Journal Phasis - Greek and Roman Studies

Dundua, Tedo

Tavadze, Leri

Phasis 12, 2009 
 
Tedo Dundua, Leri Tavadze (Tbilisi) 
FRANKISH LIMITANEI IN LAZICA 
Before being totally destroyed, Imperial security system actually had 
shown three gradual phases of development. 
Huge number of the Italian colonists with the best technologies, swift 
and comfortable communications, the most prominent industrial output, 
Roman citizenship, municipal freedom – that was the Roman gift for the 
Western provinces in the 1st-2nd centuries A. D. Sincere intimacy with the 
metropolis had been founded as a direct result of complete satisfaction. It 
paved the way to the Romanization. As for the Greeks, the Romans re-
served a quite life and economic stability. Still beyond the Roman Rhine, 
Danube and Pontus there were others favouring to this concept of Pan-
European integration. The happy client kings used to be awarded with the 
Roman citizenship. And for the Julio-Claudians, these client kingdoms 
formed the first defense-line of the Imperial territories. A little behind, the 
whole perimeter had been dotted by solid legionary concentrations, prov-
ing the system to be impregnable. No cardinal changes took place in the 
Antonine era, except of annexation of the client kingdoms and breaking 
the big concentrations in favour of scattering the legions along the whole 
frontier. In the both cases, after defeating comparatively weak enemy at 
the border, the Romans usually attacked their territory. This system of 
security is called forward defense. 
Greeks and the Romans were sending more and more hands towards 
industry, but not to manufacture the means of production. As a result, 
population was growing, but not amount of industrial goods per capita. 
Prices rushed high for the Italian produce, demanding damping for pro-
vincial food and raw materials, thus weakening the sympathies between 
the European subjects of the Roman Empire. Some even started to search 
for a relief beyond Rhine and Danube. Many things had happened that 
Tedo Dundua, Leri Tavadze  
 
142 
completely changed the defensive strategy, namely: 1. economic crisis; 2. 
weakening of the integratory links; 3. socio-economic animation of ‘Barba-
ricum’; 4. financial chaos and some professional regiments converted into 
limitanei. From now they are to stand the first strike and evacuate the 
whole frontier folk into citadels, thus wearing down the enemy. And there 
were large and mobile field armies deployed far behind that self-contained 
strongholds to cut down any invasion into the depth. This system shaped 
in the times of Diocletian is called defense-in-depth.  
But before this new system was finally established, the Romans had 
been fighting those already easily passing the border wherever they could 
manage to concentrate large army-units. In the early days of Empire, Prae-
torians formed the only imperial reserve. And now Gallienus recruited 
special mobile reserve-regiments. Name for the defensive system is elastic 
defense. 
Security-system had to be changed at least because of emergence of the 
Germanic seaborne attacks from the 3rd century everywhere at the seas 
that prolonged the line of the frontier.1 
Full-time units, legions, alae of cavalry, cohortes of infantry and mixed 
cohortes equitatae served the forward defense-system. Part-time border 
force of limitanei had appeared and auxiliary alae and cohorts had disap-
peared; and regular mobile reserve – comitatenses – substituted legions, 
fixed at the border. All they served new security system – defense-in-
depth. The whole 3rd century saw these changes, finally shaped in the 
times of Constantine I. Septimius Severus was the first to form a certain 
kind of reserve. He stationed II Parthica in Albanum, increased Praetorian 
and Urban cohorts in number. And Gallienus created special cavalry units 
to serve as a reserve.2 
In the 3rd century large federations of Franki and Alemanni began to 
threaten the Rhine-frontier. And the Goths had already reached Dniester 
by 238.3 Franks attacked Gaul, Alemanns – Italy. From the great deeds of 
Emperor M. Aurelius Probus (276-282) the most important is the deliver-
ance of seventy Gaulic cities. He drove back Franks and Alemanns, four 
hundred thousand of them being killed. Probus passed the Rhine, and 
                                                 
1  Luttwak Ed. N., The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire. From the First Century A. D. 
to the Third, Baltimore 1981, 192-193; Dundua T., Silagadze N., European Industrial 
Comlexes of I Cycle of Capitalism and the Georgian Western Affiliations. Historical and 
Numismatic Tale, Tbilisi 2005, 5-7; Dundua T., North and South, Tbilisi 2001, 8-15.  
2  Luttwak Ed. N., 1981, 173, 184. 
3  Luttwak Ed. N., 1981, 128, 146. 
Frankish Limitanei in Lazica 
 
