Journal Phasis - Greek and Roman Studies

Crnković, Koraljka

English

H Αλεξανδρινή Γραμματεία – πηγή των γνώσεών μας περί της Αδριατικής

Gardapkhadze, Ketevan

Phasis 15-16, 2012-2013 
 
Ketevan Gardapkhadze (Tbilisi) 
Typological Parallels with Ancient Democracy 
in Georgian Legislative Tradition 
The analysis of the legislation of the country, lawmaking and legal procee-
dings is one of the most significant issue in the process of identification of 
the level of state democracy: to what extent the lawmaking and legal pro-
ceedings consider (direct or indirect) engagement of people living in the 
state in this process. In this regard, we will analyze the processes ongoing 
in the Ancient Greece, Rome and feudal Georgia in the area of lawmaking.        
     Naturally, when discussing the Georgian state, for which all political-
social-legal norms common for feudal formation were organic, we can not 
talk about democratic principles of management of the field of law, with 
the direct meaning of this term. We will rather accentuate the scheme of 
collegiality, advising, which clearly works in the legal system of both the 
united Georgia and Georgia of the late feudal period. 
     Lawmaking of Athens represents an unprecedented example of demo-
cracy of this field. Apart from all main institutions of the Greek democracy 
(Public Assembly, Boule, Nomothetai, Thesmothetai), common citizens of 
Athens could participate in it. If the law did not meet the requirements of 
society, a citizen had a right to submit a new draft law to the people. It 
should be accentuated that a citizen could not initiate only an amendment. 
He should have necessarily submitted a new version of the established 
law. After submission of the draft law, the Boule would include this issue 
in the agenda of the Public Assembly. After that, the Assembly would con-
sider whether it was worth submitting the new draft law to Nomothetai 
(legislators). A draft law was given the force of a law after being approved 
at the meeting of Nomothetai.1 
                                                 
1  Sealy R., The Justice of the Greeks, Michigan 1994, 27-33. 
Ketevan Gardapkhadze 94 
     As for the Roman Republic, we have a comparatively different picture 
here. While the Greek lawmaking can be freely called absolutely open to 
the citizen initiative, as any person directly participated in lawmaking, 
magistratus maiores (Dictator, Consul, Pretor) and tribuni plebis (Tribune) 
had the legislative function in Rome. As Tribunes represented protectors 
of people‘s interests, their right in the field of lawmaking can be evaluated 
as indirect participation of Roman people in lawmaking to a certain extent.  
In the feudal Georgia, only the King was vested with the right of initiator 
in lawmaking, which will be discussed in more detail later.2 
     It is also important, to what extent these laws were available for citi-
zens, to what extent they were allowed to know laws and become acquain-
ted with them. Knowledge of laws was not a prerogative of the elite in 
Athens. Laws were publicized in the center of Athens around the statues 
of Eponymous Heroes and everybody could get familiarized with them 
(―All citizens have the same laws before them, simple and clearly readable 
and understandable.‖ (Dem., 20, 93)). 
     We find the identical picture in Rome in this regard. The Law of the 
Twelve Tables, which became the foundation of the Roman legislative sys-
tem, was carved on tablets and according to the custom, they were disp-
layed in public place so that people could become acquainted with them. 
This tradition lasted until the 5th century BC and thereafter. The author of 
the draft law had to preliminarily submit, promulgate (promulgatio) it for a 
certain period (not more than three weeks). Citizens could study the draft 
law and enter amendments to it. On the day of voting, the magistrate 
would read at the assembly the draft law, which was not subject to 
amendments any more and propose to vote in a following manner: UR (uti 
rogas – as you propose = vote in favour) and A (absolvo – I reject the new 
proposal = vote against). If the law was adopted at the assembly, the 
magistrate would order to solemnly announce it (renuntiatio – promulgate 
results of voting). Afterwards, the law was enacted. Approval of law by 
Senate was a necessary condition (auctoritas patrum). The text of the 
adopted law was saved in the state archives (aerarium populi Romani).  
      As we have already mentioned, the King of Georgia had a legislative 
function, but it did not imply the right of unipersonal adoption of laws, 
but in cooperation with members of ―Darbazi‖ and their decision. In the 
Code of Law of Bagrat Kurapalati we read: ―initially … submitted to the 
Kings by order of the Archbishop and afterwards, the bishops, nobility 
                                                 
2   Kunkel W., Schermaier M., Römische Rechtsgeschichte, 14, durchgesehene Auflage, 
Köln 2005, 33. 
Typological Parallels with Ancient Democracy... 95 
and clever men.‖3 According to the norms applicable in the feudal society, 
lawmaking was not available for people, however, sources have provided 
us with information that in some cases Khevisberi (elders of Khevi) were 
also engaged in the process of creation of a new legislative act together 
with public officials. By means of Khevisberi the people of that region also 
participated (indirectly) in creation of laws (Code of Law of the King of Kings, 
George).  
     The state permamently worked on improvement of the legislative sphe-
re. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that after oligarch revolution in 
Athens, the first step of the democratic power was formation of the so-cal-
led council of promulgators of laws (ἀναγραφεῖϛ τ῵ν νόμων) in 410 BC, 
which was instructed to create a body of laws on the basis of existing laws, 
which took six years. The laws were carved in the center of the town, on 
walls of Basileios Stoa in Agora for people to become acquainted with 
them. It is noteworthy that the laws inscribed on stone slabs in the period 
of temporary overthrow of democratic government in 404 century BC 
were removed from Agora. The new democratic government put the issue 
of regulation of legislation in the center of attention again and created the 
council of Nomothetai, thus starting a new stage in the Athenian 
lawmaking – the Public Assembly was deprived of the lawmaking right 
and it was assigned to Nomothetai.4  
Attaching great significance to this sphere by the state is evidenced by 
the fact the entire body of Athenian laws was revised on an annual basis. 
At the first Public Assembly of the year, the laws rejected by raising a 
hand where reviewed at the final meeting of the month where the issue of 
assembly of Nomothetai, their salaries was raised. They used to agree on 
the term required for study of laws. It is also important that a law was not 
annuled and replaced by a new one directly. On the contrary, the state 
approached this procedure very seriously. This is evidenced by election of 
five persons at the same Public Assembly, who were instructed to observe 
laws to be annuled and carry out graphē paranómōn – legal action against 
the persons who would submit such new draft law which contravened the 
existing legislation. A person incriminated of this crime three times was 
deprived of citizenship. The first two cases were restricted to a penalty.  
Annual revision of laws was also instructed to Thesmothetai. The 
purpose of this revision was to reveal inefficient laws and laws 
                                                 
