The Significance of Gregory the Theologian's Works for the Georgian Literary Tradition

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF GREGORY THE THEOLOGIAN'S WORKS FOR THE GEORGIAN LITERARY TRADITION

The writings of the Great Cappadocian Fathers — Gregory of Nazianzus (the Theologian), Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa were of great significance for Oriental Christian culture of the Middle Ages which was closely connected with Byzantine culture. Namely, the writings of the Fathers have deeply influenced and even determined the development of culture and literary processes for centuries in Georgia1. The present paper attempts to show the ideological and conceptual influence of St. Gregory the Theologian's writings on the development of Georgian thought, literary processes and original Georgian literature itself.

1. The history of translation of Gregory the Theologian's writings into Georgian

Some works of the Cappadocian Fathers were translated before the 10th century by anonymous translators. Later these writings as well as other exegetic, ascetic, homiletic and epistolographic works of the Fa- thers were translated by the outstanding Georgian translators — Euthy- mius the Athonite (i.e. Euthyme Athoneli, 10th century), George the Athonite (i.e. Giorgi Athoneli, 11th century) and Ephrem Mtsire (i.e. the Lesser, 11th century).

1 v. nozaøe, vefxistqaosnis ˚mr¯ismetqveleba (V. NOSADZE, Les problè- mes philosophiques et religieux dans le poème Géorgien du 12e siècle de Chot'a Roust'aveli “Le preux à la peau de tigre”), Paris, 1963; z. gamsaxurdia, “vefxistqaosani” inglisur enaze (Z. GAMSAKHURDIA, “Vepkhistkaosani” in English Language), Tbilisi, 1984; e. ©eliøe, grigol noselis ¯xzulebis “pasuxi e≤us¯a ma¯ d˚e¯a¯ªs” gamoøaxili øvel ≤ar¯ul m∑erloba˙i (E. CHELIDZE, The Influence of Gregory of Nyssa's Work “Explicatio in Hexaemeron” on the Old Georgian Literature) in “mawne” (Proceedings of Georgian Academy of Sciences, Lan- guage and Literature Series),4, 1984, p. 52-65; n. sulava, gangebis rus¯veluri konwefwia (N. SULAVA, The Rustvelian Conception of Providence), in ˙o¯a rus¯aveli (Shota Rustaveli. A Collection of Researches), I, Tbilisi, 2000, p. 208-230; ≤. bezara˙vili, “vefxistqaosnis” sa˚v¯o siqvaruli da “turfa sa©- vreteli” (K. BEZARASHVILI, The Divine Love and “Beautiful Contemplation” in Rustaveli's Poem) in ˙o¯a rus¯aveli (Shota Rustaveli. A Collection of Researches), I, Tbilisi, 2000, p. 107-131. 270 K. BEZARASHVILI

The lack of the translation of Gregory Nazianzen's whole corpus in Georgian literature before the 10th century can be explained by the following reasons. The first is the character and volume of Georgian culture till the 10th century. It was, in its turn, conditioned by the Jerusalem liturgical practice (Bibliology, exegetics, Lectionary, Tropologion, Policephala, Ascetics-mystics, Apophtegmata patrum, hagiography, etc.). At that period Georgian literature could not compare with Constan- tinople literature2. The second reason is the complicated composition and structure, Hellenistic rhetorical form and the contents of Gregory Nazianzen's homilies (except the festive character of 16 liturgical homilies his work are also of private character; these are the “aporeta”, i.e. non-liturgical homilies3; the panegyric, epitaphic genre of the homilies as well) unlike some writings of John Chrysostom, Basilius the Great, Ephrem the Syriac, etc., created on the grounds of exegetic, didactic subjects widely spread at the first stage of the development of the Georgian literature, especially in the Policephala. The third reason is a secret character of theological terminology and highly elevated theological-rhetorical style of Gregory's writings (see Michael Psellos)4. The same may be said about the works of Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus, and other saint fathers. Euthymius the Athonite — the famous Georgian scholar, translator and the enlightener of Georgians at the end of the 10th century was the first to get down to translating these works. The orientation of the Georgian church to Constantinople liturgical practice was started on Mt. Athos by Euthymius's literary activity. That is why Euthymius's activity is of such great significance in the process of serious complex study and translation of Gregory Nazian-

2 H. MÉTRÉVELI, Le rôle de l' Athos dans l' Histoire de la culture Géorgienne, in Bedi Kartlisa, 41 (1983), p. 17-26. 3 See K. BEZARASHVILI, The Problem of the so-called “Aporeta” in the Georgian Corpus of the Works of Gregory the Theologian, in Le Muséon, 108 (1995), p. 131-142. 4 Michael Psellos, ToÕ üpertímou CelloÕ lógov sxediasqeìv pròv Póqon bestárxjn âziÉsanta aûtòn grácai perì toÕ qeologikoÕ xarakt±rov, in A. MAYER, Psellos' Rede über den rhetorischen Charakter des Gregorios von Nazianz, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 20 (1911), p. 27-100 (= Psellos, Perì toÕ qeologikoÕ xarakt±rov). Psellos's term qeologikòv xaraktßr implied connecting of Christian plain style with the rhetorical and theological eloquence in Gregory the Theologian's works (Psellos, Perì toÕ qeologikoÕ xarakt±rov., c. 2;27,30-31; c. 12;214-216, 227-228; c. 13;243-245,340; c. 20;377-383). ≤. bezara˙vili, mi≤ael fselosi sa˚v¯ismetqvelo stilis ˙esaxeb (K. BEZARASHVILI, Michael Psellos on Theological Style (Research, translation and commentaries), in Reader in Byzantine Literature, III, Tbilisi, 1996, p. 108-156 (= BEZARASHVILI, Michael Psellos on Theological Style). Cf. I. SEVCENKO, Levels of Style in Byzantine Prose, in Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 31,1 (1981), p. 296-300 (= SEVCENKO, Levels of Style). THE SIGNIFICANCE OF GREGORY THE THEOLOGIAN'S WORKS 271 zen's writings. Euthymius was the first who translated and compiled the minor corpus of Gregory the Theologian's works (liturgical sermons and a few theological homilies) with some commentaries of Pseudo-Nonnos and Maximus the Confessor. Later this corpus was replenished with Gregory's other works translated in Euthymius's translation manner by David Tbeli (10th-11th centuries)5. Euthymius's translations are of the type of dynamic equivalence in order to improve the understanding of readers not well learned in theology, to make them acquire and develop the skills of abstract theological thought. For this purpose Gregory's complicated texts are simplified, explained, interpolated, abridged or paraphrased by Euthymius6. The aim of Euthymius's literary activity was to bring Georgian literature into line with the Byzantine norm. As is well known, the work and activity of Euthymius the Athonite determined the development of the future trends of Georgian culture7. Euthymius's way of adopting Greek culture reached the highest point in the works of the later Georgian translators called “Hellenophiles”. Translations of Gregory the Theolo- gian's works as well as of the writings of other Byzantine authors had not been made before, and the writings completely unknown to Georgian literary genres are good examples of Euthymius's purposeful orientation towards Byzantine culture. Many researches show that Euthymius the

5 m. ma©avariani, davi¯ tbelis mier ¯argmnili grigol nazianzelis ¯xzulebebi da am ¯argmanebis ˙emwveli xelna∑erebi (M. MACHAVARIANI, The Writings of Gregory Nazianzen Translated by David Tbeli and the Manuscripts Containing them), in “mraval¯avi” (Mravaltavi. Philological-historical Researches), 20 (2004), p. 106-114. 6 See the history of Euthymius the Athonite's translations in: H. METREVELI, Intro- duction, Présentation générale in H. METREVELI, K. BEZARASHVILI, Ts. KOURTSIKIDZE, N. MELIKICHVILI, Th. OTKHMEZURI, M. RAPAVA, M. CHANIDZE (eds.), S. Gregorii Nazianzeni Opera, Versio Iberica I, (Corpus Christianorum; Series Graeca, 36; Corpus Nazian- zenum, 5), Turnhout-Leuven, 1998, p. V-XI (= S.Gregorii Nazianzeni Opera, Versio Iberica I). ≤. bezara˙vili, dinamikuri ekvivalentis tipis ¯argmanis maxasia¯eblebi grigol ˚v¯ismetqvelis ¯xzuleba¯a ef¯vime a¯oneliseul ¯argmaneb˙i (K. BEZARASHVILI, The Peculiarities of the Translations of Dy- namic Equivalence in the Homilies of Gregory the Theologian Translated by Euthymius the Athonite), in Transactions of Tbilisi State University, vol. 348 (Literary Research), 2003, p. 269-324. 7 According to Georgian scholars, if the Iviron monastery on Mount Athos had not existed, the history of Georgian culture could have acquired quite a different character. See k. kekeliøe, øveli ≤a¯uli literaturis istoria (K. KEKELIDZE, His- tory of Old Georgian Literature), I, Tbilisi, 1980, p. 101. M. TARCHNICHVILI, Geschichte der kirchlichen georgischen Literatur (Studi e Testi, 185), Citta del Vaticano, 1955, p. 70- 72. 272 K. BEZARASHVILI

Athonite's scholarship and literary activity have responded to the thinking processes that took place in Byzantine literature8. On this sound ground founded by Euthymius the work of transmitting Gregory's theological thought to Georgia was mainly completed by the prominent and most accomplished Georgian theologian and scholar Ephrem Mtsire of the Black Mountain at the end of the 11th century. He translated the Corpus of Gregory's works containing 51 sermons (including the earlier translations by Euthymius the Athonite and David Tbeli). The collection was of a unique composition. It reflected not only the typical structure of Greek collections with traditional and key appendixes — the Life of Gregory, commentaries by Basilius Minimus and Pseudo-Nonnos —, but also the appendixes which are rare for Gregory's Greek collections (Niceta the Philosopher's paraphrase of Basil the Great's epigram by Gregory, Gregory's gnomic poems, etc.). Ephrem seems to have selected the texts from different Greek collections and added all of them to the main part of Gregory's sermons9.

8 His knowledge of some problems of Byzantine rhetorical theories: the structure composing technique, the genre peculiarities etc. are meant here. See ≤. bezara˙- vili, m. ma©avariani, grigol ˚v¯ismetqvelis II da III homiliebis ef¯vime a¯oneliseuli ¯argmanebis ¯aviseburebani da efrem mwiris er¯i anderø-mina∑eri (K. BEZARASHVILI, M. MACHAVARIANI, The Peculiarities of Euthymius the Athonite's Translation of Gregory Nazianzen's II and III Homilies and One Colophon of Ephrem Mtsire), in “filologiuri øiebani” (Philological Researches), II, Tbilisi, 1995, p. 226-288; ≤. bezara˙vili, isev ef¯vime a¯onelis m¯argmnelobi¯i mo˚va∑eobidan: interpolawia grigol ˚v¯ismetqvelis XLII homilia˙i (K. BEZARASHVILI, Once more about the Translation Method of Euthymius the Athonite: Interpolation in Gregory the Theologian's Homily XLII), in “mawne” (Pro- ceedings of the Georgian Academy of Sciences, Language and Literature Series), 1-4 (1999), p. 133-148; T. KOURTSIKIDZE, La composition du manuscrit Iviron 68 et le colophon d' Ephrem Mtsiré, in Le Muséon, 113 (2000), p. 429-437. ≤ .bezara˙vili, didi kompoziwiuri wvlilebebis axali nimu˙ebi grigol ˚v¯ismetqvelis homilia¯a ef¯vime a¯oneliseul ¯argmaneb˙i: 1. interpolawia grigol ˚v¯ismetqvelis XX homilia˙i. 2. ef¯vime a¯onelis kompilawiuri ˙roma “s∑avlani sulierni” (K. BEZARASHVILI, New Materials of Major Compositional Changes in the Translations of the Homilies of Gregory the Theologian by Euthymius the Athonite: 1. Interpolation in Gregory the Theologian's 20th Homily; 2. Compiled “Spir- itual Teachings”), in K. Kekelidze 125 (A Collection Dedicated to the 125th Anniversary of Prof. K. Kekelidze), Tbilisi, 2004, p. 207-228. 9 ≤. bezara˙vili, efrem mwiris mier ¯argmnili bizantiuri e.∑. rit- muli poeziis adreuli nimu˙i: grigol nazianzelis “sitqua s∑avla ≤al∑ulisa mimar¯” (K. BEZARASHVILI, The Early Example of the so-called Byzantine Rhythmic Poetry Translated by Ephrem Mtsire: “Exhortatio ad Virginem” by Gregory Nazianzen) in “gulani” (Gulani. Philological-Historical Researches), Tbilisi, 1989, p. 88 (= BEZARASHVILI, The Early Example); ≤. bezara˙vili, grigol ˚v¯ismetqvelis ¯xzuleba¯a efrem mwiris mier ˙edgenili korpusi da misi THE SIGNIFICANCE OF GREGORY THE THEOLOGIAN'S WORKS 273

