Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Georgia


Abstract  

Only society, equipped with civic consciousness will retain identity and take a stand in  the
modern global world. The research aims at revealing distinctive characters of Georgian way of
thinking based on the examples from scientific works and fiction.
Interesting explanation  regarding  the  essence  of  citizenship is  given  by  a  great  Georgian
scientist Saint Grigol Peradze in his series of letters “Content of real citizenship” (interpretation
of The Lord's Prayer - Our Father). He postulates:” Aim of citizen’s life and of citizenship itself
should  be  God".  Civic  Consciousness  in  the  history  of  Georgian  literature  originates  from
hagiography and immediately comprises double service. Hagiography hero serves for conversion
of physical and spiritual “desert” into “city”.
The  poetry  of  great  Georgian poet Vazha-Pshavela  possesses  all  characteristics  of  highly
developed civic  consciousness.  Vazha-Pshavela  is  considered to  be  “a poet  of  future”  (critic
Tamaz Chkhenkeli), also “a poet of soul” (Grigol Kiknadze), because his creative work is directed
towards spiritual forces of a human and serve for spiritual prosperity.


Keywords  

Civic consciousness, citizenship, Grigol Peradze, literature, Vazha---Pshavela

 
Introduction

In order to define an essence of civic consciousness, it’s necessary to describe a term
citizen (citizenship) in the light of literary tradition. In the majority of world languages
(Georgian, Russian, English, German) base for this word is a large urban area – city,
ქალაქი,  город.  The  Brockhaus  and Efron  Russian Encyclopedic  Dictionary  gives
historical meaning of term “citizen”: “In Greece and Rome a “citizen” (πολίτης, cives)
was called not a  resident of  a city in  general, but  only a  member of a  civil unity“
(Brockhaus, Efron,1890-1907).
In  the  above  Encyclopedic Dictionary  it is  stated that  in old  Greece, the word
πολιτεία (citizen) implied a whole body of citizen’s rights, from which the followings
were the most important ones: marriage, purchasing of realty, claiming, participation in
general  meetings,  holding  posts.  In  Rome,  two  kinds  of  citizen’s  right  were
distinguished:  1.  Public (jura  publica)  and private  (j.privata). First  mainly  implies
political rights, while the second one - marriage and ownership of realty. Due to the
above, Roman citizens were divided into full and underprivileged members of the city.
After French revolution a word “citizen” was used not only in the field of political
legislation, but in conversational speech as well; it replaced forms of address "monsieur"
and "madame".


Meanings  of  terms  "Citizen"  and  "Citizenship"  in  Georgian  ecclesiastical literature

Great  Georgian  lexicographer  Sulkhan-Saba  Orbeliani  (1658-1725)  defines
“citizen”  as  one,  being  in  the  city  (Orbeliani,  1991,  p.  509).  Georgian  Apostolic
Symphony – dictionary defines “citizen” and “citizenship” based on all lexical units of
old Georgian versions: “citizen” – the one, living in the city, гражданин; „I am a Jewish
man, from Tarsus, Cilicia, not a citizen of a strange city, case 21,39“ (Dictionary, 2009,
p. 252). In the same dictionary we see word combinations - “mentally good citizen” and
“citizen of a heaven”. In old Georgian texts, being a “mentally good citizen” is a way
to save a soul and find a heaven; “because our real citizenship is in heaven“(dict).
“Citizen  of  a  heaven”  – this  form of address is  used by Georgian  figure of 19th
century Mikhail Sabinin, who is an author of “The Paradise of Georgia”, a voluminous
lithographed edition of biographies of important Georgian Orthodox Christian saints. In
the preface he thanks for assistance mother superior Nina from Samtavro monastery and
called her a “Citizen of a heaven”: „some materials were given to me by The bride of
Christ  and  a  citizen  of  heaven,  mother  superior  Nina  from  Samtavro
monastery“(Sabinin, 2015, p. 7).
Following formulation is given in Georgian Easter chant: “Christ is risen and life is
citizening“; thus, a citizenship is more than life,  it’s associated with spiritual victory,
it’s superiority to everything terrestrial.  
In  Georgian  Hagiographic  texts,  citizenship  comprises  lives  of  Saints.  Great
Georgian hagiographer of 10th century Giorgi Merchule in his  work  “Life of Grigol
Khandzteli” used the following epithet, when talking about saint Grigol –“the one who
converts desert into a city” (უდაბნოთა ქალაქმყოფელი). Saint Grigol of Khandzta
constructed monasteries in the South of Georgia (modern Turkey), on the land ravaged
by  Arabian  conquerors  in  the  8-th  century.  His  epithet  do not  describe  physical
construction  only  but  initially  implies  filling  of  spiritual  emptiness  with  bliss,
conversion of spiritual “desert” into a “city”.  
According  to  the  above,  in  Christian  tradition  and  old-Georgian  literature,
citizenship  has  a  meaning  of  active,  dynamic  process  –striving  towards  spiritual
developmentv and prosperity.
 

Saint Grigol Peradze's viws about citizenship

Interesting explanation is given by a great Georgian scientist of 20th century, doctor
of theology Saint Grigol Peradze in his series of  letters “Content of real citizenship”
(interpretation of The Lord’s prayer - Our Father) – these are sermons, pronounced in
Saint Nino’s Church in Paris. In 1988-1989 these letters were published in journal of
Georgian  Patriarchy  “Jvari  Vazisa”.  Grigol  Peradze  thoroughly  reasons  about
spirituality of citizenship, the essence of word, features of the real citizen. Following
thesis seems to be the main postulate of Grigol Peradze: “Aim  of citizen’s life and of
citizenship itself should be God” (Peradze, 1988, p. 41).
The  author  states,  that main  feature  of  a  citizen  is  “consciousness”, “conscious
membership” of homeland: “a citizen means each conscious member of homeland; it’s
not a one, owning property, but the one who feels great property: life, its essence and
liability"(Peradze,  1989,  p.  80).  Thus,  civic  consciousness  is  not  determined  by
unconscious liabilities, implemented without reasoning, but the mental and spiritual
perception of personal liabilities and significance of life.
Grigol Peradze emphasizes meaning of  word “citizen” in the context of someone,
fighting against evil: „this is a word massive and rich in content...citizenship implies
spiritual life of saint: his struggle against himself, his circle and darkness, i.e. struggle
for implementation of aimed ideas and principles” (Peradze, 1989, p. 80).
Saint  Grigol  Peradze  enumerates  in  detail  features  of  citizen  and  makes  very
interesting conclusion; he states that civic activity is not required only from saints, but
from  the  whole  society  in  general:  „citizenship  demands  from  each  citizen
consciousness, honesty, ability of thinking, wisdom, courage; citizenship requires to see
things in cheerful light, prudence, steadiness, modesty, which is not characterized for
slave but for educated person; citizenship is ability to see a human in people and to
appreciate it" (Peradze, 1989, pp.  80-81). Grigol Peradze considers Pater Noster to be
a source of “citizenship” and emphesizes following part of the prayer - „and forgive us
our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors“ – just these words reveal an essence of
real  citizenship.  Forgiving  of  neighbour  is  very  difficult  for  person  –  it  needs
suppression of revenge and passions, sacrificing.  


Artistic  representation  of  civic  consciousness  in  Vazha-Pshavela's  poems
“What has made me a man?” and "My Entreaty"

 “If  I  am  asked  what  will  I  wish  for  my  country,  I  would  say:  certainly
consciousness...  good  and  the  evil  of  the  life  is  mainly  connected  with  this
consciousness-ignorance. Everything written by the mankind for its benefit was written
when recovering consciousness, but unfortunately not every nation was conscious in
this period: one nation excels the other in consciousness“(Vazha-Pshavela,1979, p. 196)
– these words belongs to great Georgian poet of 19th century Vazha-Pshavela (1861-
1915). Thus, “consciousness” or “recover consciousness” of each  person is the main
base of nation’s development.
Vazha-Pshavela is  a  pseudonym of Luka  Razikashvili and literary means  a  “man
from Pshavi”. Professor of London University, translator of Vazha’s works in English
– Donald Rayfield notes: „As the Georgian futurists admitted, when repudiating all the
past, ‘Vazha stands outside time and space’. He is qualitatively of a greater magnitude
that any other Georgian writer” (Rayfield, 2013, p. 187). Among various themes found
in Vazha-Pshavela’s creative work, a civic-social one is certainly the most important. It
is artistic realization of writer’s inner, spiritual requirements. Poems “What has made
me a Man?” and “My entreaty” give vivid reflection of this passion.  
Motif of sacrifice has a basic place in Vazha’s works. Poem “What has made me a
Man?” reveals two poetic phenomena – humanity and being a rain. A lyrical character
wishes to be a rain:
“What has made me a man
 Why haven’t come I as a rain?” (Vazha-Pshavela, 1986, p. 87).
 The  rain  is  a  “child  of  heaven”,  “beads  of  clouds”,  “worshipper  of  the  sun”,
“disappointer of death”. The sweat of rain makes dying surroundings to revive and this
in its part make a poet happy. Overwhelming love strives for blending with nature; it
desires  to make  nature  alive and  is ready for  sacrificing.  This  motif  in  Georgian
literature is presented from of 12th century poem, masterpiece named “Vepkhistkaosani”
(“The Knight in the Panther's Skin”). Avtandil’s (character of the above poem) singing
merges with nature; his inner, spiritual energy revives inanimate objects, makes animals
listen carefully, even stones listen to his song. The same motif can be found in works of
romantic poet Nikoloz Baratashvili, who wishes to be the sun at sunrise to revive dried
meadow, to make birds and flowers happy. In newest Georgian literature, this theme is
most impressionably revealed in works of Galaktion Tabidze and Terenti Graneli. In
Galaktion’s works, there is no border between the world and poet’s heart  (“I and  the
Night”),  
Terenti  Graneli  is  courageous  to  state:  “I  wish  I  was  everywhere  like  God”
(miniature “Blood drops from heart”) – it is not a blasphemy, but overwhelming desire
to spread in world and merge with space.
Thus, “being a rain” in Vazha’s poem is not neglect of humanity but its acceptance
and recognition, preservation of similarity with God, what can be achieved only through
sacrificing and care of nears. In this poem, poet develops an idea of Christian love, of
correct sacrifice. During defining an essence of citizenship, Saint Grigol Peradze was
writing:  “citizenship  means  sacrificing,  self-burning  for  giving  a  light  to  other”
(Peradze,  1989,  p.  80).  Vazha-Pshavela’s  lyrical  character  is  a  bearer  of  civic
consciousness.
Ilia II, Catholicos-Patriarch of modern Georgia, gives highly appreciates to Vazha-
Pshavela’s poem “My Entreaty”: “It’s a result of highest Christian thinking, a praise of
modesty, love, heroism, loyalty; its author is a real friend of God and not only a gifted
person”( Ilia II, 2006, p. 1).
In this poem, Vazha desires to be in the place of grass and not a scythe, he even
agrees to be a lamb, but never a wolf; anxiety makes him happy. Leading theme of this
poem is Christian perception of the happiness. Being a “grass” or a “lamb” is considered
to be a happiness by the author, i.e. citizenship, implemented with modesty. Taking care
of other and  protection of oppressed  makes him happy. It’s a  visible side of internal
suffering, which is difficult to stand, but at the same time is desirable for the author:
„Only suffering makes me happy”. Doing a good is a huge internal desire of the poet
(even it is not appreciated by others). Indifference and lack of cordiality is like a death
for him.  
Being a  “grass” and a “lamb” is  not  considered as helplessness by the author; he
never lets himself be eaten by a wolf and never lays his head in front of a scythe. Wolf
and scythe are symbols of indifference, cruelty, lack of cordiality and tenderness. Vazha
damns such life and is not going to arrange a truce with it. Uncompromising struggle
with evil is Vazha’s choice and the main goal of his characters.


Conclusion

According to the present-day interpretation given in dictionaries, citizenship means
legal belonging to certain State: „Status of citizenship gives certain rights and liabilities
(defined under the  current law) to person, living in State“(Dictionary, 2011,  p. 129).
Thus, citizenship implies rights and liabilities, defined under legislation.  
Hence, a term “citizenship”, from the standpoint of historical and literal traditions,
also present social-political conditions, comprises, on the one hand, spiritual features (a
way of spiritual perfection) and ,on the other hand, rights and liabilities defined under
the law. These  two sides fill  each other.  A citizen is responsible to God,  State and
society. That’s why in Georgian hagiography saint Grigol from Khandzta is called “A
man  of  heaven and  an  angel  of  the  earth”, i.e.  mediator  between  earth and  heaven,
executor of both liabilities. In new Georgian writings (Akaki Tsereteli’s poem “Tornike
Eristavi”, Alexander Kazbegi’s story “Khevisberi Gocha” etc) this harmony is given in
following formulation -“God’s word –nation’s word”.  


Acknowledgment  

The research publishes the partial results of the doctoral dissertation “The issues of
formation and development of civic consciousness in Vazha-Pshavela’s creative works
– methods and activities of teaching”. It is a winner project (DO 335/2-110/14) in call
for Ph.D programme grants (2014) announced by  “Shota  Rustaveli National Science
Foundation” (Georgia) and is supported by the foundation. Research directions: Literary
studies, Education studies-methodology. It is held at Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State
University, faculty of Psychology and Education sciences.
 
 
References

Brockhaus, F. A., & Efron, A. (1890-1907). Encyclopedic dictionary. Saint-Peterburg
Civic Dictionary. (2011). Tbilisi: Sezani.
Georgian Apostolic Symphony-Dictionary (2009).Tbilisi: Tbilisi State University Press.  
Orbeliani, S. S. (1991). Explanatory Dictionary. Vol. I. Tbilisi: Merani.  
Peradze, G. (1988). "Content of Real Citizenship." Jvari Vazisa: 80- 84.
Rayfield, D. (2013). The Literature of Georgia. New York: Routledge.  
Sabinin, M. (2015). The paradise of Georgia. Tbilisi, Georgia: Diadema. first published
in 1882.
Vazha-Pshavela. (1979). Newly Revealed Works. Tbilisi.
Vazha-Pshavela. (1986). Works. Tbilisi: Sabchota Saqartvelo
 

Contact

Marine Tsiklauri
Tbilisi, Digomi massif, Q. IV, building 13, ap.25.
tsiklaurimari(at)gmail.com

ARCHBISHOP ANANIA JAFARIDZE Series: Georgians’ historian destiny separated from Georgian church © Anania Jafaridze. 1999. Introduction Urums living in Ottoman Empire Increase of rights of Greek Church in Turkey Georgians’ Hellenization in Ottoman Empire Grecian-Urums exile on the modern territory of Georgia Georgians’ Hellenization on the modern territory of Georgia Surnames Eparchy of Georgian patriarchate of Manglis-Tcalka 1999


In the series of monographs of "Georgians' historian destiny separated from Georgian church" archbishop Anania Jafaridze expounds the destiny of that Georgians who lived on the conquered territories of Georgia and who left the national churches becoming the perish of the foreign church. Unfortunately, a big part of them were ethnically degenerated.

In the above mentioned work which is based on the historical sources is expounded the destiny of orthodox Georgians who lived in the South of Georgia (concretely in Lazeti and Meskheti) conquered by Ottomans and according to the Ottomans' jurisdiction they became the perish of Grecian patriarchate of Constantinople. The work consists of the paragraphs: Georgians' Hellenization, Urums living in Ottoman Empire, Increase of rights of Greek Church in Turkey, Georgians' Hellenization in Ottoman Empire, Grecian-Urums' exile on the modern territory of Georgia, Changed Surnames and so on.

The book is intended for the consolidation of national consciousness in Georgian migrants in order to keep them with national churches and not to allow them to become perish of the foreign church.

Publishing house blesses the company "Esab" and its personals for the assistance.


Introduction

There was the process of different tribes' Hellenization in Old Greece and Byzantium between them was Georgian. After the fall of Byzantine Empire the process continued even in Ottoman Empire. Furthermore, Georgians' process of assimilation with Greeks continued even on modern territory of Georgia in XIX century, concretely in province of Tbilisi. A lot of scientists write about the Hellenism in Ottoman Empire, especially have to be mentioned work of Tcate Batcashi but on the modern territory of Georgia the process is described by Jacob Akhuashvili and other researchers.

Georgians' Hellenism was conditioned by the different reasons. It could be political, economical and especially religious factors. It has to be mentioned that the major reason of Georgians' assimilation with the other nations was low level of national self-knowledge in XVI-XIX centuries.

