The second trial of Brodsky, the session of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Leningrad, took place on March 13, 1964, and was held at 22 Fontanka, in the hall of the Builders' Club. 

The expert conclusion states: "There are psychopathic character traits present, but he is capable of working. Therefore, administrative measures may be applied."

Those coming to the trial are greeted by the announcement: TRIAL OF THE PARASITE BRODSKY. The large hall of the Builders' Club is full of people.

Judge Savelieva asks Brodsky what petitions he has for the court. It turns out that he was not familiarized with the case either before the first or the second trial. The judge declares a recess. Brodsky is taken away so that he can familiarize himself with the case. After some time, he is brought back and says that the poems on pages 141, 143, 155, 200, 234 (he lists them) do not belong to him. In addition, he asks not to attach to the case the diary he kept in 1956, when he was 16 years old. The defense attorney joins this request.

Judge: We will consider the so-called poems as yours, but there is no need to seize your personal notebook. Citizen Brodsky, since 1956 you have changed 13 jobs. You worked at a factory for a year, then did not work for six months. In summer you were in a geological party, then did not work for four months... (lists workplaces and subsequent breaks). Explain to the court why you did not work during the breaks and led a parasitic lifestyle?

Brodsky: I worked during the breaks. I was engaged in what I do now: I wrote poems.

Judge: So you wrote your so-called poems? And what is useful about the fact that you often changed jobs?

Brodsky: I started working at 15. Everything interested me. I changed jobs because I wanted to know as much as possible about life and people.

Judge: And what useful have you done for the Motherland?

Brodsky: I wrote poems. That is my work. I am convinced... I believe that what I have written will serve people not only now but also future generations.

Voice from the audience: So what! He’s full of himself!

Another voice: He’s a poet. He should think so.

Judge: So you think your so-called poems benefit people?

Brodsky: Why do you call them “so-called” poems?

Judge: We call your poems “so-called” because we have no other concept of them.

Sorokin (public prosecutor): You say you have a strong curiosity. Why then did you not want to serve in the Soviet army?

Brodsky: I will not answer such questions.

Judge: Answer!

Brodsky: I was exempted from military service. Not “did not want,” but was exempted. These are different things. I was exempted twice. The first time because my father was ill, the second time because of my illness.

Sorokin: Can one live on the sums you earn?

Brodsky: Yes. While in prison, I signed off that 40 kopecks per day were spent on me. And I earned more than 40 kopecks a day.

Sorokin: But you need shoes and clothes.

Brodsky: I have one suit — old, but it is what I have. I don’t need another.

Defense attorney: Have specialists evaluated your poems?

Brodsky: Yes. Chukovsky and Marshak spoke very well of my translations. Better than I deserve.

Defense attorney: Did you have contact with the translation section of the Writers' Union?

Brodsky: Yes. I appeared in an almanac called “For the First Time in Russian” and read translations from Polish.

Judge (to defense attorney): You should ask him about useful work, but you ask about performances.

Defense attorney: His translations are his useful work.

Judge: Better, Brodsky, explain to the court why you did not work between jobs?

Brodsky: I worked. I wrote poems.

Judge: But that did not prevent you from working.

Brodsky: But I did work. I wrote poems.

Judge: But there are people who work at factories and write poems. What prevented you from doing the same?

Brodsky: But people are not alike. Even in hair color, facial expression.

Judge: That’s not your discovery. Everyone knows that. Better explain how to assess your participation in our great progressive movement toward communism?

Brodsky: Building communism is not only standing at a machine or plowing the land. It is also intellectual labor, which...

Judge: Leave the high phrases. Better answer how you plan to build your labor activity in the future.

Brodsky: I wanted to write poems and translate. But if this contradicts some generally accepted norms, I will take a permanent job and still write poems.

Member Tyagly: Everyone here works. How could you idle so long?

Brodsky: You do not consider my work as work. I wrote poems; I consider that work.

Judge: Did you draw conclusions from the press coverage?

Brodsky: Lerner’s article was false. That is the only conclusion I made.

Judge: So you made no other conclusions?

Brodsky: No. I do not consider myself a person leading a parasitic lifestyle.

Defense attorney: You said the article “The Parasitic Literary Drone,” published in the newspaper “Evening Leningrad,” is incorrect. In what way?

