batoniSvili vaxuSti enisa da wignis gamo erTiani saqarTvelos niSanTa Soris. (Georgian)

Prince Vakhushti on Language and Literacy among the Signs of the Unidted Georgia. (English)

Prince Vakhusthi (1696-1756), at the point of his work “Desctription of the Kindom of Georgia (1745), where he ends the story of united Georgia and is about to start telling the history of Georgia after its disintegration (i. e. into Kindom of Kartli, Kingdom of Kakheti, Kingdom of Imereti, and also Samtskhe-Saatabago), tries to identify if there is or has survived any pillar or sign following the disintegration of the united kingdom what would give the feeling of unity to the residents of different isolated lands of the politically split country, or what proved the general Georgian unity in his days, even if it did not really exist by then. Vakhushti identifies three of such persisting signs; however, later, he added other fourth and fifth traits to the list. He associates these signs not as much with the nationality (as it seemed to expect) or some other unifying feature, as the past “united monarchy” of Georgia – the circumstances of the historian’s times are meant, but passed and survived from the past. As for these signs, in Vakhushti’s opinion, they are so much self-denoting that clearly show all his contemporaries the past unity of the country. If the first sign of unity for Vakhushti is the religious belief – “the faith of Georgians”, the second sign is language and literacy. Surely, Vakhushti considers the language and script such special signs, which not only distinguish the Georgians from all other nations, but give them the feeling of unity. Vakhushti does not isolate or separate the language and the script, as he considers both of them, jointly and inseparably, as the second sign, but at the same time, he does not reckon that they either stipulate, or result from one another. Vakhushti’s approach to the language and script differs from that of his forerunners and precursors (ancient Georgian historians, ecclesiastical literature) and modern sources (historical-legal documents).Vakhushti thinks that the second sign of the united monarchy, the Georgian language, is neither an ecclesiastical-liturgical language uniting and consolidating the country, nor a common language for the residents of disintegrated Georgia: he talks about the language, which was a single state language during the country’s past unity. Vakhushti considers both, the language and the script, as special sign or signs, which not only distinguish the Georgians from the others, but also give them the feeling of unity. Importantly, like Vakhushti considers an ordinary Georgian man as the most reliable and primary source to determine national unity, it is the case in the given instance, too: the feeling of unity among the Georgians is consolidated by three questions given to an ordinary and to any Georgian: “Where are you from?”, “Which language do you speak?”, and “What is your script?” Their answers demonstrate that their self-feeling is national, public, common. It must be said that as Vakhushti considers the Georgian language (and Georgian script as well), as one of the survived signs of sole monarchy and national unity consequently, he takes no notice of legitimacy of the Georgian language in relation to the languages dominant in the neighboring states (this was a very severe issue of the Georgian culture almost all over the medieval centuries and was still urgent even in the following period) and says nothing about the liturgical use of the Georgian language or importance of such a use for the state national unity. It seems that Vakhushti is not concerned with the way the Georgian language is perceived among other languages or whether its use is lawful or appropriate as a cultural or liturgical language (during a short historical era in Vakhusti’e times, these questions had totally lost their urgency, as by that time, the Georgian cultural-educational and ecclesiastic environment had been badly influenced by a relatively mild violence of the Greek language, but a vulgar violence of the Russian language was still to expect). The historian is not even concerned with comparing or linking the Georgian language with other neighboring or non-neighboring languages (if not considering an exception when he talks about the association of the Megrelian language with the Georgian language). In this instance, a language is a very valuable sign for him proving that speaking one common language and naming such a language as their own language by various Georgian tribes is an undisputed proclamation of the past sole monarchy, or national unity of the Georgian state, surely like in case of the unity of “faith” and its firm memorization. Indeed, Vakhushti says nothing about consanguinity, kin relations or affinity (virtually, personal, interpersonal relations) between the Georgians what must not have been expected of him naturally, as no matter how allusively Vakhushti’s phrases show his trial to identify the signs of national unity, in this case, the historian clearly talks about the signs of sole monarchy. Thus, the first and second signs given by Vakhushti surely prove the national unity, though of the only state that no more existed in his days, whose state belief and state language are defined as Georgian, with the memory of this two-dimensional unity maintained so vividly and effectively by the ancestors of the past state nationals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Sjani (Thoughts) is the property of Institute of Georgian Literature Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)