I.Akhuashvili writes: "what had taken our ancestor to this kind of existence?" The answer partly can be found in work of F.Bodenshtet (1847) who writes: "Georgian is careless and they do not think for tomorrow…they are faithful as their sword, fast and quick as their horses…" but only this kind of positive characteristics were not enough for the national-knowledge solidity. Following the thought of N.Nikoladze ?Consciousness is the way which makes you able to differ evil from kind also mastering science which requires mental exercises, work and some more solid will. The same author emphasized the importance of social awareness and care of knowledge. I.Akhuashvili continues in the above mentioned work about the Georgians' denationalization: ?I think it is time to call everything its name although as great ilia says: ?evil does not like disclosure, but it not the reason to blame ourselves, become deaf, cut tongue when this evil beat us in ourselves and gives a cry all around the world about our nonentity to our shame. consequently, it is necessary to reveal the reasonable evil…as the true reasonable revealing even of a whole nation is taken into consideration as a kind deed and a clever nation is grateful for it and not angry.

In case of the same occasion, I mean repeat of the history our people have to meet this with the high level of self-knowledge. The fact that the danger of national degeneration is real, even nowadays, is seen from the example that the descendents of the inhabited Georgians in Russia cannot keep their nationality after two or three generations and are assimilated within the nations. And this kind of problem can become more and more dangerous if lots of young Georgians leave looking for some jobs out of borders. Consequently, research of the past is necessary for us.

But what was that which made Georgians to become Greek? It was the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, concretely that Georgians who were becoming perish of Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople for some reason -were becoming Grecians.

As it is known Meskheti or Samckhe Saatabago was wide stretched densely populated country. At least one-third of Georgians lived there and following the notification of XV century Georgians were numerous people at that time.

By the Caucasus and near east scale Georgian people were really numerous and it can be seen even after the century wars in the beginning of XIX century when Georgians were 44% of the whole Transcaucasia population. Their number greatly exceeded Azerbaijanis' and Armenians' number. There were impressive number of Georgians In XVI-XVIII centuries in Meskheti. Unfortunately as far as it is known Georgians from Meskheti degenerated at all. Part of them became Muslim, Gregorian or Catholic and the remaining Georgians under Patriarchate of Constantinople jurisdiction became Grecians.

About the created conditions in order to spread jurisdiction in Meskheti is written by Vakhushti as he describes Patriarchate of Constantinople was religiously obliged to pay attention on the abandoned Orthodox Georgians and take care of them.

By 1659 year there was established Mohammedanism in Meskheti, consequently there was built mosques which made the population to be without churches and church-services. So the population of Meskheti was divided in two parts. High stratum-became Mohammedan, but the peasants being without leaders kept the faith of Christianity but Georgian churches were not serving peasants any more having no financial resources for some reasons and with this high stratum did not care about it anymore. As for the high stratum they did not take care of Georgian churches. So Georgian peasants left without Georgian churches or shepherd because of low level of self-knowledge were divided between Greek and Armenian Catholics churches and the part of the peasants which had no influence of non-Georgian churches imitating the high stratums became Mohammedan. As for the high stratums, Ottoman Empire made the financial trap for them which gave them the alternative between property and religion. Unfortunately high stratums preferred Muslim religion to poverty and a bit later their families and servants became Muslim too. Surly it caused the loss of the self-consciousness and made the Georgians to become Tatars. This kind of condition was the reason of the abandoned churches in Qartli, Odishi and in Kakheti, nevertheless they were the saint places for the population who were not Mohammedans and tried to visit them, although there were not bishops or monks.

As we have mentioned part of the peasants remained Christians although for the necessity of these people priests had not been sanctified any more as there were not Georgian bishops consequently Constantinople sent Grecian priests for the peasants. There are protected notifications about deeds of the Greek priests. Eqvtime Takaishvili describes the action of the priests although in another historical epoch. Eqvtime writes: ?The Greek priests tried a lot to rule the villages although the entire village spoke in Georgian, they also tried to set up Greek church-service. For the mentioned purpose one of the priests with insidiousness got the old Georgian Ecclesiastical books…??

Generally, the whole numerous Georgians in Meskheti did not become Mohammedan. Especially their quantities were more in East. There were Orthodox Georgians whose care was up to Patriarchate of Constantinople given by Ottoman Empire like the other linguistically different orthodox living on the Balkan Peninsula. The result was quick without delay as Georgian orthodox population learned Turkish and ecclesiastically became the flock of the Constantinople. Soon some may say about them that ?they lost the language but kept the religion not betraying it?. Christian Turkish orthodox Georgians became perish of the foreign, Greek church.


Urums living in Ottoman Empire

Border of Georgians' ethnical exiles were up to Euphrates and even further away consisting river's head and its ravines, concretely the river named Karasud. There were Georgian villages even in Erzurum in XVII century and Georgian bishop of Erzurum seems to be the last Georgian bishop in Meskheti.

The territories along the Erzurum till the black sea were also inhabited by Georgians concretely population of Meskheti was changing by the population of Lazeti. Lazistan or Trapizon's Vilaieti was the country of Lazs and Tchans. Above mentioned wide stretched land with the head of Mtkvari and Chorokhi ravines were also Georgians' one of the Ethno genesis territory. Here were formed Georgian nation; some say that here was ?Arian Qartli?. Lately here was formed ?Georgians' kingdom? (Tao-Klarjeti) which had been the heart of the strong Georgian culture till it became mohammedan.

By the Turkish historian thought “To the north from the river Arezi and Zangi there was Dagestan and Georgia in the 40 days of journey till the sea of Khazars.” Its east side reaches Erzurum. Antioch Patriarch Makar (XVII) who travelled round the whole Meskheti proves that the border of Georgia to the south was up to the river Euphrate's. This kind of information is even proved by Chelebi. For a long time these territories were considered as Georgia and nearby the river Arezi and Erzurum lived Georgians. Arqangelo Lamberti travelled on the territories of Erzurum and found several Georgian villages which had its own Erzrumian leader. In the middle of the XVIII century T. Gabashvili proved not only Georgian churches existence in Gurmishkhani and but also the memories of population that the territory was called as Georgia.

As it was mentioned there were Georgian villages in Erzurum and the territories of Gumishkani had been counted as Georgian by the population. Nowadays by the mentioned information we can definitely say that Urums or the old Greek population was exiled by the Russian government from Erzurum and Gumishkhani to Trialeti and Qvemo qartli. Orthodox population of Gumishkhane and Erzurum were allowed by Ottomans and Russian authorities to move to Greece but orthodox inhabitants refused to exile requiring the territory of province of Tbilisi for dwell. As it seems in XIX century the population calling Gumishkhane as Georgian Territory in XVIII century wanted to stay in Georgia refusing Greek land for living. As scientist I.korelov says the origin of Urums is unknown.

Urums are that very Greeks living in Georgia whose native language is Turkish and are exiled by the Russian authority from Erzurum-Gumishkhane territories as orthodox population. They don't know Greek and with the signs of ethno geography are closer to Georgian-Caucasus's-ottomans' than to Greeks'. There was the thought about Urums' that they are Turkish population who became orthodox. This kind of thought was presented by Greek Orthodox Church leader Panas Eftim who thinks that Urums are that Turks who have become Christian by force. As it is know they have changed the religion but preserved the language. This kind of thought existed about Anatolian Greeks but Greeks who lived on Balkan Peninsula were considered as Slavs by the scientists of XIX century. In the article of 1853 year??British politics-Turkey? F. Engel writes: ?Greeks in Turkey mostly are of Slav origin but their language became Greek???

Why the Greek population of Ottoman Empire was taken as non-Greeks we will discuss it later but now we have to turn back to the thought of I.korelov about Urums. He thinks that Urums from Trialeti lived in Erzurum Vilaieti, mainly to the south-west of it.

As we have mentioned Patriarch Makar found the Georgian villages near Erzurum in XVII century which population was still orthodox having bishop. As it was mentioned even population of Gumishkhani considered themselves as Georgians. Following Korolov, Nowadays a part of Urums left Gumishkhan's territory. Here is the reason why Urums who have left Qaldea and Basiani still have Georgian culture. Nowadays they live in Qvemo Qartli and Trialeti. Even I. Korolov writes that: In Empire of Trabzon there was Chaldea which was lightly colonized by Elins. Here in the mass of foreigners population was not in the habit of keeping them under the influence of its language and habits- to helinizate.

It is possible that the population of Gumishkhani is Georgians. Generally, word ?Urums? means Romanians in Turkish. As it is known Byzantium is a scientific term but The Empire of Byzantium is called as Rome by the population. After Selchuks conquest of the Byzantium Empire even osmals were called by the name of the country-Urums. Georgian historians Vakhushti and Papuna Orbelians call Osmals Urums too and even exiled Turkish Orthodox population was called so. Consequently, Minor Asian is called Urum nevertheless its religion or ethnic.

There are Urums inhabited in Georgia who consists of Kiliss, Kanetes, Pasenss and Lazs. All of them have Greek self-knowledge. Even Lazs who are part of the polulation of Tsalka are Greek inhabitants of Trialeti.


Increase of rights of Greek Church in Turkey

After the fall of Constantinople Greek-orthodox Patriarchate was not abolished by Turks, on the contrary, it was given some state functions. By the sultan's thought it has to be the balance and justice between Christians. It was unacceptable to force such a big country to become Muslim at that time. It was even unthinkable to force the country with huge quantity of population and culture become Muslim. The sultan Mehmed II who cared for the justice and justice between Christians created the second patriarchate for Armenians next to the Greek's one. At that time rights of Monophysite people were restricted in the former Byzantium Empire while the governor restored them for the oppressed people.

After this Turks divided Christians in two main fractions that were living on the Turkish territory and declared above mentioned patriarchate as their spiritual leaders. After such kinds of separation of Christian perish Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Albans, Valakhs, Moldavians, Croatians, Carrageen, Syrians, orthodox Arabs, Melkhits, Lazs were under the rule of Greek patriarchate. There are not Meskhs in this list as at that time Meskheti was not conquered by Turks. But in the XVII_XVIII centuries vanishing Georgian patriarchate Greeks fulfilled their rights up to Georgian orthodox perish.

Lazs or Laz-Tchans were the majority of Trabzon population with Qarts. After the Cesarean Trabzon conquest by Turks gradually started the process of changing the religion. The second part of the people who remained orthodox called themselves Greeks and thus gradually forgetting native language got accustomed to Turk-Georgian language but we have to mention that this people reached XIX century not losing its roots at all.

G.Atchariani writes: ?There are orthodox Lazs who are under the control of the Greek patriarchate in Istanbul. They speak Greek and call themselves Greeks. Nevertheless they can be recognized by their accent? They live on the territory of Lazistan concretely on the west side from Platiny to the east till Trabzon and the south of Trabzon till Gumishkhane. Platana, Trabzon, Gumishkhane are the main towns where we can meet them. In the beginning of 1830 years according the treatment of Adrianople a group of Christians from Gumishkhan were inhabited in Qvemo Qartli. These were Turkish Christians who were officially Greeks or Urums by official papers. We should mention that orthodox non-Greek population in Turkey or Europe is also known as Greeks. Frequently in many papers, when there is a talk about religion even Georgian perishes and Georgian churches are called as Greek. Nobody paid any attention that among the exiled Greek population from Gumishkhane were Georgian-Lazs. On the contrary tsarism backed it up to spread knowledge about Greek origin as it was considered as the best way for the Russification. Nowadays there are not Christian Lazs officially they are called Greeks although they still remember about their origin-that they are Lazs.

I.Korelov writes that after the depriving of political rights by Turks Christians were allowed to create independent communities. Mehmed II allowed greeks free religion faith and solved the question of dispersed Greeks inhabiting them in Constantinople. Christians were also given the charter of freedom and safety.

All the things were done to court Greek Church as politically deprived churches were needful to keep order in the country and to neutralize non-orthodox states' power. In any way Greek churches were under the control of Turks.

Tc.Batcashi writes: ?According to ?Kamun-name? which was established by Mehmed II in 1476 year non-Muslims got its status in Constantinople. They were Orthodox and Armenian patriarchates and chief of Jews' Rabin?. After all orthodox population (Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Albans, Valakhs, Moldavians, Georgians) were considered as one Greek community. Patriarch having ecclesiastical or court power had an influence on them and could even condemn to panel servitude. Patriarchate or bishops owned the control of schools and books of orthodox population. They also had the private privilege.

As far as it is known term ?nation? has the religious definition, consequently, every Muslim was Turkish and every orthodox was Greek.

?Between Christians not only Porte (the government of Turkey) but even patriarchate of Constantinople did not recognize any other nation except Greek and generally Balkan Peninsula's whole orthodox population was under the control of jurisdiction of Constantinople patriarchate. This jurisdiction was not only the religious but it also had the secular meaning. Greek patriarchate, his metropolitans and bishops had the rights of court and taxes toward the orthodox Christians-Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Albans, Valakhs, Moldavians, Georgians…?Every school where children of orthodox population were studying was under the control of Constantinople's patriarchate. As usual the process of study was in Greek. Even religious rites were held in Greek and after all these processes in scientific, economic or religious spheres Greek language become popularized. So the guard of Greek language was the patriarchate of Constantinople refusing other national cultural developing?.?

Romania which was historically called as Vlakheti or Moldavia became depended on Turkish forces in XVI century. In 1716 year Romania was given by Turks to a wise community called ?Fanariots?. Fanar was called a district in Constantinople which was inhabited by Greeks who worked on Turks helping them to rule orthodox population. Here was also inhabited Constantinopolitan patriarch. After paying lots of money Fanariots got the right to rule Romania.

?Buying the right to rule the country Fanariots owned unlimited power consequently they started to cover the cost of paid money which brought country to pauperization?. Greek Fanariots' last purpose was to create ?Greek court?.

A.Skurati writes : ?Trying to achieve creating Greek court from Balkans, Greek Fanarians inculcated Greek language and culture by force. In this case Greek hierarchy backed it up. Greeks were nominated as bishops and even church-service was in Greek in towns?.

Here can easily be seen that Romanians, Georgians, Balkans were made to become Greeks in Ottoman Empire. More or less they did it.

Greeks from Fanari took themselves as premium caste of aristocracy, although great part of them were consisted of merchants, sellers and people like these. Gradually, Fanarian Greeks could hold higher and higher posts in Ottoman Empire. Concretly, In 1716 year post of chief of Vlakheti was given to one of these Fanarian. Since then big territory of Vlakheti was ruled by Greeks for century.

Holding higher posts in Vlakheti Greeks have become ?Grammarians? so called bibliophile in Georegian, who was private secretary of chief. Also private reporter which was no less than other posts. Groom, keeper of chief's seal and document keeper were also the posts which were held by Greeks.

In XVI century Greek elements began to invade Vlakheti and by Fanarians government it reached its culmination. Greek Fanariots tried to fill ecclesiastical hierarchy with ethnical Greeks in Vlakheti and Danube. This kind of politics conditioned that among 12 metropolitan there were 7 of Greeks and even in case of national membership of bishops circumstance was the same.

After all churches of Vlakheti were changed on Greek manner and gradually even Romanian language was lost which caused closing of schools. Romanian language like shameful slang was changed by Greek which already presented administrative and instructive language. There were allowed only Greeks to be teachers in ecclesiastic academy in Romania. Subsidies were given only to those churches where Greeks were the head of public worship.

As O.?Gvinchadze thinks Greek bishops of Vlakheti did not like Antimoz Iverieli consequently the rebelion against Greek chief of Vlakheti was discussed by world patriarchate Ieremia III who established the deed which made Antiomoz as man of revolution and rebel against the Ottoman Empire and Vlakheti. After all Antimoz was deprived all kind of ecclesiastical deeds in 1716.

As it seems after falling of Byzantium Empire Greek church lost its political influence on the whole country although instead of it got the new rights, concretely, if Bulgarian, Georgian or other churches had autonomy which shortened Constantinople's rights on non-Greek perish, now all the Christians were under the control of Greek centre. Definitely, this kind of behavior made churches to lose their rights and even autonomous - autocephalous independence which caused disorder of ecclesiastical laws. To say long story shortly invaders preserved the Empire although they used Constantinople in this work.

Fortunately Turks had never been able to conquer the whole Georgia. They only got the part of South Georgia and Meskheti placing its perish under the command of Constantinople.


Georgians' Hellenization in Ottoman Empire

As it was mentioned Georgians ethnical exile was up to Euphrates, there was Georgian bishop in Erzurum in XVII century though in XVIII century population of Gumishkhan could remind that not so long time ago their territory was called Georgia. During the centuries Osmals gradually occupied large territories of Georgia, consequently, the border instead of Erzurum was near Borjomi and Qobuleti. Turks were greatly opposed by Georgians as in XVI century it can be seen that Georgians from Erzurum and Euphrates held partisan wars against them harming quite well. This is proved by the war in 1514 where Ottomans were struggling against Persians and during the war even Georgians were drawn into the war against Ottomans. At the beginning of the war Ottomans started attack Persians although they retreated. Catherino Dzeno writes: ?retreated commander in chief went toward Euphrates? but Georgians put obstacle in their way robbing them with light armies. Anyone who dare to leave the army even with a little distance Georgians broke them down. Their strikes were so frequent that even Akinjs who were got accustomed to travel 40 or more miles a day did not dare to leave their army as furious Georgians were ready to kill them all. They were killed not only by swords but even by starvation as they could not manage to supply the army with necessary product because of unprofitable environment. They were ready to be killed by a horrible death instead of the other one.