The structure and attributes of the Ephremian corpus — its colophons, the signs of punctuation, prosody, stichometry, illustrations, marginal notes and signs, also mythological, theological and rhetorical commentaries by Greek authors enriched with Ephrem's original colophons — literary-theoretical, stylistical-poetical, grammatical, lexicological-ety- mological notes etc., make obvious that the Georgian collection con- forms to the high level of the Byzantine manuscript tradition10. It is also clear that Ephrem's work is on the equal level with Byzantine literary- theoretical thought, and its author tries to make Georgian literature to keep up with it11. In this colophons Ephrem formed his theoretical views on the basis of Byzantine theory of rhetoric. Ephrem's translations of Gregory's sermons are mainly of formal equivalence, charactarized by transmision of all nuances of the original text — theological-philosophical and linguistic-stylistical constructions, rhetorical devices, precise theological terminology, etc. The style of the translation shows that it is made not for common parish, but for the mimar¯eba berønul xelna∑er krebuleb¯an (K. BEZARASHVILI, The Corpus of Gregory the Theologian's Works Compiled by Ephrem Mtsire and its Relations to Greek Manuscripts (prepared for publication); ¯. o¯xmezuri, grigol nazianzelis liturgikul ¯xzuleba¯a efrem mwiriseuli ≤ar¯uli krebulebis ur- ¯ier¯mimar¯ebisa¯vis (Th. OTKHMEZURI, On the Interrelations of the Georgian Col- lections of Gregory Nazianzen's Liturgical Works by Ephrem Mtsire (prepared for publication). 10 ¯. o¯xmezuri, grigol nazianzelis ¯xzuleba¯a komentirebis istoriidan (Th. OTKHMEZURI, Towards the History of Commentaries on Gregory Nazianzen's Writings), in “mraval¯avi” (Mravaltavi. Philological-historical Resear- ches), 15 (1989), p. 18-31 (= OTKHMEZURI, Towards the History of Commentaries). Th. OTKHMEZURI, Les Signes Marginaux dans les manuscrits Géorgiens de Grégoire de Nazianze, in Le Muséon, 104 (1991), p. 335-347. BEZARASHVILI, The Early Example. 11 ≤. bezara˙vili, baøvis tradiwiuli klasikuri wneba efrem mwires- ¯an da bizantiuri ritorikis ¯eoria˙i (K. BEZARASHVILI, Traditional Classical Concept of Imitation (Mímjsiv) in Byzantine Theory of Rhetoric and in Ephrem Mtsire's Writings), in “mawne” (Proceedings of the Georgian Academy of Sciences, Language and Literature Series), 1-4 (1997), p. 138-161 (= BEZARASHVILI, Traditional Classical Con- cept of Imitation). ≤. bezara˙vili, baøvis axali, ≤ristianuli wneba efrem mwires¯an da bizantiuri ritorikis ¯eoria˙i (K. BEZARASHVILI, New, Chris- tian Aspect of the Concept of Imitation (Mímjsiv) in Byzantine Rhetorical Theory and in Ephrem Mtsire's Writings), in “mawne” (Proceedings of the Georgian Academy of Sci- ences, Language and Literature Series), 1-4 (1998), p. 89-128 (= BEZARASHVILI, New, Christian Aspect of the Concept of Imitation); ≤. bezara˙vili, m˙venierebis wnebis gagebisa¯vis bizantiur es¯etika˙i da efrem mwires¯an (K. BE- ZARASHVILI, On the Understanding of the Concept of Beauty in Byzantine Esthetics and in the Writings of Ephrem Mtsire) in “s∆ani” (Discussions, Annual Literary-Theoretical Collection), III, Tbilisi, 2002, p. 74-90; IV, 2003, p. 58-78 (= BEZARASHVILI, On the Un- derstanding of the Concept of Beauty). 274 K. BEZARASHVILI learned who are already used to abstract theological thought12. It is interesting that Gregory's Greek corpus of 16 liturgical sermons with the commentaries and the proemium by Basilius Minimus were dedicated to Constantine Porphyrogennetos, the king and scholar. The Georgian corpus which was of the similar character corresponds with the require- ments of Georgian readers of that period though the number of the readers could be only few. After Ephrem the interest towards Gregory's works is shown by the Georgian hellenophile school of the 12th century. Few of Gregory's works are translated then: one homily for the third time (or. 2), the fragment of Epitaph on Basil the Great (or. 43) with the commentary by Niceta of Herakleia and some poems with the commentaries by Niceta of Paphlagonia (the Philosopher)13.

12 ≤. bezara˙vili, sa˚v¯ismetqvelo-ritorikuli stilis zogier¯i ¯aviseburebisa¯vis grigol ˚v¯ismetqvelis ¯xzulebebsa da ma¯ ≤ar- ¯ul ¯argmaneb˙i: si˚rme-mifaruleba da lakoniuroba (K. BEZARASHVILI, Some Peculiarities of Theological-rhetorical Style in the Writings of Gregory Nazianzen and their Georgian Translations: Laconism and Obscurity), in “mraval¯avi” (Mravaltavi. Philological-historical Researches), 19 (2001), p. 258-276; 20 (2004), p. 115-131(= BEZARASHVILI, Some Peculiarities of Theological-rhetorical Style); ≤. bezara˙vili, ritorikuli ornamentebi grigol ˚v¯ismetqvelis liturgikul homiliebsa da ma¯ ≤ar¯ul ¯argmaneb˙i (K. BEZARASHVILI, Rhetori- cal Ornaments in Gregory the Theologian's Liturgical Homilies and their Georgian Translations), in Literary Researches, XXV, 2004, p. 66-88); ≤. bezara˙vili, efrem mwiris m¯argmnelobi¯i tendenwiebisa¯vis: dinamikuri ekvivalentis tipis ¯argmani elinofiluri maxasia¯eblebi¯ (K. BEZARASHVILI, Translation Tendencies of Ephrem Mtsire: Translation of the Type of Dynamic Equiva- lence with Hellenophile Peculiarities), in Logos. The Annual of Greek and Roman Studies, 1 (2003), p. 46-83. ≤. bezara˙vili, formaluri ekvivalentis tipis ¯argmanis maxasia¯eblebi grigol ˚v¯ismetqvelis liturgikuli homiliebis efrem mwiriseul ¯argmaneb˙i (K. BEZARASHVILI, The Peculiarities of the Translation of Formal Equivalence in Ephrem Mtsire's Version of the Homilies of Gregory the Theologian), in Logos. The Annual of Greek and Roman Studies, 1 (2003), p. 84-110. ¯. o¯xmezuri, komentar¯a gavlena grigol nazianzelis ¯xzuleba¯a ≤ar¯ul ¯argmanebze (Th. OTKHMEZURI, The Influence of the Commentaries on the Georgian Translations of the Works by Gregory Nazianzen), in “filologiuri øiebani” (Philological Researches), 2 (1995), p. 150-163 (= OTKHMEZURI, The Influence of the Commentaries). 13 For the Georgian translations of Gregory's works see: Th. BREGADZE, Répertoire des manuscrits de la version géorgienne des Discours de Grégoire de Nazianze, dans B. COULIE (ed.), Versiones Orientales, repertorium Ibericum et studia ad editiones curandas (Corpus Christianorum; Series Graeca, 20; Corpus Nazianzenum, 1), Turnhout- Leuven, 1988, p. 19-126. S.Gregorii Nazianzeni Opera, Versio Iberica I. Th. OTKHME- ZURI, K. BEZARASHVILI, The Greek Original of One Fragment of the so-called Epilogue by Ioane Petritsi, in Mnßmj dedicated to Prof. A. Alexidze, Tbilisi, 2000, p. 207-240 (= OTKHMEZURI, BEZARASHVILI, The Greek Original of One Fragment). ≤. bezara˙- THE SIGNIFICANCE OF GREGORY THE THEOLOGIAN'S WORKS 275

Most important is the fact that the history of translating Gregory's works into Georgian show the step-by-step development of Georgian literature (translated and original) from plainness to complicated Helle- nophile style. It should be noted that Ephrem's translations of Gregory's works (mainly liturgical sermons) are highly hellenized in comparison to his other translations (Gregory the Theologian's non-liturgical homilies, John of Damascus's “Expositio Fidei”, Areopagetic corpus etc.)14. Here he is at the height of his translation technique, his cultural orientation on Byzantine literary processes is fully expressed. Ephrem became the head of the Hellenophile trend in Georgian literature. The Hel- lenophile translation method as a new translation conception and Hellenophile outlook — grammatical-hermeneutic and literary-theoretical conceptions and terminology which were worked out mainly in the process of translating Gregory's works by Ephrem — formed the basis for further literary processes in Georgia (the Hellenophile translations after Ephrem, original literature etc.). That is why Gregory's works translated by Ephrem are so significant in studying the problems of Georgian literature.

2. Rendering some conceptions and paradigms of Cappadocian Fathers (mainly Gregory Nazianzen's) into Georgian theological and literary writings

After the general review of the translation tradition, let's now try to emphasize some conceptions and models (paradigms) worked out by Cappadocian Fathers, namely by Gregory Nazianzen that present the ideological roots which had influenced Georgian theological and literary writings during centuries. It is known that Cappadocian Fathers were one of those first Christian authors (along with the Alexandrian Fathers Clement of Alex- andria, Origen etc.) who received a classical education, accepted classical literary forms and philosophical terminology and used them in the service of Christianity15. It was the period when the classical rhetorical vili, grigol nazianzelis poeziis ≤ar¯uli versia (K. BEZARASHVILI, The Georgian Version of Gregory Nazianzen's Poetry), Thesis,Tbilisi, 1989, etc. 14 e. ©eliøe, ioane petri∑is wxovreba da mo˚va∑eoba (E. CHELIDZE, The Life and Activity of Ioane Petritsi), p. I, in “religia” (Religion), 3-5, 1994, p. 122- 123; e. ©eliøe, øveli ≤ar¯uli sa˚v¯ismetqvelo terminologia (E. CHE- LIDZE, The Old Georgian Theological Terminology), I, Tbilisi, 1996, p. 544-554. 15 For the interrelation of Faith and Reason in Christian Fathers' writings see H.A. WOLFSON, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, I, Cambridge (Mas.), 1956, p. 9- 11; 12-15; 16-140 (= WOLFSON, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers). 276 K. BEZARASHVILI style was compatible with Scripture and its plainness in Christian literature (the literary value of the latter was emphasized with the word äpló- tjv16). According to Michael Psellos, St. Gregory managed to connect unconnectable things — the Christian plainness with classical rhetorical style and conceptual-terminological apparatus of Greek philosophy, and thus worked out the special style called “theological” by Psellos (Perì toÕ qeologikoÕ xarakt±rov, c. 20; 377-383)17. In this sense Gregory and all Cappadocian Fathers were Hellenophiles18. Through their activity Hellenistic rhetorical forms and theories gradually became the norm for Christian writings. It should be mentioned that at that period the Christian Fathers' attitude to classical tradition was dualistic: on the one hand, they declared “Sermo Piscatorius” to be the high truth19 and, on the other hand, they denounced the falseness of the pretty ornaments of rhetoric, and of the subtleties of philosophy. The Christian authors, and among them the Cappadocians, used the classical forms of their own classical training, but they repudiated them from a theoretical point of view as mendacious rhetoric. Sometimes they declaimed against rhetoric in a highly rhetorical way. Thus theoretically “eloquentia” was repudiated as means, but it was practically used by Christian authors to serve the needs of Christian ideas20.

