin, Interview.

24. In Moscow, Aleksei Korotaev and Dmitrii Zubarev later on joined the ranks of the editorial team, while a number of other authors repeatedly contributed to the publication, sometimes taking part in editorial work. Konstantin Popovskii, Lev Lur’e or Boris Ravdin were among the more peripheral team members.

25. Martin and Sveshnikov, Istoricheskii Sbornik Pamiat΄, 200–1.

26. The Chronicle of Current Events was a samizdat news bulletin, created in 1968, dedicated to the publication of information about political repression.

27. Communication of A. Daniel΄, March 1, 2013. “Sbornik” literally means a collection of articles or documents. As a non-periodical publication, resembling traditional “thick journals” but lacking some of their characteristics (e.g. a clear ideological line, an emphasis on critique) and with minimal editorial interventions, Pamiat΄ is arguably best characterized as a “collection.” See Maguire’s, Robert A. characterization of “thick journals” in Red Virgin Soil: Soviet Literature in the 1920’s (Princeton, 1968), 42 .

28. Pamiat΄: Istoricheskii sbornik, vol. 1 (New York, 1978), VXI . The introduction was written by Daniel΄, with input from Roginskii, Dediulin, and the historian Mikhail Gefter, see Martin and Sveshnikov, Istoricheskii sbornik Pamiat΄, 221, 339.

29. Pamiat΄, 1978, 1: V.

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid., 1: VI.

32. Ibid., 1: VII.

33. Ibid., 1: IX.

34. Ibid., 1: XI.

35. Ibid., 1: VIII–IX.

36. Solzhenitsyn, Alexander, “Live Not by Lies,” Index on Censorship 33, no. 2 (April 2004): 203–7.

37. Pamiat΄, 1978, 1: IX.

38. Martin and Sveshnikov, Istoricheskii sbornik Pamiat΄, 334.

39. Prava cheloveka v Rossii, “Arsenii Borisovich Roginskii.”

40. The first volume was dedicated to political prisoners Gabriel΄ Superfin and Sergei Kovalev, the former a close friend of Roginskii’s from Tartu University. The third volume contained a section dedicated to Anatolii Marchenko, Bogoraz’s husband, then incarcerated.

41. Berger, Stefan and Niven, Bill, eds., Writing the History of Memory (London, 2014), 2 .

42. Cubitt, Geoffrey, History and Memory (Manchester, Eng., 2007), 36 . An early theorization of this relationship appears in Maurice Halbwachs’s work, in particular La Mémoire Collective (Paris, 1950). Other important contributions to this debate include Collingwood’s, Robin G. The Idea of History (New York, 1946); Nora’s, Pierre Lieux de mémoire (Paris, 1984); Ricoeur, Paul, La mémoire, l’histoire, l’oubli (Paris, 2000).

43. Pamiat΄, 1978, 1: VIII.

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid., 1: IX.

46. Ibid., 1: VIII–X.

47. Ibid., 1: X.

48. Ibid.

49. Pinsky, Anatoly, “The Diaristic Form and Subjectivity under Khrushchev,” Slavic Review 73, no. 4 (Winter 2014): 805–27.

50. Komaromi, Ann, “Samizdat and Soviet Dissident Publics,” Slavic Review 71, no. 1 (Spring 2012): 8283 .

51. Many dissidents engaging in political and historical debates actually came from the “hard” sciences. An important debate of the late 1950s, still resonating in the 1970s, opposed “liriki” and “fiziki,” see Bogdanov, Konstantin A., “Fiziki vs. liriki: K istorii odnoi ‘pridurkovatoi diskussii,’Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie, no. 111 (May 2011), available online at (last accessed October 17, 2017).

52. Martin and Sveshnikov, Istoricheskii sbornik Pamiat΄, 339.

53. Komaromi, “Samizdat and Soviet Dissident Publics,” 82.

54. “2B2’. Gr. Baida Pamiat΄ i my. Pamiat΄ 2, Moskva, Samizdat, 1977,” in “Summa”: Za Svobodnuiu Mysl΄ Vershik, A. ed. (Saint-Petersburg, 2002), 189 .

55. Grigor΄ev, M. (Introduction), in Shul΄gin, V.V., “Beilisiada,” in Pamiat΄: Istoricheskii sbornik, vol. 4 (Paris, 1981), 9 .

56. Antonov-Ovseenko, Anton, Portret tirana (New York, 1980).

57. Shchanetskii, A., “Amerikanskii uchenyi o russkom istoricheskom protsesse,” in Pamiat΄, 1981, 4: 415–41. The review was authored by the historian Iakov Lur΄e and his son Lev.

58. Pipes, Richard, “Otvet na retsenziiu A. Shchanetskogo, posviashchennuiu knige ‘Rossiia pri starom rezhime,’” in Pamiat΄: Istoricheskii sbornik, vol. 5 (Paris, 1982), 461–80.

