Chapter IV: Part 4

Rusudan now became queen, and rejected both suitors in favour of Mogit Eddin, Lord of Erzerum. The Sultan of Khorassan thereupon desolated Georgia and took Tiflis, and the Persians and Mongols together made terrible havoc for a time. Rusudan at last submitted to the Mongols, and sent her son to the great Khan as a hostage. Georgia had now sunk very low indeed, and in 1243, on the death of Rusudan, her son, David IV., and her nephew, David V., divided the kingdom between them. Henceforth Kartli and Imereti were independent.

For the next 200 years we read of nothing but battles, sieges, raids, and in 1445 King Alexander completely destroyed the unity of the kingdom by dividing it among his three sons. He gave Kartli to Vakhtang, Imereti to Dimitri, Kakheti to Giorgi. In course of time Mingreli, Guri, Apkhazi, Svaneti, all revolted, and the land became the prey of Turks and Persians alternately, although even in its distracted condition, its people never lost their bravery, and were always respected by their enemies. Now and then the Mahometans succeeded in conquering one or other of the provinces, but it was never long before they were driven out again, and fire and sword carried into their own land.

Towards the end of the sixteenth century we find the country divided between the two great Mahometan powers, who had long made it their battle-field. Mingreli, Guri, Saatabago, and Imereti were held by the Turks; Kartli, Kakheti, Somkheti, and Kartuban voluntarily submitted to Persia, and were, in consequence, repeatedly devastated by the Tatar allies of the Ottoman Empire. In 1586 King Alexander II. of Kakheti sent ambassadors to the Tsar Feodor Ivanovich, asking for help, and a treaty was signed, according to which the Russian monarch agreed to protect Kakheti against the Turks, and to send troops to the Caucasus for this purpose. Shah Abbas the Great made no objection to this treaty, for he himself was anxious to gain the alliance of the Muscovites against Turkey.

Early in the seventeenth century King Giorgi of Kartli also sought Russian protection, and it is probable that Russia and Georgia would have been brought into very intimate connection by royal marriages, &c., if the death of Tsar Boris Godunov, and that of King Giorgi, who was poisoned by order of Shah Abbas, had not broken off the negotiations. The Persian Shah, suspecting King Alexander of Kakheti of a treasonable correspondence with the Turks, sent against him his (Alexander's) own son, Konstantin, who had been brought up at the Persian Court, and had embraced Islam. This apostate mercilessly killed his father and brother; but the nobles rose against him, and almost annihilated his army, whereupon he fled to the Lesghians, and offered to allow them to plunder Tiflis for three days if they would help him. They agreed. The nobles were defeated, and the land was again given up to the devastating infidels.

King Teimuraz of Kakheti, grandson of Alexander, in 1619, from a hiding-place in the mountains, sent an embassy to the Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich, beseeching him to have pity on his Georgian fellow-Christians. The Tsar requested Shah Abbas to cease from persecuting the Georgians, and his wish was granted in the most friendly way possible. Not only was Teimuraz allowed to return to Kakheti, but Kartli also was given to him, and remained a part of his kingdom until 1634, when it was taken from him and given to Rostom, a Mahometan. In 1653 Rostom took Kakheti also, and Teimuraz was obliged to seek refuge at the Court of Imereti, whence he proceeded to Moscow to ask for help; but in consequence of the war then being waged against Poland, the Tsar could not spare any troops. Teimuraz returned to Georgia, and was taken prisoner by the Shah.

Imereti was at this time governed by King Bagrat, who came to the throne at the age of fifteen, his stepmother, Daredjan, being appointed regent. Daredjan endeavoured to gain the love of the young king, who was already married to her niece, and on his refusal to listen to her incestuous proposals, she had his eyes put out, and married Vakhtang Dshudshuna, whom she proclaimed king. Assisted by the Pasha of Akhaltsikhe, the loyal Imeretians replaced Bagrat the Blind on the throne, and then the eyes of Vakhtang were put out, and he and Daredjan were imprisoned.

