Why Gerasim drowned Mumu and other questions raised by Russian literature

2024 Author: Richard Flannagan | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-15 23:55

Textbook questions "Who is to blame?" and "What to do" are known even to those whose acquaintance with Russian literature was nodding. However, the wealth of Russian classics has presented many more questions to which mankind has no answers. Perhaps this is the meaning of a work of art - to push for reflection, and not to give answers to questions. However, sometimes, as, for example, in the case of Turgenevsky Gerasim, who dealt with Mumu, it is not completely clear (even after school lessons) why the peasant did this to his beloved dog.

Russia is for the sad, and even more so its literature

If you think about it, there are a lot of questions that have long gone beyond the scope of their works and have become winged, and they are from the category of rhetorical. Although if rhetorical questions are called questions that do not require an answer, then “who is to blame” and “what to do” is simply impossible to answer. I just want to sigh sadly in response.

And what thoughts can "Why do people not fly like birds?" or even worse, "Am I a trembling creature, or have I the right?" Russian authors very skillfully lead their readers to lengthy arguments and make it clear that Russian classics is not entertainment. And that you need to be prepared for the fact that after reading even a short story, your soul will be turned inside out.

The heroes of such works are constantly thinking, looking, reflecting, sad, finding problems even where there are none. This is probably what makes them so deep and real, because everyone finds in them a little of himself and his own emotions. Russian literature is something deeper than just reading. It reveals the very nature of man in its contradictions, doubts and difficulties. Yes, it is not always beautiful, pleasant and easy. However, this makes it possible to imbue the hero, understand his thoughts and aspirations, see the meaning in his actions, and then look at your own in a different way.

The versatility of Russian literature is also revealed in the fact that the level of its perception differs among different people, depending on age, gender, social status and much more. Therefore, it is quite possible if you suddenly forgot the answers to the questions "Who are the judges?" or "Who lives well in Russia?"

Another issue is that the teaching of literature at school is set in such a way that too much attention is paid to ensuring that young readers correctly understand the meaning of the work and too little of the work itself. Simply put, the student is too loaded with essays, answers to questions, studying the author's biography, that in order to just sit down and read the work and not only to get acquainted with the plot, but also to enjoy the beauty and richness of speech, turns and allegories (otherwise why is this all?).

Riot as a source of justice

The textbook "Mumu" is part of the compulsory school curriculum. And they pass it at a fairly tender age. It is no wonder that for many immature minds the image of a dog who died for nothing is preserved for life. Why is Turgenev so with the young reader? And with a dog for what?

An invalid janitor working for an old woman living in Moscow got himself a dog, and she became the consolation of his dark days. At the expense of the breed, no one knows for certain who Mumu was, but there is an opinion that it was a spaniel. Despite the good-natured nature of Mumu, the lady immediately disliked her. She orders the janitor to get rid of her. At first, the dog is stolen and resold, but the faithful dog will be able to escape and return back to its silent master.

The second time they decide to get rid of the dog more radically, it is ordered to kill it. Gerasim himself is released to carry out this assignment. After Mumu is done away with, Gerasim leaves for his village. The lady soon dies, and Gerasim is never punished for his arbitrariness.

The plot, filled with cute and touching descriptions of the dog, cannot but move the reader, especially the child. So why did the janitor decide to deal with the dog if he left the manor house anyway? What prevented him from taking the dog with him and loving it further?

In the context of the Soviet worldview, this act of Gerasim is very ambiguous. After all, what did the Bolsheviks teach Soviet children? That one should not be afraid to throw off the yoke of the exploiters, not be afraid to fight for one's freedom. Only in this case can you get rid of all adversity and take a step towards personal happiness. But Turgenev in his work makes it clear that it is not enough to throw off the external shackles, you also need to get rid of the internal framework. After all, the program of behavior has already been laid down, and even a rebellion does not allow refusing to carry out boyar orders.

A strange rebellion that makes the rebel worse. But it is worth noting that Gerasim was not alone in this strangeness of his. Who does the "rebel" Katerina from "The Groza" do worse by taking her own life? She's also a rebel, a revolutionary, it's not for nothing that they call her a ray of light in a dark kingdom. However, again this strange interpretation of the riot, which drives the rebel even deeper and does not free anyone.

If we draw a parallel, it turns out that this kind of rebellion is very close to Soviet reality. So, the proletarians rebelled against their own exploitation, overthrew the yoke of the capitalists and lived freely. Only almost immediately they began to work in factories for 12 hours a day, receiving rations for their work. Strikes and other forms of dissent were completely banned, wages were constantly reduced, and penalties for any misconduct increased. Some did not even have the right to quit, since the work at a particular plant was considered a stately important task. One yoke was replaced by another, and in a way, the “screws were tightened” even more.

Rock or divine omen

From another point of view, this act of the janitor emphasizes the wrongness of everything that happens in the world. The fateful coincidence of circumstances reaches its peak precisely at the time of the death of the dog. Gerasim destroyed the only living creature that he loved and that madly loved him in return.

This kind of error is always present in nature and human society. For us, this lady is an old, spiteful and stupid old woman. It is possible that for Gerasim, who was born an invalid, she was the embodiment of his fate. Therefore, he did not oppose her order, believing that this was his fate. Fair? No. But was it fair that Gerasim himself was born deaf in order to live in constant oppression for the amusement of some old woman?