143
returned back with considerable tribute of corn, cattle, and horses. Sixteen 
thousand Germanic recruits were dispersed among the Roman units. Oth-
er captive or fugitive barbarians gained a new status, that of part-time 
peasant-soldiers (limitanei). Emperor transported a considerable body of 
Vandals into Cambridgeshire, great number of Franks and Gepidae were 
settled on the banks of the Danube and the Rhine, Bastarnae – in Thrace. 
Pontic (The Black Sea) coast was reserved for some more Franks.4 But 
which one exactly? This is to be discussed. 
According to Ed. Gibbon, Franks settled at the sea-coast of Pontus had 
to check the Alani inroads. A fleet stationed in one of the harbors of the 
Euxine fell into their hands, and they resolved, through unknown seas, to 
explore their way from the mouth of Phasis (River Rioni in the West Geor-
gia, Ancient Colchis/Lazica – T. D.) to that of the Rhine. They easily es-
caped through the Bosphorus and the Hellespont, and cruising along the 
Mediterranean, indulged their appetite for revenge and plunder by fre-
quent descents on the shores of Asia, Greece and Africa. City of Syracuse 
was sacked by the Barbarians. Franks proceeded to the columns of Her-
cules, coasted round Spain and Gaul, and steering their course through the 
British channel, at length finished their voyage by landing in safety on the 
Batavian or Frisian shores.5   
What is this whole story based on? Zosimus and one panegyric to 
Constantius Chlorus contributed to it.  
Narrating about the events in the past, in the times of divine Probus, 
author of this panegyric mentions undeserved success of the small Fran-
kish band, who, sailing from Pontus on the captured fleet, ravished Greece 
and Asia, damaged Africa, stormed Syracuse, and passing through the 
columns of the Hercules, reached the ocean (‘Recursabat quippe in animos 
illa sub diuo Probo paucorum ex Francis captiuorum incredibilis audacia 
et indigna felicitas, qui a Ponto usque correptis nauibus Graeciam Asiam-
que populati nec impune plerisque Libyae litoribus appulsi ipsas postre-
mo naualibus quondam uictoriis nobiles ceperant Syracusas et immenso 
itinere peruecti oceanum, qua terras irrumpit, intrauerant atque ita euentu 
temeritatis ostenderant nihil esse clausum piraticae desperationi, quo 
nauigiis pateret accessus’).6  
                                                 
4  Gibbon Ed., The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 1, London 1993, 362-368. 
5  Gibbon Ed., 1993, 367-368. 
6  Panegyricus Constantio Dictus, IV, XVIII, Panégyriques Latins, T. I (I-V), Texte Établi et 
Traduit par Édourd Galletier, Paris 1949, 96-97.  
Tedo Dundua, Leri Tavadze  
 
144 
Zosimus tells us about the Franks having applied to the Emperor, and 
having a country given to them. A part of them afterwards revolted, and 
having collected a great number of ships, disturbed all Greece; from 
whence they proceeded into Sicily, to Syracuse, which they attacked, and 
killed many people there. At length they arrived in Africa, whence though 
they were repulsed by a body of men from Carthage, yet they returned 
home without any great loss.7  
There is no mention of mouth of the river of Phasis as a spring-board 
for the expedition in the sources. Then, what was in Gibbon’s mind? Per-
haps, logics, excluding the possibilities. 
Indeed, the Northern Black Sea coast is beyond the Roman rule. The 
Western shores, and the Balkans are already packed with the Barbarians. 
Southern littoral had been less used for receptio. While Lazica and Pontic 
Limes can not be argued. And something strange had happened to this 
limes in the 3rd century. Now threat comes not from the front, the Romans 
have Lazi client king dwelling there, but – from behind, because of the 
Goths living at the Northern shores.  
We can only guess that the Franks were in Lazica as limitanei. But we 
really know nothing about how they were coordinating with the full-time 
units, their number before and after the revolt, what was the life like for 
those who stayed loyal. 
Still, it seems quite reasonable that the bargain of receptio-system 
should had been distributed among all Roman provinces to keep the cen-
tre undisturbed from the Barbaric influx. In the 3rd century Empire is able 
to do this, not after. 
 
