|
The World of Symbols in H. Skovoroda’s Collection "Sad Bozhestvennykh Pisen"DOI: 10.18523/2618-0537.2018.14-19, PP. 14-19 Keywords: absolute (God), allegory, interpretation, microcosm, macrocosm, symbol, world of symbols, "creatured" nature Abstract: The article analyzes the world of symbols in H. Skovoroda’s collection “Sad bozhestvennykh pisen”. An important feature of the collection is the biblical symbolism of the garden that the philosopher expands by introducing the metaphorical image of wisdom as grains that “sprout from the wisdom of the Holy Scriptures.” In contrast to “wild” nature, the garden is the embodiment of self-development and human-made beauty. Therefore, the main purpose of the collection is to provide knowledge about the world in order to prepare the ground for the grains of the Scripture, which grow as new ideas in readers’ minds. H. Skovoroda thus extends the field of Bible interpretation through the prism of his own outlook. The philosophical teachings of the poet during his life are also featured in the collection. The Ukrainian philosopher divides the world into three parts: “the macrocosm” – the Universe; “the microcosm” – a person; “the world of symbols” – the Bible. All of them consist of two connected ambivalent natures – visible and invisible. The visible part is “creatured,” corporal, corruptible, while the invisible part is God, eternity, and harmony, namely purity, which must be achieved in life. According to the philosopher, an understanding between God and the human also means a reconciliation between the bodily and spiritual sides of people’s nature. Consequently, the renowned Ukrainian philosopher manages to actualize his guideline to know oneself, and as a result, to achieve harmony with the world. This thinker was a man outside of time and remains the one to this day as his mysterious and inaccessible philosophy will not lose its relevance and will continue to draw the attention of scholars and researchers willing to investigate his complex symbols. The volume of literary criticism on the author’s work proves that a multi-layered analysis of his philosophy, biblical interpretation, and symbolism remains impossible to fully comprehend.
|