Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov” was written at a turning point for Russian society a period when new, bourgeois, European values replaced the old feudal, truly Russian foundations. At the time of the creation of the work, society was divided into two camps - those who adhered to the old, partly archaic foundations and supporters of renewal. The concept of this intra-societal confrontation formed the basis for the opposition between Oblomov and Stolz in the novel. Using the example of two bright, outstanding, but nevertheless typical heroes, Goncharov tries to analyze how, due to different upbringing and education, people from the same social system, who developed in the same era and under similar conditions, became completely different, antithetical personalities.
Differences in the upbringing of Oblomov and Stolz
Oblomov's education
The antithesis in “Oblomov” when describing the formation of the images of Oblomov and Stolz can be traced, first of all, in their different, radically opposite upbringing. Ilya Ilyich’s dreaminess, laziness and reluctance to work were adopted by him from his parents and close relatives - residents of Oblomovka. The hero’s native estate was a center of peace and tranquility, where any work was perceived as a real punishment, and time was calculated not by hours and minutes, but by rituals - from birth to funeral, from wedding to christening. Little Ilya was particularly influenced by his nanny’s stories about fairy-tale heroes and mythical heroes. The impressionable, fantasizing Oblomov, since childhood, dreamed of being away from reality, hiding in the alluring world of fairy tales, where he himself could be a great winner. The daydreaming and escapism of Ilya Ilyich, which appeared at an early age, only developed and intensified in his youth and adulthood - this was facilitated by the introverted nature of the character, failure in the service and lack of adaptation to the real, rapidly changing world that requires constant activity.
Education of Stolz
The environment in which Stolz grew up was significantly different from the atmosphere of Oblomovka. First of all, because his father was a German burgher, with early years who instilled in his son a love of work and activism, the need to always be one step ahead of others and independently pave his way to the future. Andrei Ivanovich’s mother, a Russian noblewoman, on the contrary, saw in her son not a hard-working bourgeois, but a bright secular figure, instilling in him a love of books, the arts and social communication. Becoming extroverted open to the world Stolz’s nature was also facilitated by the constant visits of guests and noisy companies on his parents’ estate (while in Oblomovka it was not customary to have fun and often invite guests).
In Goncharov’s novel, Oblomovka, as a place of concentration of old, conserved, archaic Russian traditions, is contrasted with the Stoltsev estate - the source of a new, pro-European vector of personal development. These two families are typical prototypes Russian families the beginning of the 19th century, some of whom continued to live according to the old principles, crippled by Domostroev education later life children, and the other part was striving for updated ideas and values, but did not yet understand how to raise a truly harmonious personality of the new time.
Such a different feeling of love
The technique of antithesis in Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov” can also be traced when the theme of love is revealed in the work through the example of both characters. There were two loves in Oblomov's life. The first is spontaneous, all-encompassing, capable of changing a person’s personality, but fleeting love for Olga Ilyina, and the second is quiet, calm, born from a feeling of respect and gratitude, love for Agafya Pshenitsyna. The reason that the relationship between Ilya Ilyich and Olga was doomed to separation almost from the very beginning was the lovers’ illusions about each other - each of them idealized each other, trying not to notice negative and “inconvenient” features, paying attention only to what attracted them at first. Maybe, strong feeling and could have changed Oblomov’s apathetic character, but love overtook him already at that stage of his life when he was a fully formed personality who did not want to change even for the sake of important person. Ilya Ilyich needed a woman who would accept and love him for who he is - that’s exactly what kind, quiet Agafya was, sharing her husband’s Domostroevsky views on life and family.
Completely different feelings connected Olga and Stolz - between them there was neither that passionate flame that flared up and went out between Olga and Oblomov, nor that calm acceptance of each other that was between Oblomov and Agafya. The love of Olga and Andrei Ivanovich was based on strong friendship and mutual respect for each other as individuals. However, it is quite difficult to call their relationship sensual: after just a few years life together the woman begins to get bored, having not realized herself in society and is bogged down in constant care of her native estate and family, and Stolz begins to feel that he cannot relax and must constantly develop in order to meet the high demands of his wife. They never find the peace that Andrei Ivanovich wanted to find after his marriage.