On the death of Rostom, in 1658, Vakhtang IV., of the Mukhran family, became King of Kartli and Kakheti, and reigned till 1676. When he died his son Giorgi usurped the throne of Kartli, leaving only Kakheti to his elder brother Archil, who journeyed to Moscow, but did not get the desired aid from Russia. He then returned to the Caucasus, five times succeeded in obtaining the crown of Imereti, and five times was deposed. He died in Russia in 1713.

In 1703 Vakhtang V. came to the throne of Kartli. The first seven years of his reign were spent as a prisoner in Ispahan. In 1723 there was a fresh invasion of Turks, and, thinking his kingdom irrevocably lost, he fled to Russia, where he died.

Shah Nadir usurped the crown of Persia in 1736, and freed Kartli and Kakheti from the Turkish yoke. A little before his accession, in 1732, Russia had renounced in favour of Persia all right to the land between the Terek and the Kura. Nadir ingratiated himself with the Georgian nobility, and always gave them the post of honour in the victorious campaigns for which his reign is famous. Almost all the great warriors of the land accompanied him on his Indian march of conquest, and his especial favourite was Irakli, the son of Teimuraz, King of Kartli and Kakheti. An interesting story is told concerning the young warrior, in connection with this expedition. Kandahar having been taken in 1737, Nadir was marching towards Scinde, when he arrived at a certain column bearing an inscription which foretold death to those who went beyond it. Irakli, at that time only nineteen years of age, solved the difficulty by ordering the stone to be placed on the back of an elephant, which was led before the army. Scinde was conquered, and Irakli was richly rewarded. The Shah endeavoured to persuade the young prince to renounce the Christian religion, but neither threats nor caresses prevailed. India having been conquered, Nadir dismissed Irakli in 1739, and then invaded Central Asia, taking Balkh, Bokhara, Samarkand, whence he returned to the Caucasus and made war on the Lesghians. Irakli continued to distinguish himself by great bravery. On the Aragva he defeated 2000 Turks and Lesghians, was the first to cross the swollen river under a heavy musketry fire, and killed the leader of the enemy with his own hand. For this service Nadir bestowed upon him the kingdom of Kakheti in 1744.

In 1747 Shah Nadir was assassinated, and a period of anarchy began in Persia. Aga Mahmad Khan, the chief eunuch, usurped the dignity of Shah. Teimuraz and Irakli saved Erivan from the Persians in 1748, and this city paid tribute to Georgia until 1800, when the people, not wishing to fall into the hands of Russia, invited Persia to take the place. In 1749 Irakli, with 3000 men, signally defeated 18,000 Persians at Karaboulakh and again saved Erivan; then Granja was taken, the Lesghians were dispersed, and an alliance was made with the Cherkesses. Teimuraz went to Russia in 1760; Tsaritsa Elizabeth received him with great honour, and promised to send troops to Georgia, but she died in 1761, and Teimuraz only survived her about a fortnight.

Irakli now succeeded to the throne of Kartli, and thus reunited this kingdom to Kakheti. The Catholicos Antoni, the most learned Georgian of his time, was recalled from exile in Russia and made patriarch; he founded at Tiflis and Telav schools where the "new philosophy" of Bacmeister was taught, translated many educational works into his native tongue, reformed the Church and encouraged literature.

A plot was formed against the king's life in 1765, under the following circumstances: Elizabeth, Irakli's sister, had been married for three years to a certain Giorgi, son of Dimitri Amilakhorishvili, who, for physical reasons, had been unable to consummate the marriage. Elizabeth applied for and obtained a divorce. Dimitri thought himself insulted in the person of his son, and he and his friends began to conspire with Paata, a natural son of Vakhtang V., who had been educated in Russia and England, and had just arrived in Georgia from the Persian court. Paata was to kill Irakli and proclaim himself king. The conspiracy was discovered in time, and all those who had taken part in it were punished with death or mutilation.

