The novel "Resurrection" does not pay attention to what many novelists do, who try to craft beauty from their words and meanings. I also have no doubt that this novel is a direct statement that does not gravitate toward metaphor in any way. Tolstoy's pen was dangerously direct and shocking. I did not find, in these five hundred pages, a single figurative image intended for its own sake. I did not find any of Tolstoy's rhetorical devices, including similes, metaphors, metonymies, and rhetorical devices, except when the truth becomes cloudy and murky. Then he works to clarify and establish it with a kind of rhetorical beauty, so that the idea rebounds clearly and clearly. As for his intention to demonstrate his rhetorical ability, this is something I did not find in "Resurrection." "Resurrection" is a reality that Tolstoy spoke of; he sees it with his own eyes, its events communicate it to him with his own ears, and he reads it in the face of society, its ceiling and its bottom. When he turned his talk to the central plot of the novel, which brings together Prince Niklandov and the maid Maslova, he was referring to a kind of mutual relationship in general, that is, Niklandov’s disgracing of the maid by raping her by force is not the focus of the novel, because the prince’s action represents the above and the sculpture; the one who orders and the one who executes; the one who errs whenever he wants and asks for forgiveness whenever he wants, and not because the right required him to do so or because justice requires it... Tolstoy was adept at capturing a single horrific scene from the scenes of this world with its sinful relationships between master and slave, rich and poor