Who drowned the crossword with the hands of gerasim mumu. Why did Gerasim drown Mumu? Unhappy love, broken heart
Parents wonder why this creepy and incomprehensible story is for children in the fifth grade. Even before they knew about serfdom. Why it has been firmly embedded in the school curriculum since Soviet times is understandable, the denunciation of "life under the tsar" at its full height. Why so early - I think it's very simple, because about the dog. Children will feel sorry for the dog and they will dislike serfdom. And in general, about the dogs - this is for children.
At one time I already stepped on this rake. My daughter in the second grade one morning suddenly remembered that she hadn’t read the story. Well, this is typical for her, it's okay, she read quickly, I say: while I braid you, you will read it.
And the story turned out to be "The Lion and the Dog". Kind to the children of the non-violent Count Tolstoy. Well, you remember. There the lion tore apart the wrong dog, because he loved the right one. Within five minutes I had a half-braided and inconsolably sobbing child, completely unfit for education. I remembered with a kindly quiet word both the count, and the program, and the teacher, and myself that I did not look at what she was reading at once.
And you say - the fifth grade. To him, children already form a protective lubricant, abundantly released when they collide with the great Russian literature. In the form of giggles, jokes and other depreciation. Since the story about Mumu is actually very scary, there is especially a lot of protective folklore about her.
Why are there children - a rare adult would want to re-read this at his leisure.
And he gets out of this story not at all because of the dog. And not even because of serfdom.
Let me try to explain how I see it.
The fact that the lady was largely copied from Turgenev's mother, known fact... And the story was similar, only there the poor fellow did not go anywhere. He endured everything and remained faithful to the mistress.
Children at school are told about this, but all the details of the writer's childhood are prudently not reported.
And there was a terrible terrible, cruel treatment at the level of torture. Mom was, it seems, an epileptoid psychopath, and she herself, apparently, a post-traumatic, beat children for everything, and for nothing - too. Favorite fun was - to punish, and for what - not to say: "You know better." There was no strategy of avoidance - they would beat him up anyway. All the servants reported on the children, and mummy still liked to pretend during the execution that she was so upset that her heart ached, she was about to die, and then in a letter she described how touchingly frightened her son, whom she had just whipped with rods, was for her. There was no one to protect the children, the mother's power over them was complete, other attachments were not allowed.
That is, the most severe scenario of child abuse took place:
- totality (there is no avoidance strategy, no matter how well you behave, you will still be beaten,
- ambivalence (the only person you love is torturing you),
- victim blame (ungrateful, brought mommy)
- there is no defender but the rapist himself.
In short, the bitch was the same, no offense to Mumu, be it said.
She completely broke her eldest son, judging by his life, he was a deeply victimized person. And Ivan resisted at least somehow, wanted to run away, but was caught and whipped to a pulp. In addition to beatings, there was total control of all aspects of life, constant psychological violence.
And in the context of all this, the story about Gerasim reads as an attempt to comprehend his experience, a narrative practice of self-psychotherapy. The story was written when Turgenev was under arrest, which in itself creates conditions. On the one hand, there is a trigger: you are again in someone's power. On the other hand, there is time, peace and sufficient security. The very thing.
Gerasim is a deaf-mute hero who was forcibly brought to the lady's house.
This is a metaphor for a gifted child who could not choose where to be born, who has neither words nor rights, and most importantly, from the beginning he sincerely wants to be a "good boy", to earn his mother's love (by the way, Turgenev himself was also of heroic build).
It is very difficult for him, but he tries very hard, shows devotion and zeal and hopes for a long time that he will be able to become so "worthy" (sew a caftan) that he will be allowed to just live, have his own secret personal life of the soul, love someone. And the matter will not be for him - he will always be a faithful servant.
Tatiana herself, quiet, meek, uncomplaining, is the subpersonality that the child in such a situation hopes for as a saving one. If you are very, very, very sweet and obedient, then maybe they will not destroy, they will not burn everything in you, they will spare you.
“No matter how it is!” The lady-mother replies, “the secret life of his soul, love him, take a bite!” - and arranges a vile story with allegedly drunk Tatyana and forced marriage. That is, he gives up this very meek subpersonality for mockery, tramples it down, and even arranging everything so that, they say, she is to blame, such rubbish.
And we have to say goodbye to this hope. This path is closed. In a situation of such violence, it is impossible to keep one's soul alive, loving, developing (there could have been children).