Solomon, king of Imereti, had, in the meantime, been driven from his throne by the treachery of some of his nobles, who delivered Kutais, Shorapan and other fortresses to the Turks. He appealed to Catherine of Russia for help. Count Todleben arrived in the Caucasus with 5000 men in 1769, and Kutais was taken back, and Imereti freed from the oppression of the Turks. In the following year a great plague devastated the whole of Transcaucasia, 5000 died in Tiflis alone. The Holy Spear from the Armenian Convent at Edchmiadzin was brought out, and the plague ceased; whereupon the Lesghians demanded that the precious relic should be sent to them also; a spear was made exactly like the holy one, and it produced the same beneficent effect. Todleben was succeeded by Sukhotin, and in 1772, peace having been restored, the Russians returned homeward. But no sooner were they gone than the Turks again invaded Imereti; King Solomon, however, defeated them with great slaughter, killing many with his own hand.

Irakli's kingdom enjoyed comparative peace and prosperity for a time, and advantage was taken of this to disband the regular army and organize a militia, for the defence of the country against the raids of the irrepressible Lesghians. The king and his sons set an example to the people by subjecting themselves to the same discipline as private individuals, and those who did not present themselves for service were sought out and beaten with sticks. In 1779 the Khan of Erivan refused to pay tribute, and strongly fortified the city; the Georgians took the place and carried off several Armenians, who were removed to Tiflis, Gori, and Signakh, where they now constitute the trading and money-lending community.

In 1795 happened the terrible catastrophe which was to bring about the ruin of Georgia--the destruction of Tiflis by the Shah Aga Mahmad. The Persians marched through Armenia in great force, and reached the banks of the Kura without meeting with any serious opposition. Their advanced guard was attacked by the Georgians just outside the city, and was defeated on the 10th of September. Speaking of this battle, the Shah himself said, "I never saw so valorous a foe." On the following day the main body arrived, and Tiflis was taken by storm. King Irakli was so overcome with grief that he must have fallen into the hands of the enemy had not a few faithful nobles forcibly removed him from the captured city and conveyed him to Mtiuleti, on the Aragva. Almost all the Georgian artillery, thirty-five guns, was taken, and the city and its environs were burnt to the ground.

For six days the work of destruction went on; women and young children were barbarously murdered, and the stench of rotting corpses made the place uninhabitable. A Persian historian says, "The brave Persian army showed the unbelieving Georgians what is in store for them at the day of judgment." All this havoc might have been prevented if Russia had sent the troops which she had solemnly promised by her treaties with Irakli, for the Shah had been making preparations for the invasion four months before it took place, and both Russia and Georgia were well aware of this.

Prince Giorgi, unworthy son of such a father, had been repeatedly ordered to bring his army to Tiflis, but he refused. No sooner did he hear of the fall of the capital than he prepared to flee from Signakh, although the place was strongly fortified, and there were many armed men there; but the inhabitants refused to let him go, and it was only by bribing his guards that he succeeded in escaping to Telav. Not one of Irakli's sons served him in the hour of his need.

Mtzkhet was captured and burnt, but the famous cathedral was spared, at the entreaty of the Khan of Nakhitshevan, who remonstrated against the desecration of the tomb of so many of Georgia's brave kings.

From Mtiuleti, Irakli proceeded to Ananur. The Shah sent after him 8000 men, guided by one of the king's own courtiers, but they were defeated. Aga Mahmad then offered to give up all the prisoners as well as the citadel of Tiflis if Irakli would renounce his treaty with Russia, and become tributary to Persia; but Irakli would not hear of any terms, however favourable, which would force him to be false to his alliance with Russia, although she, on her part, had forsaken him. He quickly assembled an army and marched to the southward, met the Persians between Kodjori and Krtsani and defeated them, re-taking Tiflis on the 6th of October.

