Why did Gerasim himself volunteer to drown the muma? Why did Gerasim drown Mumu? Psychological analysis of the work by I.S.

The discussion of the last post unexpectedly revealed that the question in the title really worries people's minds. As many as three quite adult users admitted quite emotionally that he has been a thorn in their brains to this day since school - while most of the other, once exciting topics, such as “why smoke rises” or “how girls differ from boys” They have long since lost all relevance and interest.

My inquisitive friend, as we see, interrogated with passion as many as six different teachers in childhood - but not one was able to answer him a seemingly simple question. Obviously, not because they wanted to hide the truth from the annoying schoolboy; Apparently, they DIDN’T KNOW THEMSELVES. They weren’t taught this in their teacher training colleges, and they didn’t think about the answer themselves. Why? There is no such question in the program.

Although it is even in the yard song - one of those that schoolchildren themselves sing to each other in the gateways. Remember - to the tune from “Sandpit Generals”:

Why did Gerasim drown Mumu?
Why, why? And why?
It would be better if I went down myself...
Why did Gerasim drown Mumu?

Presence even in school folklore is a serious indicator. Hooligans with poor grades, who sometimes don’t know/remember 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, without meaning to, stirred up the fragile souls of children, you can’t say anything...

Well, let's try to answer the question. Better, as they say, late than never.

First of all, the plot. Unfortunately, I just re-read “Mumu” - probably for the first time since 5th grade. I thought that I would have to force myself - but no. It's surprisingly easy to read, and the prose is so gorgeous that... eh, but I digress. So, the plot itself in brief. Gerasim is a deaf-mute janitor from birth for an old, quarrelsome, dying recent years a Moscow lady, whose “day, joyless and stormy, has long passed; but the evening was blacker than night.” Gerasim, in a moment of blackest despair, got himself a dog... (By the way, what breed was Mumu, who knows? I think no one, but the all-knowing Vicky reports that Mumu was a spaniel). The deaf-mute janitor fell in love with Mumu with all his soul, but the quarrelsome lady one day orders to get rid of Mumu. The first time she is kidnapped and sold, but Mumu chews the rope and returns to the inconsolable Gerasim. For the second time, Mumu is already ordered to be killed, Gerasim himself undertakes to carry out this order. He drowns the dog in the Moscow River, and then leaves the yard without permission to go to his village (not too far from Moscow, 35 versts). The lady soon dies, and Gerasim is not punished in any way for his “escape.”

Turgenev's descriptions of the dog are wildly touching. The reader, and especially the fifth grader, unconditionally believes that Gerasim sees her as his only friend and truly loves her, and Mumu adores his janitor. Why, why does he kill her?? If he ended up running away anyway – why??

In fact, Gerasim’s act explodes one of the key mythologies underlying the Soviet, dare I say it, worldview: about rebellion as a source of justice. After all, what were Soviet pioneers taught from October age? It is necessary, they say, for the oppressed to rebel against the exploiters - and then all the contradictions will be resolved, HAPPINESS will come. And Turgenev suddenly says - no, nothing. 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 orders.

By the way, in the same piggy bank is Katerina from Ostrovsky’s “The Thunderstorm” (also school curriculum). Katerina kills, however, not Mumu, but herself - but even here it’s time to ask “why?”; This is also a rebellion - which is what Dobrolyubov noticed and because of which he called Katerina “a ray of light in a dark kingdom.” If Gerasim decided to rebel against his lady, why doesn’t he take his beloved dog with him? If Katerina decided to rebel against her environment, why does she kill herself? What kind of rebellion is this - which does not liberate??

The question for Soviet reality is not at all idle; it could have been asked to the “proletarians” who, according to the same Soviet sources, unanimously rebelled in 1717 against “exploitation and the yoke of capital” - however, starting from the late 20s and for many decades after, they began to work in factories under operating standards that Tsarist Russia the beginning of the century and never dreamed of: for rations, with a complete ban on strikes, with constantly lowering prices, with draconian penalties for being late, long working hours and a ban on changing jobs at will...

That's one answer.

