Tolstoy in this novel showed and compared the two most important feelings inherent in a person. Love and hate. Levin felt love for all the people and problems surrounding him on his wedding day, and a feeling of hatred for Karenina at the moment of his near-death experiences. By contrasting these two heroes, one can see more broadly and more specifically one of the main goals of the novel, the meaning of which is to compare two types of love. A lost lady with high moral standards and beautiful appearance had one love - Anna Karenina, the second love - in a spiritually reborn gentleman, with his stubborn approach to figure everything out and the desire for happiness in life.
Anna Karenina's love was doomed from the very beginning. First, she cheated on her husband and betrayed her entire family. Secondly, all her love, despite strong passion and uncontrollable attraction, was based only on carnal need and selfishness. Anna wanted intense experiences, romance, passion, and carefreeness. Throughout Tolstoy's entire novel, Anna never once gave the concept of love or explained the experience of this feeling. All the arguments that she came up with to denigrate her husband’s attitude towards her had no basis; she did it only because she wanted to somehow justify herself in her own eyes. After she realized that she was not receiving the attention that she so dreamed of in her relationship with her lover, her suspicious nature again began to come up with excuses for herself, accusing her lover of crimes that he did not commit. Precisely because it was not real, not pure love, or rather not love, but ordinary selfish lust, because of which her whole life was destroyed, she felt disgust and hatred. And hatred, of course, led to revenge. Revenge was death. This is the only way to get away from yourself, to escape from problems and shame. And at the same time it is revenge for neglecting her love.
We see a completely different picture in Levin’s relationship.
Let us remember the evening when Levin confessed his love to Kitty for the second time, and she reciprocated his feelings. He was filled with a feeling of delight and happiness - it was love. That evening, in order to somehow pass the time until the next day, he went with his brother to the meeting. At the meeting, everyone was arguing about the deduction of some amounts and about laying some pipes, they were very animatedly sarcastic to each other.
Levin listened to them and clearly saw that they were not angry, but that they were all such kind, nice people, and so it all went well, sweetly between them. What was remarkable for Levin was that now they were all visible to him through and through, and by small, previously unnoticeable signs, he recognized the soul of each and clearly saw that they were all kind. In particular, they all loved him, Levin, extremely much today. This was evident from the way they spoke to him, how affectionately, lovingly even all the strangers looked at him.
The man with whom he had previously felt some kind of dissatisfaction, now seemed smart and kind to him, invited him to drink tea. And Levin couldn’t even remember what irritated him about him, and stayed with him until 2 am. Upon returning to the hotel, the hero saw a footman whom he had not even noticed before, and he also turned out to be very smart and good, and most importantly, a kind person.
He ate almost nothing and could not sleep. Although the room was fresh, the heat stifled him. “All night and morning Levin lived completely unconsciously and felt completely removed from the conditions of material life. He felt completely independent of his body: he moved without muscle effort and felt that he could do anything. He was sure that he would fly up or move the corner of the house if necessary. And what he saw then, he never saw again. Especially the children going to school, the gray pigeons that flew from the roof onto the sidewalk, and the cods sprinkled with flour, which were put out by an invisible hand, touched him. These fish, pigeons and two boys were unearthly creatures. All this together was so extraordinarily good that Levin laughed and cried with joy.”
It was not an earthly feeling, a feeling of love. This love was expressed in everything, it filled him from the inside and illuminated everything around him. This relationship was truly built correctly. Levin didn't put future wife slave frames. He did not want to marry just to satisfy his natural desires. First of all, he wanted a family based on mutual love; without love, he did not see the point in it. He also built his relationships on complete openness and trust. And even though he was an unbeliever, he agreed to fast and go to Divine Services. In principle, he wanted the same human happiness as Karenina, but everything that Levin did for this love indicates self-sacrifice. While Karenina did not sacrifice herself at all for the sake of her imaginary love. She sacrificed her family, her husband, her son, but not herself. She sacrificed everything that was built by the joint efforts of her family, that is, she destroyed everything that love should build.
It was precisely because Levin’s love was pure that it had a future, it had further development.