                                                 
7    Zosimus, New History, Book 1, London: Green and Chaplin 1814.  


English

Frankish Limitanei in Lazica

Adrados, Francisco Rodríguez

Hispania, Georgia and the History of Europe

Nadareishvili, Ketevan

The Main Tendencies of the Interpretation of Ancient Images in Georgian Cultural Context

Tsanava, Rusudan

\u27Cretan\u27 Odysseus

Puchner, Walter

Ο σκηνικός πληθυσμός της νεοελληνικής δραματουργίας και η δηλωτική λειτουργικότητα των ονομάτων

Mtchedlidze, Magda

La comprehension de la theologie et de la philosophie dans l’explication de Ioane Petritsi

Gochev, Nikolai

Athens and the Unity of the Greek Community at the End of the Classical Epoch

Danelia, Maia

Colchian-Scythian War in Valerius Flaccus’ "Argonautica"

Tonia, Nana

Phasis 12, 2009 
 
Nana Tonia (Tbilisi) 
MODERN AND CLASSICAL GREEK PERSONALITY THROUGH THE 
PHILOSOPHICAL AND INTELLECTUAL PRISM OF EXISTENCE 
As systemic approach to the diverse and original ideas cultivated within 
the trends of the 20th century literary studies enables to perceive the per-
manent vacillation of scholars between mathematical and biological mod-
els that threads the entire history of the centuries old western civilization. 
Researches clearly show that literary and critical schools and trends differ 
from one another by their approach to these two types of theoretical con-
cept, otherwise called scientific and anthropological concepts. Scientific-
oriented are structuralism, the so-called New Criticism and some sociolog-
ical schools based on neo-positivistic doctrines. As concerns the second, 
anthropological school, it is represented by the following institutions: 
hermeneutics, existentialism, phenomenology, mythological criticism and 
receptive aesthetics.1 
The trends and schools of the first type are distinguished by their pro-
pensity to logical precision, and disregard for weltanschauung and social 
and ideological issues. 
As concerns the representatives of the second direction, their focal 
point was to detect the creative potential, and the moral and physiological 
state of a person. They believed that it was impossible to perceive a work 
of art empirically; on the contrary, it could be comprehended only through 
emotive, sensational and intuitive perception. 
In my opinion, of anthropological institutions, existentialism is the 
closest to the moral standing of the late classical period of the ancient 
world. It is common knowledge that having revived the basic 17-18 cen-
                                                 
1  Современное зарубежное литературоведение, страны западной европы и США,  
Концепции, школы, термины, Москва 1996, 4. 
Modern and Classical Greek Personality through... 273  
 
 
 
tury French moralistic principles, existentialism created a tense intellectual 
theatre of absurd and an allegorical prose with a touch of philosophy and 
journalism. In literature it foregrounded the most acute spiritual collisions 
typical of the 20th century, which, however, were presented in a mystified 
way, through the prism of the tense consciousness of an intellectual split 
between two forces: sincere aversion for the existing reality and fear of the 
future. With regard to this, existentialism was labeled as the ‘ailing con-
science’ of western intellectuals.2 
The concept conveyed by the literary character of existentialism, with 
an intellectual artist standing behind him, is focused on the following 
points: 1. Human and fate and 2. A person in an extreme situation. Both 
points can be further subdivided. The following categories are distin-
guished within human and fate interrelationship. 1. Human perception of 
reality; 2. Realizing the ‘senselessness’; Existential fear or the fear of the 
unknown world, fear of the future. 
As concerns the extreme situation, the following categories fall under 
the focus: 1. Estrangement; 2. ‘Eternal tragism’ (destiny); 3. Reclaration 
(recognition) of freedom (all-willfulness); 4. ‘Philosophy of existence’; 5. 
‘Mental torture’; 6. Free choice; 7. From ‘stranger’ (‘outsider’) to others; 8. 
Tragic humanism.3 
The majority of these categories are reckoned among the essential traits 
of the classical Greek personality. To make the message clearer, i. e. to 
prove the hypothesis that existentialism as a philosophical and intellectual 
trend is the classics revived by the 20th century men of art, I will recall the 
tragedian of Athens’ Golden Age who presented humans ‘as they really 
are’.4 This tragedian is Euripides who was glorified and denounced at the 
same time - denounced by his contemporaries as well as by the 19 century 
critics. He was praised by the generations living at the end of antiquity, 
who appreciated his works more than the tragedies by Aeschylus and 
Sophocles. The modern world too showed special interest in his tragedies, 
some of which were recognized as the masterpieces of tragic theater. 
                                                 