Or maybe another - for it we need to draw parallels from world literature. Gerasim killed the only thing living creature which he loved. But, as Oscar Wilde would say some time after Turgenev, “We always kill those we love.” In "The Ballad of Reading Gaol":

He loved that woman more than life itself,
He killed that woman.

This is fate, rock. A certain irregularity inherent not only in human nature, but in the universe. Who even said that the deaf-mute janitor treated the lady the same way as we do - that is, as a vile, useless old woman? Perhaps it was for him, who had never heard sounds in his life human voice, something like the earthly embodiment of impersonal Rock. He fulfilled her instructions - yes, cruel; Well, was 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 move on to the third possible answer - which, however, Soviet schoolboy(and the Soviet teacher) could hardly have occurred to him at all... but it was completely, even certainly understandable to Turgenev himself - since he, of course, knew the Bible well.

Yes, yes. “Mumu” embodies one of the most famous biblical stories, also from Old Testament- about Abraham and Isaac. Let me remind you: God orders the righteous Abraham to sacrifice his only and infinitely beloved son, Isaac. Abraham is old, his wife is too, and he knows that he will not have any other children. Nevertheless, Abraham takes Isaac and the sacrificial implements and goes to the mountain to sacrifice his son.

This whole collision is presented in Turgenev’s textbook work: Gerasim is in the role of Abraham, Isaac is Mumu, and the lady represents for Gerasim precisely God, who demands sacrifice. In any case, the degree of emotional attachment is hardly very different between Abraham and Gerasim.

Kierkegaard, a Danish philosopher, one of the founders of existentialism, in his famous essay on Abraham, with the same desperate ardor and passion as our fifth-graders, wrestles with the riddle: WHY does Abraham lead 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, became the originator of the most powerful philosophical movement because he retained in himself until maturity the strength and energy of such a childish, naive bewilderment that arose in school, while reading the Bible.

FOR WHAT?? After all, Abraham has nothing more valuable and never will have one (and Gerasim, we note, has nothing more precious than Mumu and never will have one). Kierkegaard, I remember, looks around in search of analogies world literature and finds something similar in the Iliad: there the Achaean fleet gets stuck on the way to Troy, since an unfavorable wind is blowing all the time and the sea is restless; the entire campaign is under threat, and the priests report: they say that Poseidon is 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 campaign.

This would seem to be a complete analogy! However, Kierkegaard immediately stops short, and as a result, through these two examples, he draws a difference between a social feat and an existential one. Agamemnon sacrifices his adored daughter, and also at the request of God - but he does it as part of a DEAL, and with a clear purpose. For the sake of society! He sacrifices the most precious things “for his 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 - are in a completely different position! The Higher Power does not promise them anything in return. She simply demands obedience. Requires you to give up your most precious possessions FOR NOTHING.

As a result, we can well say here that Turgenev, no less than much, formulates an alternative version of the Bible, at least one of the key biblical stories. He - long before any Bulgakov - seems to be wondering, 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, in the very last moment on the sacrificial altar of Isaac for a lamb)? And Turgenev gives his answer: Abraham’s hand would not have wavered, he would have killed his son... But that would be the end of Abraham’s faith. He would have “recoiled from God” - just 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 one - I like it the most. And here, first of all, we need to clarify this: why is “Mumu” even included in the “children’s literature” category? What's childish about Mumu? Let's start with the fact that there doesn't seem to be such a thing required attribute children's literature as a happy ending.

“Mumu” is quite tough, adult prose. Actually, who would ever have thought that a story about how a man kills his best and only friend in cold blood is “for children”?

There is one aspect that can be classified as “childish”: namely, “Mumu” is also a story about the betrayal of someone who trusted it. The strong and kind, instead of protecting, betray and kill the weak and defenseless, and trust BLINDLY. “Finally, Gerasim straightened up, hastily, with some kind of painful anger on his face, wrapped the bricks he had taken with a rope, attached a noose, put it around Mumu’s neck, raised it above the river, last time looked at her... She looked at him trustingly and without fear and slightly waved her tail. He turned away, closed his eyes and unclenched his hands..."