This note is proved by other authors adding even some details. Although neither Georgian nor foreigner authors gives us information about Georgians who were struggling against Ottomans. We do not know even their court they were from. They were not from Qartl-Khakheti as at that time the court could not manage to struggle against Ottoman's army. M.?Rekhviashvili wonders that it could be army of Imereti against Turks in 1514 but whoever it was it is more possible that it were Georgians from Euphrates and Erzurum as they struggled in partisan way laying siege and not giving possibilities them to provide army with products from near villages. So Georgians who are indicated by foreign authors are inhabited population who were struggling against the enemy with other Georgians. Even after a century there were Georgian villages with its Georgian bishop from Erzurum. Here had also been living Georgians till immigration from Traileti and Qvemo Qartli in XIX century. Although they had already forgot their language and were counted as Turks at that time.

After the conquer of Meskheti and Lazeti orthodox inhabitants had to obey patriarchate of Constantinople who sent the new perish to Greek priests. Following the orders of Constantinople Greek priests owned indefinite right on their people. At that time a priest was not only a man of ecclesiastic but he also owned the right of national man, concretely, he was even a judge who could send a man to penitentiary. This fact is also known to European scientists. They write: ?Greek orthodox clergy has made a decision to have a despotic authority on orthodoxy in Ottoman Empire… A priest is like a judge, a foreman, a teacher and a head of all kind of work. He is not an ecclesiastical man but a master who takes care of everything… This kind of guardianship and despotic control of churches obeyed all kind of spheres in human life?. This kind of circumstance was not adapted by non-Greek orthodox followers as in every successful public movement they banished Greek ecclesiastic servants nominating servants of local inhabitant. A good example of it was in Vlakheti and Serbia. The same situation was in provinces of Ponto… ?I cannot hide that kind of horrible clashes between perish and Greek servants in Unie… we have to mention women who banished clergy out of churches and locked themselves in church… By the instant demand of Patriarchate Porta has sent pasha to punish them his own…? This was not a single case as local orthodox populations massively were becoming Mohammedans trying to secure themselves from Greek Patriarchate.

I think that existence of Georgian bishop in Erzurum in XVII century can be described by their opposing against Greek clergy but as it seems even toward them was accomplished the order which took them under the control of Greek clergy.

?Local inhabitants who were subordinated to Greek Church gradually were becoming Greeks. For example Christian lazs had Greek name and surname and had to study and listen pray in Greek?.

Georgian language with its Lazic dialects was even banished from families as a language of irreligious people. National language was maintained by Lazs who where under the patronage of Georgian church once upon a time. Territorial proximity and economical relationship supported to maintain national language.

There could be a question whether Urums living in Erzurum knew Greek or not? We should think that they had never known Greek. As in XVII-XVIII centuries it can easily be seen that their native language was Georgian with its dialects. Although Turks intervention in XV-XVI centuries made the things to change as Georgian language was banished and Turkish was inculcated upon the country. In XVII century there was Georgian bishop which indicates that at these periods Greek prays were not legitimated yet. Being exiled in Trialeti in XIX century they could not learn Greek in time although there could be excepting of course.

It has to be noticed that local Georgians had its own dependence toward Grecians. The point is that Greeks are also invaders and Byzantium is predatory country for Asia Minor Georgians. Although the invaders managed to make a part of Georgians become Greeks (we mean till Turks' invade). After collapse of Byzantium Empire a part of Greeks changed their language and religion on Turkish with surprise but the rest of them consolidated their Greek self-knowledge.

Tsate Batsashi analyzed Lazs' becoming Greek in Trabzon Empire (till Turks appearance) It is indisputable that there were living Georgian tribes at this territory from the ancient time. Uspensky writes: ?Armenians or Greeks were the minorities on this territory and were lost among masses of other tribes as they were not able to place them under the control of their culture and language at that time? and analyses that we cannot even say that there were a lot of Greeks on the territory of the Empire, consequently, local inhabitants and the king were counted as Lazs, definitely, having the sympathy of Georgia. Although existence under the control of Byzantium Empire had its influence on the country but inhabitants did not lose their native language.

After Turks' conquest a part of Lazs became Mohammedan and the others stayed on their religion-orthodoxy. Lazs who were under the control of Constantinople soon lost their language and self-knowledge as they became Greeks and learned Grecian although native language was preserved by Lazs who had become Mohammedans but estrangement was even in this case as they learned Turkish. Orthodox Lazs who became Greek spoke in Grecian with dialect of Ponto which itself preserves every typical affricates of Iberian-Caucasian words' basis.

Nowadays orthodox Lazs are counted as Greeks but instead of it Turkish historians know that till Turkmens' conquest there were a lot of Georgians and Lazs in North-East of Turkey in the beginning of XI century and the majority of the population were speaking in their language. Lazian language is similar to Georgian and presents tone of Megrelian.

One of researcher of Minor Asia in XIX century writes: ?So it has to be mentioned that inhabitants of this place so called Greeks are Lazs who became Christians during Byzantium Empire and had been keeping it by their own?.

There were Kromols except Greeks and Turks, consequently, it means that not only Georgians were inhabited on the strange territory with strange population. Kroloms officially followed the customs of Muslims although in secret they were Christians. They also were called as Cryptochristians. Khemshins who are degenerated are also Georgians with their origin. ?A part of Khemshins' population consists of Lazs and the remaining are the mixture of people. The main role in their ethno genesis played Armenian church because as it seems a part of Lazs joined them. The same thing happens in the north-east of Anatoly?. Their language is the mixture of Georgian, Armenian and Turkish… In Izmir they were called as ?Somekhve?. Children were given names of official Turkish origin and with this they were also given domestic names which are definitely Lazians with its sonority or content. For example: Tuta- Moon, Burba- Bat, Mutika- Dolphin, Tuni-bear, Mutskhi-Star, and so on. During the travel across Lazeti N.?Mari enumerates surnames of Khemshins which are also Georgian.

Georgians becoming Armenians is not astonishing as even this country like Greek gave a lot of privileges to Armenian patriarchate of Constantinople. Armenian priests like the Greek ones' owned the whole kind of rights?- ?all the spheres of government about Armenians in Turkey are in hands of patriarchate of Constantinople?.?

Different kind of methods were used by Georgians to prevent changing their religion, the rest of population or priests were becoming Gregorian, Catholics or were under the control of Constantinople, consequently, they were counted as Armenians, French or Greeks. That was the reason why Georgians called Muslim Georgians Tatars or Turks. Georgian with Gregorian religion was called as Armenian, Georgian catholic- French, Jew- Jewish.

Being under the control of Grecian church Orthodox Lazs became Greeks in Trabzon, Giumishkhane, Platana and in other places. The rest of them inhabited in Tsalka, Borjomi, Donetski and in Krasnodar.


Grecian-Urums exile on the modern territory of Georgia

Entering Transcaucasia Russian government tried to strengthen its positions settling orthodox people in borderlands; consequently, they had made a decision to exile Christian orthodox and Gregorian from Turkey.

Korelov writes: ?There was created a committee in Tbilisi taking control on migration from Turkey in 1810 year. So in 1813 this committee could expel 120 of household of Urums from Antalya to Tetritskaro-Tsintskaro which were conquered by Aga Mahmud Han but the main decision about the banishment was made during the war between Russia and Turkey in 1828-1829?.

There were a lot of advantages for exiled population, concretely; they were free from fiscal payment during 6 years. Urums' banishment on the modern territory of Georgia continued during the whole XIX century.

During the period of wars (1853-1856 The Crimea and 1877-1878 Russia vs. Turkey) migration continued. Their arrival on the modern territory of Georgia continued not only till XIX century but also till XX century. Modern history of Greece starts with ruins of Constantinople conquered by Ottoman Empire. Turks stopped the development of social, economic and political spheres in Greece. Although the wars between Russia and Turkey made Ottoman Empire weak in XVIII century. After, that Russian government tries to expel Greeks and Armenians from Turkey and settle them in Caucasia near the borderland of Turkey. They also wanted to have advanced detachment in this region. Greek expel was guided by the ?committee of Christians' banishment from Turkey to Caucasia? created in 1810 which used ecclesiastic persons to achieve their goals in Minor Asia… There were Greeks serving Russian army and it should be noticed that there was even a special detachment called ?Greek detachment?. By the force of peace treaty Russian army unloaded its army from Erzurum-Baiburt-Giumishkhane, consequently, Greeks were able to return to their native land-Greece, on the contrary, Turks required to free their people and migration into their native country. So according the agreement there had to be the exchange but it has to be mentioned that Greeks who were living in Turkey preferred to stay in Caucasia than to go to Greece.

It is not insignificant or casual fact that Urums have not gone to Greece and made their way toward Georgia. This fact should not be explained by Russian promises. As it was mentioned before they could remember that once Guimishkhane was a part of Georgia in XVII century, the same should be emphasized about the population of Erzurum consequently it can easily be seen that at that time they counted themselves as ?children of Georgia? in XIX century. Greece was strange side for them but Georgia was seen as native. By 1829 year 100 Greek families moved from Giumishkhane and mediana region toward Trialeti. They should go to Tsintskaro and move from there to devastated territories of Tsalka.

By 15 October of 1829 year Greeks had already arrived in Tsintskaro… By 1830 year they are already in Tsintskaro. It can be found in correspondence between Teodore Zemenpulo and governor Zeveleiski. “It is necessary for them to be given arable land, grassland and financial resources to build houses.”

A group of Greeks had chosen Georgian village Beshqashen (nowadays it is Beshtasheni, region of Tsalka) and dwelt there. Soon it caused the next wave of Greek colonizers and Russian generosity allowed 1025 Greek families to move toward Tsalka. The majority of them were husbandman or cattle-breeder. The migrants are coming with the paved way I mean Erzurum-Karsi-Gumbri-Tfilisi-Koda-Ekatherinefield-Shindlara-Tsalka. This group of Greeks made 18 Georgian villages to revive. Greeks called them the names of old Turkish villages were they had lived before. To the south from Tsalka near the village Gomareti (nowadays it is region of Dmanisi) they founded three villages…?In 1855 banished Greeks founded several villages in Adjara (near Batumi). There were also founded villages in South Georgia, Tetritskaro's region. The first world war caused the new migration of Greeks in Caucasus but the conference of Lizan made the special decision for Greek inhabitants about the exchange on Turks. But even in this case great part of Greeks preferred to stay not in their country but in the Soviet Union, concretely in Caucasia.

Here we should pay attention on the scientist's expression which was involuntary but right -??even this time Greeks preferred to return not in their native country but in Caucasia?. ?To return? is possible there where you had come from, so Urums has returned to their real country -Caucasia. They believed that their country was not Greece but Georgia. In this case should be noticed research of the famous expert in Turkish?- Otar Gigineishvili. He writes that Urums who expelled in Greece were called Georgians (concretely in Tesalonick) by the inhabitants and even villages were created by Urums there. Urums willing of being in Georgia can also be seen by their act which was against the conference of Lozana as they had to go to Greece but instead of this they arrived in Goergia. This was the time of 1917 rebel in Russia were was established severe atheistic regime which struggled much against church. This kind of fact can only be describes by the love toward the native country and land.

Some wonder that there are Lazs' roles in ethno genesis of Giumishkhan's and Pasen's as there are kept real Georgian traditions in their existence.


Georgians' Hellenization the modern territory of Georgia

Urums who were exiled from Turkey inhabited on the territories of landowners by Russian government. The lands of Garis and Trialeti were owned by: Baratashvili,Kaplanishvili, orbeliani, Abashishvili, Abulfatashvili, Afxazishvili, Takaishvili, Tumanishvili, Iotamishvili, Varazishvili, Gilaqishvili, Eliozashvili, Zazunashvili, Tarkhnishvili, Tulashvili, Magalashvili, Merabishvili, Saginashvili, Sachinoshvili, Sologashvili, Zurabishvili, Aslanishvili, Urufbegashvili, Korganashvili, Shalikashvili, Cicishvili, Sharashidze, Javakhishvili which is confirmed by ?migrations' committee? and was even annunciated to the Russian emperor. It was also presented in statistical description of Georgia in XVIII century.

Urums inhabited a lot of Georgian villages and even founded some villages on the territories of old Georgian villages where still lived Georgian households. For example S.Makalatia writes ?25 of household who had come from Trabzon were inhabited by the government of the king in Cikhisjvari by 1861although it should be mentioned that there had already been few Georgian households as: Kasitashvili, Bliadze and Miqeladze?.?

Greek population had been met by Georgians even in Tsintskaro and the same can be emphasized about other villages.

It should be mentioned that before the migration of Greeks Trialeti and Qvemo Kartli had just become empty. The reason of this were Lezghins and the fear which made the population to move to Kartl-Kakheti, although when these kind of families knew that the government took care of the inhabitants of Traileti a part of them went back to their native lands.

There were Urums with Georgian self knowledge between Turkish migrants who had changed their surnames like Grecians. Nearly every inhabitant who joined the population of Georgian Urums became Grecians which meant changes of their surnames although there still remained some Georgians who had not changed surnames and kept their old Georgian surnames but soon they had become Grecians by their self knowledge.?(Their surnames will be noticed at the end of the book) The created social, economical or political conditions were the main reason of Georgians' becoming Greek in province of Tbilisi. For example nearly ten hectare of lands were given to the migrants but not to the inhabitants except this migrants were given financial sources by Russian government. They were also free from taxes during the years and were given some more privileges for example who would like to get food had to become Grecian.

After Russian government helped Grecian migrants in Tsintskaro soon economically weak or decayed Georgians found themselves under the influence of the migrants and became Greeks. By 1812 year we meet surnames like: Azarashvili, Ioanidze, Besalashvili, Lazarashvili, Abramashvili, Elefterishvili, Iosebashvili, Amiranashvili, Nikolashvili, Vasilisshvili, Petriashvili, Mikheilisshvili, Tevdoreshvili, Estatesshvili, Tomsashvili, Pavlishvili, Svimonashvili, Giorgishvili, Martvelishvili, Stefanesshvili.

By 1822-1855 years we meet surnames like: Kaladze, Arishvili, Bosanashvili, Baratovi, Naniashvili, Feriashvili, Gogolashvili, Sepiashvili, Aslanishvili, Alamazashvili and others.

By 1873 Georgian surnames are changed and the owners of them are becoming Greeks for example since 1886 Tevdorashvili is Tevdorogli but nowadays they are Fedorov…?Kartvelishvili is Gurjievi… Having archives we are able to see how Georgian population lost their surnames and language on their own land.

There were only four of Georgian families by 1873 but they were counted as Grecians in the portray of 1886 year. There is peasant origin in the column of origin and tribe as they tried to lose their trace. There are Georgian Families who live with Georgian surnames although they count themselves as Grecians. These surnames are: Baratashvili (baratovi), Sakalidze, Kekelashvili, Tofuridze.

A part of Georgians met the migrants on their own territory but the most of them recognized themselves as Grecians. Above mentioned surnames know that their ancestors are Georgians. Ilia the son of George Damoev told us that they are Georgians as their first surname was Petriashvili although when it started the period of changing surnames they became Damoevs. Mate the son of Vlas Gurjiev says: “Nowadays there are living Damoevs in the village of Tsintskaro also they can be found in the region of Tsalka.” They are the same Georgians with the same origin. I remember ancestors, grandfathers and grandmothers who were becoming Georgians…?There are Georgians like: Maisuradze, Jamelashvili and Furceladze. A part of Furceladze are Georgians but the others have become Grecians and are Ergishev. Once upon a time Velispiri was named as Erkushaant village so the surname comes from it like Erkushevi, Ergushevi. There can even be such a condition that one brother might be Georgian and another Grecian. How could it be? The question is answered by our respondent. He says: ?Grecians who were exiled in Georgia were helped by the government of King giving some economical resources, sugar, flour, soap, match, salt and other kind of required subject?. In case to receive the help Furceladze and others changed their surnames and nationality. Beruashvili is Georgian surname although there are Berovs with Grecian Naitonality in Velispireti. Everything was clear after the talk with them as they told us that they had changed their surname and nationality at the beginning of XX century…There was also another Georgian surname like Tetradze who had come from the village Gomareti although after they had been mixed with Grecians they were called ?Gurjs? which means Georgian in Turkish. So the story of Gurjievs' surname starts from here but the second story is connected to the surname of Kartvelishvili…There is also a thought that surname Gurjiev comes from Berdzenishvili… How should it happen that Georgians on their own land became the member of the other ethnic group. The banishment was provided by Russian government with the special conditions…?The exiled population were given lands and made them free from taxes…?By Fedia Kilingarova's story his grandfather accidently killed a man…?Chedilashvils who are from Ofreti did not changed their surnames but are counted as Grecians…?There are 4 families of Zazashvili who are Zazavs and are counted as Greeks although they have still kept their native language. Kaladzes'(Kaliachovs) had the second surname like Garibadze. Kaliachevs are also counted as Greeks. There are a part of Georgians and a part of Greeks among Lazarishvils. There could also be found Lazarovs who had changed the surname but remained Georgian. The main reason of changing the surnames and becoming Grecian was the given food-stuffs.