“Levin had been married for three months. He was happy, but not at all as he expected. At every step he found disappointment in his old dreams and new unexpected charm. Levin was happy, but, having entered family life, he saw at every step that it was not at all what he had imagined. At every step he experienced what a person would experience if he admired the smooth, happy passage of a boat on the lake, after he himself sat in this boat. He saw that it’s not enough to sit upright without swaying, you also have to think, not for a moment forgetting where to swim, that there is water under your feet and you have to row, and that it hurts unaccustomed hands, that it’s easy to just look at it, but that although doing this is very joyful, it is very difficult.”
In this passage, the writer of the novel shows us that love, even with the right beginning, has great difficulties that must be overcome with great effort. Levin, like all men, involuntarily imagined family life only as the pleasure of love, which should not be hindered by anything and from which petty worries should not distract. Jealousy, possible betrayal, cooling of the feelings of the other half, love for another person - all the depressing feelings that Karenina experienced for Vronsky were also experienced by Levin for his wife. And despite all the doubts and disappointments, Levin understood everything and moved on, trying to overcome all difficulties.
After exploring love in Levin's life, we are left with only one important point in his life - “to believe or not to believe?” - this question arose before him after all the difficulties he had experienced: Kitty’s refusal, Kitty’s mutual love, family conflicts, the death of his brother, the birth of a child. All this in his life did not pass without a trace, but it helped him somehow settle down and gain a footing in this world. It is precisely such difficult turns in his fate that lead him to faith and need for God. And he, as if raising all his thoughts from the depths of his soul, thinks about this necessary important issue- to believe or not to believe?
Smirnov V. L.
Antithesis
All artists (writers, poets, composers, painters) widely use opposition in their work. artistic images. In literary criticism, such a opposition is called antithesis, but this term can also be used in relation to painting.
Romantics in early XIX centuries they loved to contrast a proud, strong, extraordinary personality, towering with its spiritual qualities over the surrounding society, this very society with its vulgar and base interests. Wherein romantic hero He was usually portrayed as lonely, disappointed in everyone and everything, because no one could understand and appreciate the nobility and loftiness of his soul. This is how, for example, Byron portrays Childe Harold in the poem of the same name.
This opposition of an extraordinary personality to a vulgar society expressed the denial of reality characteristic of artists of the Romantic era.
In painting, an example of such a contrast between the individual and society is Bryullov’s painting “Portrait of Yu. P. Samoilova leaving the ball with her pupil Amatsilia Pacini.”
Samoilova is depicted in the foreground, in full height. She leaves the masquerade ball after taking off her mask. The masquerade ball symbolizes the masquerade of high society life, where there is no sincerity, naturalness, simplicity, and everyone puts on a mask. Samoilova, distinguished by sincerity and independence, is alien to any pretense, and the mask, a symbol of hypocrisy, - the mask that Samoilova took off her face and holds in her hand, explains why this beautiful, majestic woman leaves the masquerade and takes her pupil away. Bryullov admires this woman, and therefore her face and every detail of her luxurious clothing are lovingly painted. The girl clung to her trustingly, which also characterizes Samoilova as a generous, kind person, capable of causing mutual love and affection.
Secular society is depicted in the background, small. High society, where everyone is constrained by the rules of decency, prevents the bright expression of individuality, averages, depersonalizes a person, therefore it is depicted sketchily, without drawing details. This apparent, but in fact conscious incompleteness of the picture expressed Bryullov’s condemnation of high society.
The second title of this painting is “Masquerade”. It is interesting that a drama with the same name was created at the same time (Bryullov’s painting was painted around 1839) and M. Yu. Lermontov. It also contrasts a strong, proud personality and elite. But the poet expressed his condemnation of high society even more briefly and succinctly in a poem written on January 1, 1840. Lermontov speaks indignantly about a society in which
With the noise of music and dancing,
With the wild whisper of confirmed speeches,
Images of soulless people flash by,
Decorously pulled masks.
How amazingly this description is similar to Bryullov’s depiction of high society! This coincidence in the assessment of high society by the artist and the poet is not accidental: it reflects dissatisfaction the best people Russia's way of life and the moral state of society at that time.
In fiction there is often a contrast between different historical eras from the life of a particular people. Artists contrasted the past with the present, usually as a reproach to modern life.
Thus, in M. Yu. Lermontov’s poem “Borodino,” an old warrior, a participant in the Battle of Borodino, telling his young interlocutor about this great battle, twice, beginning and ending his story, reproached the younger generation:
Yes, there were people in our time.
Not like the current tribe:
The heroes are not you!