3   Javakhishvili I., Works, 12 vols., v. 7, Tbilisi 1984, 169. 
4  Gagarin M., Early Greek Law, University of California Press, Berkley, Los Angeles, 
London 1986, 51-81. 
Ketevan Gardapkhadze 96 
contravening the legislation, which would be followed by undergoing 
traditional steps of approval of law (promulgation, convening the Public 
Assembly, convening the Nomothetai and voting for law).  
     It can be said that the Athenian state, on the one hand, permanently 
controlled, revised the legislation and was oriented at its improvement, 
but on the other hand, it established a legal mechanism (graphē paranó-
mōn – γραφὴ παρανόμων – collegium of protectors of laws to be annuled), 
which ensured supremacy of own laws.  
     Athenians had two different concepts in legislation: law and decree. 
They had the same meaning until the 4th century BC. Later, their approval 
was followed by a different procedure: decrees were adopted at the Public 
Assembly by voting. Laws defined which decree the Public Assembly was 
entitled to adopt. Accordingly, the law was superior to the decree in the 
Athenian legislation. 
Athenian laws were divided into blocks:  
1. Laws concerning the Council (gathering of Nomothetae, lawmaking 
procedures). 
2. Laws common to all Athenians (τ῵ν κοιν῵ν). 
3. Laws of nine Archons. 
4. Laws having to do with ―other authorities‖ (τ῵ν ἀλλ῵ν ἀρχ῵ν). 
     There is a different picture in Rome. The first serious concern for 
improvement and development of the Roman legislation is associated 
with the reform of Servius Tullius (509 BC). According to Tacitus, Servius 
Tullius is mentioned as the first legislator, as his predecessors were limited 
only to issue of separate laws and resolutions. After expulsion of kings, 
only separate laws were issued to reduce the patrician influence. Finally, 
Decemviri developed the Law of the Twelve Tables5 considering the 
legislative tradition of Athens (Solon‘s Laws) in 451-450 BC, which laid the 
foundation for the Roman legislation. Leges Liciniae Sexstiae (Gaius Licinius 
Stolo) ensured equation of legal state of plebeians and patricians more or 
less. The next two centuries, which were full of continuous wars with 
other peoples, were not distinguished by development of legislation. On 
the contrary, Stolo‘s laws were forgotten. Activities of the Gracchi Brothers 
can be considered as the next uprise in the history of legislation 
development. Non-democratic laws of Sulla (Leges Corneliae, 87 BC) were 
oriented at full reorganization of the state, by enchancement of aristocracy. 
With the death of Sulla (78 BC), democratic opposition reappeared, trying 
to regulate the situation in the state with various laws. Under condition of 
                                                 
5   RE, Tabulae Duodecim, IV A.2 1900-1949; S VII, Berger. 
Typological Parallels with Ancient Democracy... 97 
fight between the Caesar and Pompey, legislation turned into an 
instrument for struggle, where laws were amended and new laws were 
issued mainly for personal interests. Augustus managed to restore order 
in the country by means of laws, however, the legal institutions estab-
lished by him were later occupied by protection of personal interests.6  
      In the republican period, laws were passed by Public Assemblies 
(Curiate, Century, Tribal Assemblies). Depending on where the law was 
voted for, the laws were divided into the following categories: leges 
curiatae, leges centuratae and leges tributae. During the period of Empire, the 
role of the Public Assembly declined and the Emperor arrogated to 
himself the right to issue laws (constitutions).  
     The laws were given the name according to the surname of their 
author. The law consisted of three parts: praescriptio legis (introductory 
part of the law), rogatio legis (the text of the law, which may be divided 
into chapters) and sanctio (the part of the law stipulating what will be the 
outcome of violation of this law). Often several laws were issued in 
connection with the same issue, as the adopted law was not observed. 
Therefore, large groups of laws were formed: leges agrariae, leges de alea, 
leges de ambitu, leges de colonii deduncendis, leges de maiestate, leges de 
provocatione, leges de sacerdotis, leges de sponsu, leges de fenebres, leges fru-
mentariae, leges iudicariae, leges repetundariae. By essense, laws were divided 
into two types: leges privata – which protected interests of private persons, 
separate citizens and governed relations between them and leges publicae – 
which protected sovereignty of the Roman people.  
     Next to laws (leges), edicts of Magistratus (Pretor, Censor, Consul, Edil, 
Questor, Tribune of Plebes, Dictator) were also applicable in Rome and 
they had the force of law. Edict was a public statement, order. The Pretor‘s 
edicts had the greatest importance. Orders of Magistratus were effective 
during one year, however it did not apply to the Pretor‘s edicts which had 
a long validity term.  
     Unlike Athens and Rome, we do not have any information about how 
the first state laws were created in Georgia, but we can already say about 
the legislative sphere of the feudal (united and late feudal) Georgia, that in 
line with the common law, which represents the basis of ancient law of 
any country, is based on canon (translated and Georgian canon law) and 
secular law (their number is quite large: Regulations of the Royal Court, 
Dasturlamali, Bagrat Kurapalat Laws, Code of Law of George the Brilliant, Laws 
                                                 
6  Flach D., Die Gesetze der frühen Römischen Republik, Text und Komments, Darm-
stadt 1994, 137. 
Ketevan Gardapkhadze 98 
by Beqa and Aghbugha, Collection of Codes of Law of Vakhtang VI etc.).7 The 
Georgian kings paid great attention to the issue of regulation of 
lawmaking, which is clearly evidenced by the reason for starting to work 
on the new Code of Law by George the Brilliant. After George the Brilliant 
united the country, Mtiuleti was placed in the center of his attention, 
where the old customs could not govern the legal relations between 
people any more and the institutional power did not function normally. 
Due to this reason, working on the new Code of Laws began as instructed 
by the King. It must be underlined that as already mentioned, together 
with special officials, Khevisberi of Mtiuleti also participated in creation of 
laws, as representatives of the region, through which the people were 
involved in this process, even though indirectly. Codes of Laws (Laws) were 
created by people having a knowledge of law and afterwards were 
approved in the advisory body. Vakhtang VI instructed the Commission 
of Scholars to collect the monuments of the Old Georgian law, translation 
of foreign monuments (The Law of Moses, Greek Law, Armenian Law) and 
created a body of laws himself. The passed law was approved by Darbazi, 
which was obliged to adopt laws and execute the supreme justice, toge-
ther with many other functions.8  
     Therefore, many people participated in creation of a legislative act in 
the Georgian reality as well – scholars, public officials, king and finally the 
law was approved at the advisory meeting. The other norm applicable in 
the Georgian legal space was of a different nature – decree, order, which 
had the force of law, but it was made by the King unipersonally, unlike 
the law.  
     The law encompassed two areas in Georgia too. There were laws 
governing relations between citizens and laws protecting inviolability of 
the King and the country (abdication and treachury; insult of the King; 
conspiracy entered into by defeated population living in Georgia 
(Muslims); coup d‘etat, which is expressed by an interesting term in some 
sources ―unthinkable‖). 
      All Athenian citizens exercised equal rights before the law, unlike 
foreigners, whose legal rights were restricted to a certain extent. The 
power of a person before the law was called a status in Rome and it 
encompassed three elements: 1. Freedom status (free and unfree citizens); 
                                                 
7  Surguladze I., Historical Sources of Georgian Law, Tbilisi 2003, 159. 
8  Customary Law, I. Javakhishili History and Ethnography Institute, Tbilisi 2010, 311-
333. 
 