Brodsky: Only the name and surname are correct. Even the age is wrong. Even the poems are not mine. People called my friends there are people I barely know or do not know at all. How can I consider this article true and draw conclusions from it?

Defense attorney: You consider your work useful. Will the witnesses I called confirm this?

Judge (to defense attorney, ironically): You called witnesses just for that?

Sorokin (to Brodsky): How could you independently, without using others’ work, translate from Serbian?

Brodsky: You ask ignorantly. A contract sometimes implies a literal translation. I know Polish, know Serbian less, but these are related languages, and with the help of a literal translation, I was able to make my own translation.

Judge: Witness Grudinina.

Grudinina: I have supervised the work of beginning poets for over 11 years. For seven years I was a member of the commission for working with young authors. Now I lead high school poets at the Palace of Pioneers and a circle of young writers at the Svetlana factory. At the request of a publishing house, I compiled and edited four collective collections of young poets, which included more than 200 new names. Thus, I practically know the work of almost all young poets in the city.

Brodsky’s work as a beginning poet is known to me from his poems of 1959 and 1960. These were still imperfect poems but with bright discoveries and images. I did not include them in collections but considered the author capable. Until autumn 1963, I had not met Brodsky personally. After the publication of the article “The Parasitic Literary Drone” in “Evening Leningrad,” I called Brodsky for a conversation because the youth besieged me with requests to intervene in the case of the slandered person. When I asked Brodsky what he was doing now, he answered that he had been studying languages and working on artistic translations for about one and a half years. I took manuscripts of translations from him for review.

As a professional poet and literary scholar by education, I affirm that Brodsky’s translations are made at a high professional level. Brodsky has a specific, rare talent for artistic translation of poems. He presented me with a work of 368 poetic lines; in addition, I read 120 lines of his translated poems published in Moscow editions.

From personal experience in artistic translation, I know that such a volume of work requires from the author at least half a year of intensive working time, not counting the troubles of publishing poems and consulting specialists. The time needed for such troubles, as is known, cannot be accounted for. Even if we assess at the lowest publishing rates the translations I saw with my own eyes, Brodsky has already earned 350 rubles in new money, and the question is only when all the work will be fully published.

Besides translation contracts, Brodsky presented contracts for work on radio and television, work which has already been done but also not fully paid.

From conversations with Brodsky and people who know him, I know that Brodsky lives very modestly, denies himself clothes and entertainment, spends most of his time at the desk. The money he earns from his work he contributes to the family.

Defense attorney: Is it necessary to know the author’s work in general for artistic translation of poems?

Grudinina: Yes, for good translations like Brodsky’s, you need to know the author’s work and understand his voice.

Defense attorney: Is payment reduced if the translation was done from literal translations?

Grudinina: Yes, it is reduced. When translating Hungarian poets from literal translations, I received one ruble (old money) less per line.

Defense attorney: Is working from literal translations practiced by translators?

Grudinina: Yes, everywhere. One of the largest Leningrad translators, A. Gitovich, translates from ancient Chinese using literal translations.

Member Lebedeva: Is it possible to learn a foreign language self-taught?

Grudinina: I learned two languages self-taught in addition to those I studied at university.

Defense attorney: If Brodsky does not know Serbian, can he still make a highly artistic translation?

Grudinina: Yes, of course.

Defense attorney: Do you not consider a literal translation a reprehensible use of others’ work?

Grudinina: God forbid.

Member Lebedeva: I look at the book. Brodsky has only two small poems here.

Grudinina: I would like to give some explanations regarding the specifics of literary work. The thing is...

Judge: No, no need. So, what is your opinion of Brodsky’s poems?

Grudinina: My opinion is that as a poet he is very talented and head and shoulders above many who are considered professional translators.

Judge: Why does he work alone and does not attend any literary associations?

Grudinina: In 1958 he asked to be accepted into my literary association. But I heard about him as a hysterical youth and did not accept him, pushing him away with my own hands. That was a mistake, I deeply regret it. Now I will gladly take him into my association and work with him if he wishes.

Member Tyagly: Have you ever personally seen him working on poems, or did he use others’ work?

Grudinina: I have not seen Brodsky sitting and writing. But I have not seen Sholokhov sitting at a desk and writing either. However, that does not mean that...

Judge: It is awkward to compare Sholokhov and Brodsky. Didn’t you explain to the youth that the state requires youth to study? Brodsky has only seven grades.