The child is still not broken, he is not ready to give up and turn into a zombie, an empty servile shell without a soul, to become a complete slave.
A new attempt - to hide, to squeeze everything that is alive and vulnerable to a very small, negligible size - you think, a dog, who does it hurt. A small creature, a tiny piece of living and warm, personally significant, and so - here I am, all your humble servant.
But no, the rapist cannot be fooled. He senses with his spinal cord where the zone is left free from his control.
As in Winston's conversation with Oh, Brian: "I did not betray Julia" - and a smirk in response, almost sympathetic: betray, dear, where will you go. Everything will be cleaned up to the back street. They both understand how important this is - even a tiny corner of love and affection in the heart stands between you and Big Brother, this is the last stronghold before the destruction of the soul. A special closeness and complete understanding of the victim and the executioner.
The situation of a child who is at the mercy of a tough parent is always worse. Because for all that, he loves the rapist with all his soul and dreams of his love - to the last. And there is no sacrifice that he would not make - not out of fear, but simply because to the very depths of his soul he is sure that it is so right. He is a child, he belongs to the parent by right, and his soul too.
This last tiny piece of hope for maternal love, the dependent subpersonality of a child recklessly hoping for a miracle and mercy, Gerasim drowns, and first takes care of her, forgives and mourns. As it happens in therapy.
Now he can go, he is no longer attached - in no sense. And not a child anymore.
In life, of course, everything is more complicated.
Do you know what mother Turgenev ordered to write over the entrance to the house when her sons left her power? "They'll be back."
There is always such a risk, victimization is drawn. He even entrusted a little daughter to an old woman for a while, but then came to his senses.
It's good when you manage to comprehend your experience in images, to speak out, to play out the inner drama of your soul. Then you can leave, albeit with losses and wounds, but still free yourself. And live your own, difficult, not very happy, but your life, with your feelings and your choices.
Returning to children and reading - "1984" we gave the child to read at 14.
And "Mumu" is early at 14, because family horrors are worse than the horrors of the regime.
Every year eyes junior schoolchildren clouded with tears. In schools, gymnasiums and lyceums, they read Turgenev's "Mumu". And ever since this story was published in the Sovremennik magazine in 1854, “all progressive mankind” has condemned the cruel-hearted Gerasim.
Moreover, he condemns absolutely in vain. No, unlike Pasternak's "Doctor Zhivago," Turgenev's "creatiffcheg" was read. But they read, firstly, with brainwashed in advance, and secondly - extremely inattentively. Thirdly, illustrators of children's literature have been freeing for almost 160 years.
Typical "tear" pattern.
Actually, Gerasim did not drown Mumu
... He just broke up with her humanly. Don't believe me? We open the official publication of I.S. Turgenev and read carefully together, from time to time interrupting for reasoning.
I will cite the author's text from the Collected Works in ten volumes, Goslitizdat, Moscow, 1961 OCR Konnik M.V.
To begin with, let's decide what size Mumu was?
Helpful illustrators vying with each other offer their drawings.
Drawing by V. Kozhevnikova.
In 1949, the film strip "Mumu" was published. Remember such a rare entertainment from childhood? Wikipedia helpfully suggests that filmstrips were widely used in the USSR "for educational, artistic, entertaining (children's fairy tales and footage from cartoons), lectures and advocacy goals. "I will leave a lot on the conscience of the propagandists. But not" Mumu. "
After being impressed by the "mimic and cannibalistic" dog, let us carefully read the end of the second line of the text on the frame of the filmstrip. Let's look at the picture. Do you feel cognitive dissonance?
I.S. Turgenev: " ... turned into a very nice dog Spanish breed, with long ears, a fluffy tail in the form of a pipe and large expressive eyes."And now, squinting my eyes mockingly, I ask: So what kind of breed was Mumu? Spanish? And now what is this breed called? What is" Spanish "in English? Spanish. And in German? Spanisch. You yourself will say the modern name of the breed or tell me what it is spaniel?
While Mumu is growing in size from a "big, little" doggy into a dog with a height at the withers of 40-60 centimeters, weighing up to 30-35 kilograms (French and German spaniels), illustrators hiccup in chorus, and we will note that one child's delusion has become less ...
We read on.