2  Фрай Н., Анатомия критики, Зарубежная эстетика и теория литературы XIX-XX 
вв.: Трактаты, статьи, эссе, Москва 1987; also, Великовский С. И., Эгзистенциа-
лизм, в кн.: Краткая литературная энциклопедия, т. 8, Москва 1975. 
3  Финкелстайн С., Экзистенциализм и проблема отчуждения в амерериканской 
литературе, перевод с английского, Москва 1967; Mounier E., Malraux, Camus, 
Sartre, Bernanos. L’ Epoir des désesperés, Paris 1970; Великовский С. И., 
Экзистенциализм, в кн.: Краткая литературная энциклопедия, т. 8, Москва 1975. 
4  Aristoteles, Poetica, 25. 
Nana Tonia  
 
274 
This distinct attitude to Euripides resulted from the two-sided nature, 
ambivalence of his talent. Indeed, he violated the norms set for drama, 
made the tragedy more intellectual and philosophical (and was according-
ly labeled as ‘the philosopher on the stage’) by presenting sophistic or 
ideological, sometimes rather inappropriate, debates (The Suppliants, 30-
595), which, however, exited his epoch and dealt with personality: one’s 
place in the society, one’s so-called ‘estrangement’, faith, ‘all-willfulness’, 
‘mental torture’, opportunity for choice, tragism labeled as humanism; 
one’s destiny, loneliness in the world – to be short, the ‘philosophy of exis-
tence’. Probably, the sensation of the epoch, reflected in the works of the 
genius with special intensity, compelled Euripides, unlike this preceding 
poets, to present the extremes of tragism, when a man, not neglecting the 
divine will, clearly reveals his own self, playing with the passions that 
possess him and, due to the weakness of his character or, probably to his 
defiance, break him down and even destroy him. This is revealed in the 
extreme situations when rationality gives way to instincts and emotions. 
Therefore, if Aeschylus’ and Sophocles’ characters are obsessed by the 
vitality of the world’s unity and harmony, and consequently, appeal to the 
reader with their goodness and dignity, Euripides’ characters, who are 
totally deprived of the heroic nature of their mythical prototypes, violate 
even human norms. They are pitiless, hostile, murderous – and at the 
same time dignified and selfless. Medea committed a terrible crime, a sin, 
which equals her death. However, she is not at all afraid of destiny, as this 
fear is overcome by the desire to enjoy revenge. That is why she accepts 
Aegeus’ hospitable proposal. Medea herself fashions her fate. At the end 
of the tragedy she appears ascending in a winged chariot. Her children, 
dead by her own hands, lie before her, but she is calm and has tran-
scended into another world. Having sacrificed to her victory something 
more precious than her own life, she is standing petrified in her terrifying 
triumph. ‘She is no more, or if she is, she is nothing!’ – This is how So-
phocles would appreciate her.5 Medea has gone through a psychological 
path filled with an inhuman strain. And here is the question: where does 
Euripides direct this psychological existence? Who is Medea for him? Na-
turally all will say – a monster! She does not deserve compassion – how-
ever, all can feel within them the desire to celebrate the victory won by 
revenge, and to this extent she is like us. By demonstrating Medea’s de-
monic passions, Euripides conveys a message that we belong to the same 
                                                 
5  ‘I am no more or am nothing!’ - This is the conclusion made by Creon of Sophocles’ 
Antigone (1325).  
Modern and Classical Greek Personality through... 275  
 
 
 