Grudinina: His volume of knowledge is very large. I was convinced of this reading his translations.

Sorokin: Have you read his bad, pornographic poems?

Grudinina: No, never.

Defense attorney: I want to ask you this, witness. Brodsky’s output for 1963 is as follows: poems in the book “Dawn over Cuba,” translations of Galchinsky’s poems (not yet published), poems in the book “Yugoslav Poets,” gaucho songs, and publications in “Koster.” Can this be considered serious work?

Grudinina: Yes, undoubtedly. It was a year full of work. And this work may bring money not today but several years later. It is wrong to assess a young poet’s work by the amount of fees received at the moment. A young author may face failure, may require new long-term work. There is a joke: the difference between a parasite and a young poet is that the parasite does not work and eats, and the young poet works but does not always eat.

Judge: We did not like your statement. In our country, everyone receives according to their work, so it cannot be that someone works a lot and receives little. In our country, where so much attention is paid to young poets, you say they starve. Why did you say young poets do not eat?

Grudinina: I did not say that. I warned it was a joke with some truth. Young poets have very uneven earnings.

Judge: Well, that depends on them. We don’t need explanations. Okay, you explained your words were a joke. We accept this explanation.

A new witness is called — Etkind Yefim Grigorievich.

Judge: Give your passport, since your surname is somewhat unclear in pronunciation. (Takes passport.) Etkind... Yefim Girshovich... We are listening to you.

Etkind (he is a member of the Writers' Union, a teacher at the Herzen Institute): Due to my social-literary work related to training beginning translators, I often have to read and listen to translations by young writers. About a year ago, I got acquainted with the works of I. Brodsky. These were translations of poems by the Polish poet Galchinsky, whose poems are still little known and rarely translated here. I was strongly impressed by the clarity of poetic turns, musicality, passion, and energy of the verse. I was also struck by the fact that Brodsky independently, without any outside help, learned Polish. He read Galchinsky’s poems in Polish with the same enthusiasm as he read his Russian translations. I realized I was dealing with a person of rare talent and — no less important — diligence and perseverance. The translations I had the chance to read later confirmed this opinion. These include translations from the Cuban poet Fernandez, published in the book “Dawn over Cuba,” and from modern Yugoslav poets, printed in the Goslitizdat collection. I talked a lot with Brodsky and was amazed by his knowledge of American, English, and Polish literature.

Translating poems is the most difficult work, requiring diligence, knowledge, talent. On this path, a writer may face countless failures, and material income is a matter of the distant future. One can translate poems for several years and not earn a ruble. Such work requires selfless love for poetry and for the work itself. Learning languages, history, culture of another people — all this is not given immediately. Everything I know about Brodsky’s work convinces me that he has a great future as a poet-translator. This is not only my opinion. The bureau of the translation section, upon learning that the publishing house terminated contracts with Brodsky, unanimously decided to petition the director of the publishing house to involve Brodsky in work and restore contractual relations with him. I know for sure that major authorities in poetic translation, Marshak and Chukovsky, share this opinion...

Judge: Speak only about yourself.

Etkind: Brodsky needs to be given the opportunity to work as a poet-translator. Far from a big city, where there are neither the necessary books nor a literary environment, this is very difficult, almost impossible: on this path, in my deep conviction, a great future awaits him. I must say I was very surprised to see the announcement: “Trial of the parasite Brodsky.”

Judge: You knew this phrase.

Etkind: I knew. But I never thought such a phrase would be accepted by the court. With Brodsky’s poetic technique, nothing would prevent him from doing hack work; he could translate hundreds of lines if he worked easily, lightly. The fact that he earned little money does not mean he was not hardworking.

Judge: Why is he not a member of any collective?

Etkind: He attended our translation seminars...

Judge: Well, seminars...

Etkind: He is part of this seminar in the sense...

Judge: And if without sense? (Laughter in the hall.) I mean, why was he not part of any association?

Etkind: We have no membership, so I cannot say “was part.” But he came to us, read his translations.

Judge (to Etkind): Were there misunderstandings in work or your personal life?

Etkind (surprised): No. Although I have not been at the Institute for two days. Maybe something happened there.

Judge: Why, speaking of Brodsky’s knowledge, did you emphasize foreign literature? Why not talk about our domestic literature?

Etkind: I spoke with him as a translator and therefore was interested in his knowledge of American, English, and Polish literature. It is great, diverse, and not superficial.

