Journal Phasis - Greek and Roman Studies

Licheli, Vakhtang

Phasis 11, 2008 
 
Vakhtang Licheli (Tbilisi) 
GRAKLIANI HILL – 2008 ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS 
The Grakliani settlement site and burial ground are located in Caspi re-
gion, on the territory of Samtavisi village, on a hill on the right bank of the 
river Lekhura, very near to Tbilisi-Senaki-Leselidze highway. It extends on 
the most part of the territory and lies between two little rivers – Lekhura 
and Tortla (pl. I. Grakliani Hill. Aerial photo). In connection with the ex-
pansion of the highway (Igoeti-Sveneti Section), rescue excavations were 
carried out on the southern slope of the hill. The excavations revealed the 
traces of a multi-layer settlement as well as graves of various periods. 
Stratigraphy of the Settlement 
Layer 1 
It is an affected layer of grey ground with admixtures – pieces of plaster, 
tile, which had slid down from the upper terrace, and foundation stones. 
Material dated to various periods has also been found in this layer, name-
ly: 
Chalcolitic: 
1. Retouched flint lamellas inserted in a sickle;  
2. Flint javelin; 
3. Small axe. 
Late Bronze – Early Iron Age: 
Fragments of black-burned jugs and jars with grey lining and band-like 
and zoomorphic handles; 
Neck and shoulder fragments of small black-burned cooking pots. The 
neck is encircled with incised lines; 
Fragments of black-burned pots. 
Vakhtang Licheli  
 
80 
6th -4th cc. BC 
A fragment of a bowl with a concaved flank (an imitation of Achaemenid 
bowls). 
Early Hellenistic Period 
Red-painted fragments of jugs burned to straw colour (chevrons, net pat-
terns). 
The 3rd-2nd centuries BC 
Fragments of wine vessels and craters of the Samadlo type;  
Red-painted tiles. 
The 2nd century – first half of the 1st century BC 
Fragments of jars with profiled rim edge. 
Layer 2 
The upper part of this layer has been partly damaged because of construc-
tion works. However, here and there parts of isolated structures can be 
found. These are simple structures: a wattle and daub wall erected on a 
foundation made of the mixture of clay and rubble-stone. The structures 
have survived mainly as a mass of amorphic clay. Several structures are 
quite well preserved – they are placed up to the half in a space cut in the 
ground, i.e. they are semi-underground strutures with completely pre-
served interior arrangement (a stove for baking bread, an altar, central 
pillar) (pl. V. Oven (backery), 5th c. BC). Remarkably, fragments of a public 
altar have also been found in the same layer. This fact is particularly im-
portant as the like diversity of altars is very rare in other sites dated to the 
same period (Khovle, Narekvavi, Mtskheta, Treli Gorebi). 
According to the materials so far available, their majority belongs to 
the 8th-7th BC (pl. IV. Representation of the ‘God of Fertility’, 8th-7th c. BC); 
however, some of them were apparently destroyed as early as the 5th cen-
tury BC. 
Layer 3 
This layer is located at 1.7 meter below the zero point and presumably 
dates to the early Hellenistic period (ceramic ware burned to straw colour 
have been found). So far, traces of buildings have not been detected.  
Layer 4 
The layer has been singled out tentatively. It does not offer a clear picture. 
The layer is located at the depth of 2 meters from the zero point. It con-
tains shapeless black-burned fragments. So far, there is no evidence of the 
fragments of structures. 
Grakliani Hill – 2008 Archaeological Excavations 81 
Archaeological materials uncovered in the central terrace of the south-
ern slope of the settlement  
The uncovered materials mostly include ceramic ware of the following types: 
Structural ceramics  
Two types of tiles have been traced – solen and kalipter. Almost all of the 
pieces are painted with red ochre. Along with ordinary kalipters, several 
fragments of barrel-tiles have been found. Presumably, the tiles uncovered 
in the layer belonged to the structures on the top of the hill. They have 
been partly unearthed and it can be assumed that they used to be towers 
dated to the 2nd century BC- 1st century AD (Mirianashvili, 2003: 53). 
Pottery 
Wine vessels. The numerous fragments of wine jars are of Samadlo type 
and date generally to the 4th-2nd centuries BC. 
Crater 
Several painted fragments have been found – rectangular lines are drawn 
on the rim edge. They are exact copies of the 3rd century BC and the start 
of the 2nd century BC Samadlo craters. It should be noted that the like cra-
ters are very rare among Georgian ceramics (Narimanishvili, 1998). 
Jars 
Mainly grey-burned, with profiled rim edge. Some of then have an incised 
ornament all around their shoulders. 
Pots 
Most of them are burned to black, which is mainly due to their frequent 
use. Ornaments are infrequent (they are mostly found on the Late Bronze-
Early Iron materials). 
Jugs 
The jugs are mostly pear-shaped. Especially noteworthy is the one with 
distinct red chevrons, presumably dating to the third quarter of the 4th 
century BC. Likewise noteworthy are red-painted fragments of an Urar-
tian oinochoe and bowl, unearthed in the 7th-6th century layers. 
Bowls 
Among the numerous fragments, noteworthy are those of a concave bowl, 
which is analogical of the one recovered from the Kamarakhevi burial 
ground and dating to the 5th century BC – the start of the 4th century BC. 
Phials  
Especially remarkable are black-burned fragments bearing an incised im-
age of traditional Greek ornament – palmette (Licheli, 1991: 53-62). 
The imitation, which is very rare for Kartli, dates to the 2nd-1st centuries 
BC. Before that, an analogical piece was found in Mtskheta. 
Utensils 
Vakhtang Licheli  
 
