Georgian Manuscripts

qarTlisa (aRmosavleT saqarTvelo) da afxazeTis (dasavleT saqarTvelo) kaTolikosebi da maTi titulatura (XV-XVIII ss.) (Sedareba-analizi) Tea qarTveliSvili, Tamar qoriZe IX s-is 80-90-ian wlebSi, afxazeTis sakaTalikosos Camoyali-bebis Semdeg, saqarTvelos teritoriaze ori-qarTlisa da afxaze-Tis saeklesio organizacia aRmoCnda. qarTlis sakaTalikoso Tavis iurisdiqcias avrcelebda aRmosavleT saqarTveloze, xolo afxaze-Tis-dasavleT saqarTveloze. X s-is bolos maTi gaerTianebis Sede-gad Seiqmna saqarTvelos erTiani eklesia, romlis saWeTmpyrobeli ufro Zveli qristianuli da avtokefaluri tradiciebis mqone qarT-lis kaTolikosi gaxda. M miuxedavad erTiani eklesiis Seqmisa, afxazeTis sakaTalikosom uwyvetad ganagrZo arseboba, rogorc qarTlis sakaTa-likosoze daqvemdebarebulma saeklesio organizaciam. erTiani saqarTvelos eklesiis meTauris tituli, iSviaTi gamonak-lisebis garda, XIV saukunemde friad lakonuri iyo da mxolod`qarTmxolod`qarT-lis kaTalikosis~ wodebiT Semoifargleboda. titulaturis gavrcoba aleqsandre I didis (1412-1442) epoqidan daiwyo. wyaroTa simwiris gamo, XV s-mde periodis afxazeTis kaTolikosTa titulaturis Sesaxeb cno-bebi TiTqmis ar mogvepoveba. Cvenamde ar SemorCenila maT mier gace-muli sabuTebi, ris gamoc ucnobia maTi TviTmoxseniebuli titulatu-ris formebi. XI-XV saukuneebSi maT Sesaxeb ar se bul Zalze mwir sais-torio wyaroebSi isini ubralodàfxa ze Tisa kaTalikosis~ tituliT iwodebian. qarTlis kaTolikosebi dasavleT da aRmosavleT saqarTvelos saeklesio organizaciebis gaerTianebis Semdeg iReben patriarqis tituls. qarTul istoriografiaSi sadavoa, pirvelad vin iRebs kaTo-likos-patriarqis wodebas, X s-is miwuruls moRvawe ioane IV oqropiri (980-1001) Tu XI s-is dasawyisis melqisedek I (1010-1033). Tumca, mTavaria, IV

https://www.amazon.com/Book-Wisdom-Lies-Georgian-Discover/dp/9941961670/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1546537186&sr=8-7&keywords=book+of+wisdom+and+lies

The presented edition of Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani's "Book of Wisdom and Lies" is a reprint of Sir Oliver Wardrop's translation that he published in 1894. The publisher was William Morris at the Jelmscott Press, in the County of Middlesex.The idea of republishing of this book was born, because it was Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani's 360th anniversary in 2018 and Georgia dedicated this year to his commemoration. There were made several editions in Georgian, including illustrated edition, by Nino Gambashidze, together with Academic Book Publishing (acad.ge). The international community expressed their interest to get familiar to this author, and in particular with this text. To meet this interest we decided to publish this translation with minor corrections, such as: 1. changing 2nd person singular (thou) into 2nd person plural (you); 2. changing symbol & with conjunction "and"; 3. making more paragraphs, then they were done in existing publication, e.g. distinguishing dialogues.On edition of the text worked Maya Gambashidze and Nino Gambashidze, and the students of Guivi Zaldastanishvili American Academy in Tbilisi: Sopo Kevlishvili, Ana Zamtaradze, Ana Kostava and Giorgi Iashvil.About the design of the book worked Giorgi Kakabadze, who tried to bring the visual side of the text closer to modern reader