Smirnov (witness for the prosecution, head of the Defense House): I do not know Brodsky personally, but I want to say that if all citizens treated accumulating material values as Brodsky does, we would never build communism. Reason is a dangerous weapon for its owner. Everyone said he was smart and almost a genius. But no one said what kind of person he is. Growing up in an intellectual family, he has only seven years of education. Let those present say if they would want a son with only seven years of schooling? He did not go to the army because he was the only breadwinner. And what kind of breadwinner is he? They say he is a talented translator, but why does no one say he has a lot of confusion in his head? And anti-Soviet lines?

Brodsky: That is not true.

Smirnov: He needs to change many of his thoughts. I doubt the certificate given to Brodsky by the psychiatric dispensary about nervous illness. It was his illustrious friends who raised an alarm and demanded to save the young man. But he needs to be treated with compulsory labor, and no illustrious friends will help him. I do not know him personally. I know about him from the press. And I am familiar with the certificates. I doubt the medical certificate that exempted him from army service. I am not a doctor, but I doubt it.

Brodsky: When I was exempted as the only breadwinner, my father was ill, lying after a heart attack, and I worked and earned. Then I was ill. How do you know about me to speak like that?

Smirnov: I got acquainted with your diary.

Brodsky: On what grounds?

Judge: I dismiss this question.

Smirnov: I read his poems.

Defense attorney: There are poems in the case that do not belong to Brodsky. How do you know that the poems you read are really his? You speak of unpublished poems.

Smirnov: I know, that’s all.

Judge: Witness Logunov.

Logunov (deputy director of the Hermitage for economic affairs): I do not know Brodsky personally. I met him here in court for the first time. One cannot live as Brodsky lives. I would not envy parents who have such a son. I worked with writers, I was among them. I compare Brodsky with Oleg Shestinsky — Oleg traveled with an agitational brigade, graduated from Leningrad State University and the University of Sofia. Oleg also worked in a mine. I wanted to say that one must work, give all cultural skills. And the poems Brodsky composes would then be real poems. Brodsky must start his life anew.

Defense attorney: Witnesses should speak about facts. But they...

Judge: You can later evaluate the witness testimonies. Witness Denisov.

Denisov (pipe layer at UNR-20): I do not know Brodsky personally. I know him from our press. I speak as a citizen and representative of the public. I was outraged by Brodsky’s work after the newspaper’s article. I wanted to get acquainted with his books. I went to libraries — no books. Asked acquaintances: do they know him? No. I am a worker. I changed only two jobs in my life. And Brodsky? I am not satisfied with Brodsky’s testimony that he knew many specialties. You cannot learn any specialty in such a short time. They say Brodsky is something as a poet. Why was he not a member of any association? Does he disagree with dialectical materialism? Engels says labor created man. Brodsky is not satisfied with this formulation. He thinks differently. Maybe he is very talented, but why does he not find a way in our literature? Why does he not work? I want to suggest that his labor activity as a worker does not satisfy me.

Judge: Witness Nikolaev.

Nikolaev (retiree): I do not know Brodsky personally. I want to say that I have known about him for three years because of the corrupting influence he has on his peers. I am a father. I have seen on my own how hard it is to have such a son who does not work. I have seen Brodsky’s poems with my son more than once. A poem in 42 chapters and scattered poems. I know Brodsky from the Umansky case. There is a saying: tell me who your friends are. I knew Umansky personally. He is a notorious anti-Soviet. Listening to Brodsky, I recognized my son. My son also said he considered himself a genius. Like Brodsky, he does not want to work. People like Brodsky and Umansky have a corrupting influence on their peers. I am surprised at Brodsky’s parents. They apparently sang along with him. They sang in unison. From the form of the poem, it is clear Brodsky can compose poems. But no, these poems brought nothing but harm. Brodsky is not just a parasite. He is a militant parasite. People like Brodsky must be dealt with mercilessly. (Applause.)

Member Tyagly: Do you think Brodsky’s poems influenced your son?

Nikolaev: Yes.

Judge: Negatively?

Nikolaev: Yes.

Defense attorney: How do you know these are Brodsky’s poems?

Nikolaev: There was a folder, and on the folder was written “Iosif Brodsky.”

Defense attorney: Was your son acquainted with Umansky?

Nikolaev: Yes.