59. M. Dovner, “Lubok vmesto istorii,” Pamiat΄, 1981, 4: 442–55. Under this pseudonym stood David Batser, an old Menshevik, probably with Roginskii’s contribution.

60. Lev Kopelev, “Pamiat΄” Istoricheskii sbornik.,” Russkaia Mysl΄, July 5, 1979.

61. Ibid.

62. R. Blekhman (pseudonym of Rafail Nudel΄man), “Bespamiatstvo,” 22 vol. 8, no. 3 (1978): 249–53.

63. Ibid.

64. Ibid., 253.

65. Vishnevskaia, Iuliia, “O Pamiati,” Sintaksis, no. 3 (1979): 115 .

66. Ibid., 115–116.

67. “2B2’ Gr. Baida Gr. Pamiat΄ i my. Pamiat΄ 2, Moskva, Samizdat, 1977,” 187.

68. Ibid., 189.

69. Martin and Sveshnikov, Istoricheskii sbornik Pamiat΄, 259.

70. Kozlov, Denis, “The Historical Turn in Late Soviet Culture: Retrospectivism, Factography, Doubt, 1953–91,” Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 2, no. 3 (Summer 2001): 577600 .

71. L. A. , Devochka v matroske,” in Pamiat΄, 1978, 1:344–45.

72. N. A., Gubert v strane chudes,” in Pamiat΄: Istoricheskii sbornik, vol. 2 (Paris, 1979), 545–47.

73. Styrikovich, M.A., “Iz istorii otechestvennoi aviatsii,” in Pamiat΄: Istoricheskii sbornik, vol. 3 (Paris, 1980): 422–23.

74. Pimenov, R.I., Shifrina, Zametki o knige A.Chetvertoe izmerenie,” in Pamiat΄, 1978, 1:444–54; “Zaiavlenie zakliuchennogo R.I. Pimenova,” ibid., 1:472–76.

75. M. I-vich “Molodezhnaia terroristicheskaia organizatsiia (1944–1945 gg.),” ibid., 1:219–31.

76. Vaissié, Russie, une femme en dissidence, 162.

77. Tolstovtsy were a sect following Lev Tolstoi’s teachings of vegetarianism and non-violence, persecuted by Soviet authorities. Bogoraz visited this community following in the footsteps of Mark Popovskii. The community, however, refused to entrust Bogoraz with their memoirs, for fear of persecutions. (Bogoraz, Sny pamiati, 213–14.)

78. Ibid.

79. “Sud΄ba nishchikh sibaritov,” Pamiat΄, 1:232–68. ; I. Peskov, “Delo ‘Kolokola,’” Ibid., 1:269–84.

80. Bogoraz, Sny pamiati, 214–15.

81. Popovskii, Mark, “Delo Vavilova (glavy iz knigi),” in Pamiat΄, 1979, 2:263374 . Upon emigrating in 1977, Popovskii also left his archive to his son, offering a source of new materials, some of which appeared in Pamiat΄.

82. “V.G. Korolenko. Iz dnevnikov 1917–1922, Pamiat΄, 1979, 2:374–421; “Dva pis΄ma A.V. Korolenko A.M. Gor΄komu”; “Neopublikovannoe interv΄iu V.G. Korolenko,” ibid., 2:422–31. An article by Gnedin had to be removed from the second issue after the publisher arbitrarily decided to release this material separately. However, an interview with Gnedin appeared in the fifth volume: “V Narkomindele. 1922–1939. Interv΄iu s E.A. Gnedinym,” Pamiat΄, 1982, 5:357–93.

83. Daniel΄, Aleksandr, “Ia prozhil schastlivuiu zhizn΄ . . . ,” in Vospominaniia solovetskikh uznikov, ed. Umniagin, Viacheslav, vol. 1: 1923–1927 (Solovki, 2013).

84. Prava cheloveka v Rossii, “Arsenii Borisovich Roginskii.”

85. Martin and Sveshnikov, Istoricheskii sbornik Pamiat΄, 173–74.

86. These were apartments of friends put at the team’s disposal for the needs of editorial work (usually over the summer).

87. Martin and Sveshnikov, Istoricheskii sbornik Pamiat΄, 187.

88. Letter of Kirill Uspenskii to Gizela Reichert-Borovski, April 4, 1979. Forschungsstelle Osteuropa (FSO) Fond 30.129 (G. Reichert-Borowski).