There were Georgian priests for a long time in the church of Rekhels (which was reconstructed in 1877year). In the XX century Georgian priest Darchia was changed by the Grecian priest who himself started to multiply the perish. Grecian priest promised the perish that in case of changing the nationality or surname he would give them the best life providing them with rice, soap and other food-stuffs.

Georgians were counted as politically unreliable people by Russian government consequently they tried to have faithful people on the frontier border like Armenians or Grecians. This was also the reason of becoming Grecian or Gregorian but nevertheless the main reason of Georgians denationalization was the lack of national self-knowledge and self-consciousness in XIX century.


Changed Surnames

As it was mentioned before the main part of Georgians became Grecians in Ottoman Empire concretely they were orthodox population who had been under the control of Constantinople patriarchate by the rule of Ottoman Empire. Conquering Meskheti a lot of perish became under the control of Constantinople as Meskheti (with Guria) was a big country. Except this Georgians ethnical banishment border was up to Euphrates. The same can be mentioned about Lazistan which was also inhabited by Georgian tribes. The surnames which were changed on the territory of Ottoman Empire are unknown although Georgians who became Grecian on the territory of Province Tbilisi are known better. A part of the surnames are well studied concretely population of Tsintskaro, Rekha and others. In fact these materials are crude and unstudied but by way of an exception can be mentioned works of Akhuashvili: ?Ethnic of Kvemo Kartli in historian aspect?, ?Grecian settlements in Kvemo Kartli?. Using these works we extracted the surnames of Georgians who had become Grecians. (At first we wrote the old surnames and then the new ones.)

Aridashvili-Aridashvili-Ardaogli-Arudovi?Aslanishvili-Aslanovi?Aslamazashvili-Aslamazovi?Aivazashvili-Aivazovi?Anesishvili-Amosovi?Amanatashvili-Amanatovi-Trapuntovi?Baratashvili-Danachievi-Baratovi?Balabanishvili-Balabanovi?Berdzenishvili-Gurjievi?Bostanashvili-Bostanchogli-Bostanjievi?Beruashvili- Berovi?Bichiashvili-Bidjoevi?Gabashvili-Gabaogli?Giorgashvili-Giorgiogli?Gigolashvili-Gigolovi?Vakhtangishvili?(Has not changed the surname. Nationality-Grecian)?Zazashvili-Zazovi?Tevdorashvili-Tevdorogli-Fedorovi-Anozovi?Tofuridze?- (Has not changed the surname. Nationality-Grecian)?Tomashvili-Tomazovi?Tetradze-Gurjievi (II)?Tatarashvili-Tatarogli-Tatarovi?Iordanashvili-Chulfaevi?Isanamishvili-Simonovi?Isakidze-Fakhorovi?Kaladze-Kalaichogli-Kalaichevi?Kostanashvili-Kostanovi?Kekelishvili (Has not changed the surname. Nationality-Grecian)?Lazarishvili-Lazarogli-Lazaridi?Mazmanishvili-Mazminogli-Mazmudovi?Murmanishvili-Murmanovi?Muradashvili-Muradogli-Muradovi?Mirzashvili-Mirzaogli-Mirzoevi?Merabishvili-Marabogli-Marabovi?Nikolasshvili-Nikolaogli?Nikoladze-Nikodmovi?Petriashvili-Petreogli-Dimoevi?Sakalidze (Has not changed the surname. Nationality- Grecian)?Sefiashvili-Sefianovi?Sabadze (Has not changed the surname)?Uflisashvili-Uflaogli-Plizologli?Farajanashvili-Faraogli-Farajanovi?Feriashvili-Feriogli-Karaqlevi?Furceladze-Ergishevi?Falavandishvili-Falavandogli-Paflenovi?Kartvelishvili-Gurjievi (III)?Gviniashvili-Khristoforov?Karajashvili-Karajaogli-Karjievi?Chedilashvili (Has not changed the surname)?Kechinashvili-Khechinovi?Khamajagashvili-Khamajagovi-Chilfievi?Jaliashvili-Kilinkarovi?Javarashvili-Javaraogli

The list is incomplete.

As it was mentioned before Urums who were living in Erzurum and Gumishkhane and who were exiled in Georgia had never known Greek as they were not ethnically Grecians. Their native language had always been Georgian although during Ottoman Empire control they gradually lost it and got accustomed to Turkish. It should be mentioned that they tried to teach them Grecian giving them some lessons in Greek language by the initiative of Tbilisi University in 1980 years.

We should say much more about Georgian Orthodox perish as it is interesting why they were called as Greeks by Mohammedans and not only by them even Europeans called them in this way. Mohammedans frequently differed people not by the ethnic way but by the religion.

All the Christians I mean perish of “Grecian” religion were counted as Greeks by them, consequently, till the creation of Ottoman Empire Georgian Kings were officially called as “Descendent of Grecians” by Egyptian sultans. This kind of title can also be translated as “son of Grecians and sword of Greeks”

After the ecclesiastical split Georgians supported Greeks and were solid protectors of Grecian orthodox traditions, consequently, Europeans called them “Greeks” and the members of the Grecian church. The same can be emphasized about Ottoman Empire as all the orthodox perish, Georgian and even not Georgian was called as Grecians there.

1990, Borjomi

Two most critical periods of the 2000-year-old history of the Apostolic Church of Georgia are to be attributed to the 19th- 20th centuries. They were the abolition of its autocephaly by the Russian royal court and its restoration, gained by the striving of the Georgian nation and clergy. Plethora of publications speaks about the deplorable circumstances in which the Church of Georgia had to continue life in the 19th century. After the Apostles had established her and had preached to the people, Christianity became the Georgians' national religion and remained as such throughout centuries.

Starting from the year 1811, this Church, the stronghold of Christianity for the entire Caucasus, was transformed into an additional part of the Russian bureaucracy. Before Russia's presence in Georgia, the Church had been an owner of immense property. She had been an economically independent institution by which she was profoundly different from the Russian Church. The latter had been modified into part of the state by Russian political authorities and since 1722 had been ruled by an attorney-general who was head of the Synod. He was a lay statesman and a wide scope of rights was vested in his hands. Peter the Great had abolished the Patriarchal guidance of the Church and had initiated her subordination to lay authorities; the process was accomplished by Queen Katherine II. Under these circumstances Russia would not admit the economical independence of the Georgian Church or her solid influence on the lay authorities. This purpose directed her to the reorganization of the Church of Georgia.

On March 3rd, 1810 Catholicos Anton II was almost induced to leave Georgia and depart to Russia. On July 30th, 1811 a dicastery was formed; the Church of Georgia was deprived of her autocephaly. Varlam Eristavi was appointed head of the dicastery and the title of ?exarch? was conferred on him. Most difficult times started in the life of Georgia as the Russian authorities commenced on restricting eparchies. It was not a newly begun business and was aimed at dismissing those personalities from around the Cathedral who were unacceptable for the Russian authorities.

On August 30th, 1815 the dicastery was transformed into the ?department of Synod of Georgia-Imereti? to which the Russian government subordinated the churches of Guria and Samegrelo also.

Varlam Eristavi was called to Russia in 1817. In the same year, Archbishop Theophilactos Rusanov from Ryazan was appointed exarch and was sent to Georgia. Since then the Church was only ruled by Russian bishops. In 1819 Theophilactos united the bishoprics of Imereti by means of restricting them in number. Guria and Samegrelo were allowed to have one diocese each. Out of twelve eparchies, only three were maintained in West Georgia. Along with it, the exarch reduced the number of churches.

The Russian governing authorities saw the Church of Georgia as another source of income. They considered it profitable to reduce the number of clergy and to cut the overall expenditure since it would help increase the income in the exchequer.

Russia's policy raised anger in the Georgian people and a rebellion for the defense of the Mother Church started in 1818. The rebels fought under the slogan ?The Liberation of the Motherland?. Every social layer of people was involved in the fight against the regiments and detachments, well armed with artillery.

In 1820 Metropolitan Dositheos of Kutaisi, Metropolitan Ekvtime of Gelati and other prominent people were arrested. This arrest enhanced the vigor of the struggle.

Metropolitan Dositheos of Kutaisi (Tsereteli) was an old man. He was put in a sack and taken in the direction of Russia but in the vicinity of the town of Gory was beaten to death in the same sack. Metropolitan Ekvtime of Gelati (Shervashidze) was arrested as one of the leaders of the revolt.

Metropolitans and bishops, in general, had been inviolable and even respected by the Muslims. The Russians' actions aroused a fierce anger in the rebels and at the end of ferocious battles the Russian army gained a Pyrrhic victory. The region of Racha was burnt and devastated, the fortress of Shemokmedi in Guria was razed to the ground, villages were burnt, rebels were hung; many of them sustained the forfeiture of property and were exiled to Russia their possessions being taken over by the exchequer.

On May 21st 1820, 2000 Georgian warriors laid their lives for the faith and freedom. Among them were priests, monks and other members of the clergy.

The Church of Georgia had had tens of bishoprics and eparchies in East, West and South Georgia. With their abolition, the Christian faith decreased among the people. The clergymen unceasingly demanded the restoration of the abolished eparchies.

The exarch's policy impaired the image of the Church of Georgia and brought about indifference towards the faith among the parish. Particularly outrageous was the restriction of the Georgian language in churches and at schools. Georgian theological schools were closed and Russian ones were opened. This resulted in the lack of knowledge among new clergymen. Abandoning the Georgian language, part of the youth plunged in the Russian and the European ideas of socialism, atheism and anarchy.

The Church possessions of valuable gold and silver objects, embellished with precious stones and preserved for many centuries, were lost. The exchequer took possession of the lands of the Church.

It is no surprise that under such circumstances the Georgian clergymen took an active part in the rebellions of the years 1804 and 1812 and the others of the following period which aimed at the liberation of Georgia. One of the leaders of the resistance in the revolt of 1832 was Archimandrite Philadelphos Kiknadze.

Under Exarch Paul Lebedyev, in 1826 one of the expelled students Joseph Laghiashvili killed the Rector of the seminary Archpriest Chudetski. At his funeral, the exarch pronounced a eulogy which contained a curse of the people whom the student belonged to. The statesman Dimitri Kipiani expressed the irate Georgians' attitude towards it. He addressed to the exarch with a suggestion that if the curse which had been spread among the people was true, ?the curser was to depart from the accursed land?. Dimitri Kipiani was punished for these words by being exiled where later in 1887 he was killed.

The best sons of the Russian people raised their voice against the oppression of the Georgian Church. One of such defenders was the well-known scholar Slavophil Nicholai Durnov. He described the deplorable conditions of the Church of Georgia in his assay ?The Fate of the Church of Georgia?.

Regrettably, in the 19th century, while Georgia was part of the Russian Empire, the fervent faith of the nation weakened. In the 20th century, the disintegration of the empire started and the same process also gained ground in the life of the Church. The sustenance of the empire required the alteration of its society. A population of one religion, speaking one language and devoted to the country, would save it. Thus the primary issue on the agenda was the assimilation of the Georgian people as well as of the other peoples by making them mingle with the Russians. The Georgian language was severely persecuted. The exarch's strife was targeted at the subjection of the parish to the Russian way of life. But, the Georgians rendered a relevant answer to his policy.

In 1908 Exarch Nikon was killed. The Russian hierarchs called Georgia ?wild and ruthless land? and the newly appointed would shun coming here.

The Georgian Church Fathers and the best sons of the nation saw their path leading to the deliverance of the faith as the one which lay through striving for the independence of the Church of Georgia from the Russian Empire, in other words - through the restoration of her autocephaly.

The proposal for restoration was strongly supported by the Georgian statesmen: St. Ilia the Righteous (Chavchavadze), St. Ekvtime the Man of God (Takaishvili), Alexander Tsagareli, Alexander Khakhanashvili, Nicholas Marr and others. Two Russian scholars, Solovjov and Zaozersky also advocated the cause.

After the assassination of Ilia the Righteous and the rise of regressive forces in the country, the adherents of autocephaly turned to the inculcation of their ideas in people by publishing books for they considered the independence of the Church would be the foundation for Georgia's future independence. On March 12th 1977, tens of thousands of faithful people assembled at the Holy Liturgy in Mtskheta. Bishop Leonid (Okropiridze) briefly interrupted the liturgy and made a speech in which the autocephaly of the Georgian Church was declared restored. In the same year, on September 17th Bishop Kirion (Sadzaglishvili) was elected Catholicos-Patriarch of the Georgian Church. On May 26th 1918, Georgia was declared an independent state. Sadly, the power of governing authority was not vested in the National Party but in the Socialist. On June 27th 1918, St. Kirion was killed in the village of Martkhopi.

The Socialists' government failed to see in proper perspective the significance of the Church in the people's life. All this was a matter of serious concern to the Catholicos-Patriarch Leonid.

The Mensheviks failed to discern an imminent danger emerging from Russia's political unrest and in 1921 the latter, making use of this failure, conquered the country once again.

In the same year, after the death of Patriarch Leonid, the Church Council elected St. Ambrosi (Khelaia) to the Throne of the Catholicos-Patriarch.

The Bolshevik Russia, having annexed Georgia, took steady and drastic measures against the Church, targeted at her complete destruction. The Christians had to endure multiple persecutions but none can be compared with the ruthlessness of the one which the Communists conducted in the 20s and 30s of the 20th centuries. They destroyed churches, tortured clergymen, put pressure on them, robbed churches and monasteries.

In the 20s of the 20th century more than thousand churches were closed, the service was cancelled.

Precisely, that persecution was the wave which aroused anger of the Catholicos-Patriarch Ambrosi Khelaia who truly sacrificed his life to his people by sending an address to the Conference in Guinea making known for the whole world the ordeal of the Georgian people. In his report he demanded to compel Russia to withdraw the troops and allow the Georgians to ?create the forms and structures of the social and political life which would be relevant to their life and not dictated or imposed by others?.

The Russian government, very indignant with the letter, arrested and brought to trial Patriarch Ambrosi; with him were arrested the likeminded clergymen: St. Nazari (Lezhava) Metropolitan of Kutaisi, Archimandrite Paul Japaridze, Kalistrate Tsintsadze who was Archpriest of Kashueti Church, deacon Dimitri (Lazarishvili) and others. In the process of investigation, they put pressure on the Patriarch, demanding from him to deny the issues, put forth by him at the conference. Nevertheless, in his profound final word the Patriarch underscored them as indispensable. He was sentenced to 7 years of imprisonment. Due to his illness, the term was reduced to 6 years. He died at the age of 66, on March 28th, 1927.

Under Communist rule, it befell on the Church of Georgia that the life within her bosom was determined by the benevolence of the governing authorities. This period can be divided into three stages. The Church was still persecuted until the year 1943. When at war with Germany, the government condescended mercifully on her and, acknowledging the independence of the Church of Russia, granted her the right to elect the Patriarch; respectively, the circumstances improved for the Church of Georgia also.

In 1943 the Russian Church recognized the three rights of the Church of Georgia: her autocephaly, the Patriarchal dignity and the 6th place in the diptych.

Notwithstanding these changes, under Khrushchev's rule the things reversed to the worse as his policy of ?democratic warming? did not extend to the Church.

In those times, clergymen were persecuted. However, different methods were applied to them. They were blackmailed by special state bodies. Here, we should remember the life of Patriarch Ephrem II who was persecuted thus. The same policy of moral persecution continued up to the early period of His Holiness Patriarch Ilia II and ended as late as in 1985.

The conditions sharply changed to the better side from 1985-86, but during the 70 years of the Communist rule many generations had been brought up with a negative attitude towards the Church and clergymen and this created an insurmountable difficulty for the people.

In their last years, the authorities allowed the edition and distribution of the Bible, neither was banned the publication of the Holy Scriptures in newspapers. This created a backdrop for the sects to disseminate their teaching. Denominations of Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses and others were provided with ample opportunity of a full-scale activity since they acknowledge the authority of the Bible but not that of the Church or of the clergymen.

Although the restoration of the autocephaly of the Church was proclaimed on March 12th 1917, the Russian Church only recognized it in 1943; the Orthodox Churches worldwide recognized it on the January 25th 1990. However, the question of her place in the diptych has not been determined so far; the place of the Church of Georgia has not been determined up to now and is still the issue of study for the Orthodox Churches the world over.

