Journal Phasis - Greek and Roman Studies

Beridze, Ketevan

English

Ο βασιλιάς Eρωτας και η υπόστασή του στις βυζαντινές και υστεροβυζαντινές ερωτικές και ιπποτικές μυθιστορίες

Gordeziani, Rismag

Phasis 12, 2009 
 
Rismag Gordeziani (Tbilisi) 
GREEK WORDS OF UNKNOWN ETYMOLOGY DENOTING SEA 
The Greeks’ attitude to sea, which played an important role in their lives, 
is manifested at a linguistic level as well. There were four basic terms in 
ancient Greek that referred to sea: ¹ q£lassa, tÕ pšlagoj, Ð pÒntoj, Ð ¤lj. 
To this is added a formative 'WkeanÒj which to a certain extent has the 
meaning of the ‘world river’.
Scholars are certain about the Indo-European etymology of Ð pÒntoj 
and Ð ¤lj.1 As concerns the other terms, their etymology is considered 
unestablished. I share the opinion of the researchers who assign them to 
the non-Indo-European Pre-Greek world. I believe that like hundreds of 
the so-called Pre-Greek formatives, they too imply reference to the Kartve-
lian languages.2 
tÕ pšlagoj denoted sea, but evidently, it referred to an open high sea, 
beyond the territorial waters.3 R. Beekes finds unjustified H. Frisk’s at-
tempt to associate it with the Indo-European stem *pelh2 ‘to spread out’4 
and favors the assumption on the Pre-Indo-European origin of the forma-
tive.5 I believe that it could be associated with the Kartvelian pel- stem 
                                                 
1  Cf. GEW, DELG, EDG. 
2  Regarding Kartvelian-Pre-Greek linguistic encounters see Furnée E. J., Vorgriechisch-
Kartvelisches. Studien zum ostmediterranen Substrat nebst einem Versuch zu einer 
neuen pelasgischen Theorie, Leuven 1979; Furnée E. J., Paläokartvelisch-pelasgische 
Einflüsse in den indogermanischen Sprachen, Leiden 1986; Gordeziani R., Pre-Greek 
and Kartvelian, Tbilisi 1985 (in Georgian); Gordeziani R., Mediterranea-Kartvelica, 
vols. I-IV, Tbilisi 2007-2008 (in Georgian). 
3  Cf. LSJ, 1356. 
4  GEW. 
5  EDG. 
Greek Words of Unknown Etymology Denoting Sea 
 
161
denoting ‘open, open to the full’.6 M. Chukhua reconstructs the common 
Kartvelian archetype as *bel- with the meaning of openness, bareness, 
opening. He goes even farther and relates it to the common Nakh stem 
*b-el ‘open, open eyes/unlock, uncover’. Consequently, he does not rule 
out reconstruction of the stem to the common Caucasian level.7 
It is difficult to argue whether in Pre-Greek the element ag- is a deriva-
tive affix or a root element.8 If the relationship that I suggest is acceptable, 
it can be assumed that the element was used to derive a nominal form 
from the bel-/pel- stem. In my opinion, a similar element can be observed 
in Georgian derivation as well: cf. common Kartvelian *kad- ‘preaching, 
promising’ and *kad-ag-i ‘preacher, proselyter’. Consequently pšlagoj 
could be understood as ‘open, opener’. 
Scholars’ attention has long been attracted by the term q£lassa which 
can often be found already in the Homeric epics. Scholars unanimously 
admit that the etymology of the word is unknown.9 Hesychius attests the 
gloss dal£gca, which he believes to be of Macedonian origin and semanti-
cally identical with q£lassa. As E. J. Furnée so rightly notes, we should 
not necessarily believe Hesychius and consider the term Macedonian.10 On 
the other hand, scholars unanimously observe the interchange of stems 
qal-/dal- which must be indicative of the Pre-Greek origin of the term.11 
The ending of the gloss -agca, as well as the of Greek term -assa can be 
considered a derivational inflexion. In this case, we face the question of 
semantics of qal-dal- itself. In this regard, the most acceptable hypothesis 
was offered by A. Lesky, who in 1974 published a special article called 
q£lassa.12 A. Lesky paid attention to the fact that out of the four terms 
referring to sea, two, ¤lj and pÒntojare masculine, one pšlagojis neuter, 
and only q£lassa is feminine. In A. Lesky’s opinion, the Homeric epics 
and other Greek sources allow for the conclusion that only ¤lj and 
q£lassa can be regarded as the terms having the meaning of saline water. 
He considers numerous contexts where ¤lj and q£lassa are interchange-
able exactly with this function, while pÒntojand pšlagojnever appear in 
this context. A. Lesky comes to a conclusion that the ancient Greek lan-
                                                 