LOS IBEROS primeros fundadores de Europa es un extracto del libro Karuo el secreto ibero, por el cual Enrique Cabrejas o Enric Cabrejas nos relata de modo llano su experiencia personal con lo extraordinario de un descubrimiento. El 21 de Abril de 2012 consiguió lo que parecía imposible: Descifrar la escritura ibérica. El hallazgo más relevante de la cultura universal en nuestro país de los últimos tiempos, sin lugar a dudas. Un hito en la historia de la escritura sin precedentes. Desde este mismo instante la obra Karuo de Enrique Cabrejas lo convierte en un referente destacado a nivel mundial en historia y lingüística. Los innumerables datos, explicaciones, pruebas y significados que nos reporta nunca conocidos antes, son una referencia obligada para todos aquellos que quieran comprender la historia, la lengua antigua e incluso también la moderna de nuestro país o para quienes en el futuro deseen estudiarla e investigarla en profundidad, más si cabe desde el mundo académico.

The key importance of the location of the Caucasus was picturesquely stated already by Pliny the Elder (Plinius Magnus), in the first century, namely that the Caucasian Gates divides the world in two parts (NH, VI, XII, 30). Transcaucasia, as it was located in the edge of the civilized and barbarian worlds, was an area of influences of these two opposite models of the historical development, but the factor of the Greater Caucasus Mountain Range determined its destination to be the outpost of the highly developed Eurasian periphery against Central Eurasia, characterized by a slow rate of development, or in other words, to be the stronghold of the civilized South and West against the barbarian North and East.

The article summarises the new linguistic ma
terial of the Khanmeti period that has
come to light in the edition of the Old Georgian palimpsest Cod. Vind. georg. 2 of
the Austrian National Library, Vienna. On the basis of the analysis provided by
Zurab Sarjveladze in 1971, the newly found Khanmeti forms are listed according to
their different grammatical functions (sec
ond person subject, third person indirect
object, third person direct object, third pe
rson subject of passive forms, compa-
rative formations, other nominal formations
). In an appendix, two pages of the
Khanmeti palimpsest S-3902 are edited on the basis of multispectral images made
in 2007.

The article focuses on the inscription found during  the archaelogical excavations on Gracliani Hill,  Georgia, in 2015. The inscription is executed on the altar of a pagan temple. In the author’s view the signs on the alter represent the letters of the Kartuli (Georgian) Asomtavruli alphabet. The graphs are assumed to form the following sequence: z a d n š h x c gh w e. In  several places (four in number) a Georgian method of abbreviation (karagma) is used. The full form should be read as "zaden šehxecighwe" meaning "Zaden help him (her, them)". Zaden is one of the famous deities of pagan Kartli (Iberia).
Archaeologists date the temple to approximately the 1st millennium BC, while the Miami Laboratory provides the dates of XI-X centuries BC. The period of executing the inscription is irrelevant, because in many scholars’ views Asomtavruli alphabet originated in the pagan era.
The paper presents the results of my preliminary observations, which, in the future, may become  modified, made more exact and clarified.

ეს არის ბიბლიოგრაფიული გზამკვლევის შავი / დაუსრულებელი ვარიანტი. დოკუმენტში მითითებული ლინკები არ მუშაობს, რადგან მონაცემთა ბაზები ამ ფორმატისთვის გათვალისწინებული არ არის. ისე ლინკებით თითეული ძეგლის დეტალურ საანკეტო მონაცემებზე ხდება გადასვლა. ჩვენს ბიბლიოგრაფიულ გზამკვლევში თითეულ ძეგლს მინიჭებული აქვს უნიკალური კოდი, რაც მკვლევართათვის მნიშვნელოვანია რედაქცილად ერთმანეთისგან განსხვავებული ვარიანტების სწრაფი იდენტიფიკაციისთვის. ეს კოდები ჯერ-ჯერობით უნიფიცირებული არ არის (სხვადასხვა ვარიანტებს ვსინჯავთ, რომელი უფრო მოხერხებული იქნება მუდმივად მზარდი და ცვალებადი მონაცემთა ბაზებისთვის). და კიდევ, კორექტურა სჭირდება :)