16 Cf. II Cor. 1, 12; Greg. Naz. or. 32, c. 26. PG 36, 204 A 13-B7; Isid. Pelus. PG 78, 1124; t±Ç älieutik±Ç äplótjti — Theod. Cyrrh. Is. 2, 6. See G.W.H. LAMPE, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford, 1968, s.v. älieutikóv (= LAMPE, A Patristic Greek Lexicon). E. NORDEN, Die antike Kunstprosa vom VI Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renais- sance, Bd. II, Leipzig, Berlin, 1918, p. 493, 523 (= NORDEN, Die antike Kunstprosa) etc. 17 For the connection of the meaning of the term xaraktßr with “style” see: C.T. ERNESTI, Lexicon Technologiae Graecorum Rhetoricae, Leipzig, 1795 (reprinted in 1962) ( = ERNESTI, Lexicon Technologiae). H. LAUSBERG, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik, München, 1960, p. 522. J. MARTIN, Antike Rhetorik. Technik und Methode, München, 1974, p. 252, 260, 330, 335 (= MARTIN, Antike Rhetorik). A. KÖRTE, Xaraktßr, in Hermes. Zeitschrift für Classische Philologie, 64 (1929), p. 69-86. As is known in scholarly literature, among Cappadocian Fathers classical rhetorical form was most of all characteristic of Gregory Nazianzen. See NORDEN, Die antike Kunstprosa, Bd. II, p. 562-572. 18 WOLFSON, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers; NORDEN, Die antike Kunstprosa, p. 498, 534, 562. 19 “The fishers” is the symbolic name of the Apostles (Matth. 4, 18-19; Marc. 1,17). cf. LAMPE, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, s.v. älieúv, älieutßv. They have to enclose the whole world into the net of the Divine Word. Their words are plain (Gr. Naz. or. 41, c.14. PG 36, 448 C 5; or. 5, c. 25. PG 35, 693 B 9; or. 5, c.30. PG 35, 701 C 8-10 etc.). 20 Basil. in Gord.h. 1. PG 31, 492 BC; Greg. Nyss. in Ephr. or. PG 46, 824 A. Greg. Naz. in Gorg. (or. 8). PG 35, 792 C; cf. Bas. in Mam. h. 3. PG 31, 593 A; Greg. Nyss. in XL mart. h. 1. PG 46, 753 BC; Greg. Naz. or. 43, c.3. PG 36, 497 BC, etc. Greg. Naz. or. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF GREGORY THE THEOLOGIAN'S WORKS 277

The above mentioned antinomy (interrelation between pagan form and Christian contents, on the one hand, and interrelation between recep- tion and repudiation of rhetoric, on the other) lies in the background of the whole Byzantine literature. The antinomy of attitude mentioned above has been clearly formed in the Byzantine literary-theoretical thought of the 9th-11th centuries (Photius, Basilius Minimus, Michael Psellos, etc.)21. That is why it is not surprising that it can also be traced

43, c. 11. PG 36, 508 C 1; or. 36, c. 4. PG 36, 269 B 4; or. 36, c. 12. PG 36, 279 A1-4; or. 4, c. 73. PG 35, 597 B 10-12; PG 37, c. II, 1, 39; c. II, 1, 12, vv. 302-308; c. II, 1, 11, vv. 112-114; cf. c. I, 2, 10, vv. 40-44; or. 2, c. 104. PG 35, 504 B 6 — C 2; or. 4, c. 100. PG 35, 633 C 16-636 A 1; c. II, 2, 5, vv. 158-222, 265; c. II, 2, 7, vv. 43-49; c. II, 2, 8, vv. 245-249; or. 16, c. 1. PG 35, 935-936 C 4; or. 28, c. 21. PG 35, 53 A 8 — B 1; or. 6, c. 5. PG 35, 728 B; or. 19, c. 10. PG 35, 1053 C 15 — D 1; or. 20, c. 5. PG 35, 1069 C 14; or. 25, c. 1. PG 35, 1197 A 11; PG 37, c. II, 1, 38, v. 51; c. II, 1, 1, vv. 96-100; c. II, 1, 16, vv. 24-26; etc. See about this antinomy NORDEN, Die antike Kunstprosa, Bd. II, p. 529, 563; H. HUNGER, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, Bd. I, München, 1978, p. 65-233 (= HUNGER, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur). H. HUNGER, On the Imitation (Mímjsiv) of Antiquity in Byzantine Literature, in Dumbar- ton Oaks Papers, 23-24 (1969-70), p. 16-38. R.J. JENKINS, The Hellenistic origins of Byz- antine Literature, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 17 (1963), p. 39-52. A. GARZYA, Visages de l'Héllenisme dans le Monde Byzantin (IVe-XIIes), dans Byzantion, 55 (1985), p. 463- 482. C. MANGO, Byzantinism and Hellenism, in Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 28 (1965), p. 29-43. A. VACALOPOULOS, Byzantinism and Hellenism, in Balkan Studies, vol. 9 (1968), N1, p. 101-126. H.G. BECK, Antike Beredsamkeit und byzantinische Kallilogia, in Antike und Abendland, 15 (1969), p. 93 (= BECK, Antike Beredsam- keit). R. BROWNING, Tradition and Originality in Literary Criticism and Scholarship, in A.R. LITTLEWOOD (ed.), Originality in Byzantine Literature, Art and Music, 1995, p. 17- 28 (= BROWNING, Tradition and Originality). L.A. FREÎBERG, Antiwnoe literatur- noe nasledie v vizantiîskuù ypohu (L.A. FREYBERG, The Classical Literary Heritage in Byzantine Period), in “Antiwnostà i Vizantiq” (Antiquity and Byzantium), Mos- cow, 1975, p. 123-135. I. SEVCENKO, A Shadow Outline of Virtue: The Classical Heritage of Greek Christian Literature (Second to Seventh Century), in “Ideology, Letters and Culture in the Byzantine World”, London, 1982, paper II (p. 53-73). G. KENNEDY, The Classical Tradition in Rhetoric; H. HUNGER, The Classical Tradition in Byzantine Litera- ture: the Importance of Rhetoric, etc. in M. MULLET and R. SCOTT (eds.), Byzantinism and the Classical Tradition. University of Birmingham. Thirteenth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies 1979, Birmingham, 1982. P. LEMERLE, Byzantine Humanism (Byzan- tina Australiensia, 3), translated by H. Lindsay and A. Moffatt, Canberra, 1986 (= LEMERLE, Byzantine Humanism); M. GUIGNET, St. Grégoire de Nazianze et la rhétorique, Paris, 1911; K. DEMOEN, Pagan and Biblical Exempla in Gregory Nazianzen (Corpus Christianorum, Lingua Patrum, II), Turnhout, 1996. 21 G.L. KUSTAS, The Literary Criticism of Photius. A Christian Definition of Style, in ¨Ellßnika, 17 (1962), p. 132-169. B. WYSS, Photius über den Stil des Paulus, in Museum Helveticum, 12 (1955), p. 236-251. There are hardly any researches studying the rhetorical-theoretical views of Basilius Minimus and Michael Psellos from the point of view of Christian theories of rhetoric [the exception is Th.S. SCHMIDT (ed.), Basilii Minimi in Gregorii Nazianzeni Orationem XXXVIII Commentarii (Corpus Christianorum, Series 278 K. BEZARASHVILI in the original writings of the renowned 11th century Georgian theologian and scholar, the translator of Gregory's works and the founder of the Hellenophile trend in Georgian literature, Ephrem Mtsire22. The most important problems of Byzantine rhetorical theory are considered in his works mainly under the influence of Gregory's works. He could have also found these ideas in the commentaries of Basilius Minimus and Michael Psellos on Gregory's writings (the latter was not translated into Georgian, but it is evident that the problems of Psellos's tracts were well known to Ephrem Mtsire)23. In the notes and colophons which are appended to his translations Ephrem emphasizes the above-mentioned dual antinomy. On the one hand, he speaks about the plainness of Holy Script (in the colophon added to the translation of John of Damascus's “Dialectics”)24 and the

Graeca, 46. Corpus Nazianzenum, 13), Turnhout, Leuven, 2001]. That is why we had to study these views independently: OTKHMEZURI, Towards the History of Commentaries; OTKHMEZURI, The Influence of the Commentaries; BEZARASHVILI, Michael Psellos on Theological Style; cf. ToÕ CelloÕ xarakt±rev Grjgoríou toÕ Qeológou, toÕ Me- gálou Basileíou, toÕ Xrusostómou, kaì Grjgoríou toÕ Nússjv. PG 122, col. 901- 908. See also: Psellos, De operatione daemonum, I.F. BOISSONADE (ed.), Nuremberg, 1838, p. 124-131 (= Psellos, PG 122). For the Georgian translation see ≤. bezara˙- vili, mi≤ael fselosis tra≤tati kapadokiel mama¯a da ioane o≤ropiris stilze (K. BEZARASHVILI, Psellos's Tract on the Style of Cappadocian Fathers and John Chrysostom (Introduction, translation, commentaries), in “gza sameufo” (The Royal Way), 1(4), 1996, p. 73-88 (= BEZARASHVILI, Psellos's Tract on the Style of Cap- padocian Fathers). BEZARASHVILI, Traditional Classical Concept of Imitation; BEZA- RASHVILI, New, Christian Aspect of the Concept of Imitation; BEZARASHVILI, On the Understanding of the Concept of Beauty; BEZARASHVILI, Some Peculiarities of Theologi- cal-rhetorical Style. 22 From the times of the official conversion to Christianity of the Georgian state (4th century) the tendencies peculiar to Byzantine literature were more or less reflected in Georgian literature. The most important side of Christian ideology, the pointed dualistic attitude towards Hellenism, was similarly reflected in Georgian writings. Though the theoretical comprehension of the problem is beginning only from the second half of the 11th century since the whole attention before then had been drawn to translating the theological and liturgical literature. 23 BEZARASHVILI, Michael Psellos on Theological Style. ≤. bezara˙vili, mi- ≤ael fselosis tra≤tatebi sa˚v¯ismetqvelo stilis ˙esaxeb da ma¯i mni˙vneloba ≤ar¯uli m∑erlobisa¯vis (K. BEZARASHVILI, The Tracts of Michael Psellos Concerning Theological Style and their Importance for Georgian Literature), in “istoriul-filologiuri krebuli” (Historical-Philological Collection), Tbilisi, 1997, p. 82-86. BEZARASHVILI, Traditional Classical Concept of Imitation; BEZARASHVILI, New, Christian Aspect of the Concept of Imitation. 24 “∑mida saxarebasa da ebistole¯a pavle mowi≤ulisa¯a, raodenwa litoni¯a sitqª¯a a˚∑eril iqos, brøen¯a da mar¯lmadidebel¯agani vervin ˙eexebis” (cod. Tbilisi A 24, s. XII, f. 3 v). ioane damaskeli, diale≤tika, m. rafavas gamowema (John of Damascus, Dialectics, ed. M. RAPAVA), Tbilisi, 1976, p. 68 (= John of Damascus, Dialectics). THE SIGNIFICANCE OF GREGORY THE THEOLOGIAN'S WORKS 279 writings of the first Christian authors, calling them “the first writers”. He also touches the problem of the rhetorical-philosophical form of the Hellenophile Fathers calling their writings “grammatical and philosophical” in contrast to the “first writers” (in the colophon added to the translations of Gregory the Theologian's liturgical homilies)25. In Ephrem's colophon Euthymius the Athonite's translation of Gregory's works is ascribed to the first group, but Ephrem's own translations made in rhe- torically and philosophically elevated style, belong, according to himself, to the second group. On the other hand, Ephrem also talks about the antinomy of another kind. He repudiates the rhetorical-philosophical character of his writings and at the same time (just in the same colophon — cod. Jer. Georg. 43) he declares that in his translations he ob- served the rules of philosophy (exactly: “by running at the door of philosophers”26; by the word “philosophy”, according to its meaning in the Middle Ages, rhetoric is also meant, and vise versa27). The study of the