6  Chukhua M., Ibero-Ichkerian Comparative Grammar, Tbilisi 2008, 508f (in Georgian).  
7  Chukhua M., op. cit. 
8  R. Beekes believes that the element is a Pre-Greek suffix (GED, XXXIV). 
9  Cf. GEW, DELG, EDG, WKE, 195. 
10  WKE, 195. 
11  EDG. 
12  Lesky A., Thalassa, Hermes, 78, 1947, 258 ff. 
Rismag Gordeziani  
 
162 
guage found to the Pre-Greek feminine word q£lassa meaning ‘saline 
water, sea’ a masculine equivalent ¤lj derived from its own organic stem 
meaning ‘salt’, and used them as absolute synonyms. Hence, it is quite 
natural to assume that the stem in question qal(a)-/dal(a) - contained a 
seme close to ‘salty, saline’, from which, with the help of some Pre-Greek 
derivational inflexion, was derived a term reffering to sea and having the 
meaning ‘saline water’.13 I believe that this Pre-Greek stem can be asso-
ciated with the Kartvelian linguistic world. Recently, M. Chukhua has 
reconstructed to the common Kartvelian level an archetype *dal-a mean-
ing curds, curdled milk, buttermilk. In his opinion, this stem has a regular 
correspondence in common Nakh *dur←*dwor meaning ‘salty, saltiness’, 
which enables reconstruction of the stem at the common Caucasian level.14 
Evidently, at the common Kartvelian level too its basic meaning must have 
been ‘saltiness, salinity’, which can possibly be indicated by one of the 
meanings of the Svan stem dər-/dər ‘salted rennet of swine or calf used 
for curdling’.15 If so, we can presume that in the Pre-Greek language that 
had the stem meaning ‘saltiness, salinity’, the latter was used to derive a 
term referring to sea that entered the Greek language.  
The term 'WkeanÒj likewise noteworthy. Like in mythopoetic thinking, 
Oceanus, at least in ancient Greek epics, is the personified world stream, the 
world river that runs around the universe. In Homer, it gave birth to all gods 
and objects (Il,. XIV, 201, 245-6). In the Homeric epic, Oceanus and sea are 
different in several points: sea is a water space, more or less confined and sur-
rounded by continents, through which men navigate to get in touch with one 
another. Sea-shores are basically inhabited by real peoples. We may assume 
that the sea in Homer refers to the Mediterranean. Contrary to this, Oceanus is 
the world river that is beyond the limits of the sea and flows around the earth. 
Having crossed it, one finds oneself among mythic peoples and lands: the 
Ethiopians, Harpies, Gorgons, Cimmerians, etc. Consequently, the Oceanus 
always returns back, i. e. into itself.16 Despite individual attempts, its etymolo-
gy is considered unknown. R. Beekes finds it Pre-Greek, which is suggested by 
the attested parallel forms 'Wg»n, 'WgenÒj 'WghnÒj.17 According to E. J. 
Furnée, it has the free interchange of k/g typical of the Pre-Greek.18 To deter-
                                                 
13  Lesky A., op. cit. 
14  Chukhua M., op. cit., 314 
15  Topuria V., Kaldani M., Svan Dictionary, Tbilisi 2000, 199 (in Georgian). 
16  Cf. DNP. 
17  LSJ; EDG. 
18  WKE, 124. 
Greek Words of Unknown Etymology Denoting Sea 
 