Ramaz Khalvashi
APOSTLE ST. ANDREW IN GEORGIA
Summary
The oldest sources on St Andrew’s missionary activities are preserved
in apocryphal literature in which two different traditions have been formed
on the above mentioned issue. One part of the texts connects the apostle’s
preaching to the Black Sea countries whereas the other part – to Scythia.
Georgia was included into both missionary routes. Therefore the Roman
and Byzantine authors specify the Iberian-Caucasian section of St Andrew’s
preaching route and together with ancient Greek settlements include into it
the following strategic centers of the Roman world: Trapezus (city in
Lazika), Phasis (river of Chorokhi), fort of Apsarus (Gonio), the second
Ethiopia (Cholchis), Iberia, Susania, Phusta, Abazgia, Sebastopolis
(Sokhumi) and Nikophsia.
The earliest information about St Andrew’s preaching in Georgia is
found in the Georgian translations that were included into the polycefhalon
(5th-6th centuries). It is confirmed by the Klarjeti polycefhalon (10th century)
according to which St Andrew preached among the population of the city of
Sebastopol, in the camp of Apsarus, in the river Phasis (Chorokhi) basin and
Ethiopians (Cholchians). The same missionary route is given in the old
Georgian translation of Pseudo-Basil’s work The Most Holy Virgin’s
Assumption.
The echo of the existing ancient tradition about the apostle’s preaching
in Georgia among the original Georgian works is first met in St Abo’s
Martyrdom.
In 1011 Eptvime Atoneli (955-1028) translated Nikita-David of
Paphlagon’s St Andrew the Apostle’s Journeys (9th century). This canonical
hagiographic text confirms that Christianity was preached in Georgia by
three apostles: Andrew the First-Called, Simon Kananaios and Matthias. In
fact, The Journeys answered all the questions connected with the
autocephaly of the Georgian Church as well as the apostles’ preaching.
Therefore, all the later Georgian authors who studied St Andrew’s
preaching issues referred exactly to this text.
St. Giorgi Atoneli (1009-1066) used the Greek original of St Andrew
the Apostle’s Journeys during the dispute (1057) with Theodosius II,
Patriarch of Antioch, in defense of the apostolic nature of the Georgian
Church and its autocephaly.
In the second half of the 9th century Leonti Mroveli included the
information on the apostles’ preaching into the official history of Georgia –
Kartlis Tskhovreba (Georgian Chronicles) and put more emphasis on the
conversion of Western Georgia (Egrisi and Abkhazia) to Christianity. At the
same time he confirmed that the expression «up to the river Chorokhi» in
the Journeys means St Andrew’s preaching «on the way to Klarjeti».
With the same logic, the monk Arsen named one more province – «the
villages of Nigali» in the Apostle’s missionary route in the Chorokhi basin,
thus defining the location of «Sosangeti village» in the text of the Journeys
(metaphrastic edition of St Nino’s Life).
Leonti Mroveli’s tradition was developed by Ioane Ancheli according
to whose hagiographic canon Chants of Anchi Icon St Apostle Andrew
introduced into Klarjeti the heir of Hierapolis Keramidion – the icon of
Anchi. This original opinion of the Bishop of Anchi can find its premises in
Correspondence between Abgar and the Christ and St Andrew the Apostle’s
Journeys.
Leonti Mroveli’s History of Georgian Kings, Eprem Mtsire’s Story of
Georgia’s Conversion, The Code of Ruis-Urbnisi Church Council (1104)
and Monk Arsen’s St Nino’s Life explain the necessity of St Nino’s
preaching by the fact that after the apostles Georgia again turned to
paganism.
At the same time, The Code spreads and generalizes the fact of St
Andrew’s preaching throughout all Georgia and states that the apostle
preached the Gospel «all through the country of Georgia».
A different tendency can be noticed in the first Georgian edition of the
Journeys and Meskhian tradition.
The Georgia edition of the Journeys was formed in the 13th-15th
centuries. It is presented in the full form in A-161 manuscript. The author of
this edition «reads» the historical document from his contemporary
perspective considers literary tradition and includes into Eptvime’s
translation historical-geographical glosses the majority of which aims at
vast depiction of Meskheti in the missionary journeys of Apostle Andrew.
Together with the Chorokhi basin (Tao-Klarjeti-Nigali), the lands of the
Mtkvari basin – Artaani and Kola – also emerge in the glosses (as it is
known only the river Chorokhi is mentioned in the text of the Journeys).