89. Roginskii, Interview.

90. Bogoraz, Sny Pamiati, 215–16.

91. Email communication of Aleksei Korotaev, August 8, 2016.

92. In her research on samizdat, Ann Komaromi has questioned this delineation and introduced the concept of “unofficial culture,” characterized by “the autonomy from official discourses and institutions assumed by all who act on the field,” Komaromi, , “The Unofficial Field of Late Soviet Culture,” Slavic Review 66, no. 4 (Winter 2007): 607 . This concept is explored further in Komaromi, Ann, Uncensored: Samizdat Novels and the Quest for Autonomy in Soviet Dissidence (Evanston, 2015).

93. On the CIA’s involvement in Eastern European tamizdat publication see Alfred A. Reisch, Hot Books in the Cold War: The CIA-Funded Secret Western Book Distribution Program behind the Iron Curtain (Budapest, 2013). On the specific case of the distribution of Doctor Zhivago, see Finn, Peter and Couvée, Petra, The Zhivago Affair: The Kremlin, the CIA, and the Battle over a Forbidden Book (New York, 2014). The journal Grani and publishing house Posev, which regularly published samizdat, belonged to the Frankfurt-based émigré organization NTS (Narodno-Trudovoi Soiuz, “the People’s and Workers’ Union”), which set as its goal the overthrow of the Soviet regime.

94. On the phenomenon of tamizdat, see Kind-Kovács, Friederike, Written Here, Published There: How Underground Literature Crossed the Iron Curtain (Budapest, 2014); Kind-Kovács, Friederike and Labov, Jessie, eds., Samizdat, Tamizdat, and Beyond: Transnational Media during and after Socialism (New York, 2013).

95. Kind-Kovács, Written Here, Published There, 426.

96. This material, an article by Evgenii Gnedin, appeared with the author’s authorization as a separate brochure, but without the notes and commentaries painstakingly prepared by Zubarev and Korotaev for Pamiat΄. See Sergei Dediulin, “Sorvannaia publikatsiia: 35 let spustia (ot sostavitelia),” Novyi Bibliograf, no. 10 – Evgenii Gnedin: Mir kak voina za mir bez voiny (2014), available online at (last accessed October 17, 2017).

97. Letter of Bogoraz, Daniel΄, Dediulin, Roginskii to Gorbanevskaia, January 9, 1978 (FSO F. 68/1 S.V. Dediulin).

98. Such channels included, for instance: access to diplomatic mail to Paris through Tat΄iana Baeva, occasional letters sent through western diplomats, or through foreign friends such as Gisela Reichert-Borowski.

99. For a presentation of the complex circumstances surrounding this new change of publishing house, see Alloi’s memoirs, “Zapiski autsaidera” (see note 11).

100. Mikhail Geller, “Neistrebimost΄ pamiati,” Russkaia mysl΄, December 24, 1981; Geller, Mikhail, “Pamiat΄ i ‘Pamiat΄,’Vestnik RSKhD, no. 128 (1979): 192204 ; Heller, Michel, “Pamjat΄: De l’histoire en contrebande,” Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique 23, no. 3–4 (July–December 1982): 371–90.

101. Heller, “Pamjat΄: De l’histoire en contrebande,” 388.

102. Letter of I. Kosinskii to Sergei Dediulin, April 19, 1982 (FSO, F. 64 N.E. Gorbanevskaia).

103. Letter of Larisa Bogoraz to Natal΄ia Gorbanevskaia, September 17, 1977. (FSO, F. 68/1 S.V. Dediulin)

104. Martin and Sveshnikov, Istoricheskii sbornik Pamiat΄, 318.

105. Komaromi, “Samizdat as Extra-Gutenberg Phenomenon,” 646.

106. Pamiat΄, 1981, 4:514. Weil’s letter was dated from May 25, 1980 (FSO, F. 64 N.E. Gorbanevskaia).

107. Letter of the editorial team to Gorbanevskaia and Alloi, undated (around Summer-Fall 1980). FSO, F. 139 V. Alloi, File “Nelegal΄naia perepiska.”

108. Z.N. Gippius, “Peterburgskii dnevnik (‘Vypiski iz dnevnika Z.’),” in Pamiat΄, 1981, 4:353–54.

109. According to Komaromi, the Chronicle “instructed its readers to pass along any information they wished to communicate to the Chronicle editors (whose names and addresses were not published on the edition) through the person who gave them a copy of the Chronicle. That person would pass the information to the one from whom the copy was received and so on through the chain.” (Komaromi, “Samizdat as Extra-Gutenberg Phenomenon,” 640.) Pamiat΄’s editors were well acquainted with the Chronicle. However, they did not foresee any such mechanism for Pamiat΄, perhaps because they expected samizdat circulation to be limited.

110. Mnukhin, L. A., Avril΄, M., and Losskaia, V., eds., “Grotov, Sergei Viktorovich,” Rossiiskoe zarubezh΄e vo Frantsii 1919–2000: Biograficheskii slovar’ v 3-kh tomakh (Moscow, 2008–2012); “Propagandisty ROA v okkupirovannoi Frantsii: Chast΄ I,” Tolkovatel΄, February 17, 2014, at (last accessed October 17, 2017).