The past and the present, the old and the new are contrasted in I. S. Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons” and in L. N. Tolstoy’s story “The Two Hussars.” In painting, too, the composition of a work is often based on the collision and opposition of two eras: one - receding into the past; another - born to replace her.
Let's look at the picture English artist XIX century Turner" Last way frigate "Brave". A beautiful military sailing ship, a participant in the Battle of Trafalgar, where the British won a glorious victory, is transported to the place of its breakdown and destruction by a terrible dark steamer, spewing out a column of fire and black smoke. This happens at sunset, which symbolizes the end of the old romantic era The setting sun illuminates the scene with an ominous red glow.
With the entire structure of the picture, every detail of it, the artist expresses his negative attitude towards the mercantile bourgeois world with its technical progress, hostile to everything romantic and heroic.
A striking example of opposition different eras is Yaroshenko’s painting “Old and Young”, which depicts a dispute typical of the 80s of the 19th century young man(probably a student) with the elderly owner of the house. The artist's contemporaries believed that this was a dispute between father and son.
The young man, judging by the content of the ideological struggle in Russia at that time, passionately, confidently and inspiredly preaches about freedom, equality, brotherhood, progress and a happy future for humanity, and, raising his hand forward and upward and leaning forward with his whole body, he as if I was ready with my whole being to immediately rush into this bright future. He calls on others to abandon a calm, carefree life as something immoral and unworthy and to devote themselves to serving progress and humanity. Such heroes and speeches are widely reflected in our literature from Belinsky and Herzen all the way to Chekhov and Gorky.
The old man listens to the incendiary speech calmly and is preparing to object, judging by the gesture of his hand. Away from the arguing, in the back of the room, an old woman is playing solitaire. Her indifference to the argument and her occupation indicates that such disputes occur so often in the house that they bore her to death.
IN Russia XIX century, the attitude of artists towards revolutionaries was ambivalent. What the revolutionaries liked was their desire to serve the people, sincere faith in their ideas, and selflessness. But at the same time, they were repulsive with their nihilism, their desire to destroy everything traditional values. This ambivalent attitude of the author towards what is happening is reflected in this picture. The young man looks somewhat theatrical, as if showing off in front of the girl, who fuels his fiery eloquence. But, despite this, the girl listens to his speech seriously, trustingly and with sympathy. And in Russian art of the 19th century century, an intelligent, developed, spiritually living girl is usually a symbol of Russia’s aspirations (for example, in the novels “The Cliff” by Goncharov, “ Noble Nest"Turgenev). Yaroshenko saw that Russia, Russian society sympathizes with revolutionaries. And we now know that Russia trusted the revolutionaries, and even in the 21st century we continue to reap the bitter fruits of this mistake.
The tragic collision is inexorably advancing new era with the old era having become obsolete, it is depicted in the painting by N. N. Ge “Peter I interrogates Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich in Peterhof.” The very theme of this painting, the very historical episode depicted on it, determined the use of antithesis in the composition of this famous work.
Peter I is in a chair near the table, on the edge of which are papers incriminating the prince of treason. Peter I's head is turned to his traitorous son, and he himself sits almost with his back to his son, almost turning away from him in uncontrollable anger and contempt. And at the same time, on the stern face of the king, in his gaze one can see not only contempt and anger, but also bitter bewilderment, disappointment and, it seems, even pity for his son, who stands in front of him with his head down, expressing stubbornness with his whole appearance, barely hidden under external humility, and some kind of sluggish, lifeless protest against the father. Characteristics of Tsarevich Alexei, given by the artist, reflects the features of a moribund past - inert and passive. And, on the contrary, the health and energy conveyed in the compressed, springy pose of Peter I, his gaze, correspond to the spirit of change, the spirit of new times.
The painting was created during the era of reforms of the 1860s carried out by Alexander II, and expresses the artist’s sympathetic attitude towards these reforms. However, N. N. Ge, along with sympathy for the cause of Peter I, and therefore the reforms of Alexander II, also expressed the tragedy that is inevitably inherent in any turning point and raises doubts about the beneficial outcome of the changes taking place. After all, the irreconcilable enemies were not strangers to each other, but father and son. Innovations painfully severed the sacred family ties, and the father’s cruelty involuntarily alerts the viewer to his cause. The artist himself recalled his work on this painting in the following way: “I inflated my sympathy for Peter, said that his social interests were higher than his father’s feelings, and this justified his cruelty, but killed the ideal”31.