The Meskhian tradition (1486-1516) formed with the dictation and
direct participation of Kvarkvare and Mzechabuk Atabagi expands St
Andrew’s missionary route in two directions: it adds Adjara into the
Chorokhi basin lands and Samtskhe – in the Mtkvari basin territories. This
edition makes biased and separatist transformation of the Eptvime’s
translation of the Journeys. St Andrew’s preaching and his ordination of the
first Georgian bishop is connected to Atskuri – the ecclesiastical center of
Samtskhe-Saatabago. It emphasizes the «Apostolic» nature of Meskhian
Church striving for independence.
The period of Samdzivari glory (12th-15th centuries) should separately
be singled out in the development of the Meskhian tradition. Its first literary
version is confirmed in Manuel the Rhetorician’s Greek work Narrations on
the Atskuri Icon and Miracles written in 1501-1504 by the order of Ioakim
I, Patriarch of Constantinople (1498-1502, 1504). Manuel’s Narrations
represents a vast chronicle of the Atskuri icon and consists of four main
parts: a) Meskhian tradition on St Andrew’s preaching in Achara and
Samtskhe; b) Chronicle from the times of Emperor Heracles (Irakli); c)
Icon’s captivity by Uzun-Hassan (1477); d) Icon’s captivity by Sultan
Yakub.
The Georgian version of the Atskuri icon chronicle took its full and
completed form in 1546-1562. Later it was separated into fragments and in
1760s were included as interludes in the corresponding sections of the
Akhali Kartlis Tskhovreba (Revised History of Georgia): a) Meskhian
tradition – into the King Aderki’s Chronicle; b) Chronicle from the times of
Emperor Heracles – into The Life of Vakhtang Gorgasali; c) the miracles of
the icon’s captivities by Uzun-Hassan and Sultan Yakub (together with
short chronicles of 1546 and 1553) – into the Revised History of Georgia
proper.
Earlier, in 1501-1516 the edition of the Meskhian tradition by
Mzechabuki was created which included the episodes of the participation of
the Holy Virgin in the Apostles’ casting the lot. The first illustration of the
Meskhian tradition is the fresco at Gelati Virgin’s cathedral (second half of
the 17th century) which depicts St Andrew with the Atskuri icon in his hand.
The issue of Sosangeti localization gained a special actuality in the
Georgian literary sources. Initially it was identified with Nigali (monk
Arsen), later – with Svaneti and Sivneti (Georgian edition of the Journeys),
and finally – with Atskuri (Meskhian tradition).
The literary version of the Meskhian tradition and the Georgian edition
of the Journeys are included in Revised History of Georgia with slight
changes in the form of three vast inclusions:
1) The first inclusion is based on the Meskhian tradition and tells about
the apostles’ casting the lot, Holy Virgin’s lot, depiction of the Virgin’s icon
and sending of St Andrew to Georgia;
2) The second inclusion follows (in some lists – replaces) Leonti
Mroveli’s words: «He converted the Megrelians and went on towards
Klarjeti». It depicts St Andrew’s first missionary journey (according to the
first Georgian edition of the Journeys) and the Meskhian tradition about St
Andrew’s preaching in Didachara and Atskuri (this part of the inclusion
directly follows the medium phrase «which is called Didadjara»);
3) The third inclusion depicts the third missionary journey of St
Apostle Andrew according to the Georgian edition of the Journeys.
The episode from St Andrew’s second journey in replaced in the
Revised History of Georgia by the authentic information from Leonti
Mroveli about the Megrelians’ conversion to Christianity and their forceful
re-paganism by king Aderk.
The Urbnisi list of the Kartlis Tskhovreba preserved a different version
of the Journeys. It avoids the apostle’s preaching in Meskheti but in return
expands the section dedicated to Kartli.
The tendency confirmed in the Urbnisi edition was developed by
Teimuraz Batonishvili (Prince Teimuraz Bagrationi) who further specified
the route of St Andrew’s preaching in his book History of Iveria and
included into it Mtskheta, Gremi and Stepantsminda (Kazbegi). Apart from
this, he completely changed the geography of the Meskhian tradition and
granted Atskuri’s role to Bichvinta.
At different times the deposition of five sacred icons were connected to
the name of St Andrew in Georgia. These are the following: (1) Icon of
Anchi Saviour (Chants of Anchi Icon); (2) Atskuri Virgin with two copies –
(3) Didadjara and (4) Shatberdi icons (Meskhian tradition); (5) Bichvinta
Virgin’s Icon (History of Iveria).