163
mine the etymology of the formative, first of all we should pay attention to the 
semantics of its attested stem. In this respect, I find noteworthy an attribute of 
Oceanus attested in Homer ¢yÒrooj (cf. Germ. ‘in sich zurueckfliessend’; Eng. 
’returning into itself’).19 Consequently, it can be presumed that the meaning of 
'WkeanÒjis associated with circulation, continuous rotation/revolution of the 
world river, flowing back into oneself. Evidently, here we could also consider 
the gloss çgšnioj ‘old, eternal’. If there really is any relationship between these 
two stems, we could presume that its semanitcs at the same time implied the 
meaning of turning back and of oldness and eternity. R. Beekes reconstructs 
the hypothetical Pre-Greek archetype *ū-kan.20 I believe that this stem must be 
related to the one intensely used in old Georgian – u>an-/u>uan-, which, tak-
ing into consideration the interchange of w/u in the stem, must be connected 
with the earliest stage of the history of Georgian language.21 Bearing in mind 
the Mengrelian u>oxole ‘back, on the back side’, I believe that we could also 
speak of the Georgian-Zan archetype. From this stem are derived on the one 
hand u>unkceva ‘turning away, returning, going back’, u>uana ‘back, at the 
back’, u>an ‘behind’ and on the other hand u>uni ‘eternal, everlasting’, 
u>uniti ‘eternal, from the very beginning’, ‘u>uniti u>unisamde ‘for ever and 
ever’.22  
The above suggested etymologies of the terms whose origin has so far 
been believed to be unknown completely fit into the context of the Kartve-
lian-Pre-Greek hypothesis presented in E. J. Furnée’s and my works.23 
BOOK ABBREVIATIONS 
DELG = Chantraine P., Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: histoire 
des mots, Paris 1968-1980. 
DNP = Der neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike. Das klassische Altertum und 
seine Rezeptionsgeschichte, eds. H. Cancik and H. Schneider, Stuttgart 1996-2003. 
EDG = Beekes R., Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Leiden 2010. 
GEW = Hjalmar Frisk, Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 3 vols., Heidelberg 
1960-1973.   
LSJ = A Greek-English Lexicon, compilled by H. G. Liddell and R. Scott; revised and 
augmented throughout by H. S. Jones…, Oxford 19779. 
WKE = Furnée E. J., Die wichtigsten konsonantischen Erscheinungen des Vorgrie-
chischen. Mit einem Appendix über den Vokalismus, Den Haag 1972.  
                                                 
19  LSJ, 1677.     
20  EDG.  
21  Gamkrelidze T., Machavariani G., The System of Sonants and Ablaut in Kartvelian 
Languages, Tbilisi 1965, 49 (in Georgian). 
22  A Comprehensive Georgian-English Dictionary, London 2006. 
23  Cf. Note 2. 


Greek Words of Unknown Etymology Denoting Sea

Tosi, Renzo

The \u27metoikos\u27 in "Orestea"

Bellia, Angela

Musica e rito nelle ceramiche siceliote

Albrecht, Michael von

Caesar und die Macht des Wortes

Di Donato, Riccardo

L\u27homme de la Parole. Jean-Pierre Vernant entre passé, présent

Giorgadze, Marine

Phasis 11, 2008 
 
Marina Giorgadze (Batumi) 
RECEPTION OF II CENTURY GREEK APOLOGETICS 
IN OLD GEORGIAN LITERATURE 
Apologetics as a genre of Christian Literature originated in the 2nd cen-
tury. Literally it means ‘defending oneself’, ‘justification’, ‘defensive 
speech’. Its main purpose was to defend Christianity from various accusa-
tions, justification of Christians (atheism, cannibalism, incest), as well as 
dissemination of Christianity and showing its priorities.1 Consequently, 
the apologetic works can conventionally be divided into 2 parts: the first is 
negative, polemics with the opponents, mostly with pagans and Judaists; 
the second is positive – delivering Christian teachings and proving its 
priorities. It is the second part that distinguishes apologetics from the po-
lemic literature as such. The genre model of apologetics can be found as 
early as the Ancient epoch in Hellenic as well as Judaic traditions.2 
The structure of the apologetic works is mainly as follows (with more 
or less deviations): Addressing the addressee: the emperor (Hadrian, An-
toninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Commodus, Lucius), Romans and the Ro-
man senate, a friend (Autolicus, Diognetus), opponent (the Barbarians, 
pagans, Hellenes, etc.); critics of paganism (faiths of the Barbarians and 
Hellenes) and Judaism; depicting the moral and ways of life of the Chris-
tians, proving the priority of the Christian doctrine.  
The literary sources of the apologetics are: The books of Old and New 
Testament, mythography, Classical (Ancient) literature, Judaic literature, 
philosophers of the Classical period (Platonism, Aristotelians, Pithago-
rism, Epicureism, Stoicism). This is an incomplete list of the sources used 
                                                 
1  The Encyclopedia of Religion, London 1987, 349; DTC, I, 1931, 1511. 
2  Altaner B., Stuiber A., Patrologie, Freiburg, Bazel, Wien 1966, 43-57. 
Marina Giorgadze 
 