A large Russian force now arrived and took Derbent, Shemakha, Baku, and several other fortresses in Daghestan, but the death of the Empress Catherine in 1796 put an end to the campaign, for Tsar Paul recalled all the troops from Transcaucasia. In 1797 Aga Mahmad Khan was again marching against Georgia, when he was fortunately assassinated, like his predecessor Nadir. Plague and famine came to slay those who had escaped the sword of the Persians, and, worst of all, the great Irakli died in January, 1798, at the age of eighty, after a career almost unparalleled in history. Frederick of Prussia might well say, "Moi en Europe, et en Asie l'invincible Hercule, roi de Géorgie."

Giorgi now succeeded to the throne, and entered into negotiations with Persia, but Tsar Paul heard of the proposed alliance and outbid the Shah. A treaty was signed, confirming the throne to the Bagratid dynasty for ever, and promising military aid whenever it might be necessary. Alexander, the king's brother, now raised a revolt, which was put down with the help of the Russians; after all he had a grievance, for Irakli's will declared that he was to succeed Giorgi, while the Russians had persuaded the king to appoint as his heir his son David, a major-general in the Russian army. Alexander now appealed to Persia for aid, which he obtained, and in a three hours' battle at Kakabeti, on the Iora, he and Omar Khan, with an army of 12,000 men, were defeated. Giorgi died in 1800, and Georgia was then formally incorporated in the Russian empire.

General Knorring, the first governor, proceeded to the country with 10,000 men, and in the following year, under Tsar Alexander I., the annexation was confirmed. In 1803 Prince Tsitsishvili, a Georgian, succeeded Knorring. By his advice all the royal family were summoned to Russia, "in order to prevent civil dissensions," and this removal was accompanied by a very unfortunate incident. Queen Maria, widow of Giorgi, refused to go; General Lazarev proceeded early one morning to the queen's sleeping apartments with some soldiers and attempted to force her to accompany him; she killed him with a dagger which she had concealed under her dress, and her young son and daughter stabbed some of the soldiers. They were, of course, overpowered and carried off; at Dariel, in the narrowest part of the pass, a few Tagaur Ossets made a vain attempt at a rescue. Queen Maria was kept imprisoned in a convent at Voronezh for seven years, and never saw her native land again.

Tsitsishvili set himself to improve the condition of the country as much as possible. He began the military road over the Caucasus in 1804. He succeeded in persuading King Solomon of Imereti to acknowledge the Tsar as his suzerain, but Solomon soon began to intrigue with the Turks again. After taking Gandja by storm, and subduing a rising of the mountaineers under Pharnavaz and Iulon, sons of Irakli, Tsitsishvili marched against Baku, where he was treacherously murdered by the Khan of that city in 1806.

Count Gudovich was now appointed commander-in-chief, and his courtesy won for him the friendship of the Georgian people. Kakheti voluntarily submitted to his rule. He defeated the Turks in several battles, but was unsuccessful in his attack on Erivan, where he lost 2000 men. He was then recalled and made governor-general of Moscow. General Tormasov was the next ruler of Georgia, and he continued the war against the Turks, who were aided by King Solomon of Imereti. Poti was taken in 1810, and Princess Nina of Mingreli, who was allied to the Russians, herself led her troops to the assault. Sukhum was also taken. King Solomon was persuaded to go to a certain village in Kartli to sign a treaty of peace with Russia. The Russians treacherously seized him by night, and carried him off to prison in Tiflis, but he escaped in disguise, and fled to Akhaltsikhe, where he was received by the Turks with great honour. He returned to Imereti, and the whole country rose in his favour. There were revolts in Kakheti, and even among the Ossets, but they were soon crushed by force of numbers. Then came a plague which carried off vast numbers of victims in Imereti.

