Mariia Rozanova’s open letters

Source: Kulturologia.ru

The arrest of Andrei D. Siniavskii and Iulij M. Daniėl’ in September 1965, within a few days of each other, immediately sparked a public outcry.  The defendants’ wives were at the forefront of the campaign for their release. Mariia Rozanova, Siniavskii’s wife, made peaceful legal efforts to defend her husband by writing four official letters to the Soviet authorities and the press. The first two date to the weeks before the start of the trial, which took place between 10th and 14th February 1966.
In the first letter, “Letter from A. Siniavskii’s wife to L. Brezhnev, the USSR Prosecutor General and the KGB Chairman” (at the time respectively Roman A. Rudenko, Prosecutor General of the USSR from 1953 to 1981 and Vladimir E. Semichastyi, in office from 1961 to 1967), dated 24th December 1965, Rozanova relates how she learned her husband had been arrested because he had been identified with the writer Abram Tertz. In a direct challenge to the authorities and despite the real risk of being arrested herself, Rozanova protests about what she considers an illegal and unjustified action against her husband, referring to the rules of the Soviet Constitution and the Criminal Code. Rozanova claims that it is not certain whether Tertz’s identity can be traced back to her husband and, besides, Tertz’s works do not express anti-Soviet views in that, as works of fiction, they are neither political attacks or propaganda against the State. For Rozanova, no writer should be arrested for his or her works, as this would infringe on the freedom of speech and freedom of the press, enshrined in the Constitution. Siniavskii was, thus, the victim of a profound injustice. Indeed, the writers of other works published abroad had not suffered any consequences. As proof that the writer’s works did not contain anti-Soviet ideas Rozanova enclosed Siniavskii’s short story “Kvartiranty” (The Tenants) with the letter. Of the same kind, according to Rozanova, were the writings of Tertz. In her opinion, even if a writer’s works were published by anti-Soviet publishers, the author could not be held responsible for the use made of them. She therefore contested the legitimacy of her husband’s arrest as well as the searches he had been subjected to and the manner the investigation had been conducted.  She denounced the pressure she and the other witnesses had been to be subjected to, which had led her to assume that in prison her husband was also subjected to duress and even violence. Stressing the difficulty of adopting due academic form in writing the letter, Mariia Rozanova emphasised the urgency of her request for help from the authorities. In the “Statement by A. Siniiavskii’s wife to the President of the Supreme Court of the USSR” (Aleksandr F. Gorkin, President of the Supreme Court of the USSR from 1957 to 1972) of 9th February 1966, Rozanova once again denounced the threats and intimidation of the KGB citing herself, her son and her friends, many of whom were witnesses in the investigation, as victims. She reiterated that in her previous request addressed to the Central Committee of the PCUS, the KGB and the Prosecutor of the USSR, she had pointed out the irregularity of the methods used during the investigation, but as yet had received no response (cf. Ginzburg 1967: 64). She declared that she had recently received a signal from the KGB which was prompting her to ask formally for protection from any unlawful action.
The next letter was written by Maria Rozanova after Iulii Daniėl’’s release from prison in 1970, after he had served his entire sentence, first in Dubrovlag and then in the Vladimir Prison. She drafted the letter after the KGB granted her permission to forward a formal appeal for her husband’s early release to the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet. (cf. Passeri 2018-2019: 61-63). In the “Letter from Mariia Rozanova to Andropov for the early release of Siniavskii”, dated 28th December 1970, Rozanova reiterates that Siniavskii was only a writer, that he had never pleaded guilty and that he was not an opponent of the Soviet people nor of any political figure. Therefore, he did not need to make a statement of repentance as he had not committed any crime. Rozanova states that her main reasons for asking for Siniavskii’s release relate to his health and to family difficulties which she is having to cope with alone. She pledges that the family will not take part in political actions (cf. Siniavskii 2004: 322-323). Rozanova included in the same correspondence a “Request for Siniavskii’s release forwarded to Iasnov” (Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR in office from 1966 to 1985), also dated 28th December 1970, in which she put forward her request for the early release of the husband in a more concise manner (cf. Siniavskii 2004: 323-324).
Mariia Rozanova’s role was decisive in Siniavskii’s early release.  She used both formal, official weapons such as letters addressed to political authorities, as well as more subtle tactics that allowed her to win the game of cunning with the secret services. After Daniel’s release from prison on being summoned to reveal what Siniavskii would do once he returned to freedom, Rozanova alluded to a new book written by her husband about the horrors of life in the camps that she had managed to smuggle to the West. Rozanova threatened to have the book published in America on the day of her husband’s release from the camp if he was not released early. A book by Siniavskii was published in London in 1975, but it was the literary essay Progulki s Pushkinym, not the account of the lagers alluded to by Rozanova.  Nonetheless, the ruse served to intimidate the authorities and facilitate formal action in favour of the writer’s early release (cf. Siniavskii 2004: 235).
The whole affair raised many suspicions about alleged collaboration between the writer and Rozanova and the KGB. To clarify the matter once and for all, in 1994 Rozanova published in issue 34 of her magazine “Sintaksis” an account of what had happened, providing two important documents: the transcript of the interrogation she was subjected to on 23rd November 1965, in which no direct connection between Siniavskii and Abram Tertz was admitted, and a letter dated 12th May 1971 and signed by Andropov explaining the decision to reduce Siniavskii’s sentence by one year and three months on account of his good conduct and the request for pardon made by his wife who was experiencing objective difficulties in bringing up a small child alone (cf. Passeri 2018-2019: 63; Rozanova 1994a:142).

Cheti Traini
[31st December 2022]

Bibliography

• Ginzburg A. Belaia kniga po delu A. Siniavskogo i Iu. Daniėlia, Posev, 1967: 64-77; 83, https://imwerden.de/pdf/belaya_kniga_po_delu_sinyavskogo_danielya_1967__ocr.pdf, online (last accessed: 31/12/2022).
• Passeri E., Marija Vasil’evna Rozanova: il lato nascosto del dissenso sovietico, Università degli Studi Carlo Bo, Corso di laurea Lingue straniere e studi interculturali, a.a. 2018-2019, Master Degree Thesis.
• Rozanova M., Abram da Mar’ia, “Sintaksis”, 1994a, 34: 125-151.
• Siniavskii A., 127 pisem o liubvi, ed. by M. Rozanova, t.3, Agraf, Moskva 2004.