world, which compels us to be what we are. Euripides does not reason on 
the nature of this demonic force, but makes us feel that it is inherent with 
us and is tragic because we are powerless before it and are therefore de-
stroyed. 
Euripides presented this demonic, demolishing force of existence with 
no less tragism in the drama Hecuba, in which he created psychological 
portraits of the victims of the Trojan War.6 First of all, let us recall the de-
heroized images of the Greek heroes: The shadow of Achilles demands the 
sacrifice of Polyxena, the fair daughter of King Priam of Troy. The crowd 
is not unanimous and victorious Odysseus has the decisive say. Possessed 
with the demonic force of human existence, he induces the whole army to 
demand sacrifice and listens indifferently to the laments of Hecuba, once 
the happy queen of Troy, to have mercy on her daughter. 
Neoptolemus, Achilles’ son, is the product of the callous and merciless 
world; none of his particles is moved by the words full of dignity uttered 
by the proud daughter of the Trojan King. Instead, the words touched 
Agamemnon, who fulfils the last will of the princess. However, the specta-
tors are aware that very soon, he too will fall a victim to the ruthless fate. 
The children of honorable King Priam had a truly fearsome fate: Inno-
cent Polyxena is pitilessly killed by Neoptolemus, while Polymestor, King 
of Tracia, with whom Priam hid away his young son Polydoros together 
with plentiful riches, commits a horrible crime: obsessed with a vile desire 
to take possession of the riches, he insidiously murders Polydoros and 
throws his body into the sea. The waves cast the body ashore, and when 
the old servant tells this to Queen Hecuba, another, no less fearsome tra-
gedy takes place. However, this is more of a spiritual drama. Euripides 
clearly shows that there is one step from honorability to madness, and the 
human nature is arranged so that this one step will definetely be taken, 
and the step is tragic. Hecuba knows that wealth, respect and power are 
all transient, and consequently, the worldly existence is a mere vanity 
(619-635). She has lost everything – what she used to have, whom she used 
to love and take pride in. A beast possessed by a wild passion awakenes in 
her, and perfidiously decoys Polymestor to the tent, where the Trojan 
women put out his eyes and slaughter his children. It does not matter who 
exactly committs the hideous crime – the Trojan women or Hecuba herself. 
She wished so. The vengeance fills her with a victorious pride, and the 
                                                 
6  According to scholars, this tragedy must have been staged in 428-423 (or 418) BC, 
when Greece was gripped by a civil war that brought about many dilemmas before 
the Athenian thinkers. 
Nana Tonia  
 
276 
same question comes up: Does Hecuba deserve compassion? Who is she? 
Is she a monster like Medea, capable of slaughtering children, even if they 
are not hers? The answer is the same: Euripides once again implied that 
Agave, Phaedra, Theseus, Medea, Hecuba, Orestes and Electra, Iphigenia, 
Polyxena, Menoeceus and others are the creatures of the same world, and 
this world is extremely strained, causing destruction of values, a feeling of 
vanity of human existence. And here is the final cord of Euripides’ ‘phi-
losophy of existence’: ‘mental torture’, i. e. quest for an answer at a meta-
physical level in the process of losing the sense of one’s life, which was so 
impressively reflected in his last masterpiece The Bacchae. This is a marvel-
ous drama, capable of moving the deepest nook of one’s soul. It leads us to 
the secret which, evidently, tortured during his whole life and on the way 
of perceiving which the poet was caught between mutually contrdicting 
ideas. This was the secret of god, of the latter’s existence, righteousness or 
non-righteousness, of his disposition to humans, which has been devoted 
many a work by modern existentialists and literary men. 
There is a divide in the scholarly opinion on the main concept of The 
Bacchae7. Some believe that trust in god prevails in the tragedy, while oth-
ers regard the drama as the demonstration of Euripides’ disbelief in god. 
The situation becomes strained when Euripides asserts that god is 
more powerful than man, and is capable of making many miracles. And 
when we are overcome by this belief, Dionysus attempts to make us feel 
that he struggles for human salvation. He generously appeals to Pentheus, 
who, being the king, is his principal and most powerful rival, to change 
his mind. And exactly in this unique case when the deity shows mercy, the 
man, Pentheus, is having second thoughts. The passage foregrounds the 
‘eternal tragism’ of the mortal: man and faith. To this extent, the god’s 
benevolence recedes. Although the deity showed compassion for the man, 
the latter failed to perceive it. Now Dionysus will make it the other way, 
and this time his way will be merciless: he offers Pentheus to dress up as a 
woman and see what is happening on Mount Cytheron. Pentheus agrees 
with pleasure, as he has long been willing to get acquainted with the reli-
gion which he so sturdily opposes. Dionysus triumphs as he knows what 
is bound to happen. Chorus sings a joyful tune. The scene that follows this 
general festivity is extremely distressing due to the irony: the king, over-
whelmed with thrilling exhilaration comes out of palace. He has a vision 
of two suns and two Thebes, and even sees bull horns on the head of his 
companion; he is delighted with his woman’s garment and is showing it 
                                                 
7  Gordeziani R., Greek Literature, Tbilisi 2009, 436 ff (in Georgian). 
Modern and Classical Greek Personality through... 277  
 