25 “ara sa˚ramatikoso¯a, arwa safilosofoso¯a, aramed ˙emdgomni ¯arg- manni pirveldama˙ural¯a ¯argman¯a ∑ignebisagan ganvis∑avlebi¯ da vi- ¯arwa ˚mr¯isad, egre¯ve cuen¯ad u∑inares¯ad ˙evhrawx¯ madlsa mas…” (cod. Jer. Georg. 43, s. XII-XIII, f. 1 v). S.Gregorii Nazianzeni Opera, Versio Iberica I, p. XXXII. For the interpretation of this piece see ≤. bezara˙vili, “gare˙e” sibrønisadmi damokidebulebisa¯vis efrem mwiris kolofoneb˙i (K. BEZA- RASHVILI, On the Attitude towards “Outer” Wisdom in the Colophons of Ephrem Mtsire, in “mawne” (Proceedings of Georgian Academy of Sciences, Language and Litrature Se- ries), 1-4 (2001), p. 134-157. 26 “ukue¯u lomi ver widamtkavlebr xldeboda karebsa filosofos¯asa…” — cod. Jer. Georg. 43, s. XII-XIII, f. 3 v. S.Gregorii Nazianzeni Opera, Versio Iberica I, p. XXXIV. For its interpration see BEZARASHVILI, Traditional Classical Concept of Imitation. 27 HUNGER, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur, p. 4-11, 42-54; NORDEN, Die antike Kunstprosa, p. 670-685. LEMERLE, Byzantine Humanism, p. 89, 186, 190, 199; 48- 50, 112, 139, 341. DU CANGE, Glossarium ad Scriptores mediae et infimae Graecitatis, I- II, Graz, 1958, p. 1678, s.v. filosofía (= DU CANGE, Glossarium). LAMPE, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, s.v. filosofía, filósofov. GUDEMAN, s.v. Grammatik, in Paulys Real- Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, neue Bearbeitung begonnen von G. WISSOWA, XIV, Stuttgart, 1912, col. 1780-1811 (= GUDEMAN, Grammatik). R.H. ROB- INS, The Byzantine Grammarians. Their place in History, Berlin, New York, 1993 (= ROBINS, The Byzantine Grammarians). H. HUNGER, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur, p. 10-50 (Die elementaren Voraussetzung der byzantinischen Philologie). The functions of hermeneutic grammar and theory of rhetoric were also close to each other in the theoretical thought of Middle Ages. See R. BROWNING, Byzantinische Schulen und Schulmeister, in Das Altertum, 9 (1963), p. 105-118. BROWNING, Tradition and Original- ity, p. 17-28. T. CONLEY, Byzantine Teaching of Figures and Tropes: An Introduction, in Rhetorica. A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, 4 (1986), p. 337, 349-355 (= CONLEY, Byzantine Teaching). R.A. KASTER, Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Soci- ety in Late Antiquity, Berkley, Los Angeles, London, 1988, p. 35-50, 71-94 (= KASTER, Guardians of Language). 280 K. BEZARASHVILI two Georgian translations of Gregory's works reveals the rightness of Ephrem's reasoning (his opinions about translation and literary theories). Another conceptual influence of Gregory's works on Georgian thought is seen in the understanding of the word and concept ëlljníhein. This word has several meanings in Medieval Literature (see below). It is known that in the early period of Byzantine culture there even was an ideological struggle for classical education. By according to the decree of Julian the Apostate in 362 A.D. Christians were forbidden to receive classical education. This gradually resulted in forming a counter-pro- gram aimed at creating diverse Christian literature equal to the classical writing in its refined form (classical norms, the genre, the metre, poetic- rhetorical devices etc.) and superior to it in Christian contents. In his Homily IV “Contra Iulianum” Gregory the Theologian distinguished the linguistic and cultural Hellenism from that of religious one, and argued that the Hellenic education (ëlljníhein) belonged to Christian Greeks as well28 (or. 4, c. 4-5. PG 35, 536 A 1 — B 13. cf. Vita Gregorii Nazianzeni. PG 35, 304 A 5 — B 5. cf. In suos versus. PG 37, c. II, 1, 39, vv. 48-49: oûd ên lógoiv pléon dídwmi toùv zénouv ™m¬n). The struggle for linguistic and cultural Hellenization from the beginning of Byzantine culture was ended in putting Hellenic literary and philosophical forms in the service of Christian ideology. ÊElljn from its New Testament sense of “pagan”, which it had retained throughout the earlier Byzantine period29, came to mean “Greek”, “Byzantine” in the 11th-12th centuries. ¨Elljnismóv was already identified with “Christian” and has since been understood as the common Christian education within the Byzantine culture30. Classical rhetorical and philo-

28 B.C. HARDY, The Emperor Julian and his School Law, in Church History, 38 (1968), p. 131-143. LEMERLE, Byzantine Humanism, p. 63-66. 29 E. HATCH, H. REDPATH, Concordance to the Septuagint and the other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (including the Apocryphal Books), v. I-II, Graz, 1954. W.F. MOULTON, A.S. GEDEN, A Concordance to the Greek Testament, Edinburg, 1950 (s.v. eÊlljn etc.). DU CANGE, Glossarium, s.v. ÊElljnev — Pagani, Gentiles; ëllj- nismóv — paganismus, paganitas; ëlljníhein — paganismum, profiteri. P. CHARANIS, The Term “Helladikoi” in Byzantine Texts of the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Centuries, inÊpetjrìv Ëtaireíav Buhantin¬n Spoud¬n, ∂tov kg ´ (23), Âq±nai, 1953, p. 619- 620. 30 B. WYSS, s.v. Gregor von Nazianz, in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, Bd. XII, Stuttgart, 1983, col. 818-819 (= WYSS, Gregor von Nazianz). J. BERNARDI, Grégoire de Nazianze critique de Julien, in Studia Patristica, 14 (1976), p. 282-289. R. DOSTA- LOVA, Tinòv tò Ëlljníhein, controverse au sujet des legs de l'Antiquité au 4e siècle, in From Late Antiquity to Early Byzantium, Praha, 1985, p. 179-183 etc. R. BROWNING, The Continuity of Hellenism in the Byzantine World: Appearance or Reality? in History, Lan- guage and Literacy in the Byzantine World (Variorum Reprints), Northampton, 1989, p. I, 124. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF GREGORY THE THEOLOGIAN'S WORKS 281 sophical forms and classical education became accessible for Christian authors. The important information about the great meaning of classical education for Christians is given in Gregory's sermon to Basil the Great (or. 43, c. 12. PG 36, 509 BC. See also the commentaries on it: cod. Vat.Gr. 437, s. XI, f. 18 v; cod. Tbilisi A 109, s. XII-XIII, f. 22r). The problem of coexistence of the pagan rhetorical form and the high divine wisdom is discussed many times in Gregory the Theologian's homilies and correspondingly in their Georgian translations (especially in Ephrem Mtsire's translations). This problem is also discussed in Gregory's poems, but exactly these poems were not translated into Geor- gian. However, Ephrem's translations of Gregory's other poems (gnomic poems) showed his close familiarity with the mentioned problems. The fact is also seen in the title of Gregory's gnomic poems (PG 37, c. I, 2, n. 3, n. 39, n. 40; n. 19). The title is composed by Ephrem himself: “muålebi iambikoy sas∑avloysa ∑il ∑armar¯¯aysa, romlisa- gan ganaqenna ≤ristianeni ivliane gandgomilman” (The Iambic Verses instead of Pagan Teaching, from which Julian the Apostate iso- lated the Christians). This title also carries information of cultural and historical character. This namely concerns one important episode of the history of Byzantium, the problems concerning the education of Chris- tians during Julian's repression. Ephrem Mtsire also introduces his own literary-theoretical term denoting the mentioned opposition. He uses the rhetorical device which was widespread in Byzantine literature of that period, namely, using of rare geographical and ethnical terms in wider, general meaning. This is the term “Hindian”, which implies “non-Christian”, “pagan”, “secular”31. According to Ephrem's interpretation of Gregory Nazianzen's words, St. Gregory gives out “high divine Christian Spiritual Wisdom” by means of “Hindian” (i.e. pagan) literary form — classical metre (tetrastixíjn dè gnÉmaiv pneumatika⁄v mnjmósunon fuláttw

31 Cf. V. BOLOTOV, Lekcii po istorii drevneî cerkvi (V. BOLOTOV, The Lectures on the History of Ancient Church), II, St. Petersbourg, 1910, p. 244-246. F.A. BROK- GAUZ, I.A. EFRON, Ynciklopediweskiî slovarà (F.A. BROCKHAUZ, I.A. EFRON, The Encyclopedical Dictionary), III (25), St. Petersburg, 1894, p. 108 (s.v. Indiq). A.P. KAZHDAN (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 2, New York/Oxford, 1991, col. 992-993 (s.v. India). T. POPOVA, Vizantiîskaq ypistolografiq (T. POPOVA, The Byzantine Epistolography), in Vizantiîskaq literatura (Byzantine Literature), Moscow, 1974, p. 184, 218. For the generalized meaning of the words “aithiops”, i.e. “hindian” in Georgian translations see k. ∑ere¯eli, semiti xal- xis a˚mni˙vneli e¯nikuri terminebi ≤ar¯ul˙i (K. TSERETHELI, Ethnic Terms Denoting the Semitic Peoples in the Georgian Language), Tbilisi, 2000, p. 80-82, 89-95, 99, 102. 282 K. BEZARASHVILI sofíjv: “o¯xmuåledisa hindurisa damwvel var, misaweme- lad wnoba¯a sulier¯a da sibrønisa mis qovlad ©e˙ma- ritisa”. Epigraph of tetrastichos. PG 37, c. I, 2, 33. cod. Tbilisi A 109, s. XII-XIII, f. 266 r)32. Under the influence of Gregory's works and their translations the term “Hellenism”, “Hellenic” — ÊElljn, ëlljnikóv, ëlljnismóv (which in the New Testament and in the writings of St. Fathers had the meaning of “pagan, non Christian”) lost its strictly negative connotation in Ephrem's original and translated works, as well as in the 11th century Georgian letters in general. It acquired the meaning of high rhetorical- philosophical style in Christian literature and of good rhetorical-philosophical education among Christians. It should also be taken into con- sideration that Hellenic education was a part of Christian education, which had a function of “ancilla theologiae”33. This way of thinking,