Among various types Contrasting images, the most important and frequent is the contrast of characters, beliefs, and views. So in the novel “Fathers and Sons” the beliefs and lifestyles of Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov are contrasted. In L. N. Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace", which, starting from the title, is completely riddled with oppositions, Napoleon and Kutuzov are contrasted, for example.
This type of contrast of images is the main thing in painting.
Consider Titian's painting Caesar's Denarius, an early masterpiece of the artist that depicts and contrasts Christ and the Pharisee.
The Pharisees, opponents of Christ, were constantly looking for a reason to put Him on trial. They sought to discredit Him before the people, disgrace Him, thus pushing the people away from Him, and then destroy Him. During a sermon about how a person must pay tribute first of all to God, that is, it is more important to take care of the spiritual than the physical, a Pharisee approached Christ. He wanted to convict Christ of disobedience to authority by distorting the meaning of the word tribute in His sermon. The Gospel of Matthew tells it this way. “Then the Pharisees went and consulted how to catch Him in words. And they sent their disciples to Him with the Herodians, saying: Teacher, we know that You are just, and teach truly the way of God, and do not care about pleasing anyone, for do not look at any face; therefore, tell us: is it permissible for you to give tribute to Caesar, or not? But Jesus, seeing their wickedness, said: Why are you tempting me, you hypocrites? Show me the coin with which they brought the tribute. denarius. And he said to them: Whose image and inscription is this? They say to him: Caesar’s. Then he says to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God.” (Matt. 22:15–22).
How did Titian translate this plot into his amazing work? And what attracted him to this plot? What thoughts did the artist express when embodying this plot?
He used the technique of opposition. The figures are contrasted: Christ is highlighted in bright red and blue, depicted from the front, occupies almost the entire plane of the picture, calmness and powerful noble spiritual energy emanate from his appearance. On the contrary, the Pharisee is depicted in profile, his figure is cut off, almost all of it is outside the canvas. The whole appearance of the Pharisee expresses insinuation, deceit, aggression and indicates that this person is completely immersed in the worries of accumulating material wealth and hardly knows what the soul is.
The moral state of the heroes is contrasted, which is manifested in the expression of their faces (especially in the expression of their eyes). In the unkind gaze of the Pharisee there is evil triumph, threat, and mercilessness. But the gaze of Christ is calm and insightful, it penetrated into the very heart and thoughts of the Pharisee, there is a clear understanding in it of why the question was asked, what the Pharisee is seeking, in the gaze of Christ there is unshakable firmness and clarity of spirit.
The moral opposition of the heroes is also emphasized by the opposition of hands: the dark, rough and strong hand with swollen veins of the Pharisee and the light, beautiful hand with thin long fingers of Christ.
We find a similar contrast in famous novel I. S. Turgenev's "Fathers and Sons": the hands of Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov are contrasted - the hands of a democrat, who through his labor earns money to live and study at the university, and the hands of an idle aristocrat, who changes his outfit several times a day.
Writers and artists often use the image of hands as a means of characterizing a hero. For example, the image of hands on Rembrandt’s “Portrait of an Old Man in Red” and Van Dyck’s “Self-Portrait” stored in the Hermitage of St. Petersburg attracts attention.
So, we see that Titian, contrasting Christ and the Pharisee, depicted the irreconcilable clash of the world of high moral aspirations and thoughts with the world of base passions, that world in which irrepressible acquisitiveness, insatiable greed reign, evil envy; with a world dominated by selfishness, hostility and cruelty. And this world of evil, just like the Pharisee depicted by Titian, is constantly aggressive, ready at any moment to attack, crush, destroy, as soon as it finds a victim, which it constantly and stubbornly seeks.
When building the composition of this painting, Titian depicted Christ and the Pharisee alone, on a dark neutral background and did not show either internal view the Jerusalem temple, where Christ was preaching at that time, neither the crowds listening to His sermon, nor the Pharisees plotting a provocation. Leaving Christ and the Pharisee alone, Titian thereby gave the gospel episode a generalized meaning: the eternal confrontation in the world of active good and aggressive evil, and also expressed his faith in the inevitable triumph of good.
Now let’s turn to the painting by N. N. Ge “What is truth?” Christ and Pilate.” The composition of this picture is entirely permeated with oppositions. The moment is depicted when, objecting to the words of Christ that He was sent into the world to testify to the truth, Pontius Pilate asked Him: “What is truth?” (John 18:37–38).