I think this is why they sing yard songs about “Muma”: this story really traumatizes the child’s psyche. Because who should a child reading a story associate with? - Well, it’s clear that it’s not with Gerasim. And definitely not with the lady, who is generally perceived by a child as evil witch from a fairy tale. The young reader associates himself with Mumu. And then the question that we are discussing here all sounds very tragic: “Why did Gerasim kill ME?” For what? How so?? The main problem - for a child - is not even whether Gerasim loved or did not love the dog, which is what we are talking about here and there; The child is worried about something else. After all, 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. We are not talking about punishments here at all. Gerasim killed because he had no idea how it could be otherwise.

And here we see that “Mumu” was written, perhaps, on the most pressing Russian topic. And that’s why the story still sounds so scorching (if you don’t believe me, re-read it!) The fact is that “Mumu” discusses the most important Russian question... not about love, not about God, not about wine... ABOUT POWER.

What the hell is this – power in Rus'? 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 confused by Mumu: they will not see the main conflict. It looks like it’s “just like in Europe”: big city, well, lady, well, she has servants, well, the janitor works for her... 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 the owner care about the janitor's dog? If a janitor loves a dog, why, one might ask, doesn’t he send the owner to hell and look for a more adequate owner for himself and his dog??

The European will be wrong because he did not understand the main thing: the relationship between the worker and the mistress in this Russian story is not based on an agreement. 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 agreement. 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 this, if you think about it, is how Russian power remains 150 years later. It is not based on a contract - and, therefore, does not violate anything, no matter what it demands.

The story “Mumu” by Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev, written in 1852, tells the story of the life of a deaf-mute janitor Gerasim, who is in the service of an old lady and was obliged to obey her unquestioningly and carry out all orders. Serfdom humiliated the peasants, and impunity reigned among the landowners. Why couldn't he disobey? Gerasim only realized at the very end how dependent his affection made him.

The lady gradually took away everything that was dear to Gerasim. She took his beloved village away from him, but he is a peasant, a real peasant. She didn’t leave him his usual and favorite job. Gerasim's beloved woman, Tatyana, was married to the drunkard Kapiton. Tatyana always agreed with the lady, she was humble. And even his joy, the dog Mumu, whom Gerasim once saved, did not let her drown, she ordered her to be drowned.

The lady only cared about her own peace, she thought only about herself. All his life Gerasim could not even imagine the possibility of contradicting the lady, and this time he was not going to. However, the unexpected happened: having drowned his only native creature, Gerasim seemed to have lost everything social connections, freed himself from the humility with which he lived for so many years.

Mumu's death gave him the strength to leave the city, in which nothing was holding him anymore, and return to the village. This means he drowned Mumu to free himself from psychological dependence and gain inner freedom.

Exists scientific point the view that Turgenev wrote the entire story for the sake of this one scene. The way a mute hero, with deep tenderness, drowns in the river the only creature to whom he is attached is such a powerful sight that, having depicted it, the writer no longer cared about either psychological or everyday details.

He achieved his goal: he captured the reader’s imagination and forced him to come up with explanations for Gerasim’s actions.

The deaf-mute janitor Gerasim, who served the old lady, had a beloved - the washerwoman Tatyana, a piece of bread and a roof over her head. One day Gerasim rescues a drowning dog from the water and decides to keep it for himself, giving the rescued nickname “Mumu”. Over time, the janitor becomes firmly attached to the animal and takes care of it as if it were his own child. His feelings towards Mumu especially strengthen after he marries his beloved Tatyana to Kapiton, without asking her consent to this marriage.

In those days, landowners were known for their complete impunity and poor attitude towards serfs.

One day the lady heard Mumu barking and ordered Gerasim to be drowned, which irritated her. The lady did not feel pity for animals, since dogs were considered exclusively guards of the yard, and if they could not protect it from robbers, they were of no use. Gerasim, as a simple serf without the right to vote, could not help but obey his mistress, so he had to get into a boat and drown the only creature dear to him. Why didn’t Gerasim simply release Mumu?

Psychological explanation

Everything was gradually taken away from Gerasim - his village, his peasant work, his beloved woman and, finally, his little dog, to which he became attached with all his soul. He killed Mumu because he realized that his attachment to her made him dependent on feelings - and since Gerasim constantly suffered due to 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 from a young age knew that the landowners should not be disobeyed, as this would be fraught with punishment.