Typological Parallels with Ancient Democracy... 99 
2. Citizenship status (Roman citizens and non-Romans – Latins, Peregri-
nes); 3. Family status (state of a Roman citizen in the family). All three 
elements of the legal status are used in Athens as well.  
     As for Georgia, rights of citizens before law were governed by social-
legal norms of the feudal formation. Difference in titles were directly 
reflected on the citizen rights before the law, which is rather noticeable in 
legal proceedings and which we will discuss later. Naturally, this 
restriction did not apply in the customs law, where nearly all members of 
community had equal rights before the law. 
      As can see, Roman law developed much more than the Athenian law. 
However, it should be mentioned that in terms of democracy, Athens was 
before Rome. At different stages of the state development, law in Rome 
was changing according to the political situation, people-oriented laws, or 
on the contrary, laws directed at enhancment of aristocracy, were adopted. 
Lawmaking of the feudal Georgia was first of all directed at streng-
thening of the central power, proceeding from peculiarities of the forma-
tion, and protected interests of the ruling class. The level of engagement of 
people in the lawmaking process (representative – for example, Khevis-
beri) can not be compared to, but anyway shows more similarity to Roman 
law (tribuni plebis – the right to submit a new law).  
     Athenian lawmaking is distinguished from the Roman and feudal 
Georgian lawmaking by its loving nature.  
     Nomothetai were elected from Dikastes.9 Any male citizen over 30 years 
old could serve as a Dikastes, not to mention direct participation of 
Athenians in drafting bills. In this regard, Georgia provides a picture 
closer to Romanian. In the Georgian legal system, laws were created by 
scholars, i. e. law experts. It is noteworthy that lawyers, ―scholarly nobles 
of council matters‖ appear in the Georgian lawmaking from from the mid-
10th century, who were convened to the palace for resolution of legal 
matters by Bagrat IV.10  
      In the law of all three countries, there are two forms of law – law 
(νόμοϛ, lex) and order, decree (ψήφισμα, adictum, except edict). Unlike 
Athens, Roman and feudal Georgian lawmaking show an identical pi-
cture: unlike law, decree is adopted unipersonally.  
     At the same time, it should be mentioned that Athenian law was 
common to all Athenians, which means, that the law was not tailored to 
                                                 
9   RE, Βικασταιv, v. 1, 565-571, Thalheim. 
10  Javakhishvili I., 1984, 382.  
 
Ketevan Gardapkhadze 100 
individuals. According to the Orator Andocides, a law would not be 
approved if it was applicable against an individual or in favour of an 
individual, except the rare exception, which required secret voting of the 
Public Assembly of 6 000 persons to be approved, while laws were often 
drafted and approved for personal purposes and were used as an 
instrument for political struggle in the era of the republican Rome.  
     Analysis of the sphere of legislation and legal proceedings of the feudal 
Georgia in this regard is required to have an idea about how organic the 
principles of democratic management were for the legal sphere of 
historically Georgian state.  
     As it becomes clear that democratic trends are observed at all stages of 
development of the Georgian lawmaking (united feudal and late feudal 
state), this predetermines our conviction that under the conditions of 
development of a modern democratic state it is simpler for the legal 
system to be more democratic, people-oriented and aimed at protection of 
interests of people.  
 
 
 
 


Typological Parallels with Ancient Democracy in Georgian Legislative Tradition

Hatzopoulos, Marios

Οι Ίβηρες στην ελληνική εσχατολογική σκέψη. Σχόλια σε ένα κείμενο του Αστερίου Αργύρου

Zozulak, Ioanis

Phasis 15-16, 2012-2013 
 
Ioanis Zozulak (Presov) 
Η Ελευθερία του Ανθρώπου 
στα Έργα των Βυζαντινών Συγγραφέων 
Σήμερα στον κόσμο υπάρχει πολύ μεγάλο ενδιαφέρον για το θέμα της 
ελευθερίας του ανθρώπου,1 αλλά πολλοί δεν σκέφτονται πως η ευαισθησία 
για την ελευθερία έχει τις ρίζες στη χριστιανική διδασκαλία. Η ελευθερία 
του ανθρώπου είναι ένα από τα πολύ επίκαιρα θέματα της φιλοσοφίας 
καθώς και της κοινωνικής ζωής, επειδή αφορά την ύπαρξη του ανθρώπου. 
“Ο άνθρωπος είναι κοινωνικό όν. Γεννιέται και ζει σε κάποια κοινωνία. 
Εκεί αναπτύσσεται η κοινωνικότητα και εκδηλώνεται η ελευθερία του. 
Ταυτόχρονα η κοινωνία προσδιορίζει και συνεπώς περιορίζει την ελευθε-
ρία του.”2 
Στην ιστορία παρουσιάστηκαν διάφορα απελευθερωτικά κινήματα. 
Στους χριστιανικούς πληθυσμούς της Νοτίου Αμερικής και της Αφρικής 
συνδέθηκε ο αγώνας εναντίον της αποικιοκρατίας και των συνεπειών της 
με μια επαναστατική θεολογία. Η χριστιανική θεολογία των περιοχών 
αυτών έγινε επαναστατική, ενώ η επανάσταση προσέλαβε θεολογικό 
περιεχόμενο. Επίσης γίνεται λόγος για την ελευθερία του λόγου, για την 
ελευθερία της σκέψης, για την ελευθερία της συνείδησης, κλπ. Εμείς δεν θα 
ασχοληθούμε με διάφορες πλευρές της ελευθερίας, αλλά θα επιχειρήσουμε 
να παρουσιάσουμε την ελευθερία του ανθρώπου στα έργα των βυζαντινών 
συγγραφέων, οι οποίοι καταλαβαίνουν την ελευθερία ως απελευθέρωση 
της καρδιάς από την τυραννία των παθών. Ο άνθρωπος δηλαδή απελευθε-
ρώνεται οντολογικά από την αμαρτία και τον διάβολο και αποκτά τη 
                                                 