N. N. Ge thought through the composition of the painting in such a way as to reveal the universal human and social meaning of this Gospel episode, as the artist himself understood it. The moment chosen was when Pilate interrogated Christ in the praetorium alone, without the Pharisees accusing Him. The Jews did not enter the praetorium, fearing to be defiled on the eve of their Passover. And the opposition of these two figures immediately gives the picture a generalized meaning: we see how the unjust government mocks the Teacher of Truth, who commanded the world the most sublime and most moral teaching to achieve the common good on earth; we see that the morality of rulers is incompatible with high morality, even hostile to it. And every detail of the picture serves to reinforce this idea.
Pontius Pilate is depicted with his back to the viewer; we cannot see the expression of his face, the expression of his eyes. Yes, we don’t need this, because his face can express no more than what his figure eloquently expresses and what is usually characteristic of rulers: arrogance, arrogant disregard for people, arrogance, imperiousness.
Christ stands facing the viewer, because the moral content of a person is most clearly expressed by the face. Christ is depicted tired, with disheveled hair, as He was subjected to mockery. But He remained calm in spirit, looked openly and directly into the eyes of Pontius Pilate, and the bullying did not break Him.
Light and shadow play a large semantic role in the picture. Pontius Pilate is placed in the foreground and brightly lit, because Power is always in sight, it is in the spotlight: sculptors and artists create portraits of rulers, poets glorify them in poetry, they are always and everywhere destined for the most prominent and honorable place. It is not without reason that in the Russian language there is the concept of high society, and power is called secular.
Christ, on the contrary, is in the shadows. After all, those who have not achieved visible success during their lifetime are neglected by the crowd and the authorities, are invisible to public opinion and remains, as it were, in the shadows. It happened that great people were appreciated only after their death. No wonder it is said: “There is no prophet in his own country.” During the life of the Savior, few people understood who He was, and few believed His preaching.
In art there is also a contrast between inexperienced (“pink”) youth and skeptical, experienced maturity. In Goncharov's novel " An ordinary story“The enthusiastic and sublime views on the life of young Aduev and the skeptical, purely rational attitude towards life and people of his uncle, Aduev Sr. are contrasted. We find the same thing in Pushkin’s novel “Eugene Onegin”: the idealist and dreamer Lensky is contrasted with Onegin, in whom everything the illusions of youth are destroyed by the experiences of life.
A striking example of such an antithesis in painting is E. Manet’s painting “Breakfast in the Studio,” which depicts a young man immersed in dreams of future achievements. He stands with his back to the table laden with food, even sitting down slightly on it, thereby emphasizing his disdain for the everyday side of life. Next to him on a chair lies armor - a symbol of valor. They clearly do not fit with the surrounding situation, but characterize the direction of the young man’s thoughts, involuntarily resurrecting the image of Don Quixote, especially since the helmet is an attribute of a warrior and a hero and symbolizes sublime thoughts, a vivid imagination and a desire for dangerous adventures. And the saber near the helmet denotes spiritual activity and courage.
Behind the young man, a man sits at a table, lost in thought, with a cigar in his hand. In front of him are the remains of lunch, a bottle and a glass of unfinished wine. Both the man’s posture and his facial expression speak of fatigue and calmness that accompany life experience. He is clearly alien to youthful impulses; he calmly satisfies his everyday needs.
It seems strange that both the young man and the man did not take off their hats while in the living room. But behind this detail there is a semantic subtext. Their hats are different. Each hat is age appropriate. In the language of symbols, changing a hat means changing your way of thinking, ideas and views. The young man is wearing a bright, light straw hat, and on the man’s head is a felt, solid, gray one. This suggests that the young man’s views are attractive, bright, but fragile, while the man’s are sober, stable, but dull and gray.
It is impossible not to pay attention to the fact that in the chair, next to the knight’s armor, there is a cat sitting and licking under its tail. This introduces an element of irony in relation to youthful dreams. The artist makes fun of the young man, although he treats him with obvious sympathy, so the young man is depicted in the foreground, his expressive, handsome face is brightly lit - he main character paintings.