In the old days Orthodox Church denied the presence of a soul in all animals, so they were disposed of 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 Mumu's death, Gerasim had nothing to lose, so he didn't give a damn about serfdom and returned to the village, thus protesting against the tyranny of the lady. 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 make Gerasim suffer even more, so he chose to take her life with his own hands, and not with someone else’s hands.

This article is devoted to the work of I.S. Turgenev. It will carefully analyze the motives of behavior of the main character of the story “Mumu” - the janitor Gerasim. Probably, those who read, but did not have sufficient psychological insight, were tormented since school by the question of why Gerasim drowned Mumu. During the “investigation” the answer will be given.

Personality of Gerasim

The mighty mute Gerasim was uprooted from his native hut in the village and transplanted into a foreign one. urban soil Moscow. He was two meters tall. He had an abundance of natural power. A Moscow lady took an eye on him and ordered him to be transported from the village to her home. She identified him as a janitor, for he was a noble worker.

No matter how far this information may seem to the reader from answering the question of why Gerasim drowned Mumu, it is very important and is directly related to him. This is the foundation for understanding inner world hero.

Love triangle: Gerasim, Tatiana and Kapiton

The lady had one simple girl in her employ - Tatyana (she worked as a laundress). Gerasim liked the young woman, although both the other servants and the mistress herself understood that such a marriage was hardly possible for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, Gerasim tenderly cherished within himself a timid hope, firstly, for reciprocity, and secondly, that the lady would consent to the marriage.

But, unfortunately, the hopes of the main character were not destined to come true. The quarrelsome and self-centered lady decided in her own way: the drunken shoemaker, who had gotten out of hand, was appointed Tatyana’s husband by the lord’s permission. He himself is not against it, but he was afraid of Gerasim’s reaction to this news. Then the master's servants resorted to a trick: knowing that the dumb janitor could not stand drunkards, the servants forced Tatyana to walk in front of Gerasim drunk. The trick was a success - the janitor himself pushed his sweetheart into Kapiton’s arms. True, the lady’s experiment did not end well. Her shoemaker drank himself to death even in the hands of a hardworking and, one might say, gentle to the point of slavery washerwoman. The unhappy couple's days passed joylessly in a remote village.

The love triangle is important in the context of answering the question of why Gerasim drowned Mumu, since it reveals the “chemistry” of the janitor’s future attachment to his dog.

Gerasim and Mumu

When Gerasim suffered from unspent love, he found a dog. She was only three weeks old. The janitor rescued the dog from the water, brought him to his closet, organized a rookery for the dog (it turns out it was a girl), and fed it milk.

In other words, now the love of a simple Russian mute man, unclaimed by a woman, is completely invested in the creature who unexpectedly appeared in his life. He names the dog Mumu.

The ending of the story

The main character's problems arose when the lady, who had not seen the dog before, suddenly discovered it. Mumu has lived with Gerasim like Christ in his bosom for more than a year. The owner was delighted with the dog. She asked to be immediately brought to the master's chambers. When the dog was delivered, she behaved warily and aggressively in an unfamiliar environment. She didn’t drink the owner’s milk, but began barking at the lady.

Of course, the lady could not bear such an attitude and ordered the dog to be removed from her possession. And so they did. Gerasim looked and looked for her, but never found her. But Mumu returned to her owner one fine day with a chewed leash around her neck. Gerasim realized that the dog did not run away from him on its own, and began to hide it from prying eyes in his closet, and he only took it outside at night. But on one such walking night, a drunk lay down near the fence of the owner’s estate. Mumu did not like drunkards, just like her owner, and began to bark hysterically and shrilly at the drunkard. She woke up the whole house, including the lady.

As a result, the dog was ordered to be disposed of. The servants took this too literally and decided to take Mumu’s life. Gerasim volunteered to move his beloved pet to better world with his own hand. Then, unable to withstand the mental anguish, the janitor returned (actually fled) to his native land - to the village, again becoming an ordinary man. At first they looked for him, and when they found him, the lady said that “she doesn’t need such an ungrateful worker for nothing.”