82 
The finds belonging to this category are made of stone and can be divided 
into three groups: navicular handmills, mortars and whetstones. 
Apart from these commonplace finds, due attention should be paid to 
the above-mentioned altars. They are of several types: round, shelved, 
domed, monumental and double-protome.  
The round altar is a small bisectional structure arranged in the central 
part of a specially designed chamber. The main part of the round altar is a 
0.7 meter high small semispherical clay structure, its diameter being 0.9 
meter. From the front, it is sided by a 0.9 meter diameter semispherical 
cinder pit. The chamber, presumably intended for praying, was open to 
the south. To the west from the altar, there was a special site for placing 
offering vessels, mainly trays. Especially noteworthy is that unlike other 
altars, the floor of this particular one is wooden, which, in my opinion, is 
suggestive of its significance. The altar dates to the 8th-7th centuries BC. 
The shelved altar is a small open structure consisting of two parts – a 
circular clay edging with a large ‘wall’ inbuilt in its northern part. The 
‘wall’ is 0.6 meter high and 1.2 meter wide, 0.20-0.25 meter thick, while the 
shelf is 0.3 meter wide. The shelf is fixed to the northern part of the altar, 
while in the southern part the edging is narrower in diameter  – or more 
precisely, from the south the ‘wall’ is sided by a small circle, its diameter 
being 0.7-0.8 meter. Offering vessels are laced in this circle. 
The shelved altar dates to the 5th-4th cc. BC. 
The domed altar is an open structure. The central element of its design 
is an E-W wall made from vertically set poles plastered with clay. In the 
southern part of the wall there are clay domes. The altar is strongly dam-
aged, which makes it complete restoration difficult. Two surviving domes 
can be certainly identified. In front of the central (?) dome, there is a small 
0.2m diameter pit where small offering vessels were placed. Among the 
offerings there was also a jar placed in the western part of the wall. Only a 
fragment of the jar has survived. A small biconical single-handled drink-
ing vessel had the same function. Drinking vessels of similar shape were 
found in Colchis (e.g. those recovered from Burial chamber 1 of Ergeta 
burial ground III, dated to the end of the 7th century BC or the begining of 
the 6th century BC). In Kartli, however, the like shapes are found in the 
sites dated to 1100-900 BC (e.g. garve #51 of Samtavro, Zemo Avchala 
grave). However, the items analogical with the ones found in Samtavro 
and Zemo Avchala have been recovered from much later sites, which sug-
gest that the dates mentioned in the present article will be modified in the 
future. I pay special attention to this ceramic ware because they are con-
Grakliani Hill – 2008 Archaeological Excavations 83 
nected to another type of altar, the monumental one (pl. VIII. Monumental 
Altar, 1100-900 c. BC), which will be dealt with below. In view of possible 
parallels with Colchis, another noteworthy item is a fragment of terracotta 
figurine found in the 7th century BC layer – a protome, in particular, an 
animal’s head. Although it is difficult to identify precisely the animal, in 
my opinion it is a somewhat stylized version of a horse’ head. In this re-
spect, it is noteworthy that the figurine is exactly identical with one of the 
small sculptural pieces found in the common burial site in Tsaishi, Col-
chis. The figurine in question is an equestrian statuette of a female god-
dess (Mikeladse, 1995: 20). The sculptures of horses are similar not only in 
terms of style, but also owing to the rings over the animals’ snouts resem-
bling a bridle. In my opinion, this very item suggests that the statuette is a 
horse figurine. 
According to the present operating chronological scale, the vaulted al-
tar dates to the 12th-10th centuries BC. 
A monumental altar was uncovered in the western part of the settlement 
site. Only northern part survived from the building where it was arranged. 
The building was a log structure. The impressions reveal closely set horizontal 
massive logs plastered with a thick clay layer. The floor was also leveled with 
a thick clay layer. No other case of the like working of floor has been discov-
ered. The altar was arranged on the north-western part of the building. From 
the east it sided with a cinder pit, which on its part borders with a platform 
along the northern wall. It was a site for placing offerings. Among the vessels 
of various size burned to light colour and placed on the platform were the 
ones resembling by shape the above-described drinking vessels with one han-
dle. In one of the offering vessels a cylinder seal (pl. IX. Mesopotamian Seal, 4th 
millenium BC) was found, which deserves special attention. It is a cylinder 
item made from well precipitated light clay, with slightly conical bottom sur-
face. Its surface was meticulously decorated with neatly incised lines. On the 
impression the lines make up a schematic image of a tree with down turn 
branches all in one row. In the lower register there are distinct chevrons. There 
is an image of a cross on the top of the seal. The bottom surface is slightly con-
cave. A hole was made in the center of the seal obviously after the image was 
applied, which contradicts to the rules of manufacturing seals. The seal is 5.2. 
cm heigh, the bottom surface diameter is 2.8 cm, while the upper surface di-
ameter is 1.6 cm. Professor N. Samsonia finds direct parralels between its 
décor and that of Jemdet-Nasr Group IV seals. The like chevrons are characte-
ristic of the first part of seals belonging to this group (Samsonia, 2008: 37; Cor-
pus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals; pl. 35. Collon, 1987: 13-22). Hence, the Me-
sopotamian origin and the early date (3000-2800 BC; according to Domenic 
Vakhtang Licheli  
 