Defense attorney: Why do you think Brodsky, not Umansky, had a corrupting influence on your son?

Nikolaev: Brodsky and his ilk. Brodsky’s poems are disgraceful and anti-Soviet.

Brodsky: Name my anti-Soviet poems. Say at least one line.

Judge: I will not allow quoting.

Brodsky: But I want to know which poems you mean. Maybe they are not mine?

Nikolaev: If I had known I would speak in court, I would have photographed and brought them.

Judge: Witness Romashova.

Romashova (teacher of Marxism-Leninism at the Mukhina school): I do not know Brodsky personally. But his so-called activity is known to me. Pushkin said talent is above all labor. And Brodsky? Does he work? Does he work to make his poems understandable to the people? I am surprised that my colleagues create such an aura around him. This can only happen in the Soviet Union, that the court speaks so kindly to a poet, so comradely advises him to study. As secretary of the party organization of the Mukhina school, I can say he has a bad influence on youth.

Defense attorney: Have you ever seen Brodsky?

Romashova: Never. But his so-called activity allows me to judge him.

Judge: Can you give any facts?

Romashova: As a youth educator, I know the youth’s opinions about Brodsky’s poems.

Defense attorney: Are you familiar with Brodsky’s poems yourself?

Romashova: Yes. They are terrible. I do not consider it possible to repeat them. They are terrible.

Judge: Witness Admoni. If possible, your passport, since the surname is unusual.

Admoni (professor at Herzen Institute, linguist, literary scholar, translator): When I learned that Iosif Brodsky was being tried for parasitism, I considered it my duty to express my opinion before the court. I consider myself entitled to do so because I have worked with youth as a university teacher for 30 years and because I have long been engaged in translations.

I know Brodsky almost not at all. We greet each other but apparently have not exchanged even two phrases. However, for about the last year or more, I have closely followed his translation work — through his appearances at translation evenings, through publications. Because these are talented, bright translations. Based on these translations from Galchinsky, Fernandez, and others, I can responsibly say that they required an extremely large amount of work from the author. They testify to great skill and culture of the translator. And miracles do not happen. Skill and culture do not come by themselves. For this, constant and persistent work is needed. Even if a translator works from a literal translation, to make the translation full, he must form an idea of the language from which he translates, feel its structure, learn the life and culture of the people, and so on. And Iosif Brodsky, besides that, learned the languages themselves. Therefore, it is clear to me that he works — works intensely and persistently. And when I learned today — only today — that he finished only seven grades, it became clear to me that he must have done truly gigantic work to acquire such skill and culture as he possesses. The work of a poet-translator relates to what Mayakovsky said about a poet’s work: “You exhaust a single word for the sake of a thousand tons of verbal ore.”

The decree under which Brodsky was prosecuted is aimed against those who work little, not those who earn little. Parasites are those who work little. Therefore, the accusation of I. Brodsky of parasitism is absurd. One cannot accuse of parasitism a person who works as Brodsky does, works hard, a lot, not thinking about large earnings, ready to limit himself to the bare minimum just to perfect his art and create full-fledged artistic works.

Judge: What did you say about not judging those who earn little?

Admoni: I said the essence of the decree is to judge those who work little, not those who earn little.

Judge: What do you want to say by that? Have you read the decree of May 4? Communism is created only by the labor of millions.

Admoni: Any labor useful to society must be respected.

Member Tyagly: Where did Brodsky read his translations and in which foreign languages?

Admoni (smiling): He read in Russian. He translates from foreign languages into Russian.

Judge: If a simple person asks you, you must explain, not smile.

Admoni: I explain that he translates from Polish and Serbian into Russian.

Judge: Speak to the court, not the audience.

Admoni: Forgive me. It is a professor’s habit to speak addressing an audience.

Judge: Witness Voevodin. Do you know Brodsky personally?

Voevodin (member of the Writers' Union): No. I have worked in the Union for only six months. I have not met him personally. He rarely comes to the Union, only to translation evenings. He apparently understood how his poems would be received and therefore did not attend other associations. I read his epigrams. You would blush, comrades judges, if you read them. They spoke about Brodsky’s talent. Talent is measured only by popular recognition. And there is no such recognition and cannot be.