Conclusion
Stolz and Oblomov are figures contrasted by the author as a rational, active, new beginning and a dreamy, passive one, clinging with all his might to outdated values. However, their antithetical nature manifests itself only externally; in fact, they harmoniously complement each other - without the continuous help of Andrei Ivanovich Oblomov would have long ago lost his native estate and found himself on the street, and without the sincere, warm support of Ilya Ilyich, Stolz would have completely closed himself off from a frightening and incomprehensible world feelings and inner experiences.
The point of contrasting Oblomov and Stolz is to show that a person cannot be happy and harmonious by developing only one side of his personality. It is important to be able to confidently move into the future, without forgetting the values and experiences of the past.
This detailed contrast between the two main characters of Goncharov’s novel will help 10th grade students when writing an essay on the topic “The meaning of the contrast between Oblomov and Stolz.”
Work test
A fairy tale knows two main types of heroes: Ivan the Fool - the hero of magical heroic plots ("Three Kingdoms", "Kashchei the Immortal", "Rejuvenating Apples", etc.) and Ivan the Fool - the hero of the fairy tales "Sivka-Burka", " The Magic Ring”, “Wonderful Gifts”, “The Little Humpbacked Horse”, etc. Existence various types the heroes find their historical and aesthetic conditioning, the latter determined by the desire to comprehensively reveal the national ideal. The goal of the hero in different stories is different: to return to people the light that the snake swallowed, to get rid of
The monster's mother and find the brothers, restore the old man's sight and health, turns the queen into a white duck, and then tries to destroy her children.
Revealing the images of its heroes, the fairy tale conveys folk ideas about people, their relationships, affirms kindness and loyalty. The image of the hero is revealed in a complex system of plot contrasts. Antithesis
This artistic technique, with the help of central image receives an in-depth description. The contrast between the hero and his opponent (saboteur) is of particular importance, since the relationships between these characters are an expression of various life principles and thus become a means of revealing ideological content fairy tales
Main types of heroes - active
(Ivan Tsarevich) and passive
(Ivan the Fool, stepdaughter) - the types of opponents also correspond. Conventionally, they can be divided into two groups: the monstrous opponents of the “other” kingdom - snakes, Kashchei, Baba Yaga and others, and the opponents of “their” kingdom - the tsar, princess, brothers, etc.
Monstrous opponents
Characters from heroic stories. Popular fantasy portrays them as fantastic monsters. Deliberately portraying heroes externally ordinary people - good fellow, a red maiden, the fairy tale resorts to hyperbole when describing enemies: a nine-headed serpent, a man with a fingernail-length beard. They are all aggressive, bringing death and destruction to people: they kidnap women, children, and burn kingdoms. But the more monstrous the enemy, the greater determination and courage the hero must have.
The antagonistic relationship between the hero and his opponent is plot basis all fairy tales. But despite the general similarity of the plot plot, not a single fairy tale nevertheless repeats the other. This difference lies, in particular, in the variety of plot, which is largely due to the numerous images of opponents. Each of them has
a specific traditional function in the plot, hence the differences in appearance, attributes, properties that give rise to special forms of combating them. The number of the hero's opponents will increase even more if we take into account that different characters can be hidden behind one name.
Thus, in addition to the main characters- the hero and his opponent - there are many other characters in the fairy tale, each of which has its own purpose in the plot action; Among them there is a particularly large group of characters who give wonderful helpers, and the wonderful helpers themselves. These are only characters from a fairy tale.
IN fairy tales domestic and wild animals always stand on the side of the hero: the horse helps to defeat the snake, the cow Burenushka does difficult work for her stepdaughter, the cat, etc. the dog returns the ring stolen by the princess, the bear, wolf, and hare help the prince get Kashchei's death or deal with the sorcerer - his sister's lover.
Since ancient times, wanting to rid themselves of illnesses and random dangers, trying to ensure good luck in all matters, the popular imagination has endowed bread, water, fire, as well as many different objects with magical functions: flint, towel, needle, mirror, ring, knife, etc. This belief is confirmed in numerous rituals and customs; it is also uniquely reflected in the tale of miraculous properties individual items, with the help of which the hero carries out difficult assignments and avoids danger. Miraculous objects in a fairy tale are, as a rule, seemingly ordinary household items - a comb, a brush, a towel. The miraculous properties lie in their action: the tablecloth feeds all the hungry, the towel spreads like a river, the ridge turns into an impenetrable forest.
