22
PARTISAN REVIEW
writers is quite obvious. He hates Communism. He hates the Communist
movement and all that it stands for. He is also violently opposed to Marx–
Ism.
More important, however, I believe, in his extreme ignorance of Rus–
sia, the Revolution and Russian literature, past and present.
Stripped bare of its flo\,,:ery verb;age, the thesis of
Artists in Uni–
/orll/
'is something as fall ows: The now defun ct RAPP-Russian
As–
sociation of Proletarian Writers-has crushed all that was "tender and
creative in Soviet literature." The reason why the RAPP was able to ac–
complish such a dastardly crime was because beh ind it stood the "sinister"
and ' "all-powerful" figure of Stalin.
This, in short, is the thesis. To prove it Eastman quotes speeches
that were never made, cites written "circulars" that were never writttn
and depicts scenes that never took place. (See Pilnyak's letter.)
Take, for instance, the case of Sergei Yessenin. Yessenin, as It IS
well known, was a talented poet. He was also, however, a neurotic and
a drunkard. The truth is that Yessenin w:as both poet and drunkard long
beio~e
the Revolution. When, after a turbulent career, he committed
suicide, he left behind him poetic gems and the name of a hooligan. Why
the poet committed suicide, no one knows. The secret of his death probably
died with him. But Eastman is all-knowing. He knows who is responsible
for Yessenin's death.
It
is the RAPP, i.e., Stalin.
It
never occurred to
this uni formless artist that the RAPP did not become popular-aIl-power–
ful, according to Eastman-until 1928, whereas Yessenin committed suicide
111
1925.
Here is another instance. "The two principal events in Russian prose
fictioll of the last six years," writes Eastman, "<ire the silence of Isaac
Babel and the humiliation of Boris Pilnyak. Babel is probably the greater
artist of the two." True enough. Babel is a great artist. His sketches
of Budiohny's "Red Cavalry" will live long after Ea3tman is dead and
forgotten. But Babel is a meticulous artist. He has been writing since
1915, yet his creative output is ver.y meager. Even Polonski, the man
whom Eastman glorifies as one of the
"marty:'~"
of Soviet literature, com–
mented in his day upon the fact that Babel does not like "to rush into
frmt."
Bf'~ides,
to usc Eastman's own words, :t is difficult to determine
the cause of a negative phenomenon. But then, such an explanation does
not
fit'
in with Mr. Eastman's thesis. Nor does it satisfy his thirst for
slander. Indeed, he knows who is responsible for Babel's "silence."
It
is the RAPP. They made him uncomfortable. "They eliminattd his name
from the press, for one thing, almost as completely as though he had died