Having promised to "destroy Mumu" (by the way, is it possible to take the deaf-mute "at his word" ?!), Gerasim, according to witness Eroshka, left the yard " entered the inn with the dog". He is there " asked myself cabbage soup with meat". "They brought cabbage soup to Gerasim. He crumbled the bread there, chopped the meat into small pieces, and set the plate on the floor.” general grooming of the dog: " The wool on her was so shiny ..."Have you ever seen a dog with a shiny coat half-starving? I am not.
We continue to read carefully.
"Mumu ate half the plate and walked away, licking her lips."It seems to me that the only authentic synonym - Mumu ate to the full. That is, the dog was full and did not want to eat anymore. For better assimilation of food, the deaf-mute janitor, again driven by innate sharpness, walked the dog:" Gerasim walked slowly and did not lower Mumu from the rope."During a walk" On the way, he went into the courtyard of the house, to which an outbuilding was attached, and brought out two bricks under his arm."
Let's digress from the actions of Gerasim and slightly plunge into the history of architecture. When determining the time of brickwork, scientists, along with other evidence, use the dimensions of the bricks. For each era, these sizes are different. Before the absence of a single standard, bricks were made "by hand" so that it was convenient for a bricklayer to take a brick. The Bureau of Standardization at the Supreme Council of the National Economy in 1925 recorded a "normal" brick size: 250x120x65 mm. The weight of such a product cannot exceed 4.3 kg. Today this standard is enshrined in GOST 530-2007. Take modern brick in your hand. Is it big? Inconvenient? Have you seen the original uniforms of that era? Most of them are sewn for thin people with a height of 160-170 centimeters. Do you think that their hands were larger than they are now? Or did people make bricks for themselves that are not convenient to work with?
Still don't believe it? Try to take two bricks under the arm of one hand and walk 300 meters with them. Why, unlike you, did Gerasim succeed? Because the bricks were smaller
!
Let's continue reading. "Gerasim straightened up, hastily , with some painful bitterness on his face, wrapped in rope he took the bricks, attached a loop, ..."Those who want to make sure that under the action of gravity, the bricks wrapped in (not tied, but wrapped in a rope!) Will fall to the ground, take care of your feet. Or even better - take a literature textbook and a reader, wrap them with a rope, and take the rope by the free end The force of gravity cannot be fooled, the load, without being attached to the rope, will fall, and the rope will simply remain in your hand. ”Turgenev, in turn, nowhere notes that Mumu or Gerasim could control gravity.
I still haven't convinced you? In case the force of gravity has been canceled and the bricks will not fall, remember the Archimedes law. Around 250 BC. in the treatise "On Floating Bodies" the authoritative Greek wrote: " Bodies heavier than a liquid, immersed in this liquid, will descend until they reach the very bottom, and in the liquid will become easier by the value of the weight of the liquid in a volume equal to the volume of the submerged body". Let us again recall the real dimensions of Mumu and the bricks of that era. And just like spaniels, being hunting dogs, they find in the reeds and bring hunters, often by swimming, shot game. How much does an uncut goose weigh?
Still in doubt? Especially for you IS Turgenev wrote 160 years ago: " ... and when he opened his eyes again, small waves were still hurrying along the river, as if chasing each other, they were still splashing against the sides of the boat, and just far back and to the shore some wide circles scattered. “That is, Mumu swam out and went ashore, so the circles were near the shore.
I hope I have whitewashed the image of Gerasim in your eyes? Because of his wordlessness, he suffered hard times during his lifetime. Let's remember how the washerwoman Tatyana left him with the marriage. Yes, there is also a lady on Mumu got angry. That is why, leaving into complete obscurity, not wanting the dog to suffer with him, he let her go, faking her death for the courtyard spying on him.
Knowledge is known to be power. Having given you strength, I ask you to be more careful with it. My daughter, armed with this knowledge, drove her teacher of literature into a stupor for a long time. Have pity on the teachers.
"The question" Why did Gerasim drown MoMu? " I asked four literature teachers and two class teachers ... Many years passed, and I realized that Gerasim's behavior had no motivation. " That is, despair. This is an excellent illustration of the idea that in Soviet school studied anything, but not the plots of literary works... From school, I myself vaguely recall all sorts of "images" - Gerasim, the ladies, even Mumu - but not even a single attempt to explain how and why something happened, which, in fact, is the whole story of Turgenev. Anything but the plot.
