For a time their heir Yevtushenko surpassed
them, since he became genuinely popular. His
popularity might have been owed in part to his
great histrionic gifts. As Andrei Sinyavsky has
observed, Yevtushenko managed to revive the
theatrical concept of a poet’s destiny (rejected
by Pasternak, but characteristic of Mayakovsky
and Tsvetaeva), according to which a poet’s
biography had to become an integral part, even
the principal part, of his or her work. Readers
and audiences had to be well acquainted with a
poet’s personal life, with his or her everyday
dramas. For Mayakovsky and Tsvetaeva, the
theatrics were genuinely tragic. For Yevtush-
enko, in accordance with the worn Marxist dic-
tum, they tended to be farcical.
He succeeded in creating an image of a nice
guy, an old chap, a macho simpleton who matter-
of-factly recounts his family problems, his sexual
exploits, his daily chores and daily doubts. Yev-
tushenko’s audience of Soviet youths, immature
and disoriented after several decades of Stalinist
isolation, longing for a touch of sincerity, hun-
grily gulped down anything ‘‘Western’’ and ‘‘mod-
ern,’’ and adopted Yevtushenko (together with
Voznesensky and several others) as their idol.
This did not last too long; the more sophisticated
part of the audience found real, previously sup-
pressed Russian poetry, and the other and larger
part became rather apathetic to all poetry, includ-
ing Yevtushenko’s.
I should acknowledge that two early poems
by Yevtushenko made history. Politically, if not
poetically, they have a lasting place in the annals
of Soviet liberalism. ‘‘Babii Yar’’ (1961) treated
anti-Semitic tendencies in Russian life, and pro-
voked a rabid reaction in fascist and fascistoid
circles. It was a noble public act, perhaps the
high point of Yevtushenko’s personal and polit-
ical career. And it differs favorably from Vozne-
sensky’s poems on the same topic; it is more
measured, discreet, and restrained, and it avoids
formal experimentation and the homespun sur-
realism that is decidedly out of place when one
speaks about the Holocaust. Still, it is poetically
feeble, and full of sentimental cliche ́s (‘‘Anne
Frank / transparent as a branch in April’’). But
perhaps these weaknesses may be overlooked.
The other famous poem is ‘‘The Heirs of
Stalin’’ (1962). In its case, the situation is differ-
ent. Most likely ‘‘Babii Yar’’ was a spontaneous
outpouring. ‘‘The Heirs of Stalin’’ was a calcu-
lated gamble, a move in the intra-Party game of
old fashioned Stalinists and Khrushchevian lib-
erals. It did not avoid dubious statements, like
‘‘prison camps are empty.’’ (In 1962 they were
not.) ‘‘The Heirs of Stalin’’ impressed Khrush-
chev and was printed inPravda. Yevtushenko
had managed to place his bet on the winning
horse. In his memoirs of the time, the poet por-
trays himself as a virtual outcast, but the scene
that follows in his telling leaves the reader a bit
doubtful about the depth of his predicament. At
a reception in Havana, presumably in Castro’s
residence, where Mikoyan also is present, Yev-
tushenko picks up the issue ofPravdawith his
provocative poem. ‘‘[Mikoyan] handed Castro
the newspaper. Mikoyan apparently thought
that I knew all about it and was rather shocked
to see me practically tear the newspaper out of
Castro’s hands.’’ Hardly an episode in the life of
a freedom fighter.
Of course the world traveler did not confine
himself to Cuba. Travelogues in verse and prose,
including long and not terribly interesting poems
on Chile, Japan, the United States, and other
places, make up a very considerable part of his
creative output. The Western establishment,
eager for reassuring signs of moral and cultural
revival in Russia, was encouraged by the sight of
an audacious person who seemed enlightened
and tractable compared with the typical Soviet
nyetpeople. And the advertising tricks usually
reserved for movie stars were trotted out on the
poet’s behalf, which increased his already appre-
ciable vanity. (Yevtushenko proudly recounts
instances when a Western cultural figure called
him ‘‘Mayakovsky’s son.’’)
Some misunderstandings with the authorities
ensued. Some credit must be given to Yevtush-
enko, since he behaved with dignity even when he
was assaulted by Khrushchev himself. (At his
famous meeting with the intelligentsia, Khrush-
chev delivered himself of the Russian proverb
that ‘‘hunchbacks are corrected by the grave,’’ at
which Yevtushenko retorted: ‘‘The time when
people were corrected by the grave has passed.’’)
Still, it was as clear as the noon sun that he
remained totally loyal to the Party, even if he
was a bit heterodox in secondary matters. Thus
the campaign against him fizzled. In 1964 he
expiated his sins by writing the long poem
‘‘Bratsk Hydroelectric Station.’’ The poem, long
selections of which are included in the English
volume, marked a new stage in Yevtushenko’s
development: an era of resourceful compromises,Babii Yar