Late in the 20th century, his Holiness and Beatitude Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia Ilia II and the Holy Synod blessed the best sons of the country and prayed for them and for their cause of the restoration of Georgia's independence. After the people had regained freedom, they responded with love and gratitude to their blessing and the nation started to intensively return to the faith; new churches have been built in every town and village; the Holy Church and the state have signed a ?Concordance? which is targeted at the inspiration and edification of the Georgian nation and their sacred Orthodox faith. Amen.

MARINA GIGOLASHVILI, ROLAN KILADZE, GEORGE RAMISHVILI, VASILI KUKHIANIDZE

Georgian E. Kharadze National Astrophysical Observatory at Ilia Chavchavadze State University, Tbilisi, Georgia

1. Introduction
At present it is considered that Christianity was declared a state religion in Georgia in circa 326 AD, during the reign of King Mirian and Queen Nana. In the Georgian Chronicle [1] (Kaukhchishvili, 1955) it is stated that this event is connected with the adoption of Christianity by
King Mirian. Once he was hunting somewhere between Mtskheta (the ancient capital of Georgia) and Khashuri, near Mt. Tkhoti in dense woodland. It rapidly got dark and the Sun disappeared from the sky.
Mirian began to ask his traditional pagan gods, but to no avail. Then he addressed the god whom Nino from Cappadocia believed in (subsequently she became Saint Nino, a woman whose name is inseparably linked with the spread of Christianity in Georgia) and there was a miracle; the darkness suddenly disappeared and the Sun began shining in the sky again. Then Mirian turned to the East and thanked “Nino’s god”.

2. Contemporary investigations
In the 1930s the Georgian historian Ivane Javakhishvili appealed to astronomers to answer the question whether a total solar eclipse happened in Georgia in the fourth century or not. Based on the famous Canon der Finsternisse of Oppolzer [2], in which the change in the length of the day with current time (the result of tidal friction) was taken into account incompletely, astronomers could not find any eclipse during the mentioned period. Thus it seemed that the question was resolved.
However, after detailed tables and maps of solar and lunar eclipses had been published on the Web by Espenak [3], we have found out that a total solar eclipse did indeed occur in Georgia on 6 May 319 AD.

3. The circumstances of the solar eclipse
By calculating the circumstances of the eclipse with the use of Bessel's improved elements, we have found that Mount Tkhoti was on the central line of the eclipse [4-6]. For the place where Mirian was hunting (λ = 44°.55; φ = +41°.99), the circumstances of the eclipse are as follows: the start of the partial eclipse was at 14 h 58 m 01 s Universal Time (UT); the second contact was at 15 h 51 m 57 s UT; the third contact was at 15 h 53 m 50 s UT; the maximal phase was 1.018. The moments of sunset are as follows: bottom edge - at 15 h 59 m 24 s UT, top edge - at 16 h 02 m 29 s UT.
The central line of the eclipse passed through the settlements of Tsageri, Ambrolauri, Tskhinvali and Mtskheta. The northern boundary passed through the Caucasus Range (Elbrus, Upper Baksan and Kazbek). The southern boundary passed through Lake Paliastomi, Abastumani, Aspindza, Dmanisi and Akhtala. From the east the strip of the complete eclipse was limited by a line from Gardabani to Sagarejo.
Hence, the eclipse happened in the evening, before sunset; the duration of the total phase was about 2 min. At the moment of the maximal phase the height of the Sun above horizon was only 0°.8. The sunset began 5.6 min later, after the end of total phase (i.e., after the third contact).
We have investigated every solar eclipse (total, partial and annular) during the period 290-365 AD. In Table 1, the list of solar eclipses with a phase more than 0.8 for the period mentioned above is given for Mt. Tkhoti. In the columns of Table 1 are consistently given: the year, the month and the day of an eclipse, the moments of the first and second contacts, the maximal phase and the third and fourth contacts. In the last two columns are given the heights of the Sun above horizon (in degrees) at the moment of the maximal phase of an eclipse and the maximal phase (in %).

Table 1. The list of solar eclipses with a phase more than 0.8 during the reign of King Mirian

4. Other evidences
According to Kartlis Tskhovreba [1]), 3 crosses from cypress were made on 1 May. According to Ioane Zosime [7], it was the third Sunday after Easter. One of these crosses was raised near the capital of Georgia, Mtskheta, on 8 May. However, the year is not mentioned in these sources.
From further investigation it will be clarified that the event studied by us occurred before the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD). Hence, the contemporary rules of calculation on Easter were not still canonized. For this reason the authors have calculated the date on Easter by all possible methods.
To ascertain the exact date of this incident the authors investigated the data on all Easters during the probable period of the reign of King Mirian. With this period, the years when Easter took place on 17 April, have been chosen. Hence, the third Sunday after Easter fell on 1 May.
In Table 2, the data on Easters in the appropriate years are presented. In the first 3 columns are given the moments (year, month, day, hour and minute) of the first full moon after a spring equinox, according to Espenak [2]; in the following columns the data on Easter calculated by us by using different methods are given: by the ancient 19-year lunar cycle and approximate formulas of Gauss and Мееus [8-10]. In the last column of the table are given Easter data, selected by the authors with the use of the exact moments of full moon.

Table 2. The data on Easters during the reign of King Mirian

As is clear from Table 2, a 17 April Easter could only take place in the years 298, 309 and 320 AD. In Table 1, only two eclipses (306 and 319) are presented which could happen before the years when Easter took place on 17 April. However, the eclipse of 306 must be excluded for two reasons: it was a partial eclipse (with a maximal phase of 82%) and happened early in the morning. But this incident happened to King Mirian in the evening [1].

6. Conclusions
In the authors' opinion, the eclipse seen by King Mirian happened on the evening of 6 May, 319 AD. Later, in May 320 AD, cypress crosses were made and raised. Thus, we have answered the question raised 70 years ago by the Georgian historian Ivane Javakhishvili about the occurrence of a total solar eclipse in Georgia in the fourth century. The eclipse seen by King Mirian happened on the evening of 6 May, 319 AD. Later, in May 320 AD, cypress crosses were raised and Christianity was become the state religion of Georgia.


References

1. KAUKHCHISHVILI, S. (Editor), Kartlis Tskhovreba, Vol. 1, Sakhelgami, Tbilisi, pp. 108-111, 1955 (in Georgian).
2. OPPOLZER, Th. Von, Canon der Finsternisse, Kaiserlich-Koniglichen Hof und Staatsdruckerei, Wien, pp. 146–149, Blatt 73, 1887.
3. ESPENAK, F. NASA eclipse home page. Available online at: http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/eclipse.html (July 2003).
4. GIGOLASHVILI, M.SH., KILADZE, R.I., KUKHIANIDZE, V.J., RAMISHVILI G.T. Was the King Mirian’s miracle a natural phenomenon? Transdisciplinarity in Religion and Science, 1, 27-29, 2007.
5. KILADZE R.I., GIGOLASHVILI, M.SH., RAMISHVILI G.T., KUKHIANIDZE, V.J. On the possible date of adoption of Christianity as the state religion in Georgia, Bulletin of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences, 175, No. 2, 137-140, 2007.
6. GIGOLASHVILI, M.Sh., KILADZE R.I., KUKHIANIDZE, V.J., RAMISHVILI G.T. On the date when Cristianity become the state religion of Georgia, Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, V. 26, Issues 4-5, 199-201, 2007.
7. MUSKHELISHVILI, D. Saqartvelo IV-VIII Saukuneebshi (Georgia in IV-VIII Centuries), p. 25. Tbilisi, 2003 (in Georgian).
8. GUNIA B., Archpriest. Liturgikuli Shtudiebi I, Sapaseqo gamotvlebi (Liturgical Studies I.
Easter Calculations). Tbilisi, 2006 (in Georgian).
9. KLIMISHIN I.A. Kalendari i khronologiya (Calendars and Cronology), M. “Nauka”, p. 191,
1981 (in Russian).
10. KULIKOV S. Nit’ Vremen. Malaya Entsiklopediya Kalendarya (Thread of time. Small
Encyclopedia of calendar), M. “Nauka”, p. 288, 1991 (in Russian).

Introduction

Caucasia, the territory bounded by the Black and Caspian Seas and taking its name
from the Caucasus Mountains, has been a vibrant centre of Christianity since late
antiquity. By the reign of Constantine the Great, monarchs of the eastern Georgian
district of K‘art‘li (Greek Iberia) and Armenia had already embraced the Christian God;
soon afterwards Christianity also took root in nearby Lazika/Colchis and Caucasian
Albania. As Cyril Toumanoff (1963) and others have demonstrated, in many respects
early Christian Caucasia constituted a single historical and socio-cultural unit.
However, divergent responses to the imperial contest for Caucasia and the processes
leading to the establishment of separate Armenian and K‘art‘velian ‘national’ churches
ultimately led to a clear religious break, beginning in the early seventh century. Despite
this ecclesiastical estrangement, Armeno–Georgian relations have endured to the
present day, not least because of the shared experience of invasion and conquest by
foreign imperial powers as well as the persistence of the extensive, bicultural Armeno–
Georgian frontier zone. Any investigation of Christianity in Georgia must therefore take
into consideration the history of neighbouring lands, especially Armenia.
The Early Period
The Georgian Orthodox Church is one of the several ‘national’ churches of Eastern
Christianity and officially traces its foundation to the alleged evangelization of western
Georgia by the apostle Andrew and his companion Simon ‘the Canaanite’. But this is
a late tradition. The Andrew legend began to take root in Byzantium only in the ninth
century, largely in response to the special apostolic authority claimed by the papacy.
Embellished stories about Andrew’s travels quickly spread throughout eastern
Christendom. Within a century or two they were embraced and further expanded
by Georgian monks working in places such as Mount Athos and St Catherine’s mon-
astery on Mount Sinai.
Several lines of archaeological evidence, including burials, have shown beyond any
doubt that a small Christian presence already existed in eastern Georgia in the third
century. It is possible that some Jewish colonists in the K‘art‘velian cities of Urbnisi and
Mc‘xet‘a (Mtskheta), the royal seat, were early Christian adherents. Although the
Jewish presence in eastern Georgia goes back to a more ancient time, these colonies
were enlarged by the exodus following the Jewish Wars in the first and second centu-
ries. The Georgian written tradition, dating from the seventh century onwards, recalls
this fact by identifying some of the earliest Christian converts in K‘art‘li as Jews and by
advancing the spurious claim that two K‘art‘velian Jews witnessed the Crucifixion.
Along with this Jewish influence, Christian ideas also were introduced to eastern
Georgia by Manichaeans and, it would seem, Gnostics.
Early Georgian Christianity is characterized by its tremendous diversity, inclusive-
ness, and syncretic quality. The cosmopolitanism of pre-modern Caucasia, not just in
the religious sphere, owed much to the region’s status as a major Eurasian crossroads
and its proximity to the fabled Silk Roads. A sustained push to create a single, tightly
controlled Georgian Christianity and a concomitant obsession with identifying and
rooting out heresy commenced much later, in the ninth and tenth centuries, and
especially so in the eleventh to thirteenth centuries, under the Byzantine-oriented
Bagratids.
It is difficult to gauge the prevalence of Christianity among the eastern Georgians
before the fourth century. This uncertainty changes with the conversion of King Mirian
III (variants: Mirean/Mihran; r. 284–361) and his family, from whose reign Christian-
ity acquired the protection of the monarchy; within a century or so it became the
dominant faith of the realm. The earliest written story of Mirian’s conversion, an event
dated by many scholars to around 337, is preserved in Rufinus’ Ecclesiastical History,
which was composed in Latin in the early fifth century. The oldest extant (written)
Georgian account, The Conversion of K‘art‘li, is a product of the seventh century, while
a considerably more elaborate version, The Life of Nino, derives from the ninth or tenth
century. The interrelationship of these texts and the provenance of their traditions has
inspired lively debate, though most specialists accept that the historical Mirian was
converted through the intercession of the foreign, perhaps Cappadocian, holy woman
Nino and that he consequently favoured the Church in K‘art‘li by offering royal protec-
tion, supporting its administration, and contributing to the building of churches. The
chief prelate, sequentially styled bishop, archbishop, and then from the end of the fifth
century catholicos (Georgian kat‘alikos), was resident at the royal city Mc‘xet‘a.
Over the next two centuries a network of bishoprics was established under the
watchful eye of the K‘art‘velian king. Eastern Georgia’s landscape was predominantly
non-urban and so the administrative model adopted by the Church in the Roman/Byz-
antine Empire was not appropriate. K‘art‘velian bishops tended to be headquartered
at the estates of the most powerful aristocratic families (e.g., C‘urtavi in the Armeno–
Georgian frontier zone) and, after the sixth century, at important monasteries.
Extremely little is known about the early ecclesiastical hierarchy except that the
Archbishop of Mc‘xet‘a stood at its head. According to a later written tradition, Nino
herself selected the first two leaders of the Church in K‘art‘li. Between the fourth and
sixth centuries, from King Mirian to King P‘arsman VI (r. from 561), the chief prelates
were foreigners; several were Greek, while others were Armenian, Syrian and
Iranian (‘Iranian’ in this context may denote ‘Manichaean’). In fact, the initial phase
of Christianization was very much a pan-Caucasian phenomenon in which non-
Caucasians assumed a prominent role.
The Church in K‘art‘li was claimed by the Patriarchate of Antioch from an early
time, although in practice Caucasia was often beyond Antioch’s jurisdictional reach.
Up to the Arab conquest in the seventh century, when regular communications between
Caucasia and Syria were disrupted, the chief bishop of the Church in K‘art‘li received
ordination from Antioch. There is a later, dubious tradition, probably originating in the
eleventh century, that the exiled fourth-century Antiochene patriarch, Eustathius,
made his way to eastern Georgia and was responsible for guiding the affairs of the local
church. Similarly problematic is Elguja Xint‘ibidze’s assertion (1996) that some of
the early Cappadocian fathers, including Basil the Great, might actually have been
‘Iberians’, i.e., Georgians. Although there may in fact be a genealogical connection
of some kind, there is no compelling reason to believe that Basil identified himself as a
Georgian or that the alleged Georgian link was in some way instrumental to the forma-
tion of his ideas.
In order to propagate the faith rapidly among Mirian’s subjects, Christian leaders
deliberately invented a script for the K‘art‘velian idiom of Georgian so that biblical and
other religious texts could be translated into the local language. There is considerable
controversy about the origins of the Georgian script. The c.800 Life of the Kings, the
initial text of the corpus of medieval Georgian histories known as K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba (the
so-called Georgian Royal Annals or ‘Georgian Chronicles’), credits the first K‘art‘velian
monarch P‘arnavaz (r. 299–234 bce) with the invention of Georgian writing in early
Hellenistic times. There is, however, no direct evidence to support this fanciful claim.
For its part, the medieval Armenian tradition gives the honour of creating scripts for
Armenian, Georgian, and Caucasian Albanian to the Armenian cleric Mashtots, also
known as Mesrop. However, surviving manuscripts of the vita of Mashtots, like those
transmitting The Life of the Kings, postdate the schism between the Armenian and
K‘art‘velian Churches, and it is altogether possible that both have been manipulated
so as to give their respective parties precedence. In terms of chronology there can be
no question, however, that all three Caucasian scripts were fashioned by a Christian
impulse at about the same time, in the second half of the fourth century or early fifth
century. Thus, while Mashtots might not have been involved personally with oversee-
ing the creation of the Georgian script, there is every reason to think that a Christian
pan-Caucasian effort was afoot. Armenian clerics would have played a conspicuous
role in the project since their Church – established just a generation previously, after
the conversion of King Trdat c.314 – was the largest and organizationally the most
developed among the embryonic Caucasian churches.
Thus by the end of the fourth and certainly by the start of the fifth century, Christian
clerics had equipped themselves with a Georgian script, called asomt‘avruli. The Gospels
were probably the first to be rendered into Georgian. Translated ecclesiastical literature
has remained important in Georgia ever since. None of these early translations have
survived intact; the oldest extant Georgian manuscripts are palimpsest fragments of
translations deriving from the fifth to the eighth century. They are exclusively religious
in nature and transmit texts from both the Old and New Testaments, as well as liturgi-
cal, homiletic, and even apocryphal works. It should be noted that some Byzantine
sources that are otherwise lost are now preserved only in Georgian translations, includ-
ing Hippolytus’ Commentary on the Song of Songs, Metrophanes of Smyrna’s Commentary
on Ecclesiastes, Eustratius of Nicaea’s Brief Memorandum on When and Why the Romans
and their Church Deviated from the Divine Eastern Church, and On Festivals, the last of
which was fabulously attributed to Justinian I. Works originally composed in yet other
languages are also uniquely preserved in Georgian, including The Passion of Michael of
Mar Saba, which was translated from Arabic in the ninth or tenth century.
At the end of the fifth century the first known example of original Georgian literature
appeared: The Martyrdom of Shushaniki, composed by her confessor Iakob C‘urtaveli
(Jacob of C‘urtavi). Like other specimens of early Georgian literature, it relates the deeds
of a holy person. Original Georgian literary works are rather uncommon prior to the
rise of the Bagratid dynasty in the ninth century, nevertheless hagiography appears to
have been the genre of choice in the initial stage of local literature. These saintly biog-
raphies were written by Christians for the strengthening and defence of the faith of
Christ, but they relate relatively few details about the condition and structure of the
contemporary Church in K‘art‘li. However, the Georgian-language vitae of Shushaniki
(fifth century), Evstat‘i (c.600), and Habo (variant Abo, eighth century) are testaments
to the diverse, multicultural character of early Georgian Christianity. All three of these
Christian heroes were non-K‘art‘velians who lived and were killed in eastern Georgia:
Shushaniki was an Armenian princess; Evstat‘i, an Iranian and son of a Zoroastrian
high priest; and Habo, an Arab. What was most important in these early hagiographies
is a sense of Christian affiliation, not ethnicity.
In the case of Evstat‘i and Habo, saintly biographies demonstrated that Christianity
could overcome its enemies and doubters. Further, the physical location of the stories
in eastern Georgia was of immense importance, for it showed that even in Caucasia, so
far from the Holy Land, the Christian God could work miracles and guide local affairs.
Biblical history was enlarged geographically and chronologically through such tradi-
tions. The originals of such vitae are lost, and the copies that we do have are typically
found in collections of saints’ lives of the eleventh century onwards. Although all of
this material is in Georgian, the vast majority of the vitae celebrate holy men and
women from elsewhere in the Christian world. Other materials in the collections consist
of ecumenical Christian patristic, homiletic, theological, and exegetical writings, these
works having been translated into Georgian, often from Greek. For example, the
eleventh-century Parxali mravalt‘avi (polycephalon) incorporates the Georgian vitae of
Shushaniki and Habo as well as materials relating to Nino, but also well over a hundred
items of an ecumenical nature. As a consequence of this structure, Georgian saints
were made every bit as legitimate as saints recognized by the universal Church, and
Georgian Christianity was made part of the larger Christian experience.
The writing of saints’ lives in eastern Georgia constantly evolved to reflect changing
local conditions. The most ancient Georgian hagiographies are passions and martyr-
doms. Then, after the foundation of monasticism in K‘art‘li in the sixth century, the