32 The phrase “o¯xmuxledi hinduri” (Hindian tetrastichos) has the same meaning as the title of Niceta the Paphlagonian's paraphrase of Gregory the Theologian's ver- sified epitaph dedicated to Basil the Great (PG 38, c. II, 1, 119: Grjgoríou toÕ Qeológou êpigrámmata êpikjdeía e÷te êpitáfia eîv tòn Mégan Basileíon dià stíxwn ™rwelegeíwn … kaì ërmeneuqénta parà Nikßta Filosófou toÕ Paflagónov, ed. Z. SCORDYLIOS, Venetiis, 1563, f. 53 r) that was translated by George the Athonite: “∑midisa mamisa cuenisa grigoli ˚mr¯ismetquelisa da∑erili saflavsa zeda didisa basilissa safilosofosoy¯a sitqª¯a da nikita filosofosisa ¯argmnili” (cod. Ath. Georg. 49, s. XI, f. 79 r; cod. Tbilisi A 55, s. XI-XII., f. 403 v; cod. Jer. Georg. 15, s. XII, f. 77 r etc.). The term “safilosofoso sitqua” (philosophical word) is used by George the Athonite in its generalized meaning, namely, in the sense of classical literary form (metre, namely elegiac distich — stíxoi ™rwelege⁄oi). He cer- tainly knows that versification (poetics) is a subject of general education, whereas the term “philosophical” implies secular education in general, and secular literature and its forms in particular (for the meanings of the term “philosophy” see above n. 27). For the Georgian patterns and their interpretations see ≤. bezara˙vili, efrem mwiris ˙exedulebebi klasikuri saliteraturo formisa da ≤ristianuli ˙inaar- sis ur¯ier¯mimar¯ebis ˙esaxeb (K. BEZARASHVILI, Ephrem Mtsire on the Rela- tions between Classical Literary Form and Christian Contents), in “literaturuli øiebani” (Literary Researches), XIX, Tbilisi, 1998, p. 123-154 (= BEZARASHVILI, Ephrem Mtsire on the Relations). ≤. bezara˙vili, klasikuri berønuli sale≤s∑qobo formis saki¯xi ≤ar¯ul elinofilur tradiwia˙i (K. BE- ZARASHVILI, The Problem of Classical Greek Versification in Georgian Hellenophile Tra- dition), in “literatura da xelovneba” (Literature and Art), 4 (1998), p. 69-103 (= BEZARASHVILI, The Problem of Classical Greek Versification). ≤. bezara˙vili, giorgi m¯a∑mindelis mier na¯argmi “nikitas parafrazi” grigol ˚v¯ismetqvelis ¯xzuleba¯a efrem mwiriseul krebuleb˙i (K. BEZARASHVILI, “Ni- ceta's Paraphrase” Translated by George the Athonite in Ephrem Mtsire's Collections of Gregory the Theologian's Works), in k. kekeliøe, 120 (A Collection Dedicated to the 120th Anniversary of Prof. K. Kekelidze), Tbilisi, 1999, p. 19-39. 33 It is noteworthy that not only Ephrem Mtsire but also Euthymius the Athonite translated perfectly the piece of Gregory the Theologian's homily in which the “outer”, secu- THE SIGNIFICANCE OF GREGORY THE THEOLOGIAN'S WORKS 283 rooted in the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers and initiated by Ephrem in Georgia, appeared to be the determiner of cultural orientation during the following period in Georgian literature. E.g. the word “elinuri”, “elinuri enidan” (elinuri, elinuri enidan), etc. denoting “translation from Greek into Georgian” had become widespread since Ephrem's translations, while before the 11th century the term “elinuri” (Hellenic) expressed something pagan (of classical Greek), and the word “berøuli” (berzuli) was used mainly in the sense of Christian34. Hellas and Athens as symbols of secular wisdom also became widespread under the influence of Gregory the Theologian's works. E.g., in Gregory's works Athens is announced as the center of philosophy and secular education where Basilius the Great and Gregory himself studied (or. 43, c. 12. PG 36, 509 B 3-8. or. 43, c. 14. PG 36, 513 A 5-8). This information is kept in both Georgian translations of Gregory's works (Ephrem Mtsire = cod. A 109, 123v; Euthymius the Athonite = cod. A1, 139r). The same is told in “Vita Gregorii Nazianzeni” and its Georgian translations: t®n mjtéra t¬n lógwn tàv ˆAqßnav metadiÉkei (PG 35, 248 D 5). “dedad sitqªsa – a¯inasa misdevda” (cod. A109, 238r). “da esre¯ muni¯ moi∑ia a¯inad romeli-igi deday ars filosofosobisay” (and he came to Athens which is the mother of philosophy) (cod. A1, 139r). In Georgian sources the high school of the 12th century in Gelati is called “second Jerusalem and another Athens” (meored ierusalemad … sxuad a¯inad). Here the coexistence of theological and secular teaching is made explicit (“History of King David the Builder”). Gelati is also called “Hellas”: vnatri eladsa – ¯ª¯ mas gela¯sa (“Gelati — Hellados” — Ioane Shavtheli, v. 105, 4; 12th century). “Attic and Pa- tristic” contemplation (‘atikulisa, patrikulisa xedvis') are mentioned together expressing dual wisdom (pagan and Christian) in Shavtheli's poetry (v. 53, 1); “the wise man from Athens praise” Queen Thamar in secular poetry (˙emokrbi¯ brøenno, a¯inel¯ øeno, lar education is discussed, and the functions of grammar, rhetoric and philosophy as edu- cational subjects are characterized (or. 43, c. 23. PG 36, 528 A 3-10. M = cod. A 109, s. XII-XIII, f. 29r; E = cod. A 1, s. XI, f. 145v), whereas Euthymius the Athonite omitted some pieces concerning other rhetorical and “outer” problems in translation of the same homily. 34 The term “berøuli” (berdzuli) in Georgian translations is mostly used as an equivalent of ¨Rwma⁄ov of Greek originals. It implies the cultural affiliation to Eastern Roman Empire. See the Materials of Byzantine-Georgian Documented Lexicon, edited by Prof. S. KAUKHCHISHILI. The lexicographic material is kept in the Department of Byzan- tine Studies at the Institute of Oriental Studies, Georgian Academy of Sciences. 284 K. BEZARASHVILI

¯amars va≤ebde¯ — Shavtheli, v. 2, 1; a¯ens brøen¯a xams a≤eb- des ena bevri — Rustaveli, v. 694, 4)35. Georgian translations of Gregory's works introduced the problem of the Hellenization of language (gl¬ssan êzelljníhein — ellenqo- fay ena¯ay. or. 43, c. 23. PG 36, 528 A 3-12. cod. Tbilisi A 109, s. XII- XIII, f. 29r. Basil. Min. cod. Paris. Coisl. 240, s. XI, f. 27r. Nicet. Herakl. cod. Oxon.Coll.s.Trinit. Gr. 44, s. XII, f. 178v-179v). Thus another meaning of the term ëlljníhein is of grammatical-rhetorical kind. It has implied stylistic norm as a part of âretaì lézewv in the rhetorical and poetical theories since Aristotle (Rhet. III, 12, 1413 b 1; III, 5, 1407 a 19 etc.). This concept could become known to Georgian scholars mainly with the help of Gregory's homily 43, the Epitaph on Basil the Great and commentaries on it (Basilius Minimus's and Niceta of Herakleia's; in Dionysius Thrax's definition of Grammar this piece does not exist). In Byzantine rhetorical theory this term implies the inheritance of Greek civilization in Byzantine literature, which shows itself in using archaisms, atticisms, imitation of literary forms36. It also implies the knowledge and usage of the high style, pure language (aï ëlljnikaí. bojqòv gínetai t±v ¨Elládov glÉssjv), pagan philosophical terminology and rhetorical devices (xr¢sqai kaì lógouv toútwn — åumevad ˚rma¯a da sa∑armar¯o¯a sitqua¯a; t¬n lézewn m® âgnóein — le≤s¯a ∑ignurisa sitqªsa¯a ara umewrebad), also classical versification (logometría — sitqªsmzomeloba37 the quotations are from Gregory Nazianzen, Basilius Minimus and Niceta of Herakleia. PG 36, 528 A 3-12. cod. Paris.Coisl. Gr. 240, s. XI, f. 27r. cod. Tbilisi A 109, s. XII-XIII, f. 29r; cod. Oxon.Coll.s.Trinit.Gr. 44, s. XII, f. 178v-179v. cod. Tbilisi H 1337, s. XIII, f. 100v]). According to

35 wxorebay mefe¯-mefisa davi¯isi (The Life of David, King of Kings), ed. M. SHANIDZE, in ≤ar¯uli saistorio m∑erlobis øeglebi IX; sa≤ar¯velos istoriis ∑qaroebi 62 (The Monuments of Georgian Historiography IX; The Sources of History of Georgia 62), Tbilisi, 1992, p. 175. øveli ≤ar¯veli mexotbeni (The Old Georgian Eulogists), ed. I. LOLASHVILI, vol. I (Chakhrukhadze), Tbilisi, 1957; vol. II (Shavtheli), Tb., 1964. For the interpretation see BEZARASHVILI, Ephrem Mtsire on the Relations, p. 128. 36 The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, v. 2, col. 911-912 (s.v. Hellenes, Hellenism). ERNESTI, Lexicon Technologiae, s.v. ëlljníhein unde ëlljnismóv. MARTIN, Antike Rhetorik, S. 85, 249-259, 320 etc. G.L. Kustas, Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric (Analecta Blatadon, 17), Thessaloniki, 1973, p. 65, 86 (= KUSTAS, Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric) etc. 37 For the functions of the parts of hermeneutic grammar see GUDEMAN, Grammatik. ROBINS, The Byzantine Grammarians. HUNGER, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur, Bd. II, p. 10-50 (Die elementaren Voraussetzungen der byzantinischen Philologie). THE SIGNIFICANCE OF GREGORY THE THEOLOGIAN'S WORKS 285 the above mentioned explanations the Hellenization of language for Georgian translations meant the employment of the high rhetorical style, rhetorical ornaments, it meant the laconism of philosophical terms composed according the Greek wordbuilding models using the rich capaci- ties of the native Georgian language, it also meant syntactical and linguistic calques in order to shorten the phrase like in Greek. Sometimes it implied the interpretation of the peculiarities of classical metre formed in the notes added to the translations38. The Hellenic (i.e. secular) education (rhetoric, grammar, philosophy etc.) as a prestigious education for Christians acquires more importance in Georgian literature. The third translation of the fragment of Gregory's or. 43 concerning this problem is not accidental. The use of rhetorical devices, grammatical commentaries, philosophical terminology became more obvious at this period. The new rhetorical and grammatical terminology is used in Ephrem's translation of Basilius Minimus's commentaries and in his own notes. Later the classical Neoplatonic philosophical monuments — Ammonius, Nemesios of Emessa, Proclus were translated for the students of the Georgian Hellenophile School (i.e. Gelati theological school). Thus, as is shown above, the early Byzantine literary processes took place in Georgia much later — in the 11th century. This had many causes. One of them is characterized by the Old Georgian scholars them- selves. The discussions of George the Athonite, Ephrem Mtsire, Arsen of Iqaltho make it clear that the faith of Georgians, and accordingly, their literature had been homogenous and straight without any heresy since its beginning till the 11th-12th centuries, the period of their activities. Nothing from the pagan, secular or heretical (∂zwqen) literature was translated in this period, because of the spiritual plainness of the Georgian “reader” in St. Paul's meaning of this word (I Cor. 3, 1-2; Hebr. 5, 12-13)39. According to Ephrem Mtsire, Georgian literature was

38 BEZARASHVILI, The Problem of Classical Greek Versification. OTKHMEZURI, BEZARASHVILI, The Greek Original of One Fragment (the texts are prepared for publication and analyzed by OTKHMEZURI; the interpretation of the sources and conceptual view belongs to BEZARASHVILI). 39 Cf. giorgi mwire, wxorebay da mo≤ala≤obay ∑midisa da netarisa mamisa cuenisa giorgi m¯a∑midelisay (Giorgi Mtsire, The Life and Activity of St. Father George of the Holy Mountain), in øveli ≤ar¯uli agiografiuli literaturis øeglebi (Monumenta Hagiographica Georgica, 11th-15th centuries), II, ed. I. ABU-

LADZE, p. 12319-26; 1549-15 sq. efrem mwire, u∑qebay mizezsa ≤ar¯vel¯a mo≤we- visasa, ¯u romel¯a ∑ign¯a ˙ina moisenebis (Ephrem Mtsire, The Information on the Reason of Conversion of the Georgians and on the Books where it is Mentioned), ed.

