Comparative study of the symbolism of water and fire in Russian poetic traditions and Chinese classical poetry

Abstract

The study aims to identify culturally conditioned differences and points of convergence in the symbolism of water and fire in the Russian poetic tradition and Chinese classical poetry, where universal archetypes of the elements are reinterpreted under the influence of opposing worldview paradigms. The objective of the work is to describe the semantic fields and axiological emphases of these symbols and to explain their connection with Russian dualism and eschatologism, on the one hand, and Chinese harmony of Dao and the complementarity of Yin-Yang, on the other. Methodologically, the research employs comparative-historical and structural-semiotic analysis, hermeneutic reading, and cultural-philosophical interpretation. The corpus includes texts by Russian poets of the Golden and Silver Ages (Pushkin, Lermontov, Tyutchev, Fet, Blok, Akhmatova, Mandelstam) and classics of the Tang and Song dynasties (Li Bo, Du Fu, Wang Wei, Su Shi), ensuring a representative comparison. The results show that in the Russian tradition, water is conceptualized as a metaphor for the soul, memory, and linear fatal time that brings oblivion and melancholy, while fire embodies ultimate inner tension- from destructive passion to the catharsis of sacrifice and social apocalypse. In contrast, in Chinese poetry, water appears as the embodiment of Dao and the principle of wu wei, symbolizing naturalness, soft power, and cyclicity, whereas fire represents Yang energy and controlled creativity (ritual, craftsmanship, internal alchemy). The discussion clarifies that the Russian model emphasizes conflict and the extremity of experience, whereas the Chinese model emphasizes balance, equilibrium, and contemplation; their epistemological codes also differ: immersion and intuitive insight versus clear mirror and meditative observation. The practical significance lies in enhancing the tools of comparative studies, translation theory, and intercultural communication; the limitations involve corpus representativeness and online biases; future prospects include expanding the empirical base and incorporating quantitative psycholinguistic procedures.