This article deals with two aspects of the secondary ‘life’ of Old Georgian manuscripts, namely a) their ‘wandering’ between the (autochthonous and allochthonous) centres of manuscript production and storage, and b) their reutilisation for personal blessings, rogations and prayers, and also for less ‘immanent’ purposes such as prescriptions, contracts and writing exercises added by later readers, users or owners. The various types of reuse are exemplified with reference to codices from Georgia and elsewhere.

At the beginning of the 20th century, K. Kekelidze disclosed to the public a  piece  of  correspondence  between  Euthymius  of  Mount  Athos  and  an  un-known presbyter, Theodoros of St. Saba. According to this source, the Liturgy of  St.  James  had  fallen  into  disuse  because  of  its  length,  and  Christians  were  choosing the liturgies of John Chrysostom and Basil the Great (during Lent) for their brevity. However, according to Euthymius, it was also possible to use the liturgies of St. James and of St. Peter besides those of Chrysostom and Basil.This  correspondence  immediately  attracted  the  attention  of  scholars  of  liturgy and was quoted and commented on several times throughout the 20th century.
There are actually three versions of this letter: the first is contained in ms. Ath  79  (11th  century)  preserved  in  the  Library  of  the  Iviron  Monastery;  the  second  can  be  found  in  ms.  A  737  (13th  century)  at  the  Georgian  National  Centre  of  Manuscripts;  while  the  third,  the  one  used  by  Kekelidze,  survives  in ms. A 450 (17th century), likewise kept at the Georgian National Centre of Manuscripts. Unlike A 450, the two earlier versions do not take the form of a dialogue. The comparison of these three sources demonstrates that: 1)  Ms. Ath  79  briefly  mentions  the  change  of  liturgies  because  of  their  brevity, but without any mention of the liturgies of James and of Peter, nor with any reference to the celebration of the Liturgy of Basil during Lent.2)  Ms. A  737  is  more  synthetic  than  Ath  79,but  itdoes  not  contain  anything about the Eucharistic liturgies.3)  Ms.  A  450  is  an  elaboration  of  the  earlier  versions,  reworked  from  an  epistolary  genre  to  a  dialogical  one.  Therefore,  it  entails  certain  interpolations, including the interpolated note on Eucharistic liturgies.The question of the authenticity of Euthymius’ response regarding the lit-urgies arises from these data.Recent  liturgical  studies  have  shown  that:  1)  The  theory  of  the  abbrevia-tion of the liturgies is inconsistent. 2) In the Byzantine Empire, the prevalence of  Chrysostom’s  formulary  over  Basil’s  formulary  is  seen  only  in  around  the  11th centuries, when the celebration of Basil’s Liturgy was limited to Lent Sun-days.  3)  The  process  of  Byzantinization,  which  involves  the  replacement  of  the Hagiopolitan formulary (James) with the Constantinopolitan formularies (Chrysostom and Basil) in Georgia, lasted almost the entire 11th century. In  view  of  the  above,  it  seems  impossible  for  a  tenth-century  author  to  deal  with  all  the  liturgical  challenges  of  the  following  centuries.  Comparing  the content of the manuscripts with the modern study of oriental liturgies, we can assume that the famous note on the Eucharistic formularies of A 450 is a later interpolation.