In the field of sculpture, a striking example of the contrast of images are the figures of Michelangelo’s “Slaves” (rising and dying), which were already discussed in the chapter on allegory. Although these "Slaves" have survived to this day as two independent works, but they were conceived as elements of the composition of one gigantic plan - the tomb of Pope Julius II, and as part of this unrealized project they were an antithesis.
To others good example Antitheses in sculpture are the sculptural group “Taming the Horse” by Klodt on the Anichkov Bridge in St. Petersburg. In each group we see a struggle between oppositely directed unequal forces, namely: powerful horses striving for freedom and holding them back, weak in comparison with them, young men. But the young men still manage to restrain the free impulse of the horses. These sculptural groups express the triumph of the spirit over the spiritless flesh and the triumph of the human mind over wildlife, they visibly complement the poems of A.S. Pushkin about how
... young city,
There is beauty and wonder in the midnight lands,
From the darkness of the forests, from the swamps of blat
Ascended magnificently, proudly...
Contrasting images are very common in music. For example, in almost any symphony, any instrumental concert, string quartet, etc. are contrasted with allegro and andante.
Antithesis is used so often in art because the source material for it is the reality around us; her art reflects, studies and interprets her, and she is full of opposites, starting with simple objects, phenomena and states (big and small, hot and cold, hard and soft) and ending with complex ones (stinginess and generosity, joy and sadness, wealth and poverty , war and peace, devastation and prosperity). In a word, art in a sense is likened to a mirror, which reflects what is in front of it and what is happening. Therefore, antithesis is one of the main elements of composition in almost all types and genres of artistic works.
Bibliography
N. Yu. Zograf. "Nikolai Ge". " art", M., 1974. Page 28.
Antithesis is a means of expression that is often used in the Russian language and in Russian literature because of its powerful expressive capabilities. So, antithesis definition is such a technique in artistic language when one phenomenon is contrasted with another. Those who want to read about the antithesis of Wikipedia will certainly find there different examples from poems.
I would like to define the concept of “antithesis” and its meaning. She has great importance in language, because it is a technique that allows compare two opposites, for example, “black” and “white”, “good” and “evil”. Concept this technique defines it as a means of expressiveness that allows you to very vividly describe an object or phenomenon in poetry.
What is antithesis in literature
Antithesis is an artistic figurative and expressive means that allows you to compare one object with another based on oppositions. Usually she's like artistic medium, is very popular among many modern writers and poets. But in the classics you can also find great amount examples. Within the antithesis can be opposed in meaning or in their properties:
- Two characters. This most often happens in cases where positive character opposed to negative;
- Two phenomena or objects;
- Different qualities of the same object (looking at the object from several aspects);
- The qualities of one object are contrasted with the qualities of another object.
Lexical meaning of trope
The technique is very popular in literature because it allows you to most clearly express the essence of a particular subject through opposition. Typically, such oppositions always look lively and imaginative, so poetry and prose that use antithesis are quite interesting to read. She happens to be one of the most popular And known means artistic expressiveness of a literary text, be it poetry or prose.
The technique was actively used by the classics of Russian literature, and modern poets and prose writers use it no less actively. Most often, the antithesis underlies contrast between two characters in a work of art, When positive hero is opposed to negative. At the same time, their qualities are deliberately demonstrated in an exaggerated, sometimes grotesque form.
Skillful use of this artistic technique allows you to create a living, imaginative description of characters, objects or phenomena found in one or another work of art(novel, story, story, poem or fairy tale). It is often used in folklore works(fairy tales, epics, songs and other genres of oral folk art). During runtime literary analysis text, you must pay attention to the presence or absence of this technique in the work.
Where can you find examples of antithesis?
Antithesis examples from literature can be found almost everywhere, in the most different genres fiction starting from folk art (fairy tales, epics, legends, etc. oral folklore) and ending with works modern poets and writers of the twenty-first century. Due to its characteristics of artistic expression, the technique is most often found in the following genres of fiction:
- Poems;
- Stories:
- Fairy tales and legends (folk and original);
- Novels and stories. In which there are lengthy descriptions of objects, phenomena or characters.
Antithesis as an artistic device
As a means of artistic expression, it is built on the opposition of one phenomenon to another. A writer who uses antithesis in his work chooses the most character traits two characters (objects, phenomena) and tries to reveal them as fully as possible by contrasting each other. The word itself, translated from ancient Greek, also means nothing more than “opposition.”