A folder of Brodsky’s poems was submitted to the Writers' Union. They have three themes: the first is detachment from the world, the second is pornographic, the third is the theme of hatred for the homeland, for the people, where Brodsky speaks of the homeland as alien. Wait, I remember... “the monotonous Russian crowd.” Let these disgraceful poems remain on his conscience. The poet Brodsky does not exist. There may be a translator, but no poet. I fully support the opinion of the comrade who spoke about his son, on whom Brodsky had a corrupting influence. Brodsky alienates youth from labor, from the world and life. This is Brodsky’s great anti-social role.

Judge: Did you discuss Brodsky’s talent at the commission?

Voevodin: There was one short meeting where Brodsky was discussed. But the discussion did not turn into a broad debate. I repeat, Brodsky limited himself to semi-obscene epigrams and rarely came to the Union. My friend, poet Kuklin, once loudly expressed his outrage at Brodsky’s poems from the stage.

Defense attorney: Does the commission share the report you wrote about Brodsky?

Voevodin: We did not coordinate the report with Etkind, who holds a different opinion.

Defense attorney: Do other commission members know the content of your report?

Voevodin: No, not all commission members know it.

Brodsky: How did you get my poems and my diary?

Judge: I dismiss this question. Citizen Brodsky, you worked from case to case. Why?

Brodsky: I already said: I worked all the time. Officially, then I wrote poems. (Desperately.) Writing poems is work.

Judge: But your earnings are very small. You say you get 250 rubles a year, but according to the certificates presented by the police, it is 100 rubles.

Defense attorney: At the previous trial it was decided that the police should verify the earnings certificates, but this was not done.

Judge: There is a contract in the case sent from the publishing house. But it is just a paper, unsigned.

(From the audience, a note is sent to the judge that contracts are first signed by the author, then by publishing house managers.)

Judge: Please do not send me more notes.

Sorokin (public prosecutor): Our great people are building communism. A wonderful quality is developing in the Soviet person — enjoyment of socially useful labor. Only a society without idleness prospers. Brodsky is far from patriotism. He forgot the main principle — who does not work, does not eat. Brodsky has led a parasitic life for many years. In 1956 he left school and went to a factory. He was 15. In the same year he quit. (Repeats the work record and explains breaks again by idleness, as if all defense witnesses’ explanations that literary work is also work had not been heard.)

We checked that Brodsky received only 37 rubles for one job, but he says 150 rubles.

Brodsky: That is an advance. Only an advance. Part of what I will receive later.

Judge: Silence, Brodsky.

Sorokin: Where Brodsky worked, he annoyed everyone with his indiscipline and unwillingness to work. The article in “Evening Leningrad” caused a strong response. Especially many letters came from youth. It sharply condemned Brodsky’s behavior. (Reads letters.) Youth believes he has no place in Leningrad. He should be severely punished. He completely lacks a sense of conscience and duty. Every person considers it a happiness to serve in the army. But he dodged. Brodsky’s father sent his son to a dispensary consultation, and he brought a certificate accepted by the gullible military commissariat. Even before being called to the military commissariat, Brodsky wrote to his friend Shakhmatov, now convicted: “A meeting with the defense committee is ahead. Your table will become a reliable refuge for my iambs.”

He belonged to a company that greeted the word “labor” with satanic laughter and respectfully listened to their leader Umansky. Brodsky shares with him hatred of labor and Soviet literature. Special success here is the use of pornographic words and concepts. Brodsky called Shakhmatov “sir.” No other way. Shakhmatov was convicted. That is the foul place from which Brodsky came. They talk about Brodsky’s talent. But who says that? People like Brodsky and Shakhmatov.

Shout from the hall: Who? Are Chukovsky and Marshak like Shakhmatov?

(Militia escort removes the shouting person.)

Sorokin: Brodsky is defended by loafers, parasites, slugs, and bugs. Brodsky is not a poet but a person trying to write verses. He forgot that in our country a person must work, create values: machines, bread. Brodsky must be forced to work. He must be expelled from the hero city. He is a parasite, a boor, a loafer, an ideologically dirty person. Brodsky’s admirers foam at the mouth. But Nekrasov said:

You may not be a poet,

But you must be a citizen.

Today we judge not a poet but a parasite. Why was a person who hates his homeland defended here? The moral character of those who defended him must be checked. He wrote in his poems: “I love a foreign homeland.” In his diaries there is an entry: “I have long thought about crossing the red line. Constructive thoughts ripen in my red head.” He also wrote: “Stockholm City Hall inspires me more respect than the Prague Kremlin.” He calls Marx: “An old glutton framed with a wreath of fir cones.” In one letter he writes: “I don’t give a damn about Moscow.”