111. Voznesenskii, I., “Imena i sud΄by (nad iubileinym spiskom Akademii Nauk),” in Pamiat΄, 1978, 1:353410 ; Letter of S.V. Sigrist to Natal΄ia Gorbanevskaia, March 12, 1979, FSO, F. 24 N.E. Gorbaneskaia.

112. Rostov, Aleksei, “Delo chetyrekh akademikov,” in Pamiat΄, 1981, 4:469–95; N.P. Antsiferov, “Tri glavy iz vospominanii,” in ibid., 4:55–152.

113. Letter of Iurii Fel΄shtinskii to Natal΄ia Gorbanevskaia, October 29, 1983, FSO, F. 24 N.E. Gorbaneskaia.

114. Rozhdestvenskii, S.D., “Materialy k istorii samodeiatel΄nykh politicheskikh ob”edinenii v SSSR posle 1945 goda,” in Pamiat΄, 1982, 5:226–83.

115. Letter of Alla Tumanova to Natal΄ia Gorbaneskaia, December 1983. FSO, F. 24 N.E. Gorbaneskaia. She mentions that the memoirs of another participant, Maiia Ulanovskaia, circulated in samizdat in the early 1970s and were subsequently published in the West.

116. Letter of George Ben to Natal΄ia Gorbanevskaia, August 27, 1982. FSO, F. 24 N.E. Gorbaneskaia.

117. It included his bio-bibliographical dictionary of dissidence and related material, however.

118. Khronika tekushchikh sobytii (Chronicle of Current Events), no. 53 (August 1979).

119. Martin and Sveshnikov, Istoricheskii sbornik Pamiat΄: 247.

120. Sabbatini, Marko, “K istorii sozdaniia ‘Severnoi pochty’. O Viktore Krivuline (Interv΄iu s Sergeem Dediulinym),” Bibliograf, no. 2 (Paris, 2004): 56 .

121. Ibid., 6–7; Dolinin, V.E. et al. , eds., “Dediulin, Sergei Vladimirovich,” in Samizdat Leningrada 1950-e -1980-e: Literaturnaia entsiklopediia (Moscow, 2003), 170–71.

122. Khronika tekushchikh sobytii no. 63, December 31, 1981.

123. Among the witnesses clearly sympathizing with Roginskii were Samuil Lur΄e (editor of the journal “Neva”), Boris Egorov (a literary scholar and historian from the Leningrad section of the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences) and Vladimir Pugachev, from Saratov University. (Khronika tekushchikh sobytii, no. 63).

124. Whether tamizdat publication was illegal is a complex issue. The condemnation of Daniel΄ and Siniavskii had shown that “anti-Soviet agitation” could be interpreted very broadly. Yet, after the 1975 Helsinki Accords, criminal charges were also commonly used against dissidents to discredit them.

125. P. Grigor΄ev, “Kak rozhdaiutsia ‘utki,’ ili rasskaz o ‘talantlivom issledovatele,’ ‘izvestnom pisatele,’ i t.d.,” Vechernii Leningrad, February 12, 1982.

126. Ibid.

127. The answer may never be known, as Roginskii discovered after the fall of the USSR that the 14 or 16 volumes of his case had been burnt. But the administration’s work agenda for 1981 stated: “Interruption of Roginskii’s anti-Soviet activity through common criminal prosecution,” see Martin and Sveshnikov, Istoricheskii sbornik Pamiat΄, 323–24.

128. Sobranie Dokumentov Samizdata, “AC n°4524. Arsenii Roginskii, Istorik, P/z. ‘Poslednee slovo’ na protsesse v narsude oktiabr’skogo raiona g. Leningrada, 4.12.81,” 1981, 12.

129. Marietta Chudakova, “O bumagakh i rukopisiakh,” Sovetskaia Kul΄tura, January 19, 1982. The two texts are so close that it seems unlikely that Chudakova was unaware of Roginskii’s text. Moreover, she worked for the Moscow Public Library Manuscripts Division and may have been somehow involved in the trial.

130. Martin and Sveshnikov, Istoricheskii sbornik Pamiat΄, 327.

131. International Historical, Research, Human Rights and Philanthropic Society “Memorial” (Moscow) at (last accessed September 24, 2017).

Research over this article was made possible thanks to grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation and the Program “Trajectories of Change” of the ZEIT-Stiftung Ebelin und Gerd Bucerius and conducted within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) and supported within the framework of a subsidy granted to the HSE by the Government of the Russian Federation for the implementation of the Global Competitiveness Program. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Between Scholarship and Dissidence: The Dissident Historical Collection Pamiat΄ (1975–1982)

  • Barbara Martin and Anton Sveshnikov


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.