 
 
off; the king has lost his dignity. Dionysus adds the final touches to this 
image – readjusts his disarranged curl and peplos. Now Pentheus has be-
come a puppet in the divine hands, funny and miserable. 
Dionysus knows, while Pentheus does not, how his meeting with his 
mother will end. The finale of the drama is shocking: the deity knows that 
Pentheus will be torn apart by the maddened Bacchantes. Mother Agave 
will be the first to assault him and possessed by an extraordinary power, 
will ‘put her leg against his ribs and tear out his arm’. Then other Maenads 
will follow her and ‘tear into pieces’ the denier of their deity, whom they 
will fancy as a lion. However, the final scene will exceed all by its unheard 
wildness – the scene of Mother Agave perchinges on a thyrsus her son’s 
bloody head and, afterwards looking for the victorious god, delighted. 
Euripides wishes that Agave came to her senses, and she does so. Now 
it is the spectator, or the reader, who looks forward to Dionysus’ appear-
ance. He appears in his glory. Agave regrets, but the god is merciless. 
Here is his answer: ‘You have learned it too late; you did not know it 
when you should have!’ (1345). The human appeals for pardon, but all in 
vain: such is the answer: ‘That is me, a god by birth!’ (1347). Desperate 
Agave utters timid words of reproach: ‘Is such callousness appropriate of 
gods?’ (1348). This, I believe must be the crucial question of the drama, 
and stirring reflections over must have been the main motivation to com-
pose this heart-stilling tragedy. Likewise must have sounded the ‘so-called 
‘cursed question’, quest for which gave birth to the existential philosophy 
at the outset of the 20th century. 


Modern and Classical Greek Personality through the Philosophical and Intellectual Prism of Existence

Tchogoshwili, Irine

Phasis 12, 2009 
 
Irine Tchogoshwili (Tbilisi) 
ZUR ETYMOLOGIE VON κτείνω 
Der  griechische Formativ κτείνω ‗tôten‗ ist nach fast allen etymologischen 
Wôrterbürchern der griechischen Sprache  mit dem  indogermanischen 
Archetyp *tken ‗schaden‗ verbunden  und aus Sanskrit. kşa-ņό-ti ‗id‗ 
enststanden. Die Autoren von drei wichtigsten etymologischen Wôrter-
bürcher, ‗ nähmlich E. Frisk, P Chantraine und R. Beekes  vereinigen sich 
betreffend der Etymologie des Formativs κτείνω und machen fast die 
gleichen Konsequenzen: Nach Frisk das Präsens κτείνυμι mit sekundärer 
Hochstufe nach ἔκτεινα (δείκνυμι: ἔδειξα u.a.) steht für schwundstufiges 
*κτάνυμι, das bis auf den Ablaut des νυ-Suffixes zu aind... kşa-ņό-mi 
‗verletzen‗ genau stimmt (κτείνω ‗tôten‗ somit euphemistisch). Andere 
Übereinstimmungen mit dem Altindischen (und Altiranischen) zeigen der 
Aorist *ἔ--κτα-το(Il.)=aind. ά-kşa-ta- und das Partizip *-κτα-τος (z.B im 
Wort α νδρο-κτασίαι)= aind. - ά-kşa-ta, ap. ά-xšα-tα-‗unverletzt‗. Das 
griechische Formensystem scheint im übrigen auf einem athematischen 
Wurzelaorist aufgebaut zu sein: 1*ἔ-κτεν-α, 3. sg. *ἔ-κτεν, (vgl. κατα-
σκένε (konj.), 1.pl. ἔκτα-μεν, 3. pl. ἔ-κταν; dazu das Präsens *κτέ-
νω>κτεíνω, die Aoriste ἔκταν-ον, ἔκτεινα.1 Nach P. Chantraine, ist es  
môglich, dass die Präsensform κτείνυμι mit dem Vokalismus *κτάνυμι  
und danach ἔκτεινα mit Skt. kşa-ņό-ti ‗verletzen‗ verbunden ist. Aorist 
med. pass. ἔ-κτα-το entspricht Skt. ά-kşa-ta und der Adjektiv κτα-τος  
(vermutlich von α νδρο-κτασίαι) Skt. ά-kşa-ta und Iranisch. ά-xšα-tα - 
‗unverletzt‗. Das griechische System gründet sich auf radikalem Aorist *ἔ-
κτεν-α, 3. sg. *ἔ-κτεν, 1.pl. ἔκτα-μεν, 3. pl. ἔ-κταν; dazu das Präsens *κτέ-
νιω>κτεíνω, die Aoriste ἔκταν-ον, ἔκτεινα. Das Präsens κτένω und 
                                                 