84 
Collon – 3000-2334 BC) of the seal may seem to be out of doubt. However, it 
requires further special study. On the other hand, the fact that it was found in 
the temple of the later period, dating to 1100-900 BC can be easily accounted 
for as the like fact, i.e. finding a seal of earlier times in a temple erected later is 
quite typical of the period in question. Naturally, it is very important to find 
out when the Mesopotamian seal was brought to the territory of modern Kar-
tli – at the turn of the 4th -3rd millennium BC (or later, by the end of the 2nd mil-
lennium?). At the present stage of research, it is very difficult to give a definite 
answer; however, the high degree of expansion of the Kura-Arax culture, 
which was almost simultaneous with the mentioned period, allows of any 
kind of assumptions. In this respect, special attention should be paid to anoth-
er seal with a round loop rising on a rectangular plate (pl. X. Mesopotamian 
Seal, 4th millennium BC with the representation of the ‘House of God’). The 
item is made from a light-color whitish sandstone with highly refined tech-
nique. The painting surface is so skillfully filled that the consummate mastery 
of the craftsman is out of question. The incisions are deep, the impression 
presents itself an emanating ‘House of God’ (Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern 
Seals; pl. 22-25; Amiet, 1980: 386-390). The seal is 3.2 cm high, the loop is 2.2. 
cm high, while the decorated surface is 3.6X3.4 cm. The seal was recovered in 
an affected layer, and therefore, can be dated only according to the analogical 
seals. Since the latter were found among the material of Jemdet-Nasr period, 
the seal in question is to be dated to 3000-2800 BC (or earlier). However, it 
should be noted that the item must be studied separately. Remarkably, among 
the finds discovered in the settlement site, there are a number of local late 
Bronze Age seals with various images depicted on their painting surface. 
Another unique altar was unearthed in the same eastern part of the set-
tlement – this is a circle made from baked clay with around 10 cm high bor-
ders; the diameter of the circle is approximately 40 cm; from the west it bor-
ders with a double-protome ram sculpture, sided from the west by three 
bulges. An altar with bulges has been unearthed at various sites (Samtavro, 
Narekvavi); however, none of the altars has a double-protome ram sculpture. 
The altar was arranged in the western corner of a small temple, which is 
oriented to the east, and thus the altar also faces east. There was a row of of-
fered vessels in front of the altar. It should be noted in brief that the 8th-7th cen-
tury double-protome sculptures invite several diametrically different ideas 
and the question of their origin remains disputable (cf. Lordkipanidze, 2002, 
188-191) for the simple reason that it is related to very difficult ethnicity - and 
culture - related questions and embraces such an extensive region as Luristan, 
the Aegean world and the Caucasus. 
Grakliani Hill – 2008 Archaeological Excavations 85 
In the western part of the a 1st millennium BC structural complex was 
unearthed (pl. VI-VII. Western Temple, 5th c. BC. Excavations; Western 
Temple, 5th c. BC. Excavations. Plan.). The four structures of the complex 
follow the same design. 
Preliminary Interpretation of the Settlement Site 
The majority of the structures unearthed at the site in 2008 are the terraced 
part of the 8th-6th BC protourban settlement built on a hill slope. Some of 
the finds belong to the upper temple complex, located on the top of the 
hill, while another part had slid down from the terraces above the exca-
vated ones because of the sloping landscape. The unearthed finds are 
marked by abundance of temples and altars irrespective of the period, 
which distinguishes the settlement in question from other sites of the same 
period. This may point to its cult function, which evidently started to 
shape in that period and by the 4th-3rd centuries BC must have logically 
yielded such cult centres as Uplistsikhe, Tskhia-Gora and Samadlo, as well 
as Grakliani Hill itself by the end of the Hellenistic period. Another note-
worthy point is the comparative abundance of imported ceramic – in par-
ticular, Urartian jugs and bowls. As concerns the recovered seals, the ap-
preciation of their significance can not be called exaggerated.  
The Burial Ground 
The burial ground is located on a slope west to the settlement. Its chronologi-
cal boundaries are quite broad ranging from the 4th millennium BC. (pl. II. 
Grave. 4th millenium BC.) to the 2nd-1st millennium (pl. III. Bronze from the 
grave of 11th -10th BC) with apparently prevailing 8th-7th pit graves. 
Bibliography: 
Licheli V., Old Vani, the Area for Economic Activities, Tbilisi 1991. 
Lordkipanidze O., At the Origins of Old Georgian Civilization, Tbilisi 2002. 
Mirianashvili N., Nastakis Archeological Expedition in the Pipeline Construction 
Zone, collection of works The Pipeline Archeology, vol. II, Tbilisi 2003: 2001. 
Nikolaishvili V., Gavashvili E., Narekvavi Archeological Sites, Tbilisi 2007. 
Samsonia N., Mesopotamian Glyptic, Tbilisi 2008. 
Amiet P., La Gliptique Mesopotamienne Archaique, Paris 1980. 
Colloon D., First Impressions. Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East, British 
Museum Press 1987. 
Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in North American Collections, Pantheon 
Books 1947 (My courtesy to Prof. N. Samsonia for his assistance with the seals). 
Mikeladse T., Grosse Kollektive Grabgruben Der Fruhen Eisenzeit in Kolchis in: 
Archaologischer Anzeiger, Berlin, New York 1995. 






English

Grakliani Hill – 2008 Archaeological Excavations

Darchia, Irine

Phasis 11, 2008 
 
Irine Darchia (Tbilisi) 
FOR THE INTERRELATION OF PLATO’S PHAEDO 
AND ANCIENT GREEK TRAGEDY   
The interrelation of Plato and the Greek tragedy is rather complex, hetero-
geneous, and even contradictory issue, but to my mind, some aspects of 
ancient tragedy can be observed in Phaedo. On the one hand, the philoso-
pher is shown as an opponent of poetry generally and namely, of drama, 
but on the other hand, in Plato’s works there are some details that are cha-
racteristic of the genre unacceptable to him. The complex and dilemmatic 
side of the problem is the ambivalence of the material found in Plato’s 
dialogues. 
One should note that some paradoxes are familiar to Plato’s works. 
‘Plato is seen as the maker of paradoxes: he condemns writing but com-
poses written works of supreme sophistication and suggestiveness; he 
condemns art and rhetoric, yet he himself is a supreme artist and the ulti-
mate rhetorician; he expounds the plan for an ideal state, yet admits it can 
never be brought in practice; he declares that the soul, or the maker of the 
universe, are inaccessible to the human mind, and can only be described in 
similes or images, and yet his images are so compelling and memorable as 
to have influenced generations of subsequent thinkers.’1 
The dramatic qualities of Plato’s works were noticed even in ancient 
times. Plutarch wrote: ‘The simplest dialogues of Plato were studied by 
children; they even recited them and performed the characters, voices and 
poses of the parsonages.’2 
                                                 
1  Rutherford R. B., The Art of Plato, Ten Essays in Platonic Interpretation, Harvard, 
Cambridge, Massachusetts 1995, 25. 
2  Миллер Т. А., Мефодий Олимпийский и традиция платоновского диалога, в кн.: 
Античность и Византия, Москва 1975, 194. 
Irine Darchia 
 
26 
The contradictory relation of Plato to drama is inexplicable because the 
researchers either have ignored it or have not explained it convincingly.  
J. Arieti, one of the researchers, tries to illustrate the interrelation of 
Plato’s dialogues with drama in a little exaggerated form but vividly. He 
says: ‘If we like to classify Plato’s dialogues we will be able to see Protago-
ras as a comedy, Euthidemos and Cratylus as a farce. Phaedo is a tragedy and 
the Greek poets could create nothing more heart-rending. Republic more 
resembles the philosophic novels of our times, for example, Tomas Mann’s 
Magic Mountain and Goethe’s Faustus (92.127).3 L. Cooper evaluates Apolo-
gy, Crito, and Phaedo as a tragic trilogy.4 
What can be said more specifically and seriously about the interrela-
tion between Phaedo and tragedy? By what external (formal) and internal 
(ideological) features are they connected and contradicted?  
I have tried to determine the features of tragedy in Phaedo on the bases 
of other researchers’ opinions and our observations as well, proceeding 
from the principles given in Aristotle’s Poetics.  
L. Cooper singles out four elements that poetry, drama and Plato’s phi-
losophical dialogue have in common. They are: 1) plot; 2) character; 3) 
reasoning; 4) method. We can see that L. Cooper’s criterion of research is 
the four basic elements of tragedy singled out by Aristotle 
Poetics, 6).5 
L. Cooper explains that one of the constituents of drama, i.e. mythos 
 or plot, which is the soul of a play according to Aristotle, corres-
ponds to logos of the philosophical dialogue.6 It means that the 
function of mythos in drama and epic literature is the same as the function 
of logos in the philosophical dialogue. In fact, it conditions the action 
(judgment) in the work.  
L. Cooper formally explains the interrelation between Plato and the 
Greek drama. The four elements named by the researcher can be found 
not only in Phaedo but in any other Plato’s dialogues as well. Thus, the 
question is: Why is Phaedo a tragedy? 
Some researchers have tried to find the elements of tragedy in Phaedo 
by means of singling out some specific details of similarity. Here, we 
                                                 