lives and activities of other holy men (and, rarely, women), especially monks, were
composed. In the seventh century a narrative of Nino’s travails was put into writing.
Out of this hagiographical context was produced the first written Georgian-language
historiographical texts in the early ninth century. It is worth noting that medieval
Georgian histories tend to focus narrowly on kings and kingship and offer relatively
few clues about the state of the local church.
Original and translated Georgian literature alike reveals the southerly orientation
of early Georgian Christianity, towards Jerusalem, Syria and Armenia. The earliest
written versions of Nino’s biography exude the eastern Georgians’ deep admiration for
Jerusalem. Among other things, Nino was given a direct – but possibly fabulous – con-
nection with that city and its patriarch, and holy sites in Mc‘xet‘a were named in
honour of its most important Christian places. A number of scholars have shown the
preservation of the Jerusalem rite in original and translated Georgian sources of the
pre-Bagratid period (i.e., especially before the tenth century). Of special importance are
the medieval Georgian iadgaris, roughly the equivalent of Byzantine tropologia. In the
words of musicologist Peter Jeffery,

Though the original Greek manuscripts are lost, the medieval Georgian translations permit
us to know what [the early Jerusalem repertories] contained, to trace their historical
development, and to document the influence Jerusalem asserted on other Eastern and
Western centers of liturgical chant . . . Georgian chant is in some respects our most direct
witness to the period and processes in which all medieval Christian liturgical chant was
formed.

T‘amila Mgaloblishvili’s splendid investigation (1991) of the Klarjet‘ian mravalt‘avi has
substantiated the importance of the era of King Vaxtang I Gorgasali (r. 447–522) in
the translation and adaptation of liturgical and other ecclesiastical materials into
Georgian.
Indeed, the reign of Vaxtang has traditionally been portrayed as a period of tremen-
dous growth for Georgian Christianity. There can be no question of the extension of
bishoprics in this era as well as the translating, writing, and copying of texts both at
home and by K‘art‘velian monks resident abroad, especially in Levantine monasteries
such as Mar Sabas. The pattern of foreign monasteries as the central sites of Georgian
literary production was thus established back in the fifth century. It was also at this
time that we observe the eastern Georgians being drawn into the theological disputes
of the larger Church. In an attempt to secure K‘art‘velian support and to acknowledge
local support of the empire, the Byzantine government recognized – and perhaps itself
instigated – the change in status of the K‘art‘velian chief prelate from archbishop to
catholicos, around the year 480. Fully-fledged autocephaly would not be achieved,
however, until the Arab conquest or later. In the sixth century eastern Georgian bishops
attended ecclesiastical councils hosted by the Armenians and together with other
Caucasian religious leaders voiced their opposition to Chalcedon.
However, eastern Georgia’s geopolitical situation and especially the increasing
weakness of its monarchy compelled the K‘art‘velian secular and religious elite to seek
aid from Constantinople. The growing Iranian menace forced Vaxtang to seek refuge
in Byzantine-controlled eastern Anatolia on at least two occasions. Sassanid influence
steadily expanded in eastern Georgia: an Iranian marzbān was established in the
recently-(re)founded city of T‘bilisi (older orthography Tp‘ilisi, Russian Tiflis) in 523,
and according to the careful research of Toumanoff (1963), K‘art‘velian kingship was
completely extinguished by Iran several decades later, around the year 580. Within a
decade the political vacuum was filled by a series of ‘presiding princes’, which lasted
down to the re-establishment of local kingship by the Bagratid dynasty in 888.
The Long Sixth Century is perhaps the single most developmentally significant
period of Georgian Christianity. Though the K‘art‘velian political situation plunged
deeper and deeper into crisis, the Church in K‘art‘li was strengthened and remade itself
into a ‘national’ organization. During the reign of P‘arsman VI (561 to 579 at latest),
the so-called Thirteen Syrian Fathers under the leadership of the Iovane Zedazadneli
(John ‘of Zedazadeni’) entered eastern Georgia and acquired the king’s permission to
establish a series of monasteries. Among them were Davit‘ Garesjeli (David ‘of Garesja’),
founder of the monastic complex in the Garesja (variant Gareji) desert in the eastern
region of Kaxet‘i, and Shio Mghwmeli, who established a monastery at the Mghwme
(Mghvime) caves just upriver from Mc‘xet‘a. The Thirteen Syrian Fathers attracted a
considerable body of local pupils and this increased the demand for books throughout
the land.
It is worth recalling that while these men are credited with the implantation of
monasticism in eastern Georgia, the K‘art‘velians had previously been acquainted with
it; a considerable number of K‘art‘velians, like the famous anti-Chalcedonian Peter the
Iberian, had journeyed abroad, especially to Jerusalem. The Syrian monks were likely
anti-Chalcedonians (modern observers have variously identified them as Miaphysites
and Nestorians), although our relatively late sources do not indicate how or whether
this affiliation affected their labours in eastern Georgia. However, at the time of their
arrival, the Church in K‘art‘li remained in the non-Chalcedonian camp with the
Armenians and Caucasian Albanians.
Yet the anti-Chalcedonian union among Caucasian Christians was becoming
increasingly fragile. P‘arsman VI’s reign witnessed not only the implantation of monas-
ticism in eastern Georgia but also the ‘nativization’ of the K‘art‘velian ecclesiastical
hierarchy. A dramatic shift in self-consciousness resulted in the struggle waged by the
inflexible catholicoi of K‘art‘li and Armenia. According to the later sources for the
episode preserved in the Armenian Book of Letters (Girk‘ T‘ght‘ots‘), at first the dispute
centred on the Armenian allegation that the K‘art‘velian Catholicos Kwrion had not
dedicated his full energies to the war against ‘Nestorianism’. At the heart of the struggle
were three issues. First, what was the proper relationship of Christian Caucasia with
the Byzantine Empire? Second, was the diversity of Christianity as practised in the
eastern Georgian domains appropriate? Finally, who, if anyone, should have the right
to make decisions affecting the Christians of greater Caucasia, including the definition
of what constituted Orthodoxy? In other words, who, if anyone, held ultimate ecclesi-
astical authority in Christian Caucasia and what was the structure of the regional
church hierarchy?
The Armenians believed themselves, or at least local ecclesiastical councils held
under the presidency of the Armenian catholicos, to possess that ultimate, pan-
Caucasian authority. Kwrion dissented, an action not unexpected in light of the great
energy and newfound boldness displayed by K‘art‘velian church officials. Finally, at
their Third Council of Dvin, held in 607, the Armenians condemned Kwrion and his
adherents, and a schism between the two Caucasian churches was set into motion.
It would be another century before this break would become permanent. Though
Armenian polemical works were directed against the eastern Georgians not long after
Dvin III (this occurring within the larger context of the separation of the imperial and
Armenian churches studied by Nina Garsoïan, 1999), the K‘art‘velians would seem to
have ‘returned fire’ only much later. The earliest known such work was penned by the
eleventh-century Catholicos Arsen Sap‘areli (‘of Sap‘ara’).
Kwrion’s Christological orientation has proven a bone of contention: was he a Dio-
physite, a Miaphysite or a Monothelite? There is some evidence suggesting the last, but
what is certain is that this public dispute with the Armenians brought theology squarely
into the K‘art‘velian foreground. And to the eastern Georgians, the theological issue
was inseparable from the question of relations with Byzantium. Over the course of the
sixth century, the eastern Georgian elite pinned its protection and fate more and more
on Constantinople, and the Armenians had objected to this and resented its pos-
sible implications. From Constantinople’s perspective, such alliances required what
amounted to a declaration of faith: for the K‘art‘velians to receive Byzantine support
and assistance, they would have to embrace the imperial form of Christianity. Kwrion
seems to have put his church on that path. But in the reign of the Byzantine Emperor
Heraclius (610–41), a great many K‘art‘velian churchmen abandoned their non-
Chalcedonian position. Heraclius’ very appearance in K‘art‘li, as he was en route to
Sassanid Iran, and his promotion of Byzantine Christianity, was unprecedented in
Georgian history. So great was the impact that the episode is uniquely reported in three
separate medieval Georgian-language histories.
The excitement stemming from Heraclius’ defeat of the Iranian army and his sacking
of Seleucia-Ctesiphon was short-lived. Iran and Byzantium had been exhausted from
the prolonged war, and both were susceptible to the new, well-organized opponent
from the south, the Arabs. Sassanid Iran was an initial target, the Arabs managing to
kill the last Sassanid king in 651. Byzantine possessions in Mesopotamia were also
coveted by the Arabs. The routing of a Byzantine army at Yarmuk in August 636
opened the door to Syria; by 638 Syria and Palestine, including the patriarchates at
Jerusalem and Antioch, were in Muslim hands. The invasion of Christian Caucasia
commenced by 640 and five years later Arab troops had penetrated eastern Georgia.
In 654–5 the city of T‘bilisi surrendered and eastern Georgia was occupied. As was the
case in neighbouring Armenia, a major component of the Arabs’ approach was the
colonization of Christian Caucasia.
In the meantime, Byzantine Egypt also succumbed to the Arabs, in September 642.
Egypt is mentioned here because of the infamous Patriarch Cyrus of Alexandria. It was
Cyrus, a favourite of Heraclius and a staunch advocate of Monothelitism, who surren-
dered Egypt. This Cyrus may have a direct connection to Georgia. Zaza Alek‘sidze
(1968) has advanced the provocative argument that Cyrus is none other than the
Catholicos Kwrion. That Cyrus was deemed personally responsible for the dramatic loss
of Egypt to the infidels, and that he and his Monothelite partners were singled out and
excommunicated at the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 681, may explain why Kwrion’s
memory was expunged from medieval Georgian sources.
By the end of the seventh or start of the eighth century, Christianity in eastern
Georgia had been radically transformed. For the first time in its history, a distinct tradi-
tion of the foundation of K‘art‘velian Christianity was put into writing. In its original
form, the succinct Conversion of K‘art‘li was produced sometime in the seventh century,
presumably within a few decades of the events of 607 (Rapp and Crego 2006). Although
The Conversion undoubtedly preserves many older, accurate memories of how Christi-
anity triumphed in the time of Nino and Mirian, the work as a whole must also be seen
in large measure as a seventh-century declaration of autonomy: the K‘art‘velian
Church was an independent organization and, significantly, connections to the con-
temporaneous conversions of Armenia and Albania have for the most part been
expunged. Indeed, it was in this period that the Church in K‘art‘li was transformed into
the ethnically focused K‘art‘velian Church. Though observers of the time did not explic-
itly note the change or apply new terminology to the local church, the K‘art‘velian
Church was strikingly different in its organization and mission. Its hierarchy, including
the office of catholicos, was now monopolized by eastern Georgians, especially
K‘art‘velians. What is more, it had now become a ‘national’ church, an organization
by and for the dominant K‘art‘velian ethnie. This is reflected in contemporary Georgian-
language vitae, such as the eighth-century Martyrdom of Habo by Iovane Sabanis-dze.
In the case of Habo, an Arab migrant to the Georgian territories, conversion to
Christianity was not enough: he had to embrace the local, K‘art‘velian, form of
Christianity which entailed, inter alia, learning the Georgian language and ‘convert-
ing’ to K‘art‘velian culture. After Habo the heroes of original hagiographies tend to be
K‘art‘velians or other Georgians; the cosmopolitanism of early K‘art‘velian Christianity
was thus curtailed, though by virtue of Georgia’s location in a prominent Eurasian
crossroads this condition never completely disappeared.
K‘art‘velian political authority remained feeble throughout the ninth century, and
as it had in previous times the local church postured to fill the void. But the Arab con-
quest brought changes to the K‘art‘velian Church. As a result of the occupation, what
may have been thousands of religious and secular elites evacuated the region. Some
travelled east into the mountainous far eastern regions of Kaxet‘i, while many others
sought refuge in the Georgian south-west, in regions such as Tao (the Armenian Tayk‘),
Klarjet‘i and Shavshet‘i, where the Arabs had been unable to extend their dominion.
Over the next two centuries a K‘art‘li-in-exile was created, which I call neo-K‘art‘li.
This area was instrumental in the later re-conquest of eastern Georgia. Georgian
Christianity not only survived, it flourished.
From the south-western domains, it gained unprecedented access to Byzantium and
the imperial church, and by the tenth century this influx of Byzantine forms and ideas
led to a reorientation of the local church away from the south and towards the Byzan-
tine Empire. A prime example of this shift in Christian orientation is the deliberate
substitution of the Jerusalemite liturgy with the Constantinopolitan. At the same time,
monastic institutions thrived as never before. A number of enormous, often autono-
mous monastic foundations were established throughout the south western domains.
The chief figure associated with this development is the monk Grigol Xandzt‘eli (George
‘of Xandzt‘a/Khandzt‘a’). Xandzt‘eli’s biography, composed by his pupil Giorgi
Merch‘ule, is not only an extensive record of the growth and development of K‘art‘velian
monasticism, but it also supplies rare glimpses into the political and everyday life of
contemporary neo-K‘art‘li. This vita also expresses the idea of a K‘art‘velian ‘national’
church in so far as it makes the Georgian language (i.e., the K‘art‘velian dialect) not
only a legitimate sacred language but also an essential component of Georgian
Christianity.
Neo-K‘art‘li’s prosperity contributed to the rejuvenation of K‘art‘velian political life
under the Bagratids. Ironically, the Bagratids were originally an Armenian family;
there is evidence that in Vaxtang’s time some of them had already entered the service
of the K‘art‘velian monarchy. But it is in the years immediately following the crushing
of a disastrous uprising by Armenian noble families against the Arabs in 772 that a
branch of the family migrated to neo-K‘art‘li, where they permanently settled and were
rapidly acculturated. In 813 the Bagratid prince Ashot I seized the presiding principate
and three-quarters of a century later, in 888, his relative Adarnase II restored local
kingship. Great though his achievement was, Adarnase could not have guessed that
the Bagratid line of kings would monopolize political power in much of Georgia for the
next thousand years, up until the Russian conquest of the nineteenth century.
The greatest and most enduring achievement of the Georgian Bagratids, who had
risen to power under Byzantine tutelage, was the political unification of lands on both
the eastern and western sides of the Surami mountains, beginning with the union of
part of K‘art‘li, neo-K‘art‘li, and the western region of Ap‘xazet‘i (Russian Abkhazia);
this was engineered by Bagrat III in 1008. It is worth emphasizing that, up to the start
of the Bagratid era, the historical and ecclesiastical experiences of eastern and western
Georgia often diverged. Western territories including Ap‘xazet‘i, and before it Lazika
and Egrisi/Colchis, fell more under the influence (and sometimes direct control) of the
Roman and then the Byzantine Empire. Consequently, western Georgian Christianity
developed along different lines from that in eastern territories such as K‘art‘li (it should
be noted that labelling the western regions as ‘Georgian’ in this early period is extremely
misleading and projects back later realities and perceptions; L. G. Khrushkova’s use of
‘Eastern Black Sea’ (2002) in this context is more historically accurate).
Although the beginning of the conversion of western Georgia may also be traced to
the fourth century, the Christianity introduced and fostered there tended to be more in
line with that sanctioned by Constantinople. Bishops sitting in the western regions took
part in the first and fifth ecumenical councils. Once the Bagratids took the reins of
power in Ap‘xazet‘i, the church of western Georgia was merged with that of the East.
That having been said, however, the K‘art‘velian Church, especially as it existed in
neo-K‘art‘li, often exerted influence over other regions, including western Georgia, long
before the Bagratids assumed control of these places. Thus religious uniformity often
preceded political unity. By the eleventh century, the Bagratids had realigned local
royal imagery – both in art and in the historical texts they sponsored – from its
traditional southern-facing, Iranian orientation to one more attuned to Christian
Byzantium. In this development, too, we must acknowledge the influence of the eastern
Georgian Church and its similar reorientation from the south (in this case, Palestine,
Syria and Armenia) to the west, towards the Byzantine Commonwealth. In other
words, the local church’s intensive adoption and adaptation of Byzantine models from
the ninth and especially tenth century preceded and stimulated a similar reorientation
by the political elite in the tenth and eleventh centuries.