Thus, if someone (most likely a schoolboy) decides to write an essay “Why Gerasim drowned Mumu,” he should answer this question in the context of the entire story, so that the author’s narrative acquires depth and richness.

Moral of the story

Turgenev specifically paints Gerasim so powerful in order to show in contrast his spiritual indecision and timidity, one might say, slavery. The janitor drowned his dog not because he felt sorry for her: he imagined how she would wander around other people’s yards in search of food without him. He killed her because he could not resist the master's order and the pressure of other servants. And when the reader understands the whole essence of Gerasim’s inner world, he is shocked by two things: the skill of the writer and the deep tragedy of the story. After all, no one stopped Gerasim from escaping with the dog, in general, so to speak, from preparing the escape in advance when he realized that things were bad. But he didn’t do this, and all because of servile psychology.

Thus, to the question of why Gerasim drowned Mumu, the answers do not imply diversity. The key to understanding the work of I.S. Turgenev - in the slave psychology of Russian people, which the classic masterfully embodied in the image of a dumb janitor.

“The question “Why did Gerasim drown MuMu?” 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 a wonderful illustration of the idea that in a Soviet school studied anything, but not plots literary works . I myself vaguely remember all sorts of “images” from school - Gerasim, the lady, even Mumu - but not a single attempt to explain how and why what Turgenev’s entire story is about happened. Anything, but not the plot.

As a child, my inquisitive friend interrogated with passion as many as six different teachers - but not one could answer him a seemingly simple question. Obviously, not because they wanted to hide the truth from the annoying schoolboy; Apparently, they DIDN’T KNOW THEMSELVES. They weren’t taught this in their teacher training colleges, and they didn’t think about the answer themselves. Why? There is no such question in the program.

Although it is even in the yard song - one of those that schoolchildren themselves sing to each other in the gateways. Remember - to the tune from “Sandpit Generals”:

Why did Gerasim drown Mumu?
Why, why? And why?
It would be better if I went down myself...
Why did Gerasim drown Mumu?

Well, let's try to answer the question. Better, as they say, late than never.

First of all, the plot. Unfortunately, I just re-read “Mumu” - probably for the first time since 5th grade. I thought that I would have to force myself - but no. It's surprisingly easy to read, and the prose is so gorgeous that... eh, but I digress. So, the plot in its briefest form. Gerasim is a deaf-mute janitor from birth for an old, quarrelsome Moscow lady living her last years, whose “day, joyless and stormy, has long passed; but the evening was blacker than the night” (damn, in the fifth grade we didn’t understand how beautifully Turgenev expounded; and yet he is the best stylist in Russian classics!). Gerasim, in a moment of blackest despair, got himself a dog... (By the way, what breed was Mumu, who knows? I think no one, but the all-knowing Vicky reports that Mumu was a spaniel). The deaf-mute janitor fell in love with Mumu with all his soul, but the quarrelsome lady one day orders to get rid of Mumu. The first time she is kidnapped and sold, but Mumu chews the rope and returns to the inconsolable Gerasim. For the second time, Mumu is already ordered to be killed, Gerasim himself undertakes to carry out this order. He drowns the dog in the Moscow River, and then leaves the yard without permission to go to his village (not too far from Moscow, 35 versts). The lady soon dies, and Gerasim is not punished in any way for his “escape.”

By the way, in the same piggy bank is Katerina from Ostrovsky’s “The Thunderstorm” (also a school program). Katerina kills, however, not Mumu, but herself - but even here it’s time to ask “why?”; This is also a rebellion - which is what Dobrolyubov noticed and because of which he called Katerina “a ray of light in a dark kingdom.” If Gerasim decided to rebel against his lady, why doesn’t he take his beloved dog with him? If Katerina decided to rebel against her environment, why does she kill herself? What kind of rebellion is this - which does not liberate??

The question for Soviet reality is not at all idle; it could have been asked to the “proletarians” who, according to the same Soviet sources, unanimously rebelled in 1717 against “exploitation and the yoke of capital” - however, starting from the late 20s and for many decades after, they began to work in factories under such standards of exploitation that tsarist Russia at the beginning of the century never dreamed of: for rations, with a complete ban on strikes, with constantly lowering prices, with draconian penalties for being late, long working hours and a ban on changing jobs at will...

