leave the country if he wished. OlganIvinskaya says: “The question whethernto go or not never seriously arose,” fornPasternak “deeply loved the country.” Shenrepeats beautiful Soviet cliches. ErnestnHemingway adds his sickening mite tonthe pious stereotype: “I know how deeply,nwith all his heart, he [Pasternak] is attachednto Russia. For a genius such asnPasternak, separation from his countrynwould be a tragedy.”nMany Americans are as sure that thenRussian writers cannot part with theirnRussia for emotional reasons, as manynRussians are sure that American movienactresses have their teeth made out ofnpearls. Actually, considering the tempernof the late ’50s, the Soviet rulers wouldnhave never allowed Olga Ivinskaya andnher children by another marriage to gonabroad with Pasternak. What article ofnthe United Nations charter says that thenmistresses of great poets should be allowednto join them abroad.? Pasternaknhad to give up the Nobel Prize and tonwrite those two “letters of renunciation,”none to Khrushchev and the other tonPravda, if he didn’t want to lose Ivinskayanforever. It should be remembered thatnuntil the early ’60s it was not clearnwhether the rulers had become morenlenient than Stalin was, or the period ofn1954 to 1959 was a five-year respitenbefore a new wave of reprisals.nThe rationale for the second arrest ofnIvinskaya after Pasternak’s death was asnclear as it was for her first arrest. AfternPasternak’s death, he could well be regardednagain by Soviet propaganda asn”our great Soviet poet.” There was onlynone skeleton in this shining cupboard:nthe publication of Doctor Zhivago abroad.nPasternak’s poetry was not “anti-nSoviet,” for there is nothing “Soviet” orn”anti-Soviet” about the summers or rainsnPasternak loved to set to the Mozartiannmusic of his verse. Summers come innthe Temperate Zone of the Earth undernall regimes, and rains fall as they didnbefore Russia came into existence. Butnthe novel was at variance with Sovietnpropaganda’s image of Lenin’s coup innthe autumn of 1917. After Pasternak’sndeath it was convenient to shift the noveln14;nChronicles of Culturenonto the “mistress.” Some secret policeninvestigators even declared that she hadnwritten the novel. Beyond cavil, she wasnthe prototype for Lara, one of the twonleading characters of the novel. Surelynthis was a crime per se, even if notnproperly codified.nThe Russians of my milieu willnread Ivinskaya’s book like a golddiggernworks a promising creek. There is littlenthey do not know. But they will ferventlynsift the text for tiny grains of gold tonstow away in their memory.nYet they will also remember somethingnelse. Olga Ivinskaya is a heroine innher own right, the Heloise of the epochnof totalitarian regimes. Even if her be­nloved had not been the 20th centurynMozart of poetry. Even though her booknlapses now and then into those platitudesnwhich are taken for revelations in Sovietnand Western mass culture. Even thoughnher book is full (at least at the beginning)nof that literary-high-society chitchatnwhich is as uninteresting and incomprehensiblento anyone outside downtownnMoscow as its New York analogue tonanyone living beyond Mineola. With allnits even-ifs and even-thoughs, the storynof Pasternak’s Muse, of feminine devotion,nsaintliness and endurance, willnstay, if only in Russian memories, afternthe mounts of mass culture east or westnhave reduced to their primary fibrousnsubstance without a trace of humannmeaning in a single living neuron. DnThe Vengeance of Civil Servantsnand Other StoriesnH.R. Haldeman (with JosephnDiMona): The Ends of Power; TimesnBooks; New York.nby Paul GottfriednIt Lt is now possible to add yet anothernvolume to those bulky recollections beingnproduced by Richard Nixon’s formernaides. In view of the unctuous memoirsnalready published by John Dean andnChuck Colson, I prepared myself for thenworst in sitting down to H.R. Haldeman’snaccount of his life in the White House,nUnfortunately, Haldeman does paint anself-serving picture of his virtues. WhennNixon, for example, is shown feudingnwith Katherine Graham, shrewish editornof The Washington Post, it is our authornwho supposedly mediated between them.nAnd when Nixon and his more impetuousnstaff members plot revenge againstntheir enemies, Haldeman again “soundsna cautionary note.” Although his relationshipnto Henry Kissinger was notoriouslynbitter, Haldeman forgets this bitternessnDr. Paul Gottfried teaches history atnRockford College.nnnin retrospect. Instead he depicts himselfnas the mature mentor, who counsellednthe hot-blooded Kissinger before thatnfigure came to control American foreignnpolicy.nThese observations aside, however.nThe Ends of Power is a book to be recommendednto conscientious historians.nFor in spite of the stylistic and othernflaws, the work does try to make sensenout of the Watergate affair. And it maynalso teach us more about Nixon’s presidencynthan does any other book publishednto date. Haldeman considers the Nixonnyears a period of growing tension betweenna desperately insecure, though elected,nnational leader and a massive enemy forcencomposed of federal officials, intelligencenagents, journalists and educators. Thentension described would result in havingnundercover agents being deployed bynNixon against his political enemies. Itnwould also lead to those violent assaultsnupon Nixon’s character and reputationnlaunched by the news media and bynassorted critics in government.nThe most controversial statements innHaldeman’s book concern the role assignednto the C.I.A. in discreditingn