Th. BREGADZE, Tbilisi, 1959, p. 121-5. arsen iqal¯oeli, wxorebay da mo≤ala≤obay 286 K. BEZARASHVILI rising to new highs from plainness to complication, from spiritual naiveté to intellectual accomplishment (cf. the colophon added to the liturgical homilies of Gregory Nazianzen)40. That is why most complicated theological-philosophical works were translated later, especially the works of Hellenic literary-philosophical forms. Orientation to Hel- lenic literature and philosophy have become more significant since the 11th century because of the higher intellectual level of the readers in comparison to previous periods. These readers had been prepared for understanding the rhetorical and philosophical depth by the gradual movement towards it. Such reader could appreciate the problem of the correct use of secular wisdom in the service of Christianity (this was the peculiar feature of scholasticism in the Middle Ages). Another cause of this process in Georgia along with the spiritual re- quirements of Georgian thought were the processes in contemporary Byzantine literature. As is known, in the 11th-12th centuries the scholarly-critical research methodology of the Byzantine and classical texts was worked out in Byzantium, striving for the literary-theoretical thinking, profound interest to the Hellenic rhetorical theory and grammar, commentary writing activities, etc41. These problems of Byzantine literary-theoretical thinking (or rhetorical theory, as termed in the Middle Ages) influenced Georgian literature. This is the second cause why the theoretical comprehension of the above-mentioned process began in the 11th century Georgia. The problems studied by Ephrem Mtsire are the following: the relations between the theological contents and the refined pagan classical rhetorical imagery of Christian writings; classical versificatory forms; grammar and prosody; new theory of theological-rhetorical style and new, the Christian aspect of the concept of imitation unlike the traditional classical theories of styles and traditional classical concept of imitation; two aspects of the concept of beauty etc. Ephrem analyzed these

didisa da ˚irsisa dedisa cuenisa ninoysi (Arsen of Iqaltho, The Life and Activ- ity of the Great and Worthy Mother Nino), in øveli ≤ar¯uli literaturis øeglebi (The Literary Monuments of Old Georgian Literature), ed. I. LOLASHVILI, Tbilisi, 1978, p. 395, 10-20. 40 “mamay cueni ef¯ªme …siccoebasa cuenisa na¯esavisasa søi¯a zrdida da mxli¯a, xolo a∑ mis mier a˚zrdili eri misi¯ave madli¯a mtkiwisa sazrdelisa mo≤ene i≤mna” (cod. Jer. Georg. 43, s. XII-XIII, f. 2v). S.Gregorii Nazianzeni Opera, Versio Iberica I, p. XXXIII-XXXIV. 41 L.D. REYNOLDS, N.G. WILSON, Scribes and Scholars. A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, Oxford, 1991, p. 1-79. N.G. WILSON, Scholars of Byzan- tium, Baltimore, Maryland, 1983. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF GREGORY THE THEOLOGIAN'S WORKS 287 problems using analogous paradigms mainly from the works of Gregory the Theologian42. The most important problem connected with the above-mentioned movement at the end of 11th century Byzantium and correspondingly in Georgia is the establishment of the celebration of the feast of the Three Hierarchs of the Church: Gregory Nazianzen, Basilius the Great and John Chrysostom, as the paragons of a true rhetoric, based not only on the style but also on the theological contents43. These wise men became not merely the philosophical and theological ideals of Byzantium, they were considered as rhetorical ideals as well. In these characters the two levels came together: the charm of their words, their human “logos” and the grace of the divine “Logos”. Through these the true harmony of word and spirit, rhetoric and theology, natural and supernatural is re- stored44. It is noteworthy that Michael Psellos characterizes Gregory Nazianzen's style as the coexistence of rhetoric and philosophy (Psellos,

Perì toÕ qeologikoÕ xarakt±rov, c. 13243-245,340; c. 17317-318). Rhetoric and philosophy sometimes regarded as a unity in classical literature (cf. Plato's true rhetoric as philosophical rhetoric — Gorg. 517a; Phaedr. 261a) is changed into the unity of theology and rhetoric in Christianity in a broader sense, into a true theological rhetoric45. The glory of these Fathers influenced greatly the further development of literature, as it included the idea of theological-rhetorical style as a subject of imitation (“mimesis”) to form a new trend in Byzantine literature, the metaphrastics. That is why the vision of the three Saints by a pious man is mentioned in Ephrem Mtsire's colophon in connection with Symeon Metaphrastes; here Symeon's rhetorical-philosophical style is regarded as equal to the three Hierarchs46. Ephrem's opinions show not

42 See the works of BEZARASHVILI and OTKHMEZURI mentioned above. 43 As is known, the Cappadocian Fathers and John Chrysostom developed the philosophical basis of the Christian doctrine to a high level of sophistication; they utilized their Attic language and style in order to be taken seriously by an educated audience. See G.A. KENNEDY, Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors, Princeton, New Jersey, 1983, p. 50, 185 (= KENNEDY, Greek Rhetoric). 44 Johannus's vision in 1084 is meant here. See Johannis Euchaitarum metropolitae quae in codice Vaticano Graeco 676 supersunt, edd. P. DE LAGARDE et J. BOLLIG, in Abhandlungen der Göttinger Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 28, Berlin, 1882, p. 115. Cf. Syceliotes, Prol. Syll., 395, 10ff. BECK, Antike Beredsamkeit, S. 95-96. KUSTAS, Stud- ies in Byzantine Rhetoric, p. 124-125. 45 G.A. KENNEDY, Greek Rhetoric, p. 126-131 G.A. KENNEDY, Classical Rhetoric and its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times, London, 1980, p. 41- 82. KUSTAS, Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric, p. 124. 46 efrem mwire, “mosaåsenebeli mwire sªmeonisa¯ªs lo˚o¯etisa”. K. KE- KELIDZE, Simeon Metafrast po gruzinskim istownikam (K. KEKELIDZE, Symeon 288 K. BEZARASHVILI only the religious cult of Gregory established in Byzantium at that period, but also the importance of his theological doctrines and rhetoric for the Middle Ages. At the same time Ephrem's views (in the colophon to his translations of the 16 liturgical homilies by Gregory the Theologian) about Gregory's theological-philosophical ideas addressed only to the few learned (i˙ª¯ vie¯¯ªsme gulisåmismqofel¯a¯ªs) is in accordance with Psellos's ideas on combining philosophy with rhetoric as a rare achievement not meant for the common crowd47. Thus Ephrem's works are on the same level with the Byzantine thought. Having in mind the Greek literary processes in connection with the mentioned problems, Ephrem agrees with the Byzantine approach of relations between rhetoric and philosophy, on the one hand, and their attitude towards theology, on the other. Ephrem's opinions expressed in his translations and colophons had great influence on establishing the idea of combining rhetoric with philosophy in Georgian literature. The further development of Georgian Hellenophile literature is a clear illustration of it. This tendency is also traced in the original literature. As rhetoric and theology are considered as one in Byzantium, rhetoric was also regarded as a sacred art. This opinion was also accepted in Georgian thinking. In the masterpiece of Georgian secular poetry, Rustaveli's “The Knight in the Panter's Skin”, the art of poetry (which was often understood as the art of rhetoric in the rhetorical theories48) is regarded as a part of divine wisdom, theology (˙airoba pirveladve sibrønisaa er¯i dargi — v. 12, 1).

3. The direct and indirect quotations and hidden paradigms from Gregory the Theologian's works in Georgian Literature

The direct and indirect quotation of Gregory the Theologian's phrases in the works of Georgian authors is closely connected with the conceptual influence of Gregory's works on Georgian thinking. It is known that Gregory's wording deeply influenced Christian authors which was caused by Gregory's great popularity. His phraseology was famous and

Metaphrastes according to Georgian sources), in “etiudebi” (Etudes), V, Tbilisi, 1957, p. 212-226;.219; 224-225. 47 Psell. ep. 174; Mes. bibl. ed. C. Sathas, 1876. KUSTAS, Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric, p. 27, 85, 146. 48 H. HUNGER, Aspekte der griechischen Rhetorik von Gorgias bis zum Untergant von Byzanz, Wien, 1972, p. 3-27 etc. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF GREGORY THE THEOLOGIAN'S WORKS 289 clear for every educated person49. Besides numerous direct use of max- ims or dogmatical formulas from Gregory's works (Gregory says the Theologian or simply Theologian) in Georgian literature (mainly in ascetic and hagiographic50), there are a lot of hidden quotations, theological-philosophical or rhetorical expressions without direct mentioning of the author. The 12-13th century Hellenophile philosopher and translator Ioane Petritsi quotes some phrases from Gregory's theological orations (or. 31, or. 29) in his preface of the commentaries on Psalms. It is noteworthy that he calls Gregory “my Theologian” and “my Attician”51 to distin- guish him from the classical philosopher Plato who is mentioned simply as “Attician”52. The co-occurrence of the possessive pronoun which means “ecclesiastical, Christian” in Patristic literature53 with the pagan