The most interesting thing is that modern writers see in the work that every Soviet schoolchild studied, a reference to the Old Testament. Turgenev knew the Bible very well and could well draw parallels, and he did it so subtly that the Soviet government and the education system did not notice any catch.

God tells Abraham to bring his only and, of course, beloved son Isaac to the sacrificial altar. This is the only child of elderly Abraham. But his faith is strong and he takes his son and goes to sacrifice him. If Gerasim is Abraham, and Isaac is Mumu, then the lady is acting in the role of God, because it is her that belongs to the idea of sacrificing a loved one. The emotional intensity of passions in the textbook is in no way inferior to the biblical plot.

In search of an answer to why Abraham made this sacrifice, the researchers drew a parallel with the Iliad, when the Achaeans fall into a storm on their way to Troy and not only the campaign itself, but the entire army is under threat. The priests report that Poseidon is angry and in order to calm him down, the daughter of Agamemnon must be sacrificed. Yes, the sacrifice is too high - beloved child, this is a huge loss, which the Greeks still go for. However, there is a rationale behind the action. The sea calms down, the army is saved. That is, the sacrifice was made in the name of common salvation - there is a result. And Abraham and Gerasim? Why do they bring their sacrifices. For what? Their sacrifices in the name of obedience, that is, for nothing, just like that.

However, Turgenev goes further, continuing the biblical story and answering the question that worried many: what if God did not renounce the sacrifice, but would accept it without offering to replace it with a ram? The answer is obvious, Isaac would have been sacrificed and his father's hand would not have wavered. But the most interesting thing is what would happen next, because Gerasim left his mistress - that is, he renounced God, lost his faith.

Why should children read "Mumu"

Children read Turgenev's works throughout their school life, but why is it that they read "Mumu" in the fifth grade, that is, the compilers of the school curriculum attributed this work to children's literature? Usually children's works should be instructive and more life-affirming, but in no way end with the death of a sweet and defenseless creature.

Perhaps, if something childish can be distinguished in it, it is an instructive part about the betrayal of the one who believed. The once-good defender betrays the one who blindly trusted him. Indeed, even at the moment when Gerasim was tying the dog with a rope with bricks, it was friendly waving its tail, not expecting any trick.

At the same time, Gerasim is not afraid of punishment, because then he leaves the lady on his own, that is, he is not afraid of either lashes or any other kind of punishment that could follow this offense. This is not about punishment, it is about obedience, about power. Gerasim was ordered - he killed, it was just that there was no other scenario in his mind, so boundless was the lordly power in his head.

For contemporaries who read this work, and especially those who do not have a special idea of Russian history (and fifth-graders are precisely such persons), the main tragedy of the work will not be noticeable. It happens in a big city, well, a man works as a janitor, well, for a lady. It is quite a standard situation, except that the employer is called a little differently. And then the lady orders to deal with the dog. What does a contemporary think? Well, at least he is perplexed. The reaction of a normal modern person to look for another employer without strange enclosures, taking with him his beloved dog.

However, a contemporary does not understand that the relationship between the lady and Gerasim is not negotiable. It belongs to her as a thing, and any lordly whim is the law. She told the dog to drown, which means that so be it and there is nothing illegal in her actions, because the relationship between a lady and a slave is not regulated by any laws.

The real story comes from home

The writer's sister wrote that Ivan Sergeevich's story “is not fiction” and that it happened before her eyes. As it turned out, this sad story, over which many tears of fifth-graders were shed, is real. It would be more accurate to say that the heroes had prototypes who lived with the writer in the same house. The image of the harsh landowner was copied by the writer from his own mother, Varvara Petrovna. She was very tough, she even had a diary in which she carefully wrote down the misdeeds of her serfs. Apparently, so as not to forget and accidentally not to grow kinder.

It was this diary, which was preserved and became the object of close study, that shed light on many prototypes of Ivan Sergeevich's heroes and on his childhood as well. For example, in the diary there is a mention of a certain silent janitor Andrei. Varvara Petrovna saw him when she was driving around the province. She liked him because he was huge, well built, he had broad shoulders and huge arms, despite the fact that he was sullen and silent, she considered him an excellent worker. So Andrew appeared on their estate. In addition, it turned out that he is very hardworking, indifferent to alcohol and does not speak at all.

Andrew was taken away from hard work, he became a janitor at the lordly house, as a sign of the special favor of the lady. She bragged about it to the neighbors, still, a kind of giant in her service. She liked the way he went to fetch water on a white horse, easily grabbing a huge barrel. The janitor also had a dog, a cheerful and loud mongrel. It is impossible to find out for certain whether Turgenev's mother ordered Andrei's dog to be drowned. Indeed, after the death of the pet, Andrei did not leave the master's yard, but continued to live a calm and measured life.

However, a classic work could not be a simple retelling of real events, there is fiction in it, it is he who makes the work what it really is. It is also important here that Ivan Sergeevich was interested in the life of ordinary serfs, spent a lot of time communicating with them, observing their way of life and relationships with each other. Perhaps, it is this circumstance that reveals the personality of Turgenev as best and deeply as possible.

So why did Turgenev allow Gerasim to deal with the unfortunate animal? If there was an opportunity to ask this question to the author himself, then, it is likely that he would answer that literature, like life itself, often asks questions, and does not give answers to them. Apparently, every Russian, once in the fifth grade, shedding tears over a poor dog, must learn to live with it and, quite possibly, find his own answer to the question: why did Gerasim do this?