1846,” noted that Dostoevsky’s new work left his readers in “unpleasant amazement,” since “sparks of great talent <…> sparkle in such thick clutter that their light does not give the reader any guidance.” …” According to the critic, the story turned out to be too pretentious, mannered, and incomprehensible; the author was prompted to create it by “either cleverness or resistance,” rather than creativity and inspiration. Once again Belinsky drew attention to the excessive number of repetitions of statements that the author found successful, noting that Dostoevsky “would benefit greatly from using Gogol’s even greater” talent.

The critic of the Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti, Eduard Guber, repeated Belinsky’s reproaches: «…what was monotonous at first, then became boring to the point of exhaustion, and only a few diligent readers, and even those out of duty, read to the end… «Prokharchina». This is a bitter but pure truth, which should have saddened a man with such a decisive talent as Mr. Dostoevsky.»

The opinion of the Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti coincided with the opinion of the critic of the magazine «Moskvityanin», who reproached Dostoevsky for the excessive tediousness of his new work, excessive repetitions of the same expressions, unsuccessful humor and imitation of Gogol. Apollon Grigoriev’s review was also negative, condemning Dostoevsky for delving too deeply «into the petty manifestations of the moral illness they were examining,» as a result of which the writer abandoned «all concern for the artistry of his descriptions,» striving to convey the character’s everyday life as accurately and in detail as possible.

Only Valerian Maikov in his article «Something about Russian Literature in 1846» for Otechestvennye Zapiski was not so negative. He stood up for the socio-psychological idea of ​​the story, insisting that Dostoevsky «wanted to depict the terrible outcome of Mr. Prokharchin’s strength in hoarding, which developed in him as a result of the thought of insecurity.»

The critic explained the vagueness of the idea by the author’s desire to sacrifice clarity in favor of «precious brevity,» which was demanded of him in reviews of past works. At the same time, Maikov complained that Dostoevsky had not spent “even a third of the effort with which Golyadkin was processed” on the “convex depiction” of the main character, and expressed the wish that the writer “trust the powers of his talent more” and not succumb to the changing opinions of critics and “external considerations”.

During the writer’s lifetime, Nikolai Dobrolyubov made the most complete assessment of the story “Mr. Prokharchin”. In his 1861 article “The Downtrodden People”, based on Dostoevsky’s later works, the critic constructed a number of similar images and pointed out the humane value of Dostoevsky’s work. It was noted that the writer was aware of the “anomalies of contemporary Russian reality” and the ideal of “respect for man” in his work. Dobrolyubov noted the uniqueness of Prokharchin’s character in comparison with the characters of Makar Devushkin and Mr. Golyadkin. Prokharchin’s poverty and oppression led to the fact that he «not only ceased to believe in the durability of the place, but even in the durability of his own humility», «as if he wanted to challenge someone to a fight…».

Influence

Certain motifs outlined in «Mr. Prokharchin» appear in Dostoevsky’s works of the 1860s in a significantly deeper and modified form. These are the similar «Napoleonic» dreams of Prokharchin and Raskolnikov from the novel «Crime and Punishment»; Prokharchin’s «hoarding» and the idea of ​​the hero of the novel «The Adolescent».

Later, other newspaper reports were conveyed by Dostoevsky in the feuilleton «Petersburg Dreams in Verse and Prose» (1861): the official Solovyov rented a dirty corner behind a screen and saved 169,022 rubles in banknotes found after his death. Two similar episodes are described in the late novel «The Adolescent».