3  Arieti J. A., Interpreting Plato, The Dialogues as a Drama, Rowman, Littlefield Pub-
lishers, Inc. 1991, 127. 
4  Cooper L., Plato, On the Trial and Death of Socrates, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 
New York, 12. 
5  Cooper L., op. cit., 4.  
6  Cooper L., op. cit., 7.  
For the Interrelation of Plato’s Phaedo and Ancient Greek Tragedy 27 
should mention that tragedians as well as the author of Phaedo do not par-
ticipate in their works. ‘In this respect a dialogue of Plato is like a drama; 
the author does not appear in it as a speaker.’7 
The only explanation of such artistic peculiarity is the author’s desire. 
‘He prefers to remain behind the scenes, a dramatist rather than a charac-
ter or even a commentator.’8 The author’s stepping aside and almost visu-
al-scenic picture of Socrates’ death arouses sympathy of everybody who 
takes an interest in Phaedo.9  
Phaedo resembles tragedy because of some other elements too.  
In Socrates’ words and actions one can notice all the signs that Aris-
totle thinks the tragic character must have. He is a very generous, consis-
tent and brave person. At the same time such bravery ‘is a match’ for him 
because he is a philosopher (comp. Poetics, 15). Plato gives the description 
of Socrates’ personality a little hyperbolized and it also matches up Aris-
totle’s requirements. ‘Since tragedy is the representation of the better 
people than we are, we must imitate good portraitists; they give each of 
them their own form, depict them as they are in reality, but at the same 
time give more beautiful picture of them’ (Poetics, 15). 
In Phaedo besides the main character (so-called protagonist), some mi-
nor personages take part in action (and reasoning). Several of them are so 
called deuteragonists (e.g. Simmias, Cebes) and the rest have the function 
of chorus (e.g. Phaedo, Echecrates…). 
When we read Phaedo the scene of Socrates’ last hours without fail ap-
pears in front of our eyes. The first dialogue between Phaedo and Eche-
crates can be compared with Parodos – appearance of chorus and the first 
song. The philosophical dialogue of Socrates and his friends can be im-
agined as Episodions; twice entry of Phaedo and Echecrates (or chorus) 
can be seen as Stasimons. In one of the Episodions there is a dialogue be-
tween the main character (Socrates) and the so-called coryphaeus of cho-
rus (Phaedo). The episode of Socrates’ death can be compared with Ekso-
dos, where a kind of Komos, the mourning of Socrates’ friends over his 
impending death, is included (comp. Poetics, 12). 
From the structural point of view, we can see, there is an evident typo-
logical similarity between Phaedo and tragedy.  
                                                 
7  Cooper L., op. cit., 3. 
8  Rutherford R. B., op. cit.., 7; see also Rowe C. J. (ed.), Plato, Phaedo, Cambridge University 
Press, 1993, 2-3; Лосев А. Ф., Тахо-Годи А. А., Платон, Жизнеописание, Москва 1977, 127. 
9  Лосев А. Ф., Тахо-Годи А. А., op. cit., 127. 
Irine Darchia 
 
28 
C. Rowe notes that ‘there are indeed features which the dialogue 
shares with tragedy, for example the chorus-like presence of Phaedo and 
Echecrates, and an Aristotelian-type or reversal of fortune.’10  
According to C. Rowe, the introduction of the theory soul as a harmony 
by Simmias and Cebes, contrary to the argumentation of Socrates, can be 
regarded as the culmination point of reasoning. The researcher explains 
that at the beginning Socrates’ friends had been competing with him from 
the position of the ordinary man (see esp. Phaedo, 70a; 77c-e), but later 
‘they posed a more philosophical, and accordingly more serious, challenge 
– the equivalent of a reversal of fortune, or peripeteia’ (comp. Poetics, 6).11 
It is worth attention that in tragedy peripeteia is an unexpected rever-
sal of fortune, the act of transforming from happiness into unhappiness 
(comp. Poetics, 13), but in Phaedo it is a kind of a sudden change in the 
process of reasoning. Since reasoning, not action, is determinative in the 
work, it is natural that peripeteia as well shows up in the process of dis-
cussion.  
Let us remember again the features of tragedy that are found in Phaedo 
too. 
The author is not a character of the work. 
The work is based on the dialogues among the characters. 
Here we can observe four main elements of tragedy: 
The main character is generous, consistent and brave. 
The protagonist is hyperbolized. 
The composition consists of Parodos, Episodions, Stasimons, Eksodos 
and Comos. 
In the plot (more precisely, in the process of reasoning) one can ob-
serve peripeteia, i.e. the culmination of discussion. 
When we study the interrelation between Phaedo and tragedy we have 
to take into consideration the features of the latter that do not exist in the 
dialogue. 
In Phaedo one cannot find any artistic devises characteristic of tragedy: 
(comp. Poetics, 6, 11, 16). 
It is very interesting to see how much the elements of tragic action 
and are given in Phaedo (Poetics, 18). Plato does not tell us about 
the facts that called forth a sudden change of the main character’s fate, i.e. 
how Socrates went to law and was put in prison. He only describes the 
                                                 