The Medieval Bagratid Period

With the definite expansion of the K‘art‘velian Church beyond lands inhabited
primarily by K‘art‘velians in the tenth and eleventh centuries, we can begin to speak
properly of the Georgian Church. The growing prestige of the Church attracted
the Bagratids’ constant attention. Potentially, the Georgian Church was as much a
powerful ally as it was a dangerous rival. When the Catholicos Melk‘isedek petitioned
for tax immunity around the year 1031, King Bagrat IV (r. 1027–72) had little choice
but to comply, for he relied heavily on the support of the local church in his obstacle-
laden quest for political consolidation and unification. A number of royal charters
acknowledging such immunities along with property rights have come down to us. As
early as Bagrat’s time the crown sometimes attempted to restrict the powers of and even
subordinate the ecclesiastical hierarchy, but these attempts, led by the Georgian
Athonite Giorgi Mt‘acmideli (variant Mtatsmindeli, ‘of the Holy Mountain’), failed. A
reflection of the increasing power and prestige of the Georgian Church is the assump-
tion of the title ‘patriarch’ (patriark‘i) by its chief prelate at some point in the eleventh
century. Who authorized this alteration of status is unknown; it may very well have
been self-generated, without the endorsement or even knowledge of Byzantine
officials.
King Davit‘ II, nicknamed Aghmashenebeli (‘the [Re-]Builder’, r. 1089–1125),
manipulated church affairs to an unprecedented degree. During his reign the first
attested all-Georgian ecclesiastical councils took place, the most famous of which
occurred in 1103 at the neighbouring Ruisi and Urbnisi churches not far from the city
of Gori. These assemblies mimicked the Ecumenical Councils, albeit on a smaller, Cau-
casian scale. At least one council examined Miaphysitism, a burning issue owing to the
Georgian annexation of much of Caucasian Armenia. Indeed, it was in the second half
of the eleventh century that the Georgian Catholicos Arseni Sap‘areli wrote a tract
censuring the anti-Chalcedonian Armenians for the schism. It was in this time, under
the Bagratid regime, that the Georgian Church embarked on an unprecedented pro-
gramme to define, unmask and combat heresy. At the Ruisi-Urbnisi council Davit‘
succeeded in appointing supporters and close associates to many of the highest eccle-
siastical positions. He also created a new official, the mcignobart‘-uxucesi chqondideli,
which combined a major secular position with the bishopric of Chqondidi, one of the
most important episcopal sees in western Georgia. After the patriarchate, the See of
Chqondidi was now the second highest position in the Georgian Church. The king’s
intention was to control appointments to this office in order to manipulate church
affairs as part of his larger project to expand and centralize state control. However, a
headstrong mcignobart‘-uxucesi chqondideli might also turn the institution on its head
by giving the Church a clear path to interfere in secular matters. This tension is evident
throughout the ‘golden age’ of the Bagratids that ended with the Mongol conquest.
The ninth to thirteenth century witnessed an unprecedented blossoming of ecclesi-
astical culture. Stone churches were constructed throughout the Georgian domains,
and they were decorated with beautiful frescoes. This was also a period of intensive
literary output. In 897 the oldest complete copy of the Georgian Gospels was made, the
so-called Adyshi variant, named for the city in the northern region of Svanet‘i in which
it was discovered. In the tenth century a number of Gospels appear: Urbnisi (906), Opiza
(913), K‘sani (early tenth century), Jruchi (936), Mount Sinai (two variants, mid-
century and 978), Parxali (973), Bert‘ay (988), and Tbet‘i (995). As the extensive
studies by Ilia Abuladze show (1944), the ninth and tenth centuries, especially the
period 840 to 960, witnessed the translation of many Armenian hagiographies and
other ecclesiastical texts into Georgian and vice versa. This was an attempt of the two
peoples to understand one another at a time when large numbers of Armenians were
subjected to Georgian political authority.
In the twelfth century, the Georgian Royal Annals, K‘art‘lis c‘xovreba, were trans-
lated and adapted into Armenian. Starting in the early eleventh century we possess
several royal charters granting ecclesiastical tax immunity and the like; such docu-
ments become especially plentiful in the second half of the century. The original eccle-
siastical-historical compilation known as Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay, with its core component
The Conversion of K‘art‘li (initially composed back in the seventh century), took shape
in early Bagratid times. Its oldest surviving manuscripts were copied in the tenth
century, and include the famous Shatberdi Codex (named for the neo-K‘art‘velian
monastery by the same name founded by Grigol Xandzt‘eli) and the N/Sin.-50 manu-
script from St Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai. Mok‘c‘evay k‘art‘lisay includes
The Life of Nino, an enlarged, reworked version of The Conversion, which itself was
written in the ninth or early tenth century.
The role of monasteries in the production and safeguarding of such texts should not
be underestimated. Shatberdi in neo-K‘art‘li was a particularly important literary
centre. Of even greater significance in this regard were Georgian monks and monastic
foundations abroad. The monastic diaspora, especially in the Holy Land and Syria,
played a decisive role in medieval Georgian Christianity. In the ninth to thirteenth
centuries Georgian monks were resident throughout the Eastern Christian world. Mon-
asteries dominated by Georgians or having large Georgian constituencies were also
widespread. The most famous of these were Iveron (Greek for ‘of the Iberians/Geor-
gians’; the Georgians sometimes referred to it as the k‘art‘velt‘a monastiri, or ‘Monastery
of the Georgians’) on Mount Athos, St Catherine’s on Mount Sinai, the Monastery of
the Holy Cross in Jerusalem (rebuilt by Proxore/Prochoros ‘of Shavshet‘i’ in the elev-
enth century), the Monastery of the Black Mountain near Antioch in Syria, and Petri-
cioni near Bachkovo in Bulgaria. A large number of original Georgian compositions,
especially of a theological nature, were produced in these places, and copies were sent
back to Georgia. Many translations of ecclesiastical literature were also made into
Georgian, especially from Greek. The eleventh century saw the formation of distinct
literary schools among Georgian monks. Some advocated a free-form translation from
Greek while others, including Ep‘rem Mcire (Ephrem ‘the Lesser’), promoted transla-
tions that slavishly reproduced the Greek even at the risk of clouding comprehension
of the translated text.
The energetic ‘golden age’ of the medieval Georgian monarchy of the Bagratids came
to an end in the thirteenth century as a consequence of the overextension of resources
on the part of the Crown, the inept rule of Giorgi IV Lasha (r. 1213–23) and the casting
of Mongol hegemony over much of the Caucasian isthmus. Mongol rule had several
consequences. Political power was fragmented, although a shadow of royal authority
endured. At times, the Mongols recognized more than one Bagratid as king simultane-
ously. Bagratid power within Georgia was sometimes questioned, but the Bagratids
entered the post-Mongol era with their monopoly over royal authority intact. The
Georgian Church also survived the Mongol onslaught, although its special position had
in some ways been contested. In Ap‘xazet‘i, during Mongol times, a separate, rival
‘patriarchate’ was established (or re-established; there is a divergence of opinion over
when a patriarchate in Ap‘xazet‘i was first created). As early as 1224, in a response to
a letter announcing the enthronement of Queen Rusudan (r. 1223–45) the previous
year, Pope Honorius III had invited the Georgians to join a new crusade against the
Muslims. The exchange of letters continued under the pontificate of Gregory IX, and in
1240 Rusudan begged him for assistance, as the Mongol invasion was unleashed upon
her country. Though the Pope could do little more than offer encouragement to the
Christians of distant Caucasia, he urged the Georgians to enter formal communion with
the Catholic Church. In the first half of the thirteenth century the Georgian Church
was drifting into schism with the Byzantine Church, and Rusudan seems to have
attempted to counterbalance Byzantine influence with that of the papacy. This is remi-
niscent of an earlier period, the fourth century, when King Mirian had sought to restrict
the influence of Sassanid Iran by accepting the new religion of Constantine the Great.
In the reign of Rusudan and continuing throughout the thirteenth century, Fran-
ciscan and Dominican friars established a foothold in Georgia. In 1328 Pope John XXII
established a see in the city of T‘bilisi and in the following year appointed the Dominican
John of Florence as the first Catholic bishop in Georgia. This see existed down to the
early sixteenth century. Despite these inroads, Orthodox Georgians never accepted
formal reunion with the Roman Church.
From the late 1380s to about 1400 the Georgian lands were invaded by the armies
of Timur (Tamerlane). Many places were devastated; churches and monasteries were
singled out for plunder. Local Bagratid kings were in no position to defend the embattled
Church. Starting under the Mongols, autonomous non-Bagratid ‘principalities’ had
been established in the west and south-west, including in Samc‘xe, Samegrelo (Men-
grelia), and Ap‘xazet‘i. Though a united Georgian kingdom was reassembled by the
Bagratid Alek‘sandre I (r. 1412–42), political union did not extend past his death;
Georgia would not again be united until the establishment of Russian control in the
nineteenth century. In the thirteenth to early fifteenth century, the authority of the
Georgian Church was diminished. Existing churches fell into disrepair and many were
destroyed.
The state of deterioration persisted for the next two centuries. The fall of Constanti-
nople in 1453 deprived the Bagratids and the Georgian Church of potential Byzantine
aid, but the psychological impact was more important than loss of material support,
which for a long time had been meagre. The re-emergence of a strong Iranian state
under the Safavids and the rising fortunes of the Ottomans had dramatic consequences
for Georgia. The intense rivalry of these two Islamic enterprises was often played out
in the Caucasian arena, a situation not unlike the earlier imperial contests fought
in the isthmus by Rome and Byzantium and Iran and Islam. The Georgian political
elite attempted once more to play the great powers off one another, but ultimately
their Christian affiliation was a hindrance as both the Ottomans and Safavids were
Islamic (compare the situation under Mirian III with Christian Byzantium and
Zoroastrian Iran).
Some Georgian princes and kings converted to Islam and the Georgian Church fell
upon even harder times. After their occupation of south-western Georgia in the six-
teenth century, the Ottomans actively established mosques throughout the region.
There were some opportunities to repair existing church buildings, as was the case with
the restoration of the Sioni cathedral in T‘bilisi and Sueti-c‘xoveli (modern Sveti-
c‘xoveli, i.e., Church of the ‘Life-Giving Pillar’) in Mc‘xet‘a by King Vaxtang VI, but this
was the exception rather than the norm. This was also a renewed period of Georgian
martyrs. In September 1624 the queen of Kaxet‘i K‘et‘evan was put to death by
order of Shah Abbas I (r. 1587–1629). Her martyrdom was reported to the pope by
Augustinian fathers, who were then resident in Iran.


The Modern Period

The fact that Catholic monks reported K‘et‘evan’s murder reflects the renewed influ-
ence of Catholicism in the seventeenth century. This influence was made possible
largely through French relations with the Ottomans and Iranians. In 1626 Theatine
missionaries first visited western Georgia. One of their number, Cristoforo Castelli, pro-
duced many detailed drawings of the region and its leaders, which remain a valuable
and unique source of information. From 1661 until their expulsion by the Russians in
1845 Capuchins were established in eastern Georgia, at T‘bilisi. Several Bagratid
princes and kings and even Georgian patriarchs flirted with Catholicism and many
more were sympathetic to it. The famous scholar Vaxushti Bagrationi, a son of Vaxtang
VI and author of a famous history and geography of all Georgia, was educated by
Catholics based in T‘bilisi. Vaxtang’s uncle and adviser, Sulxan-Saba Orbeliani, actu-
ally converted to Catholicism. Orbeliani was author of several books, including the first
lexicon of the Georgian language and memoirs of his travels to western Europe, which
had begun in 1713. This journey was undertaken so as to solicit aid for the embattled
Vaxtang VI from Pope Clement IX and the French King Louis XIV.
The resurgence of Catholicism in Georgia had other important literary consequences.
In 1629 the first Georgian printing press was set up in Rome through the collaboration
of the Georgian envoy Prince-Monk Nikephoros Irbak‘idze and Italian scholars. Yet
again we observe the importance of the tiny Georgian diaspora in the history of Geor-
gian literature and Christianity. The first printed books in Georgian were intended to
aid Catholic missionary endeavours among the Georgians and included a 3,000-word
Georgian-Italian vocabulary. The first printing press in Georgia was established by
Vaxtang VI in T‘bilisi in 1709 and was active until 1723. Early publications were reli-
gious, and included the Four Gospels (1709) and a book of liturgies (1710). However,
the first edition of the great Georgian epic, the Vep‘xistqaosani (The Knight in the Pan-
ther’s Skin), by the thirteenth-century poet Shot‘a Rust‘aveli, appeared in 1712. The
next great centre of Georgian printing was Moscow, where from 1737 books were
published by members of the exiled Georgian royal family. Chief among the early
Moscow publications is the first complete printed edition of the Georgian Bible,
dated 1743.
That Moscow (and St Petersburg) was a centre of early Georgian printing was
hardly accidental. The crushing psychological blow resulting from the destruction of
Christian Byzantium by the Ottomans and the bloody conflict waged in Georgia and
throughout Caucasia by the Ottomans and Iranians compelled many Georgian elites
to look northwards to Orthodox Russia, for support and protection. From the late
fifteenth century, several embassies were exchanged between eastern Georgia and
the Russian Empire. The Orthodox Christianity shared by the Georgians and Russians
was crucial in the growing dialogue. And, as Kenneth Church (2001) has cogently
argued, both peoples contributed to and accepted an ‘extermination thesis’ whereby
Christian Georgian society would be wiped out in the absence of full-scale Russian
intervention.
In 1783 the Bagratid king of eastern Georgia, Erekle II (r. 1762–98), and the Russian
Empress Catherine the Great (r. 1762–96) agreed to make Georgia a ‘protectorate’ of
the empire. Among other things, the Treaty of Georgievisk guaranteed the sovereignty
of the Georgian monarchy and Church. After the devastating Iranian attack upon
eastern Georgia and especially T‘bilisi by Agha Muhammad Khan in 1795 the Geor-
gians were unable to mount serious opposition to further Russian encroachments, and
in 1801 the empire annexed eastern Georgia, in part using the ‘extermination thesis’
to justify its unilateral action. The remaining Georgian lands were gathered under
Russian hegemony over the course of the eighteenth century.
The implications of Russian rule for the Georgian Church were numerous. The
‘patriarchate’ of Ap‘xazet‘i had already disappeared in 1795; with the establishment
of their direct control over the eastern regions of K‘art‘li and Kaxet‘i, Russia sought to
curb Georgian institutions that might challenge their authority. The Georgian Church
was specially targeted and its patriarchate was abolished in 1811, when Antoni II, son
of King Erekle II, was forced into exile. Disenfranchised remnants of the church hierar-
chy were absorbed into the Russian Holy Synod. The first exarch, Metropolitan Varlaam,
belonged to the Georgian nobility. But once Varlaam’s tenure ended in spring 1817,
his successors, starting with Feofilakt Rusanov, were ethnic Russians whose knowledge
of Georgia and its culture was extremely limited.
Georgian Christianity was now subjected to the Russification sweeping across the
empire. The Russian liturgy replaced the Georgian. Episcopal sees in Georgia were
reorganized so as to tighten the exarch’s control. Frescoes in churches were systemati-
cally whitewashed. Over the next century, church buildings were poorly maintained
and by the 1860s and 1870s corruption within the exarchate was rampant. But
although under attack, Georgian ecclesiastical culture was by no means forced into
extinction. For example, some religious books were published in the Georgian lan-
guage. In 1882 Mixail Sabinin’s Sak‘art‘ūēlos samot‘xe (The Paradise of Georgia), a
collection of hagiographical texts celebrating the holy men and women of Georgian
Christianity, was published in St Petersburg (a Russian translation also appeared). And
especially from second half of the nineteenth century, Georgian academics such as
Ivane Javaxishvili (Dzhavakhishvili, Dzhavakhov) embarked on the scholarly study of
Georgian Christianity; their works were published in Russian and Georgian.
In May 1905 Georgian priests and bishops convened in T‘bilisi (Russian Tiflis) to
discuss the critical situation and to issue a call for the restoration of autocephaly. The
Russians could not tolerate this bold defiance and dispatched troops to break up the
meeting. Meanwhile, charges of corruption grew louder with stories of the exarchate
selling icons and other ecclesiastical treasures while at the same time the physical
condition of church buildings worsened. Some twenty episcopal sees were unoccupied
and well over 700 parishes were without pastors. Few Georgians attended services. In
spring of 1908 the Russian exarch Nikon, who was widely regarded as a Georgian
sympathizer, was assassinated. These events attracted the attention of Christians
abroad, including the papacy. In 1910 the Georgian Catholic priest Michel Tamarati
(T‘amarashvili) published in Rome his L’Église géorgienne des origines jusqu’a nos jours.
Though it is now outdated, this book remains the most comprehensive history of
Christianity in Georgia. But it also had a decidedly political purpose. Tamarati not
only painted Catholicism in Georgia in the best possible light, but he also criticized the
illegal abrogation of the centuries-old autocephaly of the Georgian Church and the
heavy-handed policies of the Russian Empire. Indeed, Georgian Christianity had become
central to the Georgian national struggle against Russian rule.
The question of Georgian autocephaly resurfaced during the revolutions of 1917.
After the March uprising, a group of Georgian clerics and bishops forced their way into
the offices of the exarchate and installed Georgians to replace the exarch and his staff.
All-Georgian ecclesiastical councils were held in T‘bilisi in September 1917 and at the
Gelat‘i monastery near K‘ut‘aisi in western Georgia in 1921. The 1917 council elected
Kwrion II (Kyrion) as the catholicos-patriarch of the all-Georgian Church, and with
this act full autocephaly was reclaimed. The name of the new chief prelate was an
auspicious one, for it should be recalled that the first Kwrion had presided over the
K‘art‘velian Church during its estrangement from the Armenian Church at the start of
the seventh century. Needless to say, the Russian Holy Synod vehemently opposed
these actions and deemed them illicit. Until the Second World War, dialogue between
the two Churches virtually disappeared.
Out of the revolutions of 1917 was born the Georgian Democratic Republic. When
it was established in May 1918 its Menshevik leaders tended to see no formal place for
religion in the state government. Their attitudes towards religion, and the Georgian
Church in particular, ranged from indifferent to hostile. However, the local church was
now free from the suppression it had experienced under Russian rule. Freedom of reli-
gion was guaranteed by the new constitution, but here the Georgian Church was not
specially singled out. At the same time, many political figures advocated a legal separa-
tion of Church and state; the debate over this issue continued until 22 February 1921,
when such a clause was introduced into the constitution. Chapter 1, article 31 guar-
anteed the ‘full liberty of conscience’ for each citizen: ‘Everyone has the right to profess
his/her own religion, to change the same, or not to have any religious belief.’ However,
the promulgation of this Act was mostly symbolic for it occurred as Soviet troops were
advancing on eastern Georgia. Later that month, independent Georgia fell to the
Bolsheviks and Soviet rule was extended over the Georgian lands.