1  Αυτή η μελέτη είναι ένα μέρος του επιστημονικού προγράμματος Fenomén slobody – 
hodnota kultúrnej a sociálnej identity (VEGA 1/0276/11). 
2  Μαντζαρίδου Γ., Ορθόδοξη θεολογία και κοινωνική ζωή, Θεσσαλονίκη 1996, 61. 
Η Ελευθερία του Ανθρώπου στα Έργα των Βυζαντινών Συγγραφέων 301 
χαρισματική ελευθερία, η οποία πραγματώθηκε στο πρόσωπο του Χριστού 
με το έργο της θείας οικονομίας.  
Η ελευθερία κατά τη βυζαντινή παράδοση είναι η φυσική κατάσταση 
ύπαρξης του ανθρώπου “κατά φύσιν”. Η ελευθερία του άνθρώπου δηλαδή 
συνδέεται στενά με τον τρόπο υπάρξεώς του. “Τα κτιστά όντα δεν είναι 
ελεύθερα από τη φύση τους, γιατί δεν είναι αίτια της φύσεώς τους. Ο 
άνθρωπος είναι κτιστό ον. Έχει το “είναι δεδανεισμένον”, δηλαδή δοτό. 
Αυτό σημαίνει ότι και η ελευθερία του είναι δοτή.”3 Ο άνθρωπος είναι 
κτιστός και περιορισμένος στη φύση του. Μόνο ο άκτιστος και άπειρος 
Θεός έχει άκτιστη και απόλυτη ελευθερία, όπως υπογραμμίζει ο Γρηγόριος 
Παλαμάς.4 Αυτό σημαίνει ότι απόλυτα ελεύθερος και κυριολεκτικά 
αυτεξούσιος είναι μόνο ο Θεός, αφού ως ο όντως Ων δεν υπόκειται σε 
καμιά φυσική ή μεταφυσική αναγκαιότητα.5 
Ο Θεός δημιούργησε τον κόσμο με απόλυτη ελευθερία της βούλησής 
του.6 Η ιδέα της δημιουργίας του κόσμου με μόνη τη βούληση του Θεού 
έχει κατά τον Μέγα Βασίλειο ιδιαίτερη σημασία, επειδή υπογραμμίζει 
κυρίως το γεγονός ότι ο κόσμος δεν δημιουργήθηκε από ανάγκη, δηλαδή 
δεν είναι προϊόν φυσικής αναγκαιότητας του Θεού, αλλά αποτέλεσμα της 
απόλυτης ελευθερίας της θεότητας. Η εκδήλωση του αβιάστου θελήματός 
του7 και το δημιουργικό δεν είναι υποστατικό γνώρισμα μίας από τις 
υποστάσεις, αλλά κοινή ενέργεια της Αγίας Τριάδας.8 
Κανένα χρονικό διάστημα δεν μεσολάβησε μεταξύ της ελεύθερης 
εκδήλωσής του θείου θελήματος για την δημιουργία του κόσμου και της 
πραγμάτωσής του. Ο Θεός δημιουργώντας δια μόνης της βούλησής του 
δεν έχει ανάγκη χρονικής παράτασης για την πραγμάτωση του θελήματός 
του.9 Δεν ενεργεί σωματικά ούτε χρειάζεται χειρωνακτική ή άλλη βοήθεια 
για την επιτέλεση του έργου του, αλλά κρατεί τα σύμπαντα με τη δύναμή 
                                                 
3  Μαντζαρίδου Γ., Χριστιανική ηθική, Θεσσαλονίκη 2000, 247. 
4  Βλ. Γριγορίου Παλαμά, Αντιρρητικός προς Ακίνδυνον, 3, 10, 8, Συγγράμματα, τόμ. Γ΄, 
Θεσσαλονίκη 1970, 184. 
5  Βλ. Γριγορίου Παλαμά Υπέρ των ιερώς ησυχαζόντων, 3, 2, 12, Συγγράμματα, τόμ. Α΄, 
Θεσσαλονίκη 1962, 666. 
6  Βλ. Courtonne Y., Saint Basile et l´Hellénisme, Étude sur la rencontre de la pensée chré-
tienne avec la sagesse antique dans l´Hexaméron de Basile le Grand, Paris 1934, 27. 
7  Βλ. Μεγάλου Βασιλείου, Περί του Αγίου Πνεύματος 8, 19: PG 32, 101BC. Εις την Εξαή-
μερον 1, 6: PG 29, 16D – 17A. Κατά Ευνομίου 2, 21: PG 29, 617C – 620A. Orphanos M., 
Creation and Salvation according to St. Basil of Caesarea, Athens 1975, 47. 
8  Βλ. Ραντόβιτζ Α., Το μυστήριον της Αγίας Τριάδος κατά τον άγιον Γρηγόριον Παλα-
μάν, Θεσσαλονίκη 1991, 106. 
9  Μαντζαρίδου Γ., Ουσία και ενέργεια του Θεού κατά τον Μέγαν Βασίλειον, Θεσσα-
λονίκη 1984, 92. 
Ioanis Zozulak 302 
του, χωρίς κανένα εξαναγκασμό της βούλησης.10 Είναι αποτέλεσμα της 
δύναμής του. 
Η απόλυτη ελευθερία δεν μπορεί να υπάρχει στο επίπεδο της εγκο-
σμιότητας, όπως λέει ο Ισαάκ Σύρου.11 Αυτό σημαίνει πως την απόλυτη 
και αυθεντική ελευθερία έχει ο Θεός, που είναι η πηγή του αγαθού και 
βρίσκεται πάνω από την αναγκαιότητα για οποιαδήποτε εκλογή. Ο Θεός 
δεν επιβάλλει καμιά μορφή δουλείας, γι΄αυτό κανείς δεν έχει το δικαίωμα 
να επιβάλλει σε άλλο άνθρωπο τη θέλησή του ή να τον εξαναγκάζει σε 
οτιδήποτε, όπως τονίζει ο Γρηγόριος Νύσσης.12  
Ο άνθρωπος δημιουργήθηκε κατ΄ εικόνα του Θεού ως λογικό και 
αυτεξούσιο ον: “Καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον, κατ᾿ εἰκόνα Θεοῦ 
ἐποίησεν αὐτόν.” (Γεν. 1, 27). Η αυτεξουσιότητα και ελευθερία του άνθρώ-
που αποτελούν οντολογικό γνώρισμα του κατ΄ εικόνα. Ο Γρηγόριος Πα-
λαμάς εντοπίζει το κατ΄ εικόνα στην όλη ύπαρξη του ανθρώπου.13 Ο νους 
και η λογική συνδέονται με το αυτεξούσιο και την προαίρεση του 
ανθρώπου, και αυτά του παρέχουν τη δυνατότητα να τρέπεται πότε στο 
καλό, και πότε στο κακό. Ο άνθρωπος πιστεύει ότι είναι ελεύθερος, όταν 
μπορεί να ικανοποιεί τις επιθυμίες του. Δεν καταλαβαίνει όμως ότι τότε 
γίνεται δούλος των επιθυμιών του, επειδή τα πάθη υποδουλώνουν και 
διαστρέφουν τον άνθρωπο. Στο έργο του Ντοστογιέφσκυ διαβάζουμε τα 
λόγια του Μεγάλου Ιεροεξεταστή: “Θα πείσουμε τους ανθρώπους πως θα 
είναι πραγματικά ελύθεροι, μόνο όταν ξεπουλήσουν σε μας την ελευθερία 
τους. Θα τους επιτρέπουμε ακόμα και να αμαρτάνουν, γιατί είναι 
αδύναμοι, και θα μας αγαπούν γι΄αυτό σαν μικρά παιδιά.”14 
Η δουλεία του ανθρώπου συνεπέφερε τη δουλεία όλης της κτίσης στη 
φθορά (Ρωμ. 8, 18). Η κτίση, συμμετέχοντας στην πτώση του ανθρώπου, 
αναμένει και αυτή την “ελευθερία της δόξης των τέκνων του Θεού.” (Ρωμ. 
8, 21). Ο αγώνας κατά των παθών είναι αγώνας για την ελευθερία, όπως 
λέει ο Συμεών Νέος Θεολόγος.15 Η χριστιανική ελευθερία απορρίπτει κάθε 
δουλική εξάρτηση και η πράξη του ανθρώπου είναι ελεύθερη, όταν είναι 
σύμφωνη με τη φύση. Όποιος εκτρέπεται στην αμαρτία, υποδουλώνεται 
στη φθορά και το θάνατο. Η πτώση του ανθρώπου στην αμαρτία είχε 
οντολογικές συνέπειες στο κατ΄ εικόνα του ανθρώπου, το οποίο αμαυρώ-
θηκε από την αμαρτία. Η αμαύρωση του κατ΄ εικόνα σήμανε φθορά και 
                                                 