10  Rowe C. J., op. cit., 1. 
11  Rowe C. J., op. cit., 200. 
For the Interrelation of Plato’s Phaedo and Ancient Greek Tragedy 29 
actions proceeded from the conflict up to their end. He only gives the pic-
tures of Socrates’ last hours as the result of certain, non-concretized 
events. The plot is implied; it does not exist in the work. Correspondingly, 
the whole work is the denouement of the implied plot. 
We can see that there are not all characteristic features of tragedy in 
Phaedo and it is quite natural; it is impossible for a philosophical dialogue, 
whatever associations it produces, to have the typical scheme of tragedy. 
When we discuss the interrelation between Phaedo and tragedy we 
should take into consideration not only some formal features, but some 
internal relation as well. It is rather interesting to see how much tragic the 
inspiration of the dialogue is. 
Phaedo was considered as one of the exciting and moving works of lite-
rature. On the face of it Phaedo is thought to be a tragedy because it is an 
extremely emotional story of the unjust death of the generous hero. 
Though, having the features named above, Phaedo produces the im-
pression of tragedy we think that the dialogue by its essence is only to a 
degree a tragedy.                         
A small note made by H. Kuhn incited me to make such interpretation. 
He says that Phaedo is a Platonic anti-tragedy… something that gives rise 
to fear in a tragedy loses its meaning in philosophy.12 
Such observation seems rather acceptable to me, but at the same time, 
it contradicts another suggestion that Phaedo by its some features has 
something in common with tragedy. These two differing, but at the same 
time, remarkable ideas gave me an opportunity to notice that the interrela-
tion between Phaedo and tragedy, as well as Plato and drama, is heteroge-
neous; it cannot be interpreted straightforwardly and must be analyzed 
carefully.  
Aristotle singles out three types of the tragic conflict derived from 
three kinds of relations of the heroes: hostile, friendly and indifferent (see 
Poetics, 14). The conflict existing in Phaedo is conditioned not by the rela-
tions of the characters but by the disagreement between the main charac-
ter and the society. Is such conflict tragic or not? 
Aristotle explains that one of the factors that conditions tragedy is the 
‘transition’ of a kind and just person ‘from happiness into unhappiness’ 
(Poetics, 13). One can ask whether Socrates punishment is a misfortune, 
and whether his life is tragic. 
                                                 
12  Kuhn H., The True Tragedy, On the Relationship between Greek Tragedy and Plato, 
in: H. S. C., vol. VI, 1941, 25-26. 
Irine Darchia 
 
30 
Phaedo cannot give the straightforward answer because Socrates’ and 
the rest characters’ attitudes are not homogeneous in this connection. 
From the empiric point of view Socrates’ fate is tragic but his supreme 
goal is to stand above physical reality and gain infinity. Hence in the light 
of eternity the end of Socrates can not be considered as tragic. 
As Shelling explains: ‘the essence of tragedy is in the struggle between 
the freedom of a person and the objective necessity’,13 but in Phaedo So-
crates does not struggle against the objective necessity. Cherishing hopes 
for the future life he is not afraid of the impending death. It is not a trage-
dy for him. Contrary to Socrates, the disposition of his spouse and friends 
is dramatic (see Phaedo, 59a1-9, 60a3-b1, 116d1-2, 117c7-d6).  
The dual attitude, tragic and anti-tragic, towards death is better seen in 
Socrates’ words to his friends: ‘What a way to behave, my strange friends! 
Why, it was mainly for this reason that I sent the woman away, so that 
they shouldn’t make this sort of trouble’ ‘
’ Phaedo, 117d7-9). 
Death means tragedy for Xanthippe and Socrates’ friends, but it is the 
guarantee of the future happiness for Socrates. He says: ‘I don’t regard my 
present lot as a misfortune’ (‘
’, Phaedo, 84e1-2).  
Thus, there is not one of the essential elements of tragedy in Phaedo; it 
is the (‘suffering’) (comp. Poetics, 11) of the main character without 
which a real tragedy is impossible. 
Socrates’ image personifies the anti-tragic ideal of Plato. The author 
describes the objective reality seen by the mortal people as tragedy, and 
his ideal, Socrates, is an anti-tragic hero. On the one hand, Phaedo is close 
to tragedy, but on the other hand, it struggles against the tragic enthu-
siasm and esthetics. The anti-tragedy is introduced into the tragedy. The 
tragedy loses against itself. 
The anti-tragic enthusiasm of Phaedo is conditioned by Plato’s and tra-
gedians’ different outlook but, how can be explained the existence of the 
features of tragedy in the dialogue? Does Plato apply them consciously or 
unconsciously? Is it accidental or is it the author’s intention? 
To my mind, it is less likely that the features of tragedy could have ap-
peared accidentally in such a systematic way. It must have been the result 
of Plato’s infrequent gift for writing.  
                                                 
13  Шеллинг Ф. В., Философия Искусства, Москва 1966, 400. 
For the Interrelation of Plato’s Phaedo and Ancient Greek Tragedy 31 
In one of the final passages of Phaedo Socrates, the anti-tragic image, 
ironically calls himself the hero of a tragedy and appeals to his friends with 
the words taken from the tragedy: ‘but for myself, ‘e’en now’, as a tragic 
hero might say, ‘destiny doth summon me’; and it’s just about time I made 
for the bath’ ‘
’, Phaedo, 115a5-6).14 The 
theme of a tragic hero is ‘run’ by Plato once again in the same passage. Be-
fore taking the poison he addresses Crito with the reminiscences of Homer 
whom he thinks to be a tragedian poet:15 ‘
’ (‘But come on, Crito, let’s obey him’, Phaedo, 116d7-8). 
To my mind, the same irony is used by Plato in the whole dialogue. He 
borrows a number of formal features of tragedy and embodies by them 
the anti-tragic ideals. The accent is put on anti-tragic by means of tragic. 
Phaedo is the dramatization of the philosophical dialogue. The action is 
localized in prison. The external static character is compensated by the 
current of ideas and emotions, therefore, by internal dynamism. Simmias 
and Cebes stay physically in prison but they spiritually are on their way to 
Truth. Phaedo is an Odyssey of soul and mind of Socrates’ listeners, his 
friends and, at the same time, of us, Plato’s present readers. 
On the one hand, the formal, and partially, inner features of tragedy 
found in Phaedo, and on the other hand, the anti-tragic enthusiasm of the 
work once more illuminated Plato’s philosophical and literary peculiari-
ties, paradoxicality and large range that in the present case are condi-
tioned by the ambiguous vision of the world. An event is interpreted both 
as passing and as eternal; thus, it obtains double image. 
 