1  Frisk H., Griechisches Etymologisches Wôrterbuch, I, Heidelberg 1966, 33. 
Zur Etymologie von κτείνω 
 
 
269 
 
Aoristen ἔκτεινα und ἔκτανον stammen aus Aorist Radikal.2 R. Beekes 
verbindet κτείνω mit IE *tken ‗schaden‗. Die  Präsensform κτείνυμι hat 
sekundäre Hochstufe  nach ἔκτεινα (vgl. δείκνυμι > ἔδειξα u.a.) Es ersetzt 
den null Grad *κτά-νυ-μι, das Skt. kşa-ņό-ti ‗schaden‗ entspricht. Das 
griechische System scheint an dem athematischen Wurzelaorist basiert zu 
sein. Sg. *kten- (vrgl. Gortyn. Subj. κατα-σκένε konj.) pl. und med. *ktn-, 
das direkt mit ἔ-κα-το fortgesetzt ist. Die Präsensform *kten-je/o -> 
κτείνω, thematischer Aorist ἔκτανον und sigmatisches ἔκτεινα geht 
zurück zu dieser Bildung. Das Partizip *-κτα-τος (z.B im Wort ἀνδρο-
κτασίαι) entspricht den Skt. - ά-kşa-ta- und iranischen ά-xšα-tα-  
‗unbeschadet‗. Unbezweifelt, dass καίνω auch verbunden ist, aber, für 
Beekes bleibt unklar, unter welchen Bedingungen, in καίνω- *t Initial 
verloren ist.3 E. Furnée hat sich auf die Konsonantenstellung aufmerksam 
gemacht. Er bezweifelt, dass ein Dental vor dem Gutural stehen kônnte. Er 
denkt, dass wenn ein beliebiges Substratwort die Lautgruppe κτ (γδ, χθ) 
enthält, ist immer mit der Môglichkeit zu rechnen, dass der betreffende 
Dental sekudärer Herkunft ist. Die Beispiele sind zahlreich besonders für 
κτ.4 Furnée beachtet die Verbindung zwischen spätindogermanischen 
*tken-/*ken und paläokartvelischen *tken-ken ‗schmerzen‗ und denkt, 
dass spätindogermanisches *tken-/*ken aus paläokartvelischen enstanden 
ist. κτίννυμι, κτιννύω, die Frisk für sekundär hielt, vergleicht Furnee mit 
kartvelischen tkiv.- ‗Schmerz‗.5 Es ist klar, dass zwischen diesen Stämmen 
Verbindung gibt, obwohl es nicht leicht festzustellen ist, von welcher 
Sprache es urspünglich kommt. Der kartvelische Stamm lässt sich auf 
irgendwelche Ebene der Einigkeit der kartvelischen Sprachen nicht zu 
rekonstruieren.6 Bemerkenswert ist die Meinung von R. Gordeziani. Er 
denkt, viel konsequenter wäre κτείνω mit einem anderen gemeinkatve-
                                                 
2  Chantraine P., Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque — histoire des mots, t. 
II, Paris, Klincksieck 1970, 591. 
3  Beekes R., Etymological Dictionary of Greek, II, Brill Academic Publishers 2010, 789. 
4  Furnée E., Die wichtigsten konsonantischen Erscheinungen des Vorgriechischen mit 
einem Appendix über den Vokalismus, Hague-Paris 1972, 321. 
5  Furnée E. J., Paläokartvelisch-pelasgische Einflüsse in den Indogermanischen 
Sprachen. Nachgewiesen anhand der Spätindogermanisch-griechischen Reflexe 
urkartvelischer Sibilaten und Affrikaten, Leiden 1986 (App. I, I). 
6  Fähnrich H., Kartvelisches Etymologisches Wôrterbuch,I, Brill Leiden Boston 2007, 
237-238. 
Irine Tchogoshwili  
 