49 The importance of this problem is studied in J. NORET, Grégoire de Nazianze, l'auteur le plus cité, après la Bible dans la Littérature ecclésiastique byzantine, in II Sym- posium Nazianzenum, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1981, Actes edités par J. MOSSAY (Forschungen zu Gregor von Nazianz, Bd. II), Paderborn, München, Wien, Zürich, 1983, p. 259-266. Gregory the Theologian's speech was the model for the Byzantine authors of all periods (J. SAJDAK, De Gregorio Nazianzeno posteriorum rhetorum, grammaticorum, lexico- graphorum fonte, in Eos, 16 (1910), p. 94-99; Eos, 18 (1912), p. 1-30). 50 ¯. bregaøe, grigol nazianzelis ¯xzuleba¯a ˙emwvel ≤ar¯ul xelna∑er¯a a˚∑eriloba (Th. BREGADZE, The Description of Georgian Manuscripts Con- taining Gregory Nazianzen's Works), Tbilisi, 1989, p. 3-4. e. ©eliøe, øiebani ∑m. grigol ˚v¯ismetqvelis ˙esaxeb (E. CHELIDZE, Studies in St. Gregory Nazianzen), in “filologiuri øiebani” (Philological Researches), II, Tbilisi, 1995, p. 164-200. ≤. bezara˙vili, grigol nazianzelis ¯xzulebani da ≤ar¯uli sam∑er- lobo tradiwiebi (K. BEZARASHVILI, The Works of Gregory Nazianzen and Georgian Literary Traditions), in “mawne” (Proceedings of the Georgian Academy of Sciences, Language and Literature Series), 1-4 (1994), p. 73-103 (= BEZARASHVILI, The Works of Gregory Nazianzen) etc. 51 “awumides o≤romøiv¯a ma¯ ¯ªs¯a cemi igi attikeli, rame¯u itqªs, vi¯armed: ”mxoloy dasabamsave drka da vidre samobamdis dadga“ (cf. Monàv âp ˆ ârx±v eîv duáda kinjqe⁄sa, méxri Tríadov ∂stj. Gr. Naz. or. 29, c. 2. PG 36, 76 B 9-10). Ioannis Petritzii, Opera, t. II. Commentaria in Procli Diadochi Stoixeíwsin Qeologikßn. Textum Hibericum ediderunt commentariisque instruxerunt S. NUTSUBIDZE et S. KAUCHTSCHISCHVILI, Tbilisiis, 1937, p. 209; 31-210 (= Ioannis Petritzii Opera). 52 e. ©eliøe, ioane petri∑is “cemi attikelis” ˙esaxeb (E. CHELIDZE, On Ioane Petritsi's “My Attician”). A paper read on the 40th Jubilee Session of K. Ke- kelidze Institute of Manuscripts (Georgian Academy of Sciences) in 1999. 53 ∂zw(qen), zénov, âllótriov meaning “outer”, “stranger”, “foreign” denoted non-Christian, non-ecclesiastical, pagan, profane, secular or heretic doctrines in Patristic literature (cf. Hebr. 13, 9; II Pet. 1, 16; II Cor. 1, 12; I Cor. 2, 6; 3, 19; Marc. 7, 7; Matth. 15, 9; 16, 23 etc.); ™méterov — “our”, on the other hand, means Christian, ecclesiastical doctrines, Divine Wisdom (cf. I Cor. 2, 7). LAMPE, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, s.v. ™méterov, ∂zw. 290 K. BEZARASHVILI ethnic name “Attician” in the phrase “my Attician” is most unusual. Ioane Petritsi thus underlines the Hellenic aspect of Gregory's works and their supposed classical philosophical source54. At the same time the Georgian philosopher emphasizes his personal attitude towards this aspect. Besides, Ioane Petritsi used a part of Gregory's famous phrase: älieutik¬v, oûk ˆAristotelik¬v (or. 23, c. 12. PG 35, 1164 C 12 — D 1)55, which was widespread in the Middle Ages. He wished he could contemplate in the Aristotelian manner (mearistotelura) and create the pure theology not having matter56. The well-known distinction between the monastic spirituality, experiential theology, or the fishers' plainness, on the one hand, and philosophical syllogism or the intellectual method of scholastic theology, discursive logical thinking, on the other, i.e. the distinction between faith and reason is meant here57. With 54 It is supposed that Gregory Nazianzen discusses select phrases from philosophy that he considers as appropriate or inappropriate. The proper talk about the original monad moving into a dyad and finally a triad, is regarded as an indirect quotation (i.e. quotation by memory) of its supposed Neoplatonic source — Plotinus's Enneads V,2,1. See Faith Gives Fullness to Reasoning. The Five Theological Orations of Gregory Nazianzen, introduction and commentary by F.W. NORRIS (Supplement to Vigiliae Christianae, v. XIII), 1990 (copyright 1991), p. 134. Cf. B. WYSS, Gregor von Nazianz, col. 833-834. C. MO- RESCHINI, Il Platonismo cristiano di Gregorio Nazianzeno, in Annali della Scuola Normale superiore di Pisa, Ser. III, IV.4 (1974), p. 1390-1391. G. FLOROVSKIÎ, Vostownxe otcx IV-VIII vv. (G. FLOROVSKI, Eastern Christian Fathers of the 4th-8th centuries), Paris, 1931 (reprinted in 1999), p. 109. For the novelty of philosophical term kínjsiv as terminus technicus for dogmatics in the works of Christian Fathers — Gregory Nazianzen (or. 29) and Gregory of Nyssa see ¯. doliøe, er¯i filo- sofiuri wnebis rewefwiisa¯vis grigol noselis moø˚vreba˙i ∑m. samebis ˙esaxeb (Th. DOLIDZE, Zur Rezeption eines philosophischen Begriffes in der Gotteslehre Gregors von Nyssa), in Metánoia. A Collection Dedicated to the 130th Birth Anniversary of Prof. G. Tsereteli, Tbilisi, 2001, p. 100. 55 Cf. Ephrem Mtsire's translation: “me¯evzurebr, ara aristotelebr”. cod. Tbilisi A 292, a. 1800, f. 254r. 56 “xedvaymwa filosofos¯a ganwdisay mearistotelura da ˚mr¯isme- tquelebay niv¯isagan miuxebeli ∑armomeqena” (= Ioannis Petritzii, Opera, II, p. 22217-22). 57 On the understanding of the term ˆAristotelikóv in the Middle Ages see the following works: HUNGER, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur, Bd. I, p. 43; D.T. RUNIA, Festugière revisited: Aristotle in the Greek Patres, in Vigiliae Christianae, 43 (1989), p. 1-14. On the understanding of Aristotle's term “not having matter” (ãneu Ãljv xwristà t±v Ãljv) see C. CAVARNOS, The Hellenic-Christian Philosophical Tradi- tion, Balmont, Massachusetts, 1989, p. 40-42. Ammonius, in Aristotelis Categorias Commentarius, ed. A. Busse (Commentaria in Aristotelem graeca, IV, 4), Berlin, 1895, p. 11, l. 27-28. For the interpretation of the problem in Ioane Petritsi's work see ≤. bezara˙vili, ioane petri∑is e.∑. bolositqvaobis zogier¯i adgilis gagebisa¯vis: “mearistotelura” (K. BEZARASHVILI, On the Understanding of THE SIGNIFICANCE OF GREGORY THE THEOLOGIAN'S WORKS 291 these words Ioane Petritsi develops activity and desire of his predeces- sor, Ephrem Mtsire. In the preface to his translation of “Dialectics” by John of Damascus (which presents Aristotle's logical methods to serve Christian theology) Ephrem Mtsire says that “nothing philosophical had been translated into Georgian during the earlier period”58. Ioane Petritsi wishes to approach Georgian thought to dogmatic, scholastic theology, after Georgian thought had already progressed through ascetic, monastic theology. In the interrelation of faith and reason Ioane Petritsi and the whole Georgian Hellenophile school (i.e. Gelati school), is based on the thought of the Alexandrian and Cappadocian Fathers. The role of Gregory's writings is significant for the understanding of some literary processes and the outlook of Medieval Georgian writers. Gregory's works, the commentaries on his writings, namely the Pseudo-Nonnos's Commentaries, were well known and much used in medieval Georgian literature. For Georgian scholars the collection of the mythological histories was one of the best means of access to the classical world and to Greek mythology. Mythological characters and the names of Greek philosophers and pagan gods mentioned in the commentaries can also be found in original Georgian writings of the 12th and 13th centuries (in the Odes by Chakhrukhadze and Shavteli and in the historiography “Life of David the King of Kings” and “History and Eu- logy of the Monarchs”). All this opened a new outlook for the medieval Georgian reader and prepared a foundation for the development of the Georgian secular literature59. The use of rhetorical, mythological paradigms in Georgian secular literature (historiography, eulogies) and the models of interrelation of pagan and Christian, worked out in the writings of the Cappadocian Fa- thers, namely in Gregory the Theologian's, also the importance of Ephrem's activity based on Cappadocian thought seem to have fairly great influence on determining literary processes in Georgian culture. The direction of Ephrem's thinking prepared the basis for establishing favorable attitude of the original literature towards the Hellenic education and the forms of its literature and philosophy. In the 11th-12th cen- Some Passages from the so-called Epilogue by Ioane Petritsi:“'mearistotelura”) (presented at the conference “Classical Evidence in World Literature and Art” held at the In- stitute of Classical Philology, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies of Tbilisi State Uni- versity, 27-28, XII, 2004 is being published in Logos, 3 (2005). 58 “sxuay araray odes ¯argmnila safilosofoso¯a ∑ign¯agani” (cod. Tbilisi A 24, s. XII, f. 1v). John of Damascus, Dialectics, p. 66. 59 Pseudo-Nonniani in IV Orationes Gregorii Nazianzeni Commentarii. Versio Iberica, edita a TH. OTKHMEZURI (Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca, 50; Corpus Nazianzenum, 16), Turnhout/Leuven, 2002, p. LXI-LXV. 292 K. BEZARASHVILI turies these processes ensured very high level of Georgian secular literature and especially the outlook of its most important monument “The Knight in the Panther's Skin” by Shota Rustaveli. As we have seen, one of the important features of Gregory the Theo- logian's writings was the problem of coexistence of pagan literary form and Christian contents. He calls it “to sweeten the bitterness” of the commandments with the help of art (téxnjÇ glukáhwn tò píkron t¬n êntol¬n — c. I, 2, 39, v. 41) with the purpose of showing the younger generation the path to virtue (vv. 37-43). The “young” in Gregory's writings is used in St. Paul's spiritual meaning of this word (Hebr. 5, 13- 14). The source of this phrase is pagan: Lucretius intends to sweeten bitterness of philosophy for older children in “De rerum natura” (I, 936- 943). The superiority of theology in the Middle Ages took the place of the superiority of philosophy of the classical period. The reason is that the concept of beauty and charm for Christians is not in the words, but in contemplation, in divine idea (tò kállov ™m⁄n ên qewríaç — Gr. Naz. PG 37, c. II, 1, 39, v. 51). Michael Psellos calls it providing the Pearl of Gospel (Matth. 13, 45-46) with gold frames. He meant to express the beauty of mystic contemplation and wisdom with rhetorical ornaments (Psellos, Perì toÕ qeologikoÕ xarakt±rov, c. 5; 85-90). Both of these Christian authors call this way of connecting pagan form and Christian contents a “different” (ãlljn) or “new”, “unusual” (kainß) way of rhetoric (lógov): ãlljn t¬n lógwn ödón (Gr. Naz. PG 37, c. II, 1, 39, v. 22; 64); kainòn toÕtˆ ån e÷j tò nójma

(Psellos, Perì toÕ qeologikoÕ xarakt±rov, c. 232). The coexistence of classical literary form and Christian contents corresponds to a new concept of style, named by Psellos “theological” (qeologikòv xarak- tßr). In accordance with the above-mentioned antinomy characteristic of Byzantine literature, theological style presupposed the existence of two aspects of the concept of “mimesis” (imitation). According to the norms of classical theories of rhetoric — also accepted by the Byzantine theory of rhetoric, the concept of “mimesis” implied the imitation of the best rhetorical art of classical authors — katà h±lon ârxaíwn (Psellos,

Perì toÕ qeologikoÕ xarakt±rov, c. 239); êmime⁄to zúmpanta (Psellos, PG 122, 905 A 9, c. 2)60. In Byzantine literary monuments the new, Christian understanding of the concept of imitation is also traced. This meant the imitation of divine thought, heavenly wisdom in the sense of

60 KUSTAS, Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric, p. 18, 170. HUNGER, On the Imitation of Antiquity. BEZARASHVILI, Traditional, Classical Concept of Imitation. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF GREGORY THE THEOLOGIAN'S WORKS 293 the Apostle Paul (cf. I Cor. 4, 16; 11, 1; 14, 1). On the one hand, in its literary-theoretical sense the term meant the imitation of Apostle Paul's semantic obscurity; this is demonstrated by the example of Gregory the Theologian (cf. tòn êkeinoÕ PaÕlon mimoúmenov — Psellos, Perì toÕ qeologikoÕ xarakt±rov, c. 15291-292). On the other hand, it meant the imitation of stylistic plainness of the Apostles; the example is again Gregory the Theologian's writings (oû katà túpon t¬n ∂zwqen so- f¬n, âllà katà mímjsin âtexn¬v t®n âpostolikßn — Nicet.Paphl. Enc.Gr.Naz.)61. In connection with the translations of Gregory the Theo- logian's liturgical homilies the two aspects of the concept of imitation are commented on by Ephrem Mtsire in his colophons62. The same problem is thoroughly thought out by Ephrem in connection with the poetry of the Theologian. In the translation of the “Life of Gregory Nazianzen” Ephrem suggests his own understanding (added to Greek original) of the problem. Here he talks about the imitation of the classical, secular literary forms in Gregory's poetry for expressing Christian contents63. The problem of the causes of development of secular literature in Georgia arises here. To my opinion, along with other causes of this process discussed in Georgian scholarship, the main cause is the above-mentioned dualistic attitude towards classical literary forms. Christian contents in famous classical secular form (or in any pagan/secular form) became the main background for introducing allegory into Georgian secular poetry. This basical frame/model may include all other causes

61 Cf. The Encomium of Gregory Nazianzen by Niceta the Paphlagonian. Greek text edited and translated by J. RIZZO (Subsidia Hagiographica, 58), Bruxelles, 1976, p. 19- 20. For the interpretation see BEZARASHVILI, New, Christian Aspect of the Concept of Imi- tation. 62 Typologically as well as in imagery Ephrem's idea of classical aspect of imitation is close to Michael Psellos's understanding of this concept displayed in his tract on the style of the St. Fathers. Here Michael Psellos talks about imitating the expressive literary forms of classical authors by the Cappadocian Fathers and John Chrysostom (Psellos, PG 122; BEZARASHVILI, Psellos's Tract on the Style of Cappadocian Fathers). Ephrem's interpretation of the new aspect of the concept of imitation is close to the interpretation given in Psellos's monographic tract where he underlines the adventages of the beauty of the divine contents in Gregory's works in comparison to classical authors (Psellos, Perì toÕ qeologikoÕ xarakt±rov; BEZARASHVILI, Michael Psellos on Theological Style). 63 p¢n e¤dov paideúsewv to⁄v îdíoiv lógoiv âpetupÉsato (Vita Gr.Naz. PG 35, 265 A 11 — B 9): add. “gare˙e¯a amsgavsa guari, ˙e∑qobilebay da marwuali, xolo mizezi sitqªsay ˙emoi˚o sa˚mr¯o¯a ∑eril¯a moø˚urebisagan… da qovelgan ganh¯esa… s∑avlay ˚mr¯ismetquelebisa¯ªs (qeologían)” - Gre- gory imitated the “outer” (literary) forms, genre, versification, but he took the contents of his writings from the teaching of Holy Scripture; and he spread the theological ideas everywhere (cod. Tbilisi A 109, s. XII-XIII, f. 245 rv). 294 K. BEZARASHVILI mentioned before in scholarly literature: the influence of Persian po- etry64 (which flourished at that period and which also was “outer” — ∂zwqen for Christian thinking), the development of national pre-Chris- tian pagan folk literature65, the imagery, genres and some other literary forms of Ecclesiastical Literature transferred to secular66. It becomes obvious that the above-mentioned thinking of the models and paradigms of Cappadocian Fathers and their commentators help to define the national origin and place of “The Knight in the Panther's Skin” in the context of Christian Literature. The literary criticism of the Soviet ideology criticizing Europcentrist approach (rejecting “European type of literature”) mistakenly attributed the monument to the type of the Persian novelistic epos (V. Jirmunski, V. Shishmarjov, E. Meletinski)67. The model — Christian contents in non-Christian, pagan, secular literary form, which was widespread in Gregory's writings, makes clear the same esthetical point of view for Rustaveli. That is why he calls his poem “Persian tale”68 which is to be understood as the best literary form for