10  Μεγάλου Βασιλείου, Περί του Αγίου Πνεύματος, 8, 19: PG 32, 101BC. 
11  Ισαάκ του Σύρου, Λόγος, 65. Έκδ. Ι. Σπετσιέρη, 261. 
12  Γρηγορίου Νύσσης, Εις Εκκλησιαστήν, 4: PG 44, 665AB. 
13  Μαντζαρίδου Γ., Παλαμικά, Θεσσαλονίκη 1998, 156. 
14  Ντοστογιέφσκυ Φ., Αδελφοί Καραμαζώφ, 227-228. 
15  Συμεών Νέου Θεολόγου, Κατηχήσεις 5, Sources Chrétiennes, τόμος 96, Paris 1963, 468. 
Η Ελευθερία του Ανθρώπου στα Έργα των Βυζαντινών Συγγραφέων 303 
στο αυτεξούσιο του ανθρώπου, που αντί να οδεύει στην κατεύθυνση της 
ελευθερίας του πρωτοτύπου του βρέθηκε μέσα στην περιοχή της επιρροής 
του πονηρού. 
Το θεμέλιο της απελευθέρωσης της ανθρώπινης φύσης από την εξουσία 
του διαβόλου και της αμαρτίας τέθηκε με την ενανθρώπηση του Θεού 
Λόγου, ενώ με την ανάσταση του Χριστού επισφραγίστηκε η οντολογική 
απελευθέρωση του ανθρώπου από την πολλαπλή δουλεία του. Το λυτρω-
τικό έργο του Χριστού συνίσταται στο ότι μας “εξαγοράζει” από τη δου-
λεία και συνεπώς η ζωή μας του ανήκει ολοκληρωτικά. Η πραγματική 
ελευθερία χωρίς την οντολογική απελευθέρωση από την αμαρτία είναι 
ακατανόητη. 
Ο αναγεννημένος εν Χριστώ άνθρωπος μετατίθεται από τη δουλεία της 
αμαρτίας στη “δουλεία” του Χριστού. Ο Απόστολος Παύλος θεωρεί τίτλο 
τιμής τον αυτοχαρακτηρισμό του ως “δούλου Χριστού”, επειδή τον συν-
δέει με την απολύτρωση (εξαγορά του) από τον Χριστό (πρβλ. “απελεύθε-
ρος Κυρίου”. Α΄ Κορ. 7, 22). Ο ίδιος προσδιορίζει και τη φύση της νέας 
αυτής σχέσης με τον Χριστό: “... ήτε δούλοι της αμαρτίας· ελευθερωθέντες 
δε από της αμαρτίας, εδουλώθητε τω Θεώ” (Ρωμ. 6, 17). Και συνεχίζει: 
“Ωσπερ γαρ παρεστήσατε τα μέλη υμών δούλα τη ακαθαρσία και τη 
ανομία εις την ανομίαν, ούτω νυν παραστήσατε τα μέλη υμών δούλα τη 
δικαιοσύνη εις αγιασμών...” (Ρωμ. 6, 19). 
Η ενανθρώπηση, ο θάνατος και η ανάσταση του Χριστού αποτελούν 
ιστορικά γεγονότα της ζωής του, που έχουν για τον άνθρωπο 
απελευθερωτική σημασία. Ο Χριστός καλεί τον άνθρωπο στην απόλυτη 
ελευθερία, αλλά η μόνη δυνατότητα που έχει ο άνθρωπος για να 
απελευθερωθεί από την δουλεία στην αμαρτία και τον θάνατο, είναι να 
μετάσχει μυστηριακώς στο θάνατο και την ανάσταση του Χριστού. 
Μετέχοντας ο άνθρωπος κατά μυστηριακό τρόπο στο ζωοποιό θάνατο και 
την ανάσταση του Χριστού με το βάπτισμα μετέχει στις οντολογικές 
προϋποθέσεις της ελευθερίας του και δέχεται πραγματικά και χαρισματικά 
την απελευθέρωσή του από την δουλεία. 
Η ένταξη στο σώμα του Χριστού είναι η οδός της αληθινής ελευθερίας. 
Ο άνθρωπος, ο οποίος ζει εν Χριστώ, βρίσκει τον εαυτό του και την 
ελευθερία του στα πρόσωπα των άλλων και φροντίζει για τους άλλους. Με 
το να φροντίζει για τους άλλους προκόβει στην αγάπη και έτσι προκόβει 
στην ελευθερία. Η χριστιανική ελευθερία προσφέρεται σε όλον τον κόσμο, 
αλλά δε γίνεται πάντοτε δεκτή από τον κόσμο. Το κήρυγμα της χριστια-
νικής ελευθερίας προσφέρει τις λύσεις των κοινωνικών προβλημάτων, 
αλλά είναι πολύ σπουδαία η καλλιέργεια του πνεύματος της ελευθερίας. Η 
ελευθερία του ανθρώπου δεν αποτελεί μόνο ατομική υπόθεση, αλλά και 
Ioanis Zozulak 304 
συνάρτηση των κοινωνικών δεσμών και σχέσεων, γι΄αυτό Γ. Μαντζαρίδης 
λέει: “Κανένας δεν υπάρχει μόνος του, αλλά σε σχέση με τους άλλους. 
Ούτε η ελευθερία του υπάρχει μόνη της, αλλά σε σχέση με την ελευθερία 
των άλλων. Η ύπαρξη των άλλων είναι η προϋπόθεση της ζωής και της 
ελευθερίας του καθενός. Συνήθως πιστεύουμε ότι η ελευθερία μας περιο-
ρίζεται από την παρουσία των άλλων. Έτσι οι άλλοι αντιμετωπίζονται ως 
εμπόδια για την ελευθερία μας. Στην πραγματικότητα όμως χωρίς τους 
άλλους δεν είναι νοητή η ελυθερία μας.”16 
Στο τέλος μπορούμε να θυμηθούμε τα λόγια του Π. Παυλόπουλου: 
“Κανένα πολιτικό σύστημα δεν έδωσε στην ελευθερία του ανθρώπου και 
στα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα τέτοια σπουδαιότητα όπως ο χριστιανισμός 
που θεωρεί την ελευθερία του ανθρώπου όχι μόνο ως δικαίωμά του, αλλά 
και ως καθήκον του, επειδή ο αυθεντικός άνθρωπος είναι μόνο αυτός, ο 
οποίος είναι ελεύθερος, όπως το εξέφρασε ο Ρώσος φιλόσοφος Ν. 
Μπερδιάγιεφ ή Ντοστογιέφσκυ.”17 Από αυτό φαίνεται πως ο άνθρωπος 
έχει το προνόμιο της ελευθερίας και αν χάσει την ελευθερία, παύει να ζει 
ως άνθρωπος. Αυτός είναι ο λόγος γιατί ο άνθρωπος πρέπει να σέβεται την 
ελευθερία του και την ελευθερία των άλλων.18 
                                                 
16  Μαντζαρίδου Γ., Ορθόδοξη θεολογία και κοινωνική ζωή, Θεσσαλονίκη 1996, 72. 
17  Zozulak J. (ed.), Byzantská kultúra v kontexte európskej civilizácie, Presov 2003, 167. 
18  Για τη συζήτηση πάνω στο θέμα βλ. για παράδειγμα το βιβλίο The Eight Dialogue 
between the Orthodox Church and the Group of the European People´s Party 
(Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, Building Europe through Re-
conciliation and Cooperation, Thessaloniki 21-22, October 2004. 