                                                 
14  Com. Sophocles, Ajax, 654-6. 
15  See Republic, 595b-c. 


For the Interrelation of Plato’s "Phaedo" and Ancient Greek Tragedy

Tsintsadze, Ketevan

On Naming the Work of One Group of Greek Poets of the 1920s

Shamanidi, Sophie

For the Specific Use of Ancient Quotations and Paraphrases in Seferis’ Poems

Marrucci, Lucia

Mythology and Rituals around the Stone: Applying Louis Gernet’s "Polyvalence des images" to "Greek Death"

Gordeziani, Rismag

Some Aspects of Structural Symmetry in the "Iliad"

Danelia, Maia

Fünf unhomerische Komposita bei Apollonios Rhodios

Jugeli, Victoria

The Lost Work of Theodoret of Cyrus "Ad Quaesita Magorum Persarum"

Dundua, Tedo

Phasis 11, 2008 
 
Tedo Dundua (Tbilisi) 
MITHRIDATES THE JUNIOR – WAS HE ROME’S ALLY? 
Mithridatic Wars are of special concern for the Georgian historians – thus 
Colchis and Iberia had been involved in the full-scale European war for 
the first time. 
Eupator selected different patterns for those countries – that of satrapy 
for Colchis, and symmachia – for Iberia. 
In 85 BC being in a great despair, with his armies and fleet totally de-
stroyed by the Romans, Mithridates had to satisfy demand of the Colchian 
rebells – they needed their own kingdom to be restored with Eupator’s 
son as a king. His name was Mithridates Philopator Philadelphos (App. 
Mithr. 64). 
We do not know much about him: he was left in a charge of Bospho-
rus, Colchis and Pontus itself as his father marched Westwards to face the 
Romans. Then he fought Fimbria bravely, but unsuccessfully. As king of 
Colchis, Philopator issued the coins, both silver and copper, with Pontic 
dynastic eight-pointed star on reverse, and rather strange for his new 
country lotus – on obverse. Even more strange it seems the way he mani-
fested his regalia – that is in no way, the coins are unepigraphic. Was he 
afraid of his father? Then why? For conspiring against him, having Col-
chians as friends?! We shall never know. Yet, Mithridates was to be feared 
much. Indeed, with Rome obsessed with heavy civil war, and the Greeks 
having had no final choice to whom they could entrust the Greek affair, 
Colchis felt itself hopelessly isolated. Eupator’s reaction was quick and 
brutal, as usually. First capture, then golden chains and death was bad 
epilogue for Philopator (84 BC).1 But he is not to be blamed. Junior, per-
                                                 
1  Dundua T., Mithridates the Junior and the Colchian Rebellion, Proceedings of Tbilisi 
State University, Series (History...) (in Georgian, with English summary), Tbilisi 1988, 
18-28; Dundua T., Colchis, Iberia and the Kingdom of Pontus according to the Nu-
Tedo Dundua 
 
42 
haps, did the best he could to gain efficient support of the Republic; but in 
vain. 
Epigraphics can provide some information for Philopator looking for 
strong ally. N375 from OGIS could be about him:2 
[]/[
]/[]/[
] // //[
]/[]. 
There are two Mithridates with the same cognomen – Philopator and 
Philadelphos. One of them ruled Pontus after war-like Pharnakes I and 
was actually his brother, son of Mithridates III, who bore no cognomens, 
like those Mithridates in the inscription. The lenght of the reign is well 
shown on the Attic tetradrachms having the legend as follows – 
; very 
naturalistic head is getting elder.3 Then it is him mentioned in the inscrip-
tion, because next Philopator and Philadelphos has Eupator, as father. But 
there could be no  at all. Nobody knows for sure. Now it is much 
easier to discuss the Junior’s case. Ruling over totally new kingdom and 
not the ancestral one, he could label himself as ‘son of Mithridates’, and 
not – ‘of king Mithridates’. Besides, some scholars made an attempt to 
identity those ambassadors with Eupator’s contemporary political figures 
(App. Mitr. 19). 
One can really feel sorry for Junior. He could even had become Rome’s 
formal ally in order to secure the safety of the country, much more de-
pended on his Pontic garrisons. Indeed, he needed his copper issues just to 
pay them since the Colchians totally ignored the small change. But that 
was pocket-money. With, perhaps, no banking-system in West Georgia, 
those soldiers were thought to keep most of their salaries at home – in 
trapezas of Sinope, or Amisus. Then lotus-type silver issues used to be 
transfered there. Thus they could be brought upon Eupator’s suspicious 
eyes. Philadelphos did his best for his coins to look like old Pontic satrapal 
issues. He did his best to secure his headquarters; as the lotus-type copper 
                                                                                                    
mismatic Material (in Georgian with Russian and English summaries), Tbilisi 1994, 
50-68. 
2  Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selecte: supplementum sylloges inscriptionum Graeco-
rum, edidit W. Dittenberger, Volumen Prius, Lipsiae MDCCCCIII, 580-582. 
3  Waddington W. H., Babelon E., Reinach Th., Recueil général les monnaies Grecques d’ 
Asie Mineure, Tome Premier, Premier fascicule (2e edition), Paris 1925, New York 
1976, 12. 
Mithridates the Junior – Was He Rome’s Ally? 43 
is mostly grouped in the hinterland town of Surion/Vani, it is thought to 
be his capital. 
Alas, Philopator was granted no time. Appian narrates about his pu-
nishment – he had been brought by forth. And archaeology reveals the 
traces of heavy clashes and fire in the early 1st c. BC layers of Eshera, sub-
urb site of Dioscurias at the coastal strip, and Vani itself.4 
70 BC saw a great treachery performed by Makhares, Philopator’s 
brother. He generously sent all supplies to the Roman general Lucullus, 
besieging Sinope, the capital. And a ground for his high-treason was again 
Colchis, Makhares was there. We know for sure that he had other prov-
ince too – that of Bosphorus. If it could happen as follows: leading a sea-
borne expedition to Colchis in 84 BC, he was the person, who captured 
Philopator. Thus Makhares had been allotted with a satrapy – namely Col-
chis, having in abundance every supply for naval power. Then he could 
march victoriously against also mutinous Bosphorus, thus unifying the 
two provinces. 
Mithridates VI Eupator Dionysios was fortunate in children, but – not 
their behavior. And Colchis seems to be a certain kind of stimulus for their 
political misbehavior. 
                                                 
4  Dundua T., Colchis, Iberia ..., 49-50. 


Mithridates the Junior – Was He Rome’s Ally?