Active and appropriate use makes the literary text more expressive, lively, interesting, helps to most fully reveal the characters of the characters, the essence of specific phenomena or objects. This is what determines the popularity of the antithesis in the Russian language and in Russian literature. However, in others European languages this is a remedy artistic imagery is also used very actively, especially in classical literature.
In order to find examples of antithesis during the analysis of a literary text, you must first examine those fragments of the text where two characters (phenomena, objects) are not considered in isolation, but are opposed to each other with different points vision. And then finding a reception will be quite easy. Sometimes the whole meaning of a work is built on this artistic device. It should also be borne in mind that the antithesis can be explicit, but maybe hidden, veiled.
Finding a hidden antithesis in an artistic literary text is quite simple if you read and analyze the text thoughtfully and carefully. In order to teach how to correctly use a technique in your own literary text, you need to familiarize yourself with the most striking examples from Russian classical literature. However, it is not recommended to abuse it so that it does not lose its expressiveness.
Antithesis is one of the main means of artistic expression, widely used in the Russian language and in Russian literature. The technique can easily be found in many works of Russian classics. They actively use it and modern writers. Antithesis enjoys well-deserved popularity because it helps to most clearly express the essence of individual heroes, objects or phenomena by contrasting one hero (object, phenomenon) with another. Russian literature without this artistic device is practically unthinkable.
Antithesis is a sharp rhetorical opposition of images, states or concepts interconnected by internal meaning or general structure. in literature? Numerous examples where opposing or sharply contrasting concepts and images are juxtaposed to enhance the impression explain this. Moreover, the stronger the contrast, the brighter the antithesis.
A.S. Pushkin used such comparisons as “poetry - prose”, “wave - stone”, “ice - fire”. N.A. Nekrasov and S.A. Yesenin they turn into oxymorons: “poor luxury”, “sad joy”.
The role of antithesis is manifested in exact subordination, for example: “I caught up with snowstorms while I was writing about the summer”; “There was an honest conversation, but everything was muddied.”
But this does not have to be done, for example: “Okay, they sang, but they didn’t get it out,” “The praise sounds beautiful, but it’s bitter.” Here are some concepts started singing And didn't pull it out, sounds And bitter are not in a logical subordination of opposites like water and flame or light and darkness, but the concepts are taken with a certain specification, although there is no precision and logical clarity, as is often found in proverbs.
How to make the antithesis expressive?
Enhancing expressiveness is achieved in the following ways:
The contrast can be semantic: “Having twisted everything, we got to the point.” Both words and constructions are contrasted.
Antithetical concepts (containing opposition) can collectively express something common, for example, antithesis in literature, as seen in Derzhavin’s hero, where he calls himself both a king and a slave, portrays a contrasting
The antithetical image often plays a supporting role in the contrasted one, which is the main one. The expressed object is characterized by only one member of the antithesis, where the second has a purely auxiliary function: “For ideal forms no content needed."
Comparison can express the choice of alternative solutions: ““To share or not?” - thought the calculator.”
You can use phonetic similarity, for example, “teach - get bored.”
The antithesis may contain not two, but more contrasting images, i.e. be polynomial.
Antithesis: examples from literature
Contrasts in works are used in titles, character characteristics, images and themes. What is antithesis in literature? General definition does not fully reveal its meaning. It becomes clearer and more multifaceted when analyzing famous works.
Roman L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace"
The title of the work is rich in meaning, despite the fact that a simple antithesis is used. Peace is presented as the antithesis of war. In drafts, the author tries to vary this word, trying to find the best solution.
In the work, Tolstoy creates two poles: good and evil or peace and enmity. The author sharply contrasts the characters with each other, where some are the bearers of life, while others are the bearers of discord. Throughout the novel, comparisons “wrong - right”, “spontaneous - reasonable”, “natural - ostentatious” constantly appear. All this is manifested through images, for example, Natasha and Helen, Napoleon and Kutuzov. The antithesis “false - true” is manifested in the absurd situation of a duel in which Pierre Bezukhov found himself.
Roman F.M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment"
Dostoevsky's methods are completely different, since he has slightly different views on man. His heroes combine good and evil, compassion and selfishness. The internal trial of conscience over Raskolnikov is the greatest punishment for the crime. Dostoevsky's heroes have a dispute not between personalities, but between their ideas, leading to a moral tragedy. Before the crime, Raskolnikov was and after the author gives him a description of the killer.