As a child, my inquisitive friend interrogated as many as six different teachers with addiction - but none could answer him a seemingly simple question. Obviously, not because they wanted to hide the truth from the corrosive schoolboy; most likely, they DIDN'T KNOW YOURSELF. They were not taught this in their pedagogical universities, and they themselves did not guess the answer. What for? There is no such question in the program.
Although he is even in the courtyard song - one of those that schoolchildren themselves sing to each other in the alleyways. Remember - to the tune from "Generals of the Sand Quarries":
Why did Gerasim drown Mumu,
Why why? And why?
I'd rather go to the bottom myself ...
Why did Gerasim drown Mumu?
The presence in school folklore is a serious indicator. Lose-grade hooligans, sometimes not knowing / remembering practically nothing from the school curriculum, also react to this question - which means they at least understand it! Even in their virgin memory, Mumu clings to something! Turgenev irritated him, unwillingly, childish fragile souls, you will not say anything ...
Well, let's try to answer the question. Better, as they say, late than never.
First of all, the plot. I, by a sinful deed, have just re-read "Mumu" - probably for the first time since the 5th grade. I thought that I would have to rape myself - but no. It is amazingly easy to read, and such a magnificent prose that ... eh, but I digress. So, the plot in the most concise form. Gerasim - from birth a deaf-mute janitor of an old, absurd, surviving last years a Moscow lady whose “day, joyless and rainy, is long gone; but the evening was even blacker than the night "(damn it, we in the fifth grade did not understand how beautifully Turgenev expounded; and yet the best stylist in Russian classics!) Gerasim, in a moment of the blackest despair, got himself a dog ... (By the way, what breed was Mumu, who knows? I think no one, but the all-knowing Vicki reports that Mumu was a spaniel). The deaf-mute janitor fell in love with Mumu with all his soul, but the absurd lady once orders to get rid of Mumu. The first time she is kidnapped and sold, but Mumu gnaws at the rope and returns to the inconsolable Gerasim. The second time Mumu is already ordered to kill, Gerasim himself undertakes to carry out this order. He drowns the dog in the Moskva River, and then, without permission, leaves the yard for his village (not so far from Moscow, 35 miles). The lady soon dies, for Gerasim's "escape" is not punished in any way.
Turgenev's descriptions of the dog are wildly touching. The reader, and especially a fifth-grader, unconditionally believes that Gerasim sees her as the only friend and truly loves her, and Mumu also adores her janitor. Why, why is he killing her ?? If he ended up running away anyway, why?
In fact, Gerasim's act explodes one of the key mythologemes underlying the Soviet, I'm not afraid of this word, worldview: about rebellion as a source of justice. After all, what were the Soviet pioneers taught from the October age? It is necessary, they say, that the oppressed should rise up against the exploiters - and then all the contradictions will be resolved, HAPPINESS will come. And Turgenev suddenly says - no, nifiga. Personal rebellion does not erase obedience programs. You can throw off the yoke of the exploiters - and at the same time continue to carry out their own orders.
By the way, in the same place, in this piggy bank - Katerina from Ostrovsky's "Storm" (also school program). Katerina kills, however, not Mumu, but herself - but even here it is just right to ask "why?"; This is also a rebellion - which is what Dobrolyubov noticed and because of what he called Katerina "a ray of light in the dark kingdom." If Gerasim decided to rebel against the lady - why doesn't he take his beloved dog with him? If Katerina decided to rebel against her surroundings - why is she killing herself? What kind of rebellion is this - which does not liberate ??
The question is not at all idle for Soviet reality; it could have been asked to the "proletarians" who, according to the same Soviet sources, unanimously rebelled in 1917 against "exploitation and the yoke of capital" - however, starting from the late 1920s and for many decades after, they began to work in factories at such norms of exploitation that tsarist Russia at the beginning of the century never dreamed of: for soldering, with a complete ban on strikes, with constantly reduced prices, with draconian punishments for lateness, irregular working hours and a ban on changing jobs at will ...
This is one answer.
Or maybe another one - for him we need to draw parallels from world literature. Gerasim killed the only living creature he loved. But, as Oscar Wilde will say some time after Turgenev, "We always kill those we love." In The Ballad of Reading Prison:
That woman he more life I loved,
He killed that woman.