270 
lischen Stamm *kued-/kuet/*kwed-/kwd zu vergleichen.7 Es wird in 
georgisch oft t statt d gebraucht. Als Beispiel dafür kônnte auch das Verb 
kued dienen. In den westgeorgischen Dialekten wird in den Formativen 
sikvdili, mokvda – ‗sterben, starb‗ t statt d gebraucht- siktili, mokta 
‗sterben, starb‗ (dial.) Kwed-/kwd Stamm ist allgemein für kartvelischen 
Sprachen: Gemeinkartvelisch *kwed-/kwd davon georg. kvd-o-ma, 
mokudineba – ‗sterben, tôten‗, (kwd-eb-is ‗er starb‗, mo-v-kwed ‗ich starb‗, 
si-kwd-il-i ‗Tod‗, mo-kwd-in-eb-a ‗toeten‗, m-kwd-ar-i, ‗tot‗. swan. kwad-, 
kwed, kwd (kwäd-, wegnehmen, verlieren durch den Tod) kwed ‗Verlust‗, 
es-kwed-i-n ‗es wird fehlen‗). Der georgische Wurzel kwed – entspricht 
regelmässig swan. kwäd(<kwed).8 In zanischen Dialekten ist der 
entsprechende Stamm nicht erhalten. Der  gemeinkartvelische Stamm und 
dazu -*in/*en Suffix ergibt einen neuen Stamm – kudin-/kuden- der wie 
semantisch als auch formalisch mit dem griechischen Formativ stimmt. 
Gordeziani weist darauf hin, dass der kued/kwed Formativ in Georgisch 
die Bedeutung von ‗sterben, tôten‗ bekommen hat, erst nachdem die 
vorgriechischen Nachsilben -*in/*en hinzugefügt wurden. Der ähnliche 
Prozess ist beim griechischen Formativ κτείνω zu beachten. 
Bemerkenswert ist, dass der gemeinkartvelische *kued Formativ sich auf 
die Ebene der kaukasichen Sprachen, nähmlich auf die georgisch-
nachische Ebene rekonstruiren lässt. Gemeinkartvelisches *ku-ed ‗sterben,  
tôten‗, Itchkerisch d-a-l ‗sterben‗, l-a (fut.) ‗sterben‗ ingilo d-a-l ‗id‗, la ‗id‗, 
bazbisch ‗d-a-l ‗sterben‗, l-a ‗id‗. Auf gemeinnachische Ebene wird *d-a-l 
Archetyp rekonstruirt, auf gemeinkartvelische ein Archetyp, der dem 
kartvelischen *kued entsprechend sein kann und in der Vokalent-
sprechung vorkommt: gemeinkartvelisches ku: gemeinnachisches l. M. 
Tschuchua kommt zum Schluss, dass gemeinkartvelisches *kued die 
umgekehrte Form des gemeinnachisches *d-a-l ist. Gemeinkartvelisches 
*kued- gemeinnachisches *d-a-l ‗sterben‗.9 Wenn wir die Konsequenten 
von Tschuchua überzeugend finden, kann man vermuten, dass dem 
griechischen κτείνω entsprechendes  georgisches *kued auf die Ebene der 
gemeinkaukasischen Einigkeit rekonstruierender Formativ ist.  
 
 
 
                                                 
7  Gordeziani R., Mediterranea-Kartvelica, II, Vorgriechisch, Tiflis 2007, 207 (in 
Georgisch.) 
8  Fähnrich H., op. cit. 238. 
9  Tchuchua M., Vergleichende Grammatik iberisch-itschkerischen Sprachen, Tiflis 2008, 
374 (in Georgisch).  
Zur Etymologie von κτείνω 
 
 
271 
 
BIBLIOGRAFIE 
Beekes R., Etymological Dictionary of Greek, II, Brill Academic Publishers 2010. 
Frisk H., Griechisches Etymologisches Wôrterbuch, I, Heidelberg 1966. 
Gordeziani R., Mediterranea-Kartvelica, II, Vorgriechisch, Tiflis 2007 (in Georgisch). 
Fähnrich H., Kartvelisches Etymologisches Wôrterbuch, I, Brill Leiden Boston 2007. 
Furnée E. J., Paläokartvelisch-pelasgische Einflüsse in den Indogermanischen Spra-
chen. Nachgewiesen anhand der Spätindogermanisch-griechischen Reflexe urkart-
velischer Sibilaten und Affrikaten, Leiden 1986. 
Furnée E., Die wichtigsten konsonantischen Erscheinungen des Vorgriechischen 
mit  einem Appendix über den Vokalismus, Hague-Paris 1972.  
Klimov V., Etymologisches Wôrterbuch Kartvelischen Sprachen, Moskau 1964, 111 
(in Russisch). 
Tchuchua M., Vergleichende Grammatik iberisch-itschkerischen Sprachen, Tiflis 
2008 (in Georgisch).  
 
 
 


Zur Etymologie von κτείνω

Not a member yet