Asatiani, Valeri

Phasis 2-3, 2000 
Valeri Asatiani (Tbilisi) 
SEVERAL ASPECTS OF GEORGIAN-BYZANTINE CULTURAL CONTACTS 
Byzantium was a multinational empire, which determined the fact that many peoples besides 
Greeks contributed to the formation and development of the Byzantine culture. Suffice it to say that the 
celebrity of Byzantine hymnography - Romanos Melodos (Vlc) was Syrian by nationality and the chief 
authority of Byzantine dogmatics - John Damascene (VII-Vlllcc) was Arabian. 
Today it is beyond any doubt that Byzantine literature is not a slavish imitation and pale reflection 
of the classical literature. It was the convergence of four cultures - Hellenic, Roman, Oriental and 
Christian - that determined the original, creative development of the Byzantine literature in the period 
of Byzantinisrn1• It is also proved that Byzantine-Georgian literary contacts were not unilateral. Geor-
gian element interestingly contributed to the development of Byzantine literature. As far as political 
interrelations are concerned, present western Georgia from time immemorial till IX century was a part 
of first the Roman, and then of the Byzantine empires. The cultural process that had penetrated into 
Georgia via Greece, as might be expected, attracted the Georgian element intensively. Therefore, the 
theory and hypothesis of the Georgian origin of several Byzantine authors are not groundless. Recent 
studies have attested the assumption that two great Byzantine scholars of IVc - Basil the Great and 
Gregory of Nyssa, representatives of so-called Cappadocian theological school - must have belonged to 
one of Kartvelian peoples of the Black Sea basin2• There are several arguments that prove this opinion: 
I. Basil the Great and his ancestors came from the regions of eastern Pontus that were inhabited chiefly 
by Kartvelian peoples; 2. Besides Kartvelian peoples, there also lived Greeks and Armenians. Primary 
sources attest that Basil and his brother Gregory were neither Greeks nor Armenians; 3. Biographers of 
the period called Basil the Great Cappadocian, and IV-Vee Byzantine historiography identifies Cappa-
docians with Meskhians. From the historical point of view, Meskhians belong to Kartvelian ethnicity. 
But the point to make is that regardless of the position of Byzantine historiography, Basil and Gregory 
(and also their biographers) believed they were Cappadocians, which means that they considered them-
selves Meskhians. 4. Gregory the Theologian, the best friend and biographer of Basil the Great, also 
believed that relatives and ancestors of Basil were the heirs to the Kingdom of ancient Colchis. Thus, 
ancient Colchian myths, so popular in the classical literature, must have described heroic deeds of the 
saint father's direct ancestors3• Recent investigations testify that Basil's ancestors were ancient inhabi-
tants of Pontus and belonged to the local ethnicity4• 
According to Georgian scholars, Gregory the Theologian, the great Cappadocian writer and the ec-
clesiastic of the fourth century, Basil the Great's (as well as his brother Gregory of Nyssa's) best friend 
and like-minded person, ~ust have been closely related to the Georgian world5• This viewpoint is at-
tested by the fact that Gregory the Theologian belonged to the Cappadocian school and was Cappado-
cian by origin. 
However, supporters of the contrary opinion believe that Gregory the Theologian's Cappadocian 
origin is not a convincing proof to attest his close relations to the Georgian world. This question needs 
a detailed study of primary sources that concern the great holy father's life. However, Gregory the 
Theologian's attitude to Greeks, his close links to the Cappadocian world, unusually close relations to 
Basil's kin, may lead us to the idea that he belonged to the same nationality as Basil. 
1 s. Kaukhchishvili, History of Byzantine Literature, Thilisi, 1973. 
2 E. Khintibidze, On the Origin of Basil the Great, Moambe, Thilisi, 1962, Nii 3. 
3 E. Khintibidze, On the History of Georgian-Byzantine Contacts, Thilisi, 1982. 
4 A. Fedwick, Chronology of the Life and Works of Basil ofCaesarca, Toronto, 1981. 
5 A. Gregoire, The Iberian Monastery and the Role of Georgians of Mt. Athos, "Tsiskari", 1968, 3. 
52 Valeri Asatiani 
Evagrius Ponticus, an outstanding Byzantine writer-mystic of the fourth century was the junior 
contemporary and follower of great Cappadocian fathers - Basil the Great, Gregory Cappadocian and 
Gregory of Nyssa. Some Georgian scholars believe that Evagrius was Iberian by nationality (K. Keke-
lidze ). This opinion is based on the infonnation preserved in several copies of Lavsaikoni by Palladi 
Hellenopolian, Evagrius Ponticus' disciple, which says that Evagrius was from Pontus, the city of Ibe-
nans. 
The theology of Cappadocian fathers was fundamentally based on the classical philosophy. Their 
works served to the ultimate formation of the principle dogmas of Christianity. It is believed that the 
final formation of the Trinity Orthodox doctrine in the Oriental christology is connected with the activi-
ties of Cappadocian fathers _ Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa, while in 
the West, it was St Augustine who contributed to this process (E. Honigmann). 
Evagrius Ponticus developed Cappadocian dogmatics in respect of mysticism. It is noteworthy that 
the classical literature, particularly philosophy played a significant role in the creations of Evagrius 
Ponticus and Cappadocian fathers. Suffice it to mention Basil the Great's special treatise addressed to 
the youth, which explained how to use the Pagan Greek literature (Mygne, P,G,T. 32, 219-1110). 
Gregory the Theologian so frequently applied pagan mythological images, and alluded to the char-
acters from the classical literature, that special comments were written in Byz.antine literature to give 
their definitions. One of such works was translated into Georgian by Ephrem Mtsire in XI c. The writ-
ings by Cappadocian fathers were very popular in Medieval Georgia, which is testified by a large num-
ber of their Georgian translations as compared to those by other Byzantine authors. 
Georgian-Byzantine relations are of special significance in the history of Georgian culture. It is 
quite comprehensive and embraces political, ecclesiastic-religious and cultural-literary aspects. Georgia 
tried to strengthen political alliance with the Byzantine empire, which naturally resulted in close cul-
tural-literary contacts and spiritual revival. It is noteworthy that protection of Orthodox principles was a 
common problem for Georgian and Byzantine churches. Since Jerusalem, driven in Muslim encircle-
ment, had lost its old significance, and the church of Constantinople acquired the supreme position, the 
striving of the Georgian church for contacts with the West became obvious6• 
In the IX-Xcc, Byzantine culture enjoys a renaissance. Byzantine authors create the whole epoch 
not only in the history of Byzantine literature, but in the history of the Christian literature in general. 
Intensive literary and educational activities are in progress, and Byzantine literature achieves world-
wide fame. Byzantium becomes the cen~er of Christian literature. 
Byzantine social-philosophical and literary thought of XI-XII cc reached its peak, which later formed 