Although the government of the USSR did not dismantle the Georgian Church or
rescind its autocephaly, Soviet policies and laws greatly restricted its activities; it was
as if chapter 1.31 of the pre-Soviet constitution had been maintained, but with empha-
sis upon the right of citizens to be atheists. The Catholicos-Patriarch Ambrosi, an out-
spoken critic of Soviet power, was arrested in winter 1923. He remained imprisoned
until shortly before his death in spring 1927. Throughout the 1930s the Georgian
Church suffered the state-sponsored persecution of religion. Soviet attitudes towards
religious groups were altered with the outbreak of the Second World War. The need to
unite in the face of the Nazi threat led Stalin, the ethnically-Georgian leader of the USSR
and a former student of the T‘bilisi Theological Academy, officially to recognize major
religious organizations including the Georgian Church. One of the implications of this
policy was the rapprochement of the Georgian and Russian Churches. In October 1943
the Russian Church formally recognized the autocephaly of its Georgian counterpart,
twenty-six years after the Georgians had reclaimed this status. However, the lifting of
certain restrictions did not lead to a significant revival of Christianity in Georgia.
After the war restrictions on religious organizations re-emerged. It was in this
renewed anti-religious atmosphere, in 1962, that the Georgian Church applied for
admission to the World Council of Churches (WCC), an ecumenical organization
representing over three hundred churches including Anglicans, Protestants and
Orthodox (but not Roman Catholics). Christians around the world were made aware
of the dilapidated state of the Georgian Church. Georgian scholars continued to publish
works about Georgian Christianity, although such publications tended to appear in
small print runs and their circulation was limited to academic circles. To this period
belong the initial volumes of Ilia Abuladze’s splendid Dzveli k‘art‘uli agiograp‘iuli litera-
turis dzeglebi (Monuments of Ancient Georgian Hagiographical Literature), a series
featuring critical editions of medieval Georgian vitae.
Corruption infected the ruling elite of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic in the
early 1970s. The Church was not immune to this wave of corruption, a situation remi-
niscent of the exarchate in the late nineteenth century. Church officials were rumoured
to have sold ecclesiastical treasures and the deteriorating condition of church buildings
was publicized in underground samizdat pamphlets. Among the most active samizdat
writers was Zviad Gamsaxurdia (Gamsakhurdia), who campaigned against corruption
in the Georgian Church and drew attention to continued attempts by the Soviets to
Russify it. As never before, the Georgian Orthodox Church became a potent symbol in
the resistance of the Georgians to the USSR. Along with the Georgian language, the
Church was a constant reminder of Georgia’s distinctiveness but also the wrongs that
had been inflicted by Moscow.


The Late 1970s and After

Upon his enthronement as catholicos-patriarch of all-Georgia in late 1977, Ilia II
embarked on a programme to rejuvenate the Georgian Church. Vacant ecclesiastical
positions were filled, church buildings were refurbished, and some new ones
constructed. Serving as a president of the WCC from 1979 to 1983, he drew global
attention once again to Georgian Christianity and strengthened his Church’s commit-
ment to the ecumenical movement. Ilia also engaged the national movement, espe-
cially in the years of Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms. In early April 1989 Georgians
protested in the streets against what they perceived as threats by the Ap‘xazians (Abk-
hazians) of western Georgia. It was the catholicos-patriarch who addressed the crowd,
rallying the protesters while urging calm. The brutal suppression of the demonstrators
by Soviet troops on 9 April and its aftermath helped propel Zviad Gamsaxurdia to
power. Gamsaxurdia’s Round Table–Free Georgia Bloc enjoyed enormous support in
the October 1990 elections, and independence was declared from the Soviet Union on
9 April 1991, the second anniversary of the 9 April massacre. The following month
Gamsaxurdia was elected president of the Republic of Georgia.
Though Gamsaxurdia held the reins of power only until January 1992, the conse-
quences of his regime for the Georgian Church continued to resonate. Unlike the
Menshevik-dominated Republic of Georgia earlier in the century, Gamsaxurdia’s
Georgia aligned itself closely with the Georgian Orthodox Church. The Church was
crucial to Gamsaxurdia’s vision of Georgian unity. He made prominent public appear-
ances with Patriarch Ilia, and the state government specially endorsed the proselytizing
efforts of the Georgian Church. In addition, the mantra ‘Georgia for Georgians’ was
often heard. Gamsaxurdia reasoned that a strong Georgia depended first and foremost
upon ethnic unity among the Georgian majority; the non-Georgian populations of the
republic were termed ‘guests’ and, in Gamsaxurdia’s mind, should not expect equal
rights with the majority.
Gamsaxurdia made innumerable enemies. In late December 1991 a coup was
launched against the president and he was forced to flee the capital in January. Ironi-
cally, Gamsaxurdia eventually ended up in the care of the Chechen leader Dzhokhar
Dudaev, who championed an independent Chechnya. Back in Georgia, the junta invited
back the former Soviet ruler of Georgia, Eduard Shevardnadze. Although the Georgian
Church remained a favoured institution in Shevardnadze’s Georgia, the large-scale
official assault against ethnic minorities was for the most part rescinded. The exact legal
relationship of the Church and state was still being debated in parliament in fall 2002.
It remains uncertain how the Rose Revolution and the inauguration of the reform-
minded Mixail Saakashvili in early 2004 will affect this situation. However, Saakashvili
and his allies have maintained good relations with the patriarchate. Indeed, just prior
to his official inauguration as president, Saakashvili took an oath administered by
Patriarch Ilia II over the tomb of King Davit‘ II Aghmashenebeli at the monastic complex
of Gelat‘i near K‘ut‘aisi.
At the outset of the twenty-first century, the Georgian Church is again at a cross-
roads. Suppressed by the Russians and Soviets and treated with indifference by the
government of the first Republic of Georgia, it was briefly given special legal status
under Gamsaxurdia and its leaders are now struggling to carve out a privileged place
in post-Soviet Georgian society. With the flood of new freedoms has come a resurgence
of religious practice in Georgia. But a substantial number of Georgians have turned
their backs on the Georgian Orthodox Church and have joined various Protestant sects
in particular. Not since the eras of Nino and Vaxtang Gorgasali has Christianity in
Georgia been so multifarious. Missionaries from western Europe and North America
have entered the country in large numbers, and Georgian Church authorities have
responded to the challenge in various ways. Some have called for a special legal status
for their organization, and some have even advocated the legal banning of ‘foreign’
religions in Georgia (ironically, as medieval Georgian sources themselves acknowledge,
Christianity itself began its existence in Georgia as an imported religion). These issues
lay at the heart of the 1997 crisis. In April of that year, monks from several prominent
Georgian monasteries published an open letter to Ilia II criticizing the ecumenical
movement as ‘heresy’. In particular, they attacked ‘western Protestantism’ and the
ecumenical movement’s endorsement of women in clerical activities, its indifference to
and even support of homosexuality, and its emphasis upon the ‘inclusive’ language of
the Bible. Archimandrite Giorgi of the Shio-Mghvime monastery and his companions
insisted there could be only one church and that any compromise was tantamount to
heresy. Much of this anti-ecumenical attitude was the result of Protestant missionary
activities in post-Soviet Georgia.
The debate broke into the open, opposition rapidly mounted, and the Georgian
Church stood on the verge of internal schism. Ilia reminded dissenters of the virtues
and benefits of ecumenism, but to no avail. Just a short time later, on 20 May 1997,
Ilia summoned ecclesiastical leaders and the decision was reached that the Georgian
Church would immediately withdraw from the World Council of Churches and also the
Council of European Churches. The patriarch was in the awkward position of having
been a WCC president. It is instructive that in his communication of 20 May, Ilia did
not characterize the ecumenical movement as heretical; clearly, he was compelled to
this act as last resort in order to avoid full-blown schism within the Georgian Church.
Anti-ecumenical sentiment remains strong in some quarters. Most dramatically, the
former Orthodox priest Basil Mkalavishvili has been charged with orchestrating attacks
upon non-Orthodox religious groups active in Georgia. Mobs armed with clubs and
carrying crosses, icons, and banners have frequently interrupted meetings of non-
Orthodox groups including Pentecostalists and Baptists. By fall 2002, there had been
nearly a hundred registered acts of violence against Jehovah’s Witnesses, one of the
prime targets of ‘Father Basil’ and his thugs. Despite protests from governments in
Europe and the United States, Georgian authorities have been slow to crack down on
this campaign of violence and intimidation and others like it. Mkalavishvili’s is an
extreme and unfortunate solution to a very real problem facing the contemporary
Georgian Orthodox Church: the proper place of religion, and especially Georgian
Orthodoxy, in a newly independent, post-Soviet, democracy.


References and further reading

Abuladze, I. (1944) K‘art‘uli da somxuri literaturuli urt‘iert‘oba IX-X ss-shi: gamokvleva da tek‘stebi
(Georgian–Armenian Literary Relations, 9th–10th Centuries: Study and Texts). T‘bilisi:
Mec‘niereba.
Alek‘sidze, Z. (1968) Epistlet‘a cigni (The Book of Letters). T‘bilisi: Mec‘niereba.
Blake, R. P. (1924) Georgian theological literature. Journal of Theological Studies (October): 50–64.
Church, K. (2001) From dynastic principality to imperial district: the incorporation of Guria into
the Russian Empire to 1856. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.
Djobadze, W. (1976) Materials for the Study of Georgian Monasteries in the Western Environs of
Antioch on the Orontes. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 327, subsidia 48.
Louvain: CSCO/Peeters.
—— (1992) Early Medieval Georgian Monasteries in Historic Tao, Klarjet‘i, and Shavshet‘i. Stuttgart:
Franz Steiner Verlag.
van Esbroeck, M. (1975) Les plus anciens homéliaires géorgiens: étude descriptive et historique.
Publications de l’Institut orientaliste de Louvain 10. Louvain: Catholic University of Louvain,
Institut Orientaliste.
—— (1982) Église géorgienne des origines au moyen age. Bedi Kartlisa 40: 186–99.
Gabashvili, T. (2001) Pilgrimage to Mount Athos, Constantinople, and Jerusalem 1755–1759, trans. and
with commentary by M. Ebanoidze and J. Wilkinson. Richmond, UK: Curzon/Caucasus World.
Garsoïan, N. G. (1996) Iran and Caucasia. In R. G. Suny (ed.) Transcaucasia, Nationalism, and
Social Change: Essays in the History of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, rev. edn. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
—— (1999) L’Église arménienne et le grand schisme d’orient. Corpus Scriptorum Christanorum
Orientalium 574, subsidia 100. Louvain: Peeters.
Garsoïan, N. G. and Martin-Hisard, B. (1996) Unité et diversité de la Caucasie médiévale (IVe–XIe
s.). In Il Caucaso: Cerniera fra Culture dal Mediterraneo alla Persia. Settimane di Studio del Centro
Italiano di Studi Sull’alto Medioevo 43a. Spoleto: Presso la Sede del Centro.
Gordeziani, R. (ed.) (2004) K‘ristianobis 20 saukune sak‘art‘veloshi (20 Centuries of Christianity
in Georgia). T‘bilisi: Logosi.
Khrushkova, L. G. (2002) Rannekhristianskie pamiatniki Vostochnogo Prichernomor’ia (IV–VII
veka) (The Early Christian Monuments of the Eastern Littoral of the Black Sea, 4th–7th
Centuries). Moscow: Nauka.
Lang, D. M. (1955) St. Euthymius the Georgian and the Barlaam and Iosasph Romance. Bulletin
of the School of Oriental and African Studies 17: 306–25.
—— (1957) The Last Years of the Georgian Monarchy 1658–1832. New York: Columbia Univer-
sity Press.
—— (1962) A Modern History of Soviet Georgia. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
—— (1976) Lives and Legends of the Georgian Saints, 2nd rev. edn. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s
Seminary Press.
—— (1983) Iran, Armenia, and Georgia. In The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 3.1 (pp. 505–36).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Melia, E. (1971) The Georgian Orthodox Church. In R. H. Marshall, Jr. (ed.) Aspects of Religion
in the Soviet Union, 1917–1967. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mgaloblishvili, T‘. (1991) Klarjuli mravalt‘avi (The Klarjet‘ian Polycephalon). T‘bilisi: Mec‘niereba.
Rapp, S. H., Jr. (2003) Studies in Medieval Georgian Historiography: Early Texts and Eurasian Con-
texts. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 601, subsidia 113. Louvain: Peeters.
Rapp, S. H., Jr. and Crego, P. C. (2006) The Conversion of K‘art‘li: The Shatberdi Variant, Kek.Inst.
S-1141. Le Muséon 119(1–2): 169–225.
Suny, R. G. (1994) The Making of the Georgian Nation, rev. edn. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Thomson, R. W. (1996) Rewriting Caucasian History: The Medieval Armenian Adaptation of the
Georgian Chronicles, the Original Georgian Texts and the Armenian Adaptation. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Toumanoff, C. (1963) Studies in Christian Caucasian History. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Xint‘ibidze (Khintibize), E. (1996) Georgian–Byzantine Literary Contacts. Amsterdam: Adolf M.
Hakkert.