That is what Brodsky and all who defend him are worth.

(Then a letter of a girl is quoted, who disrespectfully writes about Lenin. What relation her letter has to Brodsky is completely unclear. It was not written by him and not addressed to him.)

At this moment the judge turns to me: “Stop recording.”

I: Comrade judge, I ask permission to record.

Judge: No.

I: I am a journalist, a member of the Writers' Union, I write about youth education, I want to write about this too.

Judge: I don’t know what you are recording there. Stop.

From the audience: Take away her notes.

Sorokin continues his speech, then the defense attorney speaks, whose speech I can only summarize because I was forbidden to write.

Summary of the defense attorney’s speech:

The public prosecutor used materials not in the case, which appeared for the first time during the trial, and about which Brodsky was not questioned and gave no explanations.

The authenticity of materials from the special case heard in 1961 has not been verified by us, and what the public prosecutor quoted we cannot verify. If it concerns Brodsky’s diary, it dates to 1956. It is a youthful diary. The public prosecutor cites letters from readers to the “Evening Leningrad” newspaper as public opinion. The authors of the letters do not know Brodsky, have not read his poems, and judge by a tendentious and largely factually incorrect newspaper article. The public prosecutor insults not only Brodsky: “boor,” “parasite,” “anti-Soviet element,” but also those who defended him: Marshak and Chukovsky, respected witnesses.

Conclusion: lacking objective evidence, the public prosecutor uses impermissible methods.

What does the prosecution have?

a) A certificate of labor activity from 1956 to 1962. In 1956 Brodsky was 16; he could have been studying and legally dependent on his parents until 18. Frequent job changes reflect psychopathic character traits and inability to immediately find his place in life. Breaks are explained by seasonal work in expeditions. There is no reason to speak of evasion from labor before 1962.

(The defense attorney expresses respect for the members of the court but regrets that there is no person competent in literary labor issues among them. When a minor is accused, there is always a teacher member; if a doctor is on trial, a doctor is among the members. Why is this fair and reasonable custom forgotten when it concerns literature?)

b) Brodsky has not worked officially since 1962. However, contracts with the publishing house from November 1962 and October 1963, certificates from the television studio, the “Koster” magazine certificate, and the published book of translations of Yugoslav poets testify to creative work and its quality. There is a certificate signed by V. Voevodin, sharply negative, with unacceptable accusations of anti-Soviet activity, reminiscent of documents from the worst times of the cult of personality. It turned out that this certificate was not discussed at the Commission, is unknown to its members, and is Voevodin’s personal opinion. There are reviews from better experts and masters of translation, such as Marshak and Chukovsky. Witness V. Admoni — a prominent literary scholar, linguist, translator. E. Etkind — an expert in translation literature, member of the translation section bureau and the Commission for working with young poets — all highly appreciate Brodsky’s work and speak of the great labor required to publish what he wrote in 1963.

Conclusion: Voevodin’s certificate cannot refute the opinion of these persons.

c) None of the prosecution witnesses know Brodsky, have not read his poems; they give testimony based on some unclear and unverified documents and express their opinions in accusatory speeches.

The prosecution has no other materials.

The court must exclude from consideration:

I. Materials of the special case considered in 1961, on which a decision was made to discontinue the case against Brodsky.

If Brodsky had then or later committed an anti-Soviet crime or written anti-Soviet poems, it would have been the subject of investigation by security agencies.

Brodsky was indeed acquainted with Shakhmatov and Umansky and was under their influence. But fortunately, he has long been freed from this influence. Meanwhile, the public prosecutor read records from those years, presenting them out of time and context, which naturally caused anger in the audience toward Brodsky. The public prosecutor created the impression that Brodsky still holds his old views, which is completely false. Many young people who belonged to Umansky’s company were returned to normal life thanks to the intervention of reasonable, adult people. The same happened with Brodsky in the last two years. He began to work a lot and productively. But then he was arrested.

II. The question of the quality of Brodsky’s own poems.

We still do not know which of the poems attached to the case belong to Brodsky, as from his statement it is clear that there are poems that do not belong to him.