50 
by the apologists. It is revealed in their judgments, argumentations, abun-
dant citations so often met in their works.  
The main apologetic themes are: apologists and polytheism, apologists 
and Judaism, apologists and philosophy, apologists and the Empire, apol-
ogists and the Christian doctrine.  
Ancient Greek apologetic literature directly follows the apostles’ writ-
ten heritage. The first Christians surrounded by the pagan and Jewish en-
vironment often had to defend themselves from various accusations. That 
was the reason that the apologists broke the ‘saeculi silentium’ (Silence of 
the Century) and publicly acknowledged themselves as the followers of 
Christianity.3 They appealed to the contemporaries, as a rule, authorities, 
emperors, kings, and tried to convince them the advantages of Christianity 
as the true faith. The origin of apologetics as an early Christian literary 
genre is not only of literary but of historical and political significance as 
well which reflected the epochal change – severe repressions of the Chris-
tians, persecution and physical destruction was changed by verbal con-
frontations, disputes, polemics. This is an epoch called ‘the epoch of mar-
tyrs and apologists’.4 
Among the Greek apologists Aristides of Athens was one of the first 
whose apology was written for the Emperor Hadrian (117-138). Biographi-
cal facts about him are rather scarce and are based on Eusebius of Caesa-
rea’s From the Church History (HE, IV, 3, 3) and Chronicles (Chron. Ad ann., 
124-125).5 
The Aristides’ text at hand cannot be considered the original. It is a re-
construction of the text according to the Syrian translation, Armenian 
fragments and the Greek revised metaphrase edition. The reconstructed 
text consists of 17 chapters and structured as follows: Chapter I – confir-
mation of God’s existence; Chapters II-XIII – critique of various pagan 
religions (Chaldeans, Greeks, Egyptians); Chapter XIV – critique of Ju-
daism; Chapters XV-XVI – apology of Christianity; Chapter XVII – Con-
clusion. 
The Georgian translation of Aristides’ Apology does not exist in Old 
Georgian Literature but the study of the Georgian Christian texts makes it 
clear that Georgian authors, especially hagiographers, were acquainted 
with the author and his work as well as generally they were aware of the 
                                                 
3  Lepelley Cl., L’empire Romain et le christianisme, Paris 1969, 28-30. 
4  Nouvelle Histoire de l’église, I, Paris, Seuil 1963, 119; Lietzmann H., Histoire de 
l’eéglise ancienne, Paris 1963, 174. 
5  Aristide, Apologie, Sch. 470, Paris 2003, 25-26. 
Reception of II Century Greek Apologetics in Old Georgian Literature 51 
ancient Greek apologetic literature. Apologetic themes and motifs fre-
quently appear in a number of hagiographic texts. 
The ancient tradition of the Georgian hagiographic monuments, mar-
tyrdoms, though the texts might have reached us in later editions or ma-
nuscripts (St. Nino’s Life, Martyrdom of St. Shushanik, Razhden the first-
martyr, Evstati  Mtskheteli, Abibos Nekreseli) reflect the Georgians’ religious 
struggle against the Persians (4th-6th cc.). The first saints of the Georgian 
Church, in accordance with the epochal political context, declare religious 
war with Mazdeism (Zoroastrianism), the ancient faith of the Persians. 
The hagiographic texts on this epoch contain polemics against paganism 
in general and in particular – against Astrolatry and Pirolatry, the consti-
tuent parts of Zoroastrianism. It is a well-known fact that the dissemina-
tion of Zoroastrianism in Georgia has a long-time history and is connected 
with the epoch of the Achaemenids (6th c. BC) when Mazdeism co-existed 
together with local pagan cults. Georgian paganism knows various ma-
nifestations of idolatry including Astrolatry and Pirolatry the traces of 
which can be found not only in material (archaeology) but spiritual cul-
tural monuments as well (folklore, ethnography, literature). It is through 
the archaeological and historical sources that the existence of Persian magi 
communities is proved in Mtskheta, Kartli, at the beginning of the Chris-
tian period. They used to have their ritual places there during the reign of 
king Vakhtang. The previous tolerant religious co-existence was changed 
into sharp confrontation in the Sassanid period. This is the period since 
which the Georgian Church gains its saints. 
In Martyrdom of St. Shushanik, the oldest Georgian hagiographic mo-
nument, in queen Shushanik’s words to her husband – ‘You rejected the 
true God and worshiped the fire’6 – we already hear a famous apologetic 
motif (‘Fire is not God’) which is reiterated in almost all Greek apologetic 
works (Aristides, Athenagoras, Iustinus, Tatianus, etc.).7 
Saint Razhden is mentioned in Georgian Christian tradition as the first 
martyr8. This noble Persian arrived in Kartli during the King Vakhtang’s 
reign. He became the follower of the Christian faith that caused his arrest 
and trial. As a reply to the Persian king Peroz’s question ‘…why did you 
reject your own faith, and instead of the bright sun, the fire, and other ce-
                                                 