64 N. MARR, Vozniknovenie i rascvet drevnegruzinskoî svetskoî literaturx (N. MARR, The Development and Golden Age of Old Georgian Secular Literature), in Çurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosvejeniq (Journal of the Ministry of Public Education), XII, 1899, p. 251. 65 p. ingoroqva, rus¯avelis epo≤is saliteraturo memkvidreoba (P. INGOROQVA, The Literary Inheritance of Rustaveli's Epoch), in rus¯avelis saiu- bileo krebuli (The Collection Dedicated to the Anniversary of Rustaveli), Tbilisi, 1938, p. 1-2. 66 k. kekeliøe, øveli ≤ar¯uli literaturis istoria (K. KEKELIDZE, History of Old Georgian Literature), II, Tbilisi, 1981, p. 5-25. 67 See M. KARBELASHVILI, Rustaveli's Poem “The Knight in the Panter's Skin” within the Context of Comparative Studies, in Bulletin of the Georgian Academy of Sciences, 153, 3 (1996), p. 474-478. 68 “ese ambavi sparsuli ≤ar¯ulad na¯argmanebi” (this Persian story translated into Georgian — v. 9). The term “Persian” is not used here in its direct lexical meaning as a geographical and ethnical name. It does not denote here the ethnic origin of the poem. In scholarship it is already known that the same plot has never been found in Persian-language literature. “Persian” means here “non-Christian”, “secular” in the generalized meaning of a literary-theoretical term; cf.“hindian” as the literary-theoretical term in the same context in Ephrem Mtsire's writings based on Gregory Nazianzen's poems (see here above ch. 2 and BEZARASHVILI, Ephrem Mtsire on the Relations). It is noteworthy that Rustaveli's first commentator king and poet Vakhtang VI (17th-18th centuries) correctly understood and interpreted Rustaveli's mentioned formula as “the imitation of Persian literary form” and confirmed non-Persian origin of the poem (“a∑ imas ambobs, sparsulis mibaøvi¯ radgan a¯≤mevina ¯amar mefem, rom spars¯agan vs¯argmneo; ¯varam spars˙id es ambavi arsad ipoeba; ambaviw ¯vi¯an gaake¯a da le≤sadaw imis¯vis ubnobs, rom sparsis le≤sis baøzed rom s¯≤va, sparsuli ambavi ≤ar¯ulad v¯argmneo” — In “translation from Per- sian” Rustaveli means the imitation of Persian poems which was ordered to him by king THE SIGNIFICANCE OF GREGORY THE THEOLOGIAN'S WORKS 295

“divine contemplation”, “the imitation of divine love” (cf. I Cor. 14, 1)69. Thus the coexistence of the two aspects of the concept of imitation is evident in the poem. The poem is based on Byzantine esthetics just as its Christian contents is mainly based on Patristic theology. The above mentioned model/paradigm of the interrelation of secular literary form and Christian contents was also in use in the 18th century Georgian literature which was still set in the frame of Christian ideology. The famous Georgian metaphysical poet of this period David Guramishvili employs the paradigm of interrelation between secular and spiritual wisdom (sweet esthetical form and divine contents) for the same purpose as Gregory used it — for enlightening younger generation (qrma – néov) which is young not only of age, but also in spirit (cf. Hebr. 5, 12-14; I Cor. 13, 11; 14, 20)70. The last point of Gregory's influence on Georgian literature is the 19th century romanticism. As is well known, Biblical and Christian poetry is regarded to be the source of romantic poetry71. So it is only natural that typologically similar images are found in the poetry of Gregory Nazianzen and the Georgian romantic poet Nikolos Baratashvili. The phraseology, composition, motivation of Baratashvili's poem addressed to the evil spirit remind of Gregory's famous cycle of poems “Ad diabolum” (though the attitude of the monk and the young poet are different to one and the same problem). It should be taken into considera-

Thamar. The same plot has not been found in Persia. The plot and the verse are created by Rustaveli himself. The reason of imitating literary form itself is that Persian poetry was regarded as the best at that period (spars¯ kai mele≤seoba iwodnen), and it was fa- miliar to Georgian readers. See ˙o¯a rus¯aveli, vefxistqaosani, vaxtangi- seuli gamowema 1712 ∑lisa (Ch. Roustavéli, Le Preux à la Peau de Tigre, Rédigé et commenté par Vakhtang V. Conforme à la première édition de 1712), Additions et Éclaircissements par A. CHANIDZÉ, Tbilissi, 1937, p. sje-sjv (= 295-296). See about the literary fiction in Rustaveli's poem m. karbela˙vili, rus¯velologia XX-XXI ss. mi∆naze: XXs. problemebi da XXI s. perspe≤tivebi (M. KARBELASHVILI, The Rustvelology on the Bounds of 20th-21th Centuries: The Problems of 20th century and the perspectives of the 21st century), in ˙o¯a rus¯aveli (Shotha Rustaveli. A Collec- tion of Researches), I, Tbilisi, 2000, p. 5-41. 69 Rustaveli's phrases about divine contemplation (sa˚mr¯od gasagoni — v. 12, 2), first, celestial (i.e. divine) love (v¯≤va mi∆nuroba pirveli da tomi gvar¯a zena¯a — v. 20, 1) and imitation of it (mar¯ masve hbaøven — v. 21, 4) imply the imitation of divine love praised by St. Apostles (I Cor. 13; I Cor. 8, 1-3; I Pet. 4, 8; I Jo. 4 etc.) and quoted by Rustaveli in Avthandil's testament (∑agiki¯xavs, siqvarulsa mowi≤ulni ragvar ∑eren?… — v. 791, ed. by A. BARAMIDZE, K. KEKELIDZE, A. SHANIDZE, Tbilisi, 1957) by means of earthy love. This is the main contents and idea of the poem. 70 BEZARASHVILI, The works of Gregory the Theologian. 71 E. DUBEDOUT, Le sentiment Chrétien dans la Poésie Romantique, Paris, 1901. 296 K. BEZARASHVILI tion that the collections of Georgian translations of Gregory's poems were widespread not only in the church libraries but also in the aristo- cratic families of the 18th-19th centuries Georgia72.

Today the interest on Gregory the Theologian's works in Georgia is moved from literature to scholarship. At the Institute of Manuscripts (Georgian Academy of Sciences), a group of Georgian scholars is working on the old translations of Gregory Nazianzen's works. In collabora- tion with European scholars — the International group of Gregory Nazianzen Studies — the Georgian team has already published the four volumes of the Georgian translations of St. Gregory's liturgical homilies which are included in the “Corpus Christianorum”. Further volumes are almost ready for publication. We would allow to make one parallel here: according to Ephrem Mtsire's colophons, while translating Gregory's works he used to go to the rich libraries of the Antioch Churches and ask for the consultations of educated ecclesiasts. As is known, he received the advice even from the patriarch of Antioch concerning the Greek collections, commentaries, theological terminology, mythological questions etc.73, with the purpose of bringing Georgian literature into line with the

72 BEZARASHVILI, The works of Gregory the Theologian. 73 ¯. o¯xmezuri, efrem mwiris avtografuli nusxis (S1276) er¯i m¯argmneliseuli s≤olios ˙esaxeb (Th. OTKHMEZURI, On the Grammatical Note of Ephrem Mtsire's Authographic Manuscript), in “istoriul-filologiuri krebuli” (Historical-Philological Collection), 1997, p. 78-81. ¯. o¯xmezuri, efrem mwiris “˙eis∑aveni” grigol ˚v¯ismetqvelis liturgikuli saki¯xavebis berønuli ∑qaros ˙esaxeb (Th. OTKHMEZURI, Ephrem Mtsire's Notes on the Greek Original of the Collection of Gregory Nazianzen's Liturgical Sermons), in “mawne” (Proceedings of the Georgian Academy of Sciences, Language and Literature Series), 1-4, 1998, p. 138-148. ¯. o¯xmezuri, antikur avtor¯a ∑ignebi bizantiur epo≤a˙i: efrem mwire da “gare˙e¯a” ∑ignebi (Th. OTKHMEZURI, The Manuscripts of Classical Authors in the Byzantine World: Ephrem Mtsire and the “Books of Pa- gans”), in ˆAnáqesiv, Philological-Historical Studies, Dedicated to Academician Th. Kaukhchishvili, Tbilisi, 1999, p. 227-234. ≤. bezara˙vili, efrem mwiris kolo- fonebi m¯argmnelobi¯i me¯odebisa da elinofiluri ¯argmanis maxasia- ¯eblebis ˙esaxeb (K. BEZARASHVILI, The Colophons of Ephrem Mtsire Concerning the Translation Methods and the Peculiarities of Hellenophile Translation), I, in “literaturuli øiebani” (Literary Researches), XXIII, Tbilisi, 2002, p. 76-88; II, in Literary Researches, XXIV, 2003, p. 103-117. ≤. bezara˙vili, elinofiloba ≤ar¯ul m∑erloba˙i, rogorw kulturuli orientawia bizantia˙i mimdi- nare saazrovno prowesebze: efrem mwire (K. BEZARASHVILI, Hellenophilism in Georgian Literature as the Cultural Orientation towards Thinking Processes in Byzan- tium: Ephrem Mtsire), in K. BEZARASHVILI, Theory and Practice of Rhetoric and Transla- tion. A Study of Georgian Translations of Gregory the Theologian's Writings, Tbilisi, 2004, p. 98-159. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF GREGORY THE THEOLOGIAN'S WORKS 297

Byzantine norms. He fulfilled this difficult work with great success in spite of hard times in Antioch at that period. The author of this research would also like to thank the Belgian colleagues for giving her the oppor- tunity of working in the libraries of the Centre for the Study of Gregory of Nazianzus at the Oriental Institute of the Catholic University of Louvain (Louvain-la-Neuve). Working in this library and studying Gre- gory's works from different points of view helped the author in his research to get a wider outlook about the literary processes in Georgia. It helped to evaluate the development of secular literature in Georgia on the basis of Byzantine esthetics originated in Gregory's writings, which resulted in presenting this work concerning one of the most interesting and significant events of the Georgian literature, the process of the translation and assimilation of Gregory Nazianzen's works by Georgians.

Institute of Manuscripts Ketevan BEZARASHVILI K. Kekelidze Alexidze str. 1/3 Tbilisi 0193 Georgia

[email protected]

Abstract — The article analyses the conceptual influence of Cappadocian Fa- ther's, namely Gregory Nazianzen's works, on literary processes in Georgia in the Middle Ages. For this purpose the history of translation of Gregory's works into Georgian is presented. The way from Athos' literary-theological school to the Hellenophilism in Georgian literature obviously shows the development of Georgian literature (translated, as well as original) from plainness to a complicated Hellenophile style. The latter implied the cultural orientation towards Byzantine literary processes. The Hellenophile outlook renowned Georgian theologian and translator Ephrem Mtsire's (11th century) and his grammatical- hermeneutical and literary-theoretical concepts and terminology which were worked out mainly in the process of translating Gregory the Theologian's writings became the basis for the further literary processes in Georgia. The direction of Ephrem's thinking prepared the basis for the favorable attitude of the original literature towards Hellenic education and its literary-philosophical forms. The conceptual models and paradigms of the Cappadocian Fathers on the interrelation between pagan, classical literary-philosophical form and Christian contents were rendered into Georgian literature mainly with the help of Ephrem's translations of Gregory's works and its commentaries. These models also deeply influenced the development of secular literature in Georgia and de- fined its origin from Byzantine esthetics. Thus Ephrem Mtsire's activity based on Cappadocian thought is of great importance for determining the tendencies in Georgian culture.