Origins of Romanticism
Formation European romanticism usually referred to end of the XVIII-first quarter of the XIX century. This is where his ancestry comes from. This approach has its own legitimacy. At this time, romantic art most fully reveals its essence and is formed as literary direction. However, writers of a romantic worldview, i.e. So...
"The Crow and the Hen"
The fable, as we know, does not belong to the genres in which big problems are solved. historical issues. Krylov's fables are a surprising exception. For it would not be an exaggeration to say that, perhaps, none of the Russian writers of that time came to truly understand folk character The Patriotic War is so close, no one has expressed it exactly...
Actors and theater in Spain in the 17th century
The Spaniards loved theater to a passion. One foreigner who visited Spain in the middle of the 17th century wrote: “The people are so keen on this entertainment that it is very difficult to get a place (in the auditorium - S.L.). Best places are ordered in advance. Even in Paris, where there are no daily performances, there is no such desire to go to the theater.” Another pu...
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 unassuming 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 people's patriotism, the "spirit of the army" makes the army invincible. Tolstoy makes this conclusion in his immortal epic novel War and Peace.
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 that 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 did not frame his future wife as a slave. He did not want to marry just to satisfy his natural desires. First of all, he wanted a family mutual love, without love he saw no meaning 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.
Precisely because Levin’s love was pure, 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?
In a broad sense, antipodes are entities opposite to each other. The term is borrowed from where it denoted opposing things, phenomena and quantities. The concept is used in physics, philosophy, literature and other areas of science and art.
Where do the Antipodes live?
In terms of geography, we can, for example, call the inhabitants of New Zealand and Spain antipodes, since these countries are located in strictly opposite points of the planet.
Explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language, among other meanings, unanimously highlight the following: antipodes are people of opposite views, beliefs, actions, etc. It is with this meaning that the literary device, with the help of which the author creates a picture of life and expresses his concept.
The antipodean hero is interesting not only from the point of view of plot collisions. His presence creates a conflict and helps the reader take a closer look at the main character, see the hidden motives of his actions, and thoroughly understand the idea of the work.
Russian classics are rich in such literary pairs that represent the antipodes. Moreover, these characters can not only be enemies, but that does not prevent them from being antipodes. Onegin and Lensky, about whom Pushkin says that they are “like ice and fire”, Andrei Bolkonsky and Pierre Bezukhov, Grinev and Shvabrin, Oblomov and Stolz, the Karamazovs - Ivan and Alyosha - this is not a complete series of names.
Eternal duel
In A. Griboyedov’s brilliant comedy “Woe from Wit,” the ardent and witty Chatsky also has antipodes. This is, first of all, the “modest” Molchalin. These people would not be placed side by side at all - they are so far from each other in their way of thinking, but they are only brought together by one object of love - Sofya Famusova. Both heroes are smart in their own way, but this intelligence is different. Molchalin, convinced that “one must depend on others,” won recognition for his obsequiousness, courtesy, pragmatic professionalism and caution. In contrast, the sincere, talented, independent Chatsky, who “wants to preach freedom,” is recognized by the majority as crazy. Common sense the conformist Molchalin, it would seem, triumphs over the “crazy” daring rejection of vulgarity, hypocrisy and stupidity. However, sympathies are still on the side of the freedom lover Chatsky, who leaves Moscow with broken hearted. The presence of an antipodean hero in the play makes the conflict especially expressive and emphasizes how typical the fate of a loner who decides to contradict the majority is.
The secret of true love
In F. Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment,” it is not immediately possible to recognize the antipodes of the main character. At first glance, Svidrigailov and Luzhin seem completely opposite to Raskolnikov, from whom the hero wants to protect and save people. However, we gradually understand that Raskolnikov, absorbed in his idea, is, rather, their double - in the inhuman, cynical and criminal content of this idea. Nevertheless, Raskolnikov has antipodes - this is Porfiry Petrovich. The latter was fascinated by similar Raskolnikov views in his youth, but his conscience did not allow him to follow this path. And Sonya also “transgressed,” but not by taking the lives of others, but by sacrificing herself for the sake of others. Thanks to this contrast, the author helps us understand what the true essence of Christian charity and love is.