This is fate, rock. Some kind of inaccuracy, inherent not even in human nature, but in the universe. Who in general said that the deaf-mute janitor treated the lady in the same way as we do - that is, as a vile, useless old woman? Perhaps she was for him, who had never heard the sounds of a human voice in his life, something like the earthly embodiment of impersonal Rock. He fulfilled her injunction - yes, cruel; Well, isn't it fair, wasn't it cruel for him to be born without the gift of speech and hearing, as a living thing of some old woman?
And here we turn to the third possible answer - which, it is true, a Soviet schoolchild (and a Soviet teacher) could hardly have thought of at all ... but it was quite, even probably understood by Turgenev himself - since he certainly knew the Bible well.
Yes Yes. In "Mumu" one of the most famous biblical stories is embodied, moreover from the Old Testament - about Abraham and Isaac. Let me remind you: God commands the righteous Abraham to sacrifice his only and infinitely beloved son - Isaac. Abraham is old, his wife is too old, and he knows that he will not have any other children. Nevertheless, Abraham takes Isaac, the sacrificial paraphernalia and goes to the mountain to sacrifice his son.
All this collision is presented in the textbook work of Turgenev: in the role of Abraham - Gerasim, Isaac - this is Mumu, and the lady represents for Gerasim exactly a god who requires a sacrifice. In any case, the degree of emotional attachment is hardly very different between Abraham and Gerasim.
Kierkegaard, the Danish philosopher, one of the founders of existentialism, in his famous essay about Abraham with the same desperate fervor and passion as our fifth-graders, struggles with the riddle: WHY is Abraham leading his son to the slaughter? For those who have not read it, I highly recommend reading this, one of the most famous philosophical works in history; Kierkegaard, I think, is why he became at the origins of the most powerful philosophical trend, that he retained the strength and energy of such a childish, naive bewilderment that arose in school while reading the Bible until maturity.
WHAT FOR?? After all, Abraham has nothing dearer and never will (and Gerasim, we note, has nothing dearer to Mum and never will). Kierkegaard, I remember, looks around in search of analogies world literature and he finds something similar in the Iliad: there the Achaean fleet gets stuck on the way to Troy, since an unfavorable wind blows all the time and the sea is restless; the whole campaign is under threat, and the priests report: they say, it was Poseidon who was angry and demands the daughter of Agamemnon as a sacrifice. Agamemnon, one of the leaders of the Greeks, is in terrible grief, but still sacrifices his daughter. The sea calms down and the Greeks continue their hike.
Here is a seemingly complete analogy! However, Kierkegaard immediately cuts off, and as a result, through these two examples, he draws the difference between social feat and existential. Agamemnon sacrifices his adored daughter, and also at the request of God - but he does it within the framework of a DEAL, and with a clear purpose. For the sake of society! Donates the most expensive "for a friend". Agamemnon's sacrifice is terrible, majestic, terrible - but also understandable. The result is visible - the ships are on their way.
However, Abraham - and, note, Gerasim - is in a completely different position! The Higher Power does not promise them anything in return. It just demands obedience. Demands to give the most expensive for NOTHING.
As a result, we can quite say here that Turgenev, not much, not a little, formulates an alternative version of the Bible, at least one of the key biblical stories. He - long before any Bulgakov there - seems to be asking a question, conducting a thought experiment: what would have happened to Abraham if God had accepted his sacrifice (and not replaced, as follows from the sacred text, at the very last moment on the sacrificial altar Isaac on a lamb)? And Turgenev gives his answer: Abraham's hand would not have trembled, he would have killed his son ... But this would be the end of Abraham's faith. He would "recoil from God" - as Gerasim left his mistress without looking back.
And, perhaps, soon after that, God would have died (as the lady died shortly after Gerasim's departure). However, this is Nietzsche ...
This is the third answer. But there is a fourth - I like it the most. And here, for a start, it is necessary to stipulate this: why does “Mumu” pass in the category of “children's literature” at all? What's in "Mumu" for children? To begin with, there is no such seemingly obligatory attribute of children's literature as a happy ending.
Mumu is quite tough, adult prose. Actually, who would ever have thought that the story of how a man kills his best and only friend in cold blood is “for children”?