Η ελευθερία του ανθρώπου στα έργα των βυζαντινών συγγραφέων

Scalora, Francesco

Τα ελληνικά δημοτικά τραγούδια και τα τραγούδια των αλβανόφωνων της Ιταλίας. Μια σύγκριση: "Το Τραγούδι του Μικρού Κωνσταντίνου"

Kotanidi, Evgenia

Το φαινόμενο της τρέλας στην ελληνική και ρωσική πεζογραφία του 19ου αιώνα

Gigineishvili, Levan

Phasis 15-16, 2012-2013 
 
Levan Gigineishvili (Tbilisi) 
For the Establishment of Correct Variant Reading of 
One Passage of Shota Rustaveli‟s 
The Knight in Panther’s Skin: Theory of Deification 
The oldest surviving manuscript of Shota Rustaveli‘s entire poem - The 
Knight in Panther‘s Skin (the manuscript H – 2074) dates from XVI century.1 
The manuscript was commissioned by the Patriarch Ioane (John) Ava-
lishvili. The commissioner himself was not of a high opinion as to the epic 
poem‘s theological significance and utility. Moreover, the Patriarch John 
even warned the readers concerning the perils of this secular, as he calls it, 
text that, in his opinion, does not praise God in a dogmatically correct way 
as Trinity in one essence and will fail to transform the Pauline fleshly 
Adam to the spiritual Adam.  
     However, Rustaveli himself was perhaps much more imbued with the 
tradition of the Christian patritsics than the Patriarch John Avalishvili 
thought. To be sure, this was not the only tradition from which Rustaveli 
drew his theological inspirations, for his other important sources are 
(Neo)-Platonic philosophy and Sufi mysticism (although the latter‘s role 
can be more ornamental than essential). However, in the poem there is a 
definite presence of one very special Christian theologian, whom Rustaveli 
directly quotes, unlike anonymous allusions to ideas of other theologians 
that can also be discerned. This theologian is Pseudo-Dionysius the Areo-
pagite, who in Rustaveli‘s time of course was regarded as the real Diony-
sius, the disciple of St. Paul. Pseudo-Dionysius quite matched intellectual-
spiritual taste and proclivities of Rustaveli‘s creative genius, for like this 
six century Christian, so also Rustaveli had a strong synthetic drive 
                                                 
1  Shota Rustaveli, The Knight in Panther‘s Skin, Nekeri, Tbilisi 2005 (in Georgian).  
Levan Gigineishvili 102 
towards linking different traditions and presenting them as a uniform 
whole. Rustaveli quotes Pseudo-Dionysius when he writes about the 
doctrine of insubstantiality of evil: 
Wise Dionysius reveals this hidden wisdom: 
           God brings forth good and does not generate evil.2 
     However, this paper will show that the mysterious pseudonymous 
theologian is present in The Knight in a Panther‘s Skin also in his doctrine of 
deification, that had become the central point of Eastern Christian 
theology and mysticism and spread also to the Latin West through such 
thinkers as John Scottus Eriugenna, whose theology draws heavily from 
this Byzantine source. It will be shown, that the manuscript reading that in 
the earliest surviving manuscript mentioned above is written at a margin 
of the text is in fact the correct version not seen as such by a copyist or a 
censor, who interpolated a substitution that smoothens and even nullifies 
the theological significance of the passage.  
     The dramatic setting of the passage is the following. Tariel, the very 
knight in panther‘s skin, the main protagonist of the poem, is in a 
desperate search of his lost beloved Nestan Darejan.3 Tariel‘s friend, 
Avtandil, an Arab general, who upon benign whim of the Providence 
befriended him in the time of utmost despair, succeeds in finding Nestan‘s 
whereabouts: she is kept prisoner in a tower of Kadjs – tribe of sorcerers 
who intend to coerce Nestan to a marriage with a Kadj prince. After 
knowing that Tariel is alive and fearful lest he comes in rescue of her with 
next to unavoidable outcome of perishing at the hands of the sorcerer 
Kadjs, Nestan sends impassioned letter to Tariel, urging him not to come 
to her aid. At the same time she assures Tariel that she will not be wife of 
anybody but him, and if this was not possible in this life, then the entire 
eternity of the afterlife awaits their marriage. Thus, she promises her 
beloved that she will sooner die rather than marry anybody else. In throes 
of romantic love sublimated to theological visions she speaks about the 
inseparability of her desire towards Tariel with her desire towards 
contemplation of divine illuminations. Here I quote two stanzas from 
Nestan‘s letter which are the focus of the present discussion; the second 
stanza includes the scribal substitution I spoke above: 
                                                 
2  Ibid., 208. Here and elsewhere I provide my own translations. 
3  As noticed by scholars since Niko Marr, the name is descriptive and derives from 
Persian ‖nest andare dajan‖, meaning ‖not to be found in the world‖, i. e. possessing 
supra-mundane beauty.  
For the Establishment of Correct Variant Reading of... 103 
Commend me to God by your prayers, that He may deliver me from toils of the 
world: 
From the movements in the realm of the elements – fire, water, earth and air; 
That He may give me wings and I may fly up, reaching my desired aim: 
To contemplate, days and nights, twinklings of the lightnings of the Sun.  
The Sun cannot be without you, for you are allotted to Him, 
Definitely you will approximate Him, being His worthy zodiac, 
I will see you There, identifying you with Him4 and you will illumine my darkened 
heart, 
So that if my life has been bitter, at least my death will be sweet.5 
     The third line of the second stanza is changed by a scribe in this way: ―I 
will see you there, I will project you there, you will illumine my darkened 
heart.‖ Now, the difference in Georgian is only in one letter, the ―n‖. In the 
version which I consider as authentic the Georgian word is მადვე 
―madve‖ [―just as Him‖], whereas a scribe or censor substitutes it with the 
word მანდვე ―mandve‖ [―in the same place‖] thus creating a tautology, 
quite mismatching with the poetic principle of Rustaveli ―to say long 
things shortly‖. What could be the reason for the scribe or the censor to 
change the word? I think the reason could be that the word ―madve‖ 
sounded scandalous and even sacrilegious for the uninitiated person, who 
understood the passage in terms of Nestan identifying the beloved with 
God Himself, thus substituting the latter with the former and falling into a 
blatant idolatry. However for the initiate into the doctrine of deification a 
la Pseudo-Dionysius the passage conveys an insight totally compatible 
with the Christian theology. In fact, Nestan speaks of Tariel as deified 
through becoming allotted to God, or participating in the divine Light, 
thus becoming God, in a way that he becomes also a channel of divine 
illumination for Nestan. What is specifically Rustavelian in this passage is 
to sublimate the earthly romantic love of the unique object, of the unique 
person of the beloved to the divine love, in which process not only love 
gets purified and divinized but also the object of love; thus, unlike the 
logic of Plato‘s Symposium, according to which in the course of the erotic 
ascent the concrete is the be abandoned for the higher, the general and 
universal, in Rustaveli the concrete itself or him/herself is elevated to the 
realm of divine universality becoming inseparable from the latter. 
Moreover, rising the earthly, romantic love to such a lofty status, so as to 
root it in the very divine eternity makes Rustaveli a pioneering thinker in 
Georgia. One can call Rustaveli‘s vision a ―divine sublimation of ro-
                                                 