6  Martyrdom of St. Shushanik (IV, 9-11) in: Monuments of Old Georgian Hagiographic 
Literature, I, Tbilisi 1963, 15. 
7  See Aristides, Apologia, V, 3; Athenagoras, VI, 4; Theophilus, Ad Autolycum, II, 5; St. 
Iustinus, I Apologia, 10, 2; 13, 1; II Apologia, 4, 2; 5, 2. 
8  Martyrdom of Razhden the first-martyr in: Reader in Old Georgian Literature, I, 
Tbilisi, 240-246.  
Marina Giorgadze 
 
52 
lestrial you serve the crucified man…?’ (Martyrdom, 243, 28-32), he pro-
nounces his famous speech against the Zoroastrianism, with again reiterat-
ing the famous apologetic theme: ‘It is truly as you said, my lord, for I 
have become Christian, rejected godlessness and never any more serve 
either the burning fire or the sun, created to be served by men, but I be-
lieve in the living God who created heaven and earth, all creatures visible 
and invisible, that are eternally immortal…’ (Martyrdom, 243, 33-37). 
The polemics of Abibos Nekreseli (6th c.),9 one of the 13 Syrian fathers, 
is also addressed against Zoroastrianism and consequently, reveals the 
proximity towards the apologetic themes. He rejects ‘this habit of the Ba-
bylonians’ and to the Marzpan’s question why he killed their god he gives 
the answer in a long citation similar to Evstati’s speech. It can easily be 
noted that Abibos’s speech abides in apologetic motifs that confirms that 
the author was well aware of the apologetic literature: ‘You should under-
stand that I did not kill the God but extinguished the fire, for it is not a 
god but a piece of one matter from which God created this world’ (Mar-
tyrdom, II, 245, 5-23). On the ground of the analysis of the above men-
tioned text Korneli Kekelidze made a supposition that here we can find 
the influence of George Amartol’s chronicle.10 In our opinion it is more 
logical to assume that both of these works had one common source of in-
fluence – apologetic literature.11 It is a well known fact that while creating 
his work Giorgi Amartoli had the works of ‘the spiritual fathers’ at hand. 
As early as the first centuries Aristides’ Apology became a classical work 
making influence on other apologists (Athenagoras, Iustinus, Theophilus, 
etc.) as well as on the Christian authors of the following centuries. A num-
ber of themes from Aristides’ Apology, especially the differentiation be-
tween various pagan cults – Chaldean and Babylonian astrolatry and py-
rolatry, Egyptian’s zoolatry and Greek’s idolatry – became the so called 
‘loci communes’ of the church literature.     
The above fragments clarify that the impact of the apologetic texts are 
greatly significant in the monuments of old Georgian literature. The influ-
ence is the greatest on one of the oldest hagiographic monument – The 
Martyrdom of Evstati Mtskheteli (6th c.). The fact that the anonymous author 
is perfectly well acquainted with the monuments of early Christian litera-
                                                 