That's one answer.

Or maybe another - for it we need to draw parallels from world literature. Gerasim killed the only living creature he loved. But, as Oscar Wilde would say some time after Turgenev, “We always kill those we love.” In "The Ballad of Reading Gaol":

He loved that woman more than life itself,
He killed that woman.

This is fate, rock. A certain irregularity inherent not only in human nature, but in the universe. Who even said that the deaf-mute janitor treated the lady the same way as we do - that is, as a vile, useless old woman? Perhaps she was for him, who had never heard the sound of a human voice in his life, something like the earthly embodiment of the impersonal Fate. He fulfilled her instructions - yes, cruel; Well, was 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 move on to the third possible answer - which, however, could hardly have occurred to a Soviet schoolchild (and a Soviet teacher) at all... but was completely, even certainly clear to Turgenev himself - since he, of course, knew the Bible well.

Yes, yes. “Mumu” embodies one of the most famous biblical stories, even from the Old Testament - about Abraham and Isaac. Let me remind you: God orders the righteous Abraham to sacrifice his only and infinitely beloved son, Isaac. Abraham is old, his wife is too, and he knows that he will not have any other children. Nevertheless, Abraham takes Isaac and the sacrificial implements and goes to the mountain to sacrifice his son.

FOR WHAT?? After all, Abraham has nothing more valuable and never will have one (and Gerasim, we note, has nothing more precious than Mumu and never will have one). Kierkegaard, I remember, looks around world literature in search of analogies and finds something similar in the Iliad: there the Achaean fleet gets stuck on the way to Troy, since an unfavorable wind is blowing all the time and the sea is restless; the entire campaign is under threat, and the priests report: they say that Poseidon is 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 campaign.

As a result, we can well say here that Turgenev, no less than much, formulates an alternative version of the Bible, at least one of the key biblical stories. He - long before any Bulgakov - seems to be wondering, conducting a thought experiment: what would have happened to Abraham if God had ACCEPTED his sacrifice (and not replaced him, as follows from the sacred text, at the very last moment on the sacrificial altar Isaac for a lamb)? And Turgenev gives his answer: Abraham’s hand would not have wavered, he would have killed his son... But that would be the end of Abraham’s faith. He would have “recoiled from God” - just 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 one - I like it the most. And here, first of all, we need to clarify this: why is “Mumu” even included in the “children’s literature” category? What's childish about Mumu? 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 a story about how a man kills his best and only friend in cold blood is “for children”?

There is one aspect that can be classified as “childish”: namely, “Mumu” is also a story about the betrayal of someone who trusted it. The strong and kind, instead of protecting, betray and kill the weak and defenseless, and trust BLINDLY. “Finally, Gerasim straightened up, hurriedly, with some kind of painful anger on his face, wrapped a rope around the bricks he had taken, attached a noose, put it around Mumu’s neck, raised her above the river, looked at her for the last time... She trustingly and without fear looked at him and slightly waved her tail. He turned away, closed his eyes and unclenched his hands..."

I think this is why they sing yard songs about “Muma”: this story really traumatizes the child’s psyche. Because who should a child reading a story associate with? - Well, it’s clear that it’s 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 discussing here all sounds very tragic: “Why did Gerasim kill ME?” For what? How so?? The main problem - for a child - is not even whether Gerasim loved or did not love the dog, which is what we are talking about here and there; The child is worried about something else. After all, Mumu loved him! How can you kill someone who loves you?

But because they ordered it.

What the hell is this – power in Rus'? 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 confused by Mumu: they will not see the main conflict. It looks like there “everything is like in Europe”: a big city, well, the lady, well, she has servants, well, the janitor works for her... It’s the usual 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 the owner care about the janitor's dog? If a janitor loves a dog, why, one might ask, doesn’t he send the owner to hell and look for a more adequate owner for himself and his dog??

And this, if you think about it, is how Russian power remains 150 years later. It is not based on a contract - and, therefore, does not violate anything, no matter what it demands.