What do you think?
Rate this book
Pushkin
Prince Mirsky's masterly analysis of Pushkin.
- GenresCriticism
266 pages, Library Binding
First published January 1, 1926
About the author
D.S. Mirsky
29 books5 followersDmitry Petrovich Svyatopolk-Mirsky, better known as D.S. Mirsky, was a Russian political and literary historian who promoted the knowledge and translations of Russian literature in Britain and of English literature in the Soviet Union. He wrote one of the most comprehensive histories of Russian literature.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
June 18, 2026
I came into this expecting a loose biography of Pushkin backending some close readings, and while I did get that, I also got a catalogue of soviet literary criticism, jabs at random Enlightenment thinkers, and a lovehate situationship with the brand of proto-New Historicism that Mirsky has come to formulate for the proletariat.
In general his analysis works fine, and the argument towards a so-described materialist analysis of Pushkin is presented in a way that doesn't make it come across as flattening the poet, a risk that Mirsky seems well aware of. I haven't read any Pushkin so I can't speak on the direct quality of his close readings, which chime in only twice: briskly in the middle and then more substantially towards the conclusion. They did seem decent if a bit short.
One of Mirsky's big hangups about the the state of soviet literary critique is that no soviet critic had managed to talk about Russia's bourgeois writers in a historically progressive manner. How did the prince do? It takes a while to see any particularly Marxist quality to the critical method he demonstrates (his critique is materialist and revolutionary in the same sense that brushing your teeth is), but I suppose his essay can be considered successful in this right.
'I suppose' was a recurring thought I had while reading this. His language while plain and clear isn't particularly grabbing either, which sometimes plays down the depth of his observations. His arguments are constructed in a way that works in the mundane sense. I appreciate it. High three
In general his analysis works fine, and the argument towards a so-described materialist analysis of Pushkin is presented in a way that doesn't make it come across as flattening the poet, a risk that Mirsky seems well aware of. I haven't read any Pushkin so I can't speak on the direct quality of his close readings, which chime in only twice: briskly in the middle and then more substantially towards the conclusion. They did seem decent if a bit short.
One of Mirsky's big hangups about the the state of soviet literary critique is that no soviet critic had managed to talk about Russia's bourgeois writers in a historically progressive manner. How did the prince do? It takes a while to see any particularly Marxist quality to the critical method he demonstrates (his critique is materialist and revolutionary in the same sense that brushing your teeth is), but I suppose his essay can be considered successful in this right.
'I suppose' was a recurring thought I had while reading this. His language while plain and clear isn't particularly grabbing either, which sometimes plays down the depth of his observations. His arguments are constructed in a way that works in the mundane sense. I appreciate it. High three
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review