Jewish culture played a significant role in the development of literacy among the Georgians. Curiously enough, this is even true for the Christianization of the country, which provided the background for the emergence of autochthonous literature in about the fourth cen
tury ce. The reason for this was that the alleged “apostle” of the Georgians, an Aramaic- speaking female captive from Cappadocia named Nino, sought support from the Jewish community of Mtskheta, the first capital of Georgia, “because of the Hebrew language” she could communicate in there— as legend has it, the Jewish community had settled in Eastern Georgia some centuries before that, probably coming from Iran or Mesopotamia.1
Nevertheless, there are no indications that Jewish literary products were taken over directly into Georgian in the early centuries, in direct translations from Hebrew sources. Instead, we may claim with certainty that in the first millennium of our era, Jewish text materials, biblical or others, all entered Georgia via Greek or other languages, especially Armenian and Syriac, as intermediaries, and over a long period of time. This is manifest, first of all, in the fact that for the bulk of Old Testament texts, the Old Georgian tradition possesses several redactions (up to four according to present- day knowledge) that can be shown to reflect different Vorlagen, different schools, different places (within and outside Georgia), and different times. As a matter of fact, it is at least as difficult to establish a critical text of “the” Old Testament in Georgian as it is to establish “the” Septuagint text.2
The same situation also exists for textual traditions from the Second Temple period that have been adopted by Georgians. Such sources are not numerous though. What we have, is some (but not all) of the apocryphal texts that found their way into the Greek Old Testament, a few other Biblical apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, and a comparatively late version of Flavius Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities. The present chapter is meant to give a rough survey of these texts, focusing on some peculiarities in the Georgian tradition that deserve attention cross- linguistically.

This paper gives emphasis to the fact that Shota Rustaveli in one stanza of his prologue to The Knight in the Panther`s Skin (12-13 cc.) announces that he cannot dare to glorify David Soslan, Queen Tamar’s husband who is represented in the poem as the user of Tamar’s sword and shield, according to the author it is beyond his power to glorify David’s greatness.
In the 12th- and 13th-century Georgia Queen Tamar was the first and David Soslan the second political figure. In the poem David is represented as Tamar’s faithful servant. Having said in the prologue that it is impossible to glorify David’s greatness, the author is expected not to dare to glorify Tamar herself but after mentioning David there are several stanzas in the prologue in which Tamar is glorified.
Close scrutiny of the content and composition of the prologue reveals that there can be isolated two layers independent from each other. The first layer in which it is announced that the poet cannot dare to glorify David and which concerns the protagonist of the poem Tariel, then versification known as “shairoba” and love and the second one is the stanzas written for praising Queen Tamar. Between these stanzas there are some are love lines.
The paper expresses supposition that this second layer must have been added later either in Rustaveli’s epoch, or much later in the 16th-17th cc. By literary stylistics the stanzas entering the second layer approximate to Georgian poetry of the 16th-18th cc.

The opening ceremony of Shota Rustaveli Cabinet 17.00 Welcome speech by the Ambassador of Georgia to the Czech Republic H.E. Mariam Rakviashvili 17.15 Welcome speeches by the representatives of Masaryk University 17.30 Lecture by Prof. Ivan Foletti

The term mravaltavi has for long been used in Georgian to denote a special type of manuscripts. In his 1975 book on the ‘Oldest Georgian Homiliaries’, the most extensive investigation on the topic so far, Michel van Esbroeck argued that it was originally conceived as the designation of ‘collections’ of homilies, sermons, and panegyrics ‘quite close
to the Greek homiliaries’, which were used as ‘lections’ for the ‘feasts of the mobile year’. In the present treatise, I reinvestigate the usage and meaning of the term mravaltavi on the basis of some more recent findings.