the theoretical basis for European Renaissance. Naturally, the interest of Georgians in Byzantine culture 
increased. Georgian scholars profoundly studied it to benefit their own, national culture. Many of them 
carried out prolific literary work in numerous centers of Georgian culture in Byzantium, which contrib-
uted to the rise of their personal authority and national dignity. Suffice it to recall Euthemius the 
Athonite to realize the glory of Georgian monasteries of the period. As mentioned above, a large num-
ber of profound studies prove that Georgian-Byzantine relations were not unilateral. In this regard, 
K.Kekelidze wrote: "has Georgian translations of the Greek literature preserved the manuscripts that fill 
lacunas in the history of Greek-Byzantine literature? - Yes, and their number and significance is great." 
As far back as IV-V cc, not one Georgian had taken part in the political life and cultural-literary 
activities of Byzantium. The interest of Georgian scholars in Byzantium has been increasing since IX c. 
According to George Merchule, Gregory Khantsteli (759-861) was among those who aspired to absorb 
the West, for he decided to visit Constantinople and the sacred places of Greece and took Sabah 
Ishkhneli and his other disciple with him. Later in 864, Ilarion Kartveli (882-875) founded a Georgian 
monastery on Olympus in Asia Minor. The establishment of the monastery Romana in Byzantium (876) 
is also connected with his name. From then on, both monasteries served as centers of prolific literary 
work. 
With respect to the Greek-Byzantine and Georgian relations, we should by all means mention the Xe 
Georgian philosophical and literary school on Mt Athos. Via the Georgian monastery on Mt Athos, our 
country got acquainted with the cream of the Byzantine culture. Distinguished Georgian fathers of the 
monastery stimulated the surprising development of XI-Xllcc Georgian literature. They translated and 
rewrote bulk of invaluable literary pieces, worked out new methods of translation, and founded a spe-
6 L. Menabde, The Centers of Old Georgian Literature, II, Thilisi, 1980. 
Several Aspects of Georgian-Byzantine Cultural Contacts 53 
cial school for literature, grammar and calligraphy. The significance of Athos lavra for Georgian culture 
exceeds that of other monasteries. 
Byzantine writers provide considerable information about Georgian culture. According to Them-
istios, an outstanding philosopher and rhetorician, there existed a rhetorical school in Colchis near Pha-
sis (Poti). This is how Themistios addresses a young inan: ,,'Eycb -roiwv Ka\ am6~, di XPB<Trf: veavia, 
EV 7[0A,l) touoe apavecrtepq:> xropiro 't~ PlltOplK~ A.6-you~ &veope'lfaµ11v, Ol>Of: tv ~µtpro Ka\ 
''EU11vt, ID' tv Tij Mxan~ tou II6vtou 1t1.11oiov ~acrt~ futou Ka\ TIJV 'Apycb crro8eicrav, EK 
0ecrcra)..i~ no111-rai te E8auµacrav... 'A').).,' oµro~ ofuro ~ap~apov 1ea\ aVllµepov xropiov ... 
'EUrivtKOV te btoi11cre Ka\ &va1etopov trov Moucrrov ... " 
Evidently, both Themistios and his father Eugenius, who was a distinguishes philosophy teacher 
in Constantinople, had been educated in that very school. Naturally, besides students from Byzantium, 
the school also educated locals. According to S. Kaukhchishvili, Aeetes and Partaz, Lazians (Colchians) 
of noble descent, must have received education in the same school. Agathias Scholasticos's History pre-
served their speeches made in 554 at a confidential meeting held on account of the treacherous murder 
of King Gubazi ofLasians. The speeches are considered the best specimens of oratory. 
Christianity was received by the Greek philosophy with hostility. However, the new religion de-
veloped in the Greek-Roman cultural environment, and gradually "accustomed itself' to the classical 
culture and philosophy. Christian scholars studied the works of Greek writers and philosophers. Basil 
the Great (IVc) wrote a special treatise, which explained what the young should read from the pagan 
literature and how. · 
Byzantine-Georgian relations are of special significance for Georgian culture. Close contacts 
with the Byzantine world stimulated the adoption of the classical cultural heritage by Georgians. Those 
ages witnessed intensive translations of classical literature. Special interest should be paid to the works 
of Euthemius, John and George of Sacred Mountain, Ephrem Mtsire, Arsen Ikaltoeli and John Petritsi -
brilliant representatives of the Georgian philosophical school. 
"In a word", as acad. I Javakhishvili remarks, "Georgians enjoyed the taste of ... Hellenic crea-
tions and began to absorb life-giving Hellenism, the profound and detailed study of which laid the 
foundation of so-called "Renaissance" in the western Europe"7• Translated literature testifies to the links 
of a nation with another cultural world and the exchange of cultural values. Such relations will never 
cease to exist. The history of human society has no evidence of absolutely isolated cultural develop-
ment. The culture of one nation has always been enriched by the cultural achievements of other nations. 
Gelati and Ikalto academies, as well as other Georgian educational centers greatly contributed to 
the protection of the cultural heritage. Besides, Georgia had close contacts with Georgian. monasteries 
abroad - on Mount Sinai, Black Mount in Syria, Athos and in Petritsoni. 
Georgian-Byzantine contacts resulted in intensive translating activity. Biblical books were the 
first specimens of Old Georgian literature. Via original or translated Byzantine writings, classical my-
thology and literature found their way into Georgian culture. Old Georgian authors frequently referred 
to such celebrities as Homer, Hesiod, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Plato and Aristophanes. Ephrem 
Mtsire's (XI c) translation of The stories of the Hellenes, widely popular in Georgia, is a significant lit-
erary piece with elements of ancient Greek mythology. The translation, for the first time in Georgian 
reality, includes citations from Homer's lliad (VI song, 506; XII song, 5). We can also trace Homer's 
six hexameters in Georgian translations of the period. There are many original and translated hagio-
graphic and historical pieces containing a large number of classical elements. Among those is the 
chronicle The life of Kartli. It has a number of typological similarities with Homer's lliad. In lliad we 
read: "cocr'tE 1Cp11V'1 µeMvuop~v", "like d~sky water''.· Agamem~on suffers Greeks' defeat and is going to 
retreat. He convenes a meeting and while addressmg the audience, bursts into tears, which resemble 
"dusky water". "1CpTJV11V µeMvu~pov" is also mentioned in Odyssey (20,158). 
At t!1e dawn ~f XII c,_ the Chr?nograph by ~eorge Amartolos was translated into Georgian. It 
also contams a considerable mformation about classical authors. In this respect, the analysis of histori-
cal data found in Georgian sources provides enough proof to assert that a steady flow of classical remi-
niscences found its way from Byzantium into Georgia8• . 
7 I. Javakhishvili, The History of Georgia, II, Tbilisi, 1965. 
8 V. Asatiani, Classical and Byz.antine Traditions in Georgian Literature, Tbilisi, 1996. 


Several Aspects of Georgian-Byzantine Cultural Contacts

Not a member yet