9  Martyrdom of Abibos Nekreseli, Monuments..., I, 240-248. 
10  Kekelidze K., Studies from the History of Old Georgian Literature, III, Tbilisi 1955, 55. 
11  See Aristides, Apologia, III, 2; IV, 2; Athenagoras, Supplicatio, VI, 4; VI, 1; XII, 2; XIII, 2 
etc; St. Iustinus, I Apologia, 9, 2; 9, 3; Tatianus, Oratio, 8, 2-5; 21, 3; Hermias, Irrisio, II; 
IV, 7-18; Ad Diognetum, II, 2; II, 7; II, 4; VIII, 4, etc. 
Reception of II Century Greek Apologetics in Old Georgian Literature 53 
ture (Old and New Testaments, Didache, old martyrdoms, Greek apolo-
gists – Aristides’ Apology, Tatiane’s Diatesaron, etc.) was not once noted in 
the scientific literature (A. Harnac, I. Javakhishvili, K. Kekelidze and oth-
ers). The above mentioned work is interesting in many ways. The main 
conflict of the period between Christianity and Zoroastrianism in the 6th 
century Georgia found its expression in this very monument. 
Evstati’s martyrdom is important for us exactly from the viewpoint of 
Aristides’ influence. The impact is so significant that enables us to speak 
about the existence of a Georgian fragment of Aristides inserted into the 
Georgian hagiographic text. Evstati, brought in front of the Marzpan for 
questioning pronounces his famous speech on defense of Christianity in 
which he denounces Zoroastrianism. It can be said that here Evstati is 
represented as a traditional character of old apologies, a person seeking 
the truth who gets acquainted with different religions and cults, magus 
beliefs, Hebrew religion, Christianity… Evstati’s speech (Martyrdom, IV-
VII) mainly delivers Archdeacon Samuel’s teachings. In the second part of 
the speech (Martyrdom, VII) Evstati rejects pagans’ idolatry and fire wor-
ship. In his polemics he reiterates Aristides’ argumentations against pagan 
cults, astrolatry and especially pirolatry that were especially urgent issues 
for him. Here Evstati abruptly interrupts his speech and begins praying. 
The last part of the fragment does not correspond with the critics of piloa-
try. As K. Kekelidze remarked, the manuscript can be incomplete.12 In my 
opinion, this passage once again proves that the author of the Martyrdom 
follows Aristides’ apologetic text. He takes from the text the above men-
tioned fragment about incest which seems out of context for Evstati but 
this theme appears in Aristides’ text (Syrian version) where it is generally 
directed against pagan religions. The above presented arguments suffice 
to prove that the anonymous author of Martyrdom was well acquainted 
with the apologetic literature, their argumentation ‘adversus paganos’ that 
was widely spread in early Christian literature. And the situation is typi-
cal as well: just as the second century apologist, the first Christians ap-
pealed to the Roman emperors while trying to protect the Christian faith 
from the pagan accusations. Likewise, Evstati, newly converted to the 
Christian faith, pronounces his speech in front of the higher authorities 
and asserts the priority of the Christian religion (Martyrdom, II, 31, 29; III, 
33, 3). 
Similarly interesting is the passage from the Martyrdom where the au-
thor makes Samuel speak on different religions of humanity. This is also a 
                                                 
12  Kekelidze K., History of Old Georgian Literature, I, Tbilisi, 1980, 514. 
Marina Giorgadze 
 
54 
popular theme of the apologetic literature. Georgian author, like the apol-
ogists, distinguishes between 3 races of man. However, instead of various 
worships he only distinguishes ‘the religion of the Persians’ as it was most 
actual and urgent for him. 
As for the popular statement of the apologists that God created the 
world ‘for the need of men’ (χρησις), it is also frequently repeated by the 
author of the Martyrdom. It should be noted that the enumeration of the 
Creation is more detailed with the Martyrdom author where instead of the 
apologetic words ‘και τα λοιπα’ (‘and so on’) he enumerates different ele-
ments in detail: ‘God who created heaven and earth, the sun and the moon 
and the stars, water and land, rivers and oceans, mountains and hills, 
fields and forests, wood and fire, animals and beasts, reptiles and birds, 
after this God created man and made him master of all the rest, He made 
everything subordinate to man and how should we all abandon God and 
serve thing created by Him? Never should it be done this way!’ (Martyr-
dom, VII, 42, 27-32). 
Similar to Aristides, the Martyrdom author thinks that the main mistake 
of the pagans was the confusion of the Creator with the created. Among 
all the elements created by God and ‘are themselves not gods’ he distin-
guishes on one hand, celestial bodies (sun, moon, stars), and on the other 
hand – fire on which he pays particular attention as it is urgent issue for 
him in polemics against Zoroastrianism: ‘The sun, the moon and the stars 
are not gods, rather God commanded the sun to light the day and the 
moon and the stars – light the night. To the cloud God commanded to 
cover the shining sun and moon. For this reason the sun and the moon 
cannot be gods. Besides, neither is the fire god. Wherever he spreads, if it 
meets a man, it extinguishes. Also the water can extinguish the fire and 
put out its power. For this reason it is not god, but we serve it as the one.’  
(Martyrdom, VII, 42, 34-35; VII, 43, 1-14). 
The author’s argumentation partially differs from the one of Aristides 
but it corresponds to the Aristidean pathos that the Creator is mightier 
that the things created by Him, and that the substances subjected to disin-
tegration, decrease, reduction, disappearance – cannot be gods. As for the 
Aristides’ argumentation on fire, here the Martyrdom author literally fol-
lows Aristides’ apologetic text13. 
                                                 