To judge whether the poems are decadent, pessimistic, or lyrical, an authoritative literary expert examination is needed, and this question neither the court nor the parties can resolve themselves.

Our task is to establish whether Brodsky is a parasite living on non-labor income, leading a parasitic lifestyle.

Brodsky is a poet-translator who invests his labor in translating poets of fraternal republics, countries of people’s democracy, in the cause of peace. He is not a drunkard, not an immoral person, not a profiteer. He is reproached for earning little, therefore not working.

(The defense attorney provides a certificate on the specifics of literary labor, payment procedures. Talks about the huge labor involved in translations, the need to study foreign languages, the creativity of the translated poets. That not all presented works are accepted and paid.)

The advance system. The sums in the case are inaccurate. According to Brodsky, they are larger. This should have been checked. The sums are insignificant. What did Brodsky live on? Brodsky lived with his parents, who supported him during his formation as a poet.

He had no non-labor sources of existence. He lived modestly to have the opportunity to engage in his favorite work.

Conclusions:

Brodsky’s responsibility is not established. Brodsky is not a parasite, and administrative measures cannot be applied to him.

The significance of the decree of May 4, 1961, is very great. It is a weapon for cleansing the city of real parasites and freeloaders. Unfounded prosecution discredits the idea of the decree.

The resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR obliges the court to critically assess the presented materials, not to convict those who work, to respect the rights of the accused to familiarize themselves with the case and present evidence of their innocence.

Brodsky was unjustly detained and deprived of the opportunity to present evidence of his innocence.

However, the evidence presented and what was said at the trial is sufficient to conclude that Brodsky is not a parasite.

Conversations in the hall:

· Writers! Get them all out!

· Intellectuals! They have imposed themselves on our necks!

· And what about the intelligentsia? Don’t they work? They work too.

· And you — what? Haven’t you seen how they work? They use others’ labor!

· I’ll also get a literal translation and start translating poems!

· Do you know what a literal translation is? Do you know how a poet works with a literal translation?

· So what — no big deal!

· I know Brodsky! He’s a good guy and a good poet.

· He’s anti-Soviet. Did you hear what the prosecutor said?

· Did you hear what the defense said?

· The defense spoke for money, the prosecutor for free. So he’s right.

· Of course, defenders only want to get more money. They don’t care what they say, as long as money goes in their pockets.

· You’re talking nonsense.

· You’re swearing! I’ll call a militia man now! Did you hear what quotes they brought?

· He wrote that long ago.

· So what if it was long ago?

· I’m a teacher. If I didn’t believe in education, what kind of teacher would I be?

· We don’t need teachers like you!

· We send our children — what will they learn?

· But Brodsky was not even allowed to defend himself!

· Enough! We’ve heard enough about your Brodsky!

· And you, you who were recording! Why were you recording?

· I’m a journalist. I write about education, I want to write about this too.

· What is there to write? It’s all clear. You’re all in cahoots. Take away your notes!

· Try it.

· What will happen then?

· Try to take them. Then you’ll see.

· Ah, you’re threatening! Hey, militia man! They’re threatening here!

· He’s a militia man, not a policeman to grab at every word.

· Hey, militia man! They call you a policeman here! Expel you all from Leningrad — then you’ll learn what trouble costs, parasites!

· Comrades, what are you talking about! They will acquit him! You heard what the defense said.

The court returns, and the judge reads the verdict:

Brodsky systematically fails to fulfill the duties of a Soviet person in producing material values and personal provision, as seen from frequent job changes. He was warned by the MGV authorities in 1961 and by the police in 1962. He promised to take permanent work but made no conclusions, continued not to work, wrote and read his decadent poems at evenings. From the Commission on Young Writers’ report, Brodsky is not a poet. He was condemned by readers of the newspaper “Evening Leningrad.” Therefore, the court applies the decree of May 4, 1961: to exile Brodsky to remote areas for five years with compulsory labor.

On March 13, 1964, at the second court session, Brodsky was sentenced to the maximum punishment under the “parasitism” decree — five years of forced labor in a remote area and was exiled to the Konoshsky District of the Arkhangelsk Region (village Norenskaya).

Source:

http://www.agitclub.ru/museum/satira/samiz/brod2.htm

https://arzamas.academy/materials/710

https://www.forbes.ru/forbeslife/426389-ya-rabotal-ya-pisal-stihi-pochemu-sud-nad-brodskim-nelzya-zabyvat