4  Or: ‖I will project you as Him.― 
5  The Knight in Panther‘s Skin, 184. 
Levan Gigineishvili 104 
mantic‖, according to which the earthly romantic eros both emanates from 
and ascends to the divine Source.  
     Rustaveli‘s other inspiration and source for developing this vision 
could have been Ioane Petritsi, who also makes a creative elaboration 
upon Proclus‘ system and constructs a tenet of ―divinized gods‖, or ―gods 
in virtue of participation [in God]‖. Those divinized gods can well be 
humans who ascend to the divine through contemplation and ascetic toils 
and thus in Petritsi‘s words are ―divinezed in their souls‖. Thus, in 
Petritsi‘s system Proclian uncreated henadic gods, whom Proclus 
identifies with the gods of the Greek pantheon become created entities 
who get deified or divinized through participation in the God proper. This 
matches well to Rustaveli‘s above metaphor of calling Tariel the ―zodiac of 
the Sun‖: as the zodiac receives the sun, so Tariel will receive the Eternal 
Sun and be divinized through Him.  
      Now, what remains to be answered, is why did the copyist or censor 
put the authentic word ―madve‖ on the margin, why did not he omit it 
altogether? I have no answer but only can offer a surmise: evidently the 
copyist felt some unease of changing the text, attested in this form in all or 
majority of codices available for him and this unease coupled with respect 
towards the author urged him to put the true version on the margin. A 
more elaborate surmise would be that perhaps the copyist, himself 
initiated and well understanding the importance of the term left it on the 
margin for those of his kin who would not be scandalized by it, while 
putting less provocative term for the uninitiated in the main body. 
However the true motivation remains a mystery, as does the true identity 
of the sixth century promoter of the doctrine of divine eros and deification 
in Christian theology. 


For the Establishment of Correct Variant Reading of One Passage of Shota Rustaveli’s "The Knight in Panther’s Skin": Theory of Deification