Roman I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons"
The shift in public consciousness in the mid-19th century was reflected in the novel Fathers and Sons, in which the main character is contrasted with everyone around him. The main thing here is the conflict of generations, the cause of which is attachment. Conflicts with friends are caused by differences of beliefs and uncompromisingness. Defending their ideals and defeating the enemy becomes the goal in itself of the heroes.
Some of them look funny because of their limitations. Trying to overcome it, they try to implement new ideas in order to assert themselves. Turgenev uses the technique of antithesis as At the same time, living images, their relationships are better revealed, and the plot develops.
Thus, it becomes clear what antithesis is in literature. The works of the classics clearly demonstrate this
Conclusion
To compare contrasting or opposing concepts, in order to enhance the impression, antithesis is used. Examples from the literature indicate that it can be the main principle of construction as individual parts, and the whole work.
The main theme of the novel "War and Peace" is the depiction of the feat of the Russian people in Patriotic War 1812. The author speaks in his novel both about the faithful sons of the fatherland and about false patriots who think only about their own self-interest. Tolstoy uses the technique of antithesis to depict both the events and characters of the novel. Let's follow the events of the novel.
In the first volume, he talks about the war with Napoleon of 1805-1807, where Russia (an ally of Austria and Prussia) was defeated. There is a war going on. In Austria, General Mack was defeated near Ulm. The Austrian army surrendered. The threat of defeat loomed over the Russian army. And then Kutuzov decided to send Bagration with four thousand soldiers through the rugged Bohemian mountains to meet the French. Bagration had to quickly make a difficult transition and delay the forty-thousand-strong French army until Kutuzov arrived. His squad needed to accomplish a great feat in order to save the Russian army.
Thus, the author leads the reader to the image of the first great battle. In this battle, as always, Dolokhov is bold and fearless. Dolokhov's bravery is manifested in the battle, where "he killed one Frenchman at point-blank range, the first took the surrendering officer by the collar." But after that he goes to the regimental commander and reports on his “trophies”: “Please remember, Your Excellency!” Then he untied the handkerchief, pulled it and showed the dried blood: “Wound with a bayonet, I stayed at the front. Remember, Your Excellency.” Everywhere, always, he remembers first of all about himself, only about himself, everything he does, he does for himself.
We are not surprised by Zherekhov’s behavior. When, at the height of the battle, Bagration sent him with an important order to the general of the left flank, he did not go forward, where the shooting was heard, but began to look for the general away from the battle. Because of an untransmitted order, the French cut off the Russian hussars, many died and were wounded. There are many such officers. They are not cowards, but they do not know how to forget themselves, their careers and personal interests for the sake of the common cause. But the Russian army consisted not only of such officers.
In the chapters depicting the Battle of Shengraben, we meet true heroes. Here he sits, the hero of this battle, the hero of this “deed,” small, thin and dirty, sitting barefoot, having taken off his boots. This is artillery officer Tushin. “With big, smart and kind eyes, he looks at the commanders who entered and tries to joke: “Soldiers say that you are more agile when you take off your shoes,” and he is embarrassed, feeling that the joke was not a success.”
Tolstoy does everything to make Captain Tushin appear before us in the most unheroic, even funny form. But this one funny man was the hero of the day. Prince Andrei will rightly say about him: “We owe the success of the day most of all to the action of this battery and the heroic fortitude of Captain Tushin and his company.” The second hero of the Battle of Shengraben is Timokhin. He appears at the very moment when the soldiers panicked and ran. Everything seemed lost. But at that moment the French, who were advancing on ours, suddenly ran back, and Russian riflemen appeared in the forest. This was Timokhin's company. And only thanks to Timokhin the Russians were able to return and assemble battalions.
Courage is diverse. There are many people who are uncontrollably brave in battle, but get lost in everyday life. Through the images of Tushin and Timokhin, Tolstoy teaches the reader to see for real brave people, their low-key heroism, their enormous will, which helps to overcome fear and win battles.
In the war of 1812, when every soldier fought for his home, for his family and friends, for his homeland, the awareness of danger “increased his strength tenfold.” The further Napoleon advanced into the depths of Russia, the more the strength of the Russian army grew, the more the French army weakened, turning into a bunch of thieves and marauders.
Only the will of the people, only popular patriotism, the “spirit of the army” makes the army invincible. Tolstoy makes this conclusion in his immortal epic novel War and Peace.