13  See Aristides, Apologia, I, 2; III, 2; IV, 2; VII, 1-3. Compare: Athenagoras, Supplicatio, VI, 
1-4; XII, 2; XIII, 2-9; XVI, 4-5; XVII, 5; Theophilus, Ad Autolycum, II, 5; II, 5-6; St. 
Iustinus, I Apologia, 9, 2-3; Tatianus, Oratio, 21, 1; Ad  Diognetum, II, 5; Hermias, Irrisio, 
II; IV, 7-18; XII, etc. 
Reception of II Century Greek Apologetics in Old Georgian Literature 55 
The fact that the anonymous author follows both – Greek (on 3 races) 
and Syrian (incest theme) texts points to the fact that the anonymous au-
thor had at his hand not the Syrian or later Greek metaphrastic version 
(inserted into the text of Varlaam and Josapath) but the old text, the original, 
from which these versions might be produced. 
Though the illustrating passages from the Martyrdom are relatively 
short and few, they undoubtedly contain the fragments from Aristides’ 
Apology. The anonymous author knows the apologetic text very well, bor-
rows passages, arguments and masterfully uses them in his polemics. He 
treats Aristides’ text with liberty, displaces the passages, abridges or ex-
pands them, partially changes the text but nevertheless he is close to the 
Aristides’ text, sometimes it is also possible to speak about textual coinci-
dences. It is not surprising as this method is quite popular in hagiographic 
literature. Protagonists of Martyrdoms are often made speak with the pas-
sages borrowed from the apologetic literature (H.-I. Marrou calls it the 
‘apologetic nucleus’ of Byzantine hagiographic literature)14. 
The fact that Martyrdom of Evstati Mtskheteli is a 6th century text is sig-
nificant in other context as well, namely, in connection to the attribution of 
the Greek Christian romance Varlaam and Josaphat. We know the history of 
Aristides’ apologetic text: it was discovered as the insertion into the Greek 
Christian romance Varlaam and Josaphat. The Georgian version of the rom-
ance does not contain Aristides’ apologetic text. As it is considered the 
Greek version is three times longer than the Georgian one and contains 
numerous theological passages. According to the scholars, the apologetic 
text might have been added to the Greek version by Ekvtime Iberieli, sup-
posedly the author of the Greek version. In our opinion, the fact that the 
tradition of inserting Aristides’ apologetic fragments is confirmed in old 
Georgian literature since 6th century supports the argumentation in Ekv-
time’s favor. 
Apologetic works, in most cases, are similar and repeat one another in 
terms of structure, themes, motifs, argumentations. However, each author 
and work is distinguished by style, author’s temper, pathos; they put dif-
ferent accents and pay attention to different themes. Apologetic themes 
became the so called ‘Loci communes’ for the Christian literature. During 
the centuries of the development of the Christian literature apologetic dis-
courses can be met in completely different works of various authors, espe-
cially in hagiography. The Greek Christian literature makes great impact 
on the literary traditions of other countries including Georgian literature. 
                                                 
14  Marrou H. I. (éd.), Diognète A., SC, 33, Paris 1965, 27-28. 
Marina Giorgadze 
 
56 
Old Georgian authors are well acquainted with Greek apologists (Aris-
tides, Iustinus, Melito, Pseudo-Sextus), mention their names, make cita-
tions from their apologetic works using them in the necessary contexts in 
an original way. 
The inter-textual study of hagiographic works reveals that it is possible 
to speak generally about the influence of the apologetic literature on the 
old Georgian literature.  
    