Daniil, Anthoula

Η παγκοσμιότητα του ελληνικού πολιτισμού και η ελληνική ταυτότητα της Ευρώπης

Darchia, Irine

Hellenistic Koine and Modern Global Languages

Asatiani, Valeri

Phasis 15-16, 2012-2013 
 
Valeri Asatiani (Tbilisi) 
The Antiquity and the Ancient Georgian Literature 
Interest in Classical and Byzantine cultural heritage had a centuries-old 
tradition in Old Georgia. There are two factors serving to explain the 
emergence of this tradition the significance of Greek culture, and the close 
Greek-Georgian contacts, particularly those of the ancient Georgian 
population with its pre-Hellenic counterpart, reflected in the mythology, 
literature and numerous historical sources of these countries. 
After Christianity became the established religion in Old Georgia, most 
favourable conditions were created for the relations with Byzantium - the 
direct inheritor of the Greek culture. 
On the basis of the achievements of the modern scholarship it must be 
stated that Georgians made a certain contribution to the formation and 
further development of Byzantine literature. Two great Byzantine writers 
of the 4th century – Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa, representatives 
of the so-called Cappadocian theological school – must have belonged to 
one of the Kartvelian peoples of the Black Sea area. The theology of the 
Cappadocian Fathers was fundamentally based on classical philosophy 
and it exerted a great influence on the final formation of the principal 
dogmas of Christianity. Peter the Iberian, Georgian by origin, played an 
important role in the hagiographic life of Byzantium in the 5th century. 
Sh. Nutsubidze and E. Honigmann identify Peter the Iberian with Diony-
sius the Areopagite, the author of the Corpus Areopagiticus, which became 
the philosophical basis of Christian dogma in the Middle Ages. Its trace is 
obvious at each stage of the development of Old Georgian literature. 
Those ages witnessed intensive translations of hagiographical pieces 
and theological treatises from Greek into Georgian. Prolific literary work 
was carried on at many centers of learning. Ekvtime, Ioane and Giorgi 
Mtatsmindeli flourished at the time. Their contribution to Byzantine 
The Antiquity and the Ancient Georgian Literature  327
culture is of special significance. The philosophical literary school on 
Mount Athos as well as a new intellectual system was founded. Intensive 
literary activity was in progress and new methods were evolved in the 
sphere of translation. The cultural values, created by the representatives of 
the Athos School, were enriched by the works of Ephrem Mtsire, Arsen of 
Iqalto and Ioane Petritsi. There appeared the so-called “Petritsi style”. 
Georgian scholars and writers not only translated specimens of Byzantine 
literary works from Greek into Georgian, but they made their own contri-
bution to the development of Byzantine literature, thus enriching its 
culture. 
The new conception of Christian ideology was based on Christian 
dogmatics, the Bible. The Old and New Testaments, clergymen's writings, 
Georgian translations of the Biblical Books were the first specimens of Old 
Georgian literature. 
Georgian social-philosophical and literary thought of the 11th-12th cc. 
reaches its peak in the poem The Knight in the Panther's Skin by Shota 
Rustaveli. In his poem Rustaveli does not make direct reference to Greek 
authors and characters. His literary and philosophical conception is based 
on Classical thought, which does not mean that he is an apologist and 
follower of Hellenic thought. Like in European Christian thinking of the 
late Middle Ages or the early Renaissance epoch, in Rustaveli's poem the 
new world outlook is formed, taking into consideration Classical thought. 
In his work there is a pronounced tendency towards a novel revival of 
Classical ideals. 
Academician Sh. Nutsubidze suggested a theory of the Eastern, mainly 
Georgian Renaissance. Although his theory was not widely accepted, it 
was acknowledged by A. Losev, one of the distinguished scholars of the 
20th c. In his work The Aesthetics of the Renaissance (1978) he considers that 
Neoplatonism and Proclus' philosophy laid the foundation of the 
theoretical basis of the Georgian Renaissance, which preceded European 
Renaissance for more than two centuries. The above-mentioned theory 
makes the question of Georgian-Greek contacts more important. 
When dealing with the adoption of the Classical cultural heritage in 
Old Georgia, some of the common Greek-Georgian popular traditions 
should be taken into account. These are primarily the various aspects of 
the formation of literary works and their spread in Georgian lore. From 
this point of view, the specimens discussed in the present work allow to 
identify a number of compositional and content similarities in the ancient 
Greek and Georgian literary heritage. The explanation of such typological 
similarities should be sought in the general and regular phenomena that 
Valeri Asatiani 328 
played a decisive role in the formation of the folk heritage of ancient 
nations. 
Old Georgian literature was well acquainted with Homer, the author 
of The Iliad and The Odyssey. Reference to Homer was made in 
hagiographical as well as in early historical writings, through which the 
Georgian reader conceived of Homer as an inimitable writer capable of 
masterly depiction of major events and personalities. Homer and the 
characters of his poem were quite frequently referred to in comparing 
them with concrete historical personalities. 
However, the analysis of abundant historical data and the Georgian 
translation of Homer's six hexameters, preserved in literary monuments, 
do not provide enough proof to assert that in Rustaveli's time – the 
classical period of Georgian literature – there existed a Georgian 
translation of Homer's epic. Despite the fact that Rustaveli's poem The 
Knight in the Panther's Skin does not contain any direct reference to Homer 
(among ancient Greek authors only Plato is mentioned in Rustaveli's 
poem) some typological similarities are nevertheless noticeable. Contrary 
to the opinion of some scholars, this fact can not be taken to mean that 
Homer's work had any direct influence upon the Rustaveli's poem. 
Homer's influence is felt in the Georgian literary pieces of the later 
period, such as in Archiliani by the poet and King Archil, Timothy 
Gabashvili's Pilgrimage, Besarion Gabashvili's The Battle of Rukhi, etc. 
After Georgia was incorporated into Russia in 1801, favourable 
conditions were created for rendering into Georgian the best pieces of 
Greek as well as world literature via the Russian language. There 
appeared I. Garsevanishvili's (1792-1864) translation of The Iliad and The 
Odyssey in prose. Although these translations were devoid of artistic 
merits, the very fact of translating these works points to the later interest 
in Classical Greek culture in Georgia. Numerous translations of Homer's 
works have been made since then. 
When translating Homer's poems, Georgian translators made use of 
Bistikauri, a twelve-syllable verse, as well as its variety – a nineteen-
syllable verse and the sixteen-syllable verse known as Shairi. 
Besides Homer, other Greek authors, such as Hesiod, Aeschylus, So-
phocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, Menander, Aesop were frequently 
mentioned in Old Georgian literary pieces. There are also cases of 
Georgian renderings of less popular Greek authors, such as the comedist 
Plato (4th c. AD). In the transitional period of Georgian literature Racine's 
well-known tragedy Iphigenia was translated from Russian into Georgian 
by D. Choloqashvili. The translator offered a different conceptual and 
The Antiquity and the Ancient Georgian Literature  329
compositional interpretation of the subject of the Classical tragedy, 
bringing it close to the contemporary historical background. A subject 
similar to Iphigenia is given in Giorgi the Athonite's (11th c.) Great Synaxary. 
An echo of the fascinating story of Alexander the Great can be traced 
in Old Georgian literature. The Alexandriani was immensely popular in 
Georgia and stories related to Alexander the Great have been presented in 
a number of Old Georgian manuscripts. Classical mythology found its 
way into Old Georgian literature – via original and translated as well as 
Byzantine religious literature. 
Ephrem Mtsire's (11th c.) translation of the The Stories of the Hellenes, 
widely popular in Georgia, presents a significant literary piece containing 
elements of ancient Greek mythology. Mythological characters occur in 
the Georgian translation of John of Damascus's Legend, in George Hamar-
tolos's Chronicle, as well as in Ioane Petritsi's Interpretation of Proclus 
Diadochus and Platonic Philosophy. Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani, Teimuraz 
Bagrationi and Ioane Bagrationi in his Kalmasoba also paid tribute to 
mythological heroes. Many of the definitions in Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani's 
Dictionary stem from The Stories of the Hellenes. 
The above-mentioned literary sources provide information on Greek 
mythology with varied completeness and intergration. The Gelati 
metaphrase is an original Old-Georgian piece commenting on of the name 
of Homer's Iliad. The footnotes of Deacon Constantine's exegetic work 
contain stories of Pandion, Proclus, Philomella, Niobe, etc. unknown in 
Old Georgian literature. In the 18th-19th centuries there existed quite a 
number of collections containing Greek mythological legends, part of 
which have been studied. 
The mythological Thesaurus, compiled by the well-known Georgian 
public figure David Bagrationi (1768-1819), is of particular importance. It 
reflects a belated interest in ancient Greek culture that has had centuries-
old traditions in Georgia. Mythology, according to David Bagrationi 
himself, was translated from the Russian into Georgian in 1797, and seems 
to have been based upon Sh. Chulkov's Concise Mythological Dictionary 
(1767, 1788). Prior to its appearance several books containing mythological 
literature had been published in Russia (M. Lomonosov, M. Popov, etc.). 
Chulkov's Dictionary is an attempt to create a Russian national mytho-
logy with account of the Classical heritage. A juxtaposition of the extant 
Georgian manuscripts of the Mythology with Chulkov's Concise My-
thological Dictionary has shown that David Bagrationi made use of the 
definitions of the Dictionary only in a few cases. 
Valeri Asatiani 330 
David Bagrationi frequently made use of Ephrem Mtsire's translation 
of The Stories of the Hellenes. He as well as copyists of the Mythology seems 
to have made use of the version of The Strories of the Hellenes contined in 
the A-109 manuscript. 
Bagrationi's Mythology is also significant from the viewpoint that it 
helps restore some of the damaged and so far undeciphered parts of the 
text of The Stories of the Hellenes. 
Bagrationi's Mythology introduces a number of Classical Greek stories 
and motifs. It abounds in information about Greek writers and philo-
sophers. Mythological heroes are rendered in Roman redaction. Mythology 
is an original Georgian monument presenting data about Ajantes, Aurora, 
the hero of the Trojan war – Alastor, Peleas's daughter Alcestis, etc. 
When investigating David Bagrationi's works more attention should be 
paid to his Mythology, for it vividly speaks of the author as not only an 
outstanding writer, public figure and intellectual, but also reflects one of 
the most noteworthy aspects of his multifarious literary activities. Next to 
The Stories of the Hellenes and Kalmasoba, Mythology is a significant 
Georgian literary monument acquainting the Georgian reader with the 
Classical Greek mythology, philosophy and literature, as well as with the 
author of The Iliad and The Odyssey. Mythology is a convincing proof of the 
fact that Georgian literature of the transitional period generated even 
greater interest in the Classical heritage. Ioane and Teimuraz Bagrations 
deal with Classical themes. They often suggest a specific interpretation of 
Classical myths and legends, give original definitions of various terms and 
notions, showing profound knowledge of the Classical Greek and 
Byzantine cultural heritage. They confirm the fact that Georgian literature 
of the transitional period evinced growing interest in the rich Classical 
heritage. 
In Old Georgia numerous collections of various genres were created, 
containing much information on Classical and Byzantine culture. 
Whereas at the earlier stage of Georgian literature the Classical 
Byzantine cultural current penetrated into Georgia mainly from originals 
and by means of direct contacts, later on information came from Arabic, 
Armenian, Russian and other literary and historical sources. It is of 
particular importance to note that the above-mentioned sources were 
enriched by interpretations based on Georgian traditions. 


The Antiquity and the Ancient Georgian Literature

Not a member yet