There is one aspect that can be attributed to the "childish": namely, "Mumu" - this is also a story about the betrayal of the one who trusted. The strong and kind, instead of protecting, betrays and kills the weak and defenseless, and blindly trusting. “Finally Gerasim straightened up, hastily, with a kind of painful bitterness on his face, wrapped a rope around the bricks he had taken, attached a noose, put it on Mumu's neck, lifted her over the river, looked at her for the last time ... She trustingly and without fear looked at him and slightly wagged her tail. He turned away, closed his eyes and opened his hands ... "
I think that is why the yard songs are sung about "Mumu": this story really traumatizes the child's psyche. Because who is the child reading the story to associate with? - well, it is clear that not with Gerasim. And definitely not with the lady, who is generally perceived by a child as an evil witch from a fairy tale. The young reader associates himself with Mumu. And then the question that we are all discussing here sounds quite tragic: "Why did Gerasim kill ME?" For what? How so?? The main problem - for the child - is not even whether Gerasim loved or disliked the dog, about which we are rubbing this page; the child is worried about something else. Mumu loved him! How can you kill someone who loves you?
But because they ordered it.
Note: not because Gerasim was afraid of some kind of punishment in case of disobedience. This is not about punishment at all. Gerasim killed because he had no consciousness at all how it could be otherwise.
And then we see that "Mumu" is written, perhaps, on the most urgent Russian theme. And that is why the story now sounds so scorching (if you don’t believe it - reread it!) The fact is that the most important Russian issue is discussed in Mumu ... not about love, not about God, not about wine ... ABOUT POWER.
What the hell is power in Russia? What is it based on?
Readers brought up on Western literary models who do not know Russian history (and this may well be Russian schoolchildren) may be knocked off the bat by Mumu: they will not see the main collision. It looks like “everything is like in Europe”: a big city, well, a lady, well, her servants, well, here she has a janitor ... It's a common thing. This Russian barynya orders her janitor to drown his animal ... Stop, stop! Here the European will be surprised. What are these strange orders? What does a mistress care about a janitor's dog? If the janitor loves a dog - why, one wonders, he does not send the mistress to hell and even looks for himself, with his dog, a more adequate owner?
The European will be wrong, because he did not understand the main thing: the relationship between the employee and the hostess in this Russian story is not built on a contract. Gerasim is not a worker, but a slave; it belongs to the lady as a thing. Accordingly, there are no violations in the lady's demand to drown the dog; it does not violate anything, because there is nothing to violate - there is no original contract. Gerasim, even if he could speak, has nothing to appeal to - he has no rights. Including the right to love, and the right to protect the one he loves.
And so, if you think about it, the Russian government remains even after 150 years. It is not based on a treaty - and therefore does not violate anything, no matter what it requires.
The deaf-mute janitor Gerasim, serving the old lady, had a beloved - the washerwoman Tatyana, a piece of bread and a roof over his head. Once Gerasim rescues a drowning dog from the water and decides to keep it for himself, giving the rescued the nickname "Mumu". Over time, the janitor becomes firmly attached to the animal and takes care of it as if it were his own child. Especially his feelings towards Mumu are strengthened after he passes off his beloved Tatyana for Kapiton, without asking her for consent to this marriage.
In those days, the landowners were known for their complete impunity and bad attitude towards serfs.
Once the lady heard Mumu barking and ordered Gerasim to drown, which annoyed her. The lady did not feel pity for the animals, since the dogs were considered exclusively the guards of the yard, and if they could not protect it from the robbers, there was no use from them. Gerasim, as a simple serf without the right to vote, could not disobey the mistress, so he had to get into a boat and drown his only creature dear to him. Why didn't Gerasim just let Mumu go free?
Psychological explanation
Everything was gradually taken away from Gerasim - his village, peasant work, his beloved woman and, finally, a dog, to which he became attached with all his heart. He killed Mumu, because he realized that attachment to her made him dependent on feelings - and since Gerasim constantly suffered from losses, he decided that this loss would be the last in his life. Not the least role in this tragedy was played by the psychology of the serf, who knew from an early age that the landlords should not be disobeyed, as this is fraught with punishment.
In old times Orthodox Church denied the presence of a soul in all animals, so they got rid of them with ease and indifference.
At the end of Turgenev's story, it is said that Gerasim never approached the dogs again and did not take anyone as his wife. From a psychological point of view, he realized that it was love and affection that made him dependent and vulnerable. After the death of Mum, Gerasim had nothing to lose, so he did not give a damn about serfdom and returned to the village, thus protesting against the tyrant mistress. Gerasim could have left Mumu alive - however, he was tormented by the fear that the lady would come up with a more terrible punishment for her, which would have made Gerasim tormented even more, so he preferred to take her life from her with his own, not someone else's hands.