 


Reception of II Century Greek Apologetics in Old Georgian Literature

Nadareishvili, Ketevan

Aeschylus’ ‘Mysogynism’ in "Oresteia"

Berikashvili, Svetlana

Lobzhanidze, Irina

Phasis 11, 2008 
 
Svetlana Berikashvili, Irina Lobzhanidze (Tbilisi) 
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF GREEK AND GEORGIAN 
IDIOMATIC EXPRESSIONS 
A lot of languages obtain different kind of idiomatic expressions; the area 
of their usage is very wide. However, unlike the other word-formations, 
the idiomatic expressions consisting of common words are ‘frozen, stable, 
fixed’ units. Usually, their meaning as a whole is not equal to the sum of 
their components.1 Idiomatic expressions are generally considered as ‘… a 
group of words which have a different meaning when used together from 
the one it would have if the meaning of each word were taken individual-
ly.’2 
Idiomatic expressions can be considered as an integral part of every-
day linguistic reality. Any idiom expresses such kind of ideas, notions or 
conceptions which can not be expressed by a separate word or free word-
combination. Some of idiomatic constructions are involved in composi-
tional meanings,3 while the others can be considered as the aspect of struc-
tural semantics.4 Each language has its own semantics and stylistics, 
which determine heterogeneity of linguistic structure; so called hetero-
geneity provokes special difficulties during the translation and interpreta-
tion of investigated texts. 
In general, the translation of phraseological units, particularly, idi-
omatic expressions, is very difficult. It can be explained by the fact that a 
lot of idiomatic units belong to the kind of world-views and national pecu-
                                                 
1  For details see Takaishvhili A., Issues on Georgian Phraseology, Publ. Academy of 
Sciences of Georgian, Tbilisi 1961, 40 (in Georgian).    
2  Collins Cobuild Dictionary of Idioms, Harper Collins Publishers 2000. 
3  Nunberg G., Sag I. A., Wasow T., Idioms, in: Language 70, 1994, 491-538. 
4  Riehemann S., A Constructional Approach to Idioms and Word Formation, in: Ph.D. 
Thesis, Stanford 2001. 
Comparative Analysis of Greek and Georgian Idiomatic Expressions 7 
liarities. So, the general peculiarities of idiomatic expressions are expres-
sivity, ethnical and cultural aspects, which cause difficulties during the 
translation of idioms. Special attention shall be paid to the comparative 
context, where idiomatic expressions are used. Moreover, the most part of 
idiomatic expressions has a lot of different meanings, which complicate 
their transmission to the other language. 
This paper can be considered as an attempt to compare Greek and 
Georgian phraseological systems. Unfortunately, the contemporary lin-
guistic literature does not obtain any special research dedicated to this 
issue. In spite of a long history of the research of Georgian study of idioms 
and phraseological units, including the work of Arli Takaishvili Issues on 
Georgian Phraseology published in 1961, which describes not only the issues 
of phraseology, but also gives thoroughly study of theoretical basis and 
other practical purposes of idiomatic expressions, no one researcher tried 
to implement synchronous-comparative analysis of Modern Greek and 
Georgian Idioms.  
The goal of this paper is to describe well-known Modern Greek idi-
omatic expressions and to find their equivalents in Georgian Language. 
We have to note that some idiomatic expressions have exact equivalents in 
Georgian Language, and some – not, and, in such case, their translation is 
possible by means of line-by-line translation or survey of partial phraseo-
logical units. So, we follow the commonly used rule for the division of 
phraseological units into two groups, especially, we will consider: 
1. Phraseological units, which have exact equivalents in Georgian Lan-
guage; and; 
2. Phraseological units, which have not exact equivalents. 
From the other side, the units possessing equivalents can be of two kinds: 
a. exact equivalents, which do not change during the translation and 
do not depend on the context, and; 
b. so called partial equivalents, which depend on the context during 
the translation.5  
Of course, it is impossible to consider all idiomatic expressions pecu-
liar to Modern Greek Language in this paper. So, we have decided to look 
                                                 
5  For details see Кунин А. В., О переводе английских фразеологизмов в англо-
русском фразеологическом словаре, Москва.  
http://belpaese2000.narod.ru/Trad/kunin_fra.htm. The author describes time is mon-
ey — время – деньги, burn one's boats — сжечь свои корабли, in the seventh heaven — на 
седьмом небе etc. as an example of exact phraseological equivalents, and kill the goose 
that lays the golden eggs — убить курицу, несущую золотые яйца, put by for a rainy day 
— отложить про черный день etc. as an example of partial equivalents.  









Comparative Analysis of Greek and Georgian Idiomatic Expressions

Tsanava, Rusudan

Initiation of Telemachos (Analysis of the Text of the "Odyssey")

Not a member yet