Tormasov was replaced by Paulucci, who, after a few months, was, in his turn, superseded by Rtishtshef. In 1813 took place the famous storming of Lenkoran, on the Caspian, by General Kotliarevski, followed by the Gulistan Treaty of Peace, which was signed on behalf of Persia by Sir Gore Ouseley, British ambassador at Teheran.

King Solomon died at Trebizond in 1815, and with him ended the troublous existence of Imereti as an independent kingdom. In about three and a half centuries thirty kings had sat on the Imeretian throne, twenty-two of them were dethroned (one of them, Bagrat the Blind, eight times), seven died a violent death, three were blinded.

Yermolov became governor-general in 1816, and soon afterwards the Chechens and Daghestanians began to give the Russians serious trouble. Then the clergy raised a national movement in Imereti, in which Guri and Apkhazi joined, and in Mingreli, hitherto faithful, the Dadian's brother revolted. All these efforts to shake off the Russian yoke were, of course, fruitless, and they ended in 1822 with the capture of Zakatali from the Lesghians. Then the Cherkesses (Circassians) broke into rebellion, and in 1826 Persia again declared war against Russia and marched 60,000 men into Georgia. Aided by the Lesghians and the Kakhetians, under Alexander, son of Irakli, they were at first successful, but the tide turned, and Erivan, Tavriz, and other places saw Russia victorious.

Paskevich succeeded Yermolov in 1827, and the peace of Turkmenchai having been concluded with Persia, war was declared against Turkey. The Russians took Kars, Poti, Akhalkalaki, Akhaltsikhe, Bayazid from the Turks, and in 1829 the belligerents signed the treaty of Adrianople.

In 1830 Kasi-mullah began his revolt, and brought about a general rising among the Mahometan peoples of the Caucasus. Baron Rosen, who took the command of the army in 1831, captured Gimri, and Kasi-mullah was killed. Golovin (1837), Neidhart (1842), and Prince Vorontsov (1844-1854) enjoyed comparative peace, and were able to turn their attention to the internal condition of the country. Prince Vorontsov especially deserves credit for his honest and painstaking efforts to ameliorate the economic situation of Georgia, and it flatters our national pride to remember that that statesman was English by birth and education, if not by blood.

The pacification of Daghestan did not, as was expected, follow the death of Kasi-mullah. A greater prophet and warrior arose to take the place of the vanquished hero of Gimri. Shamil, after carrying on a guerilla warfare for about ten years, raised the whole of the Eastern Caucasus in 1843, and continued to inflict a series of crushing defeats on the Russian generals who were sent to oppose him. The declaration of war with Turkey in 1853 raised the hopes of the Lesghians, but the utter incapacity of the Turkish leaders in Armenia prevented the realization of those hopes. Everybody is familiar with the incidents of Shamil's career down to the capture at Gunib in 1859; but it seems to me that too little attention has been devoted to the remarkable religious system which inspired the Murids to their marvellous deeds of valour. It is surely a noteworthy fact that the mysticism of the Sufis should have been found to be compatible with a purely militant faith like Islam.

During the last thirty years little of interest has happened in Georgia. The appointment of the Grand Duke Mikhail Nikolaevich to the lieutenancy of the Caucasus in 1862, the gradual freeing of the serfs, the construction of railway and telegraph lines of communication, the founding of one or two banks, schools, and other establishments of public utility, are the chief events which the annalist has to chronicle. "Free" Svaneti was conquered a few years ago, and, for the present, Russia's supremacy is undisputed as far as the frontiers of Turkey and Persia. Even the last war between Russia and Turkey was not accompanied by any visible commotion among the peoples of the Caucasus.

There is as yet no history of Georgia in the sense in which we now understand the word. Those works which are dignified with the name are merely more or less trustworthy collections of materials, which in their present form produce only a feeling of bewilderment in the reader. We trust that a man worthy of the task will seriously take the annals of his nation in hand, and present them to the world in an intelligible form; and we also cherish the hope that he will not finish his task without being able to chronicle the new birth of a strong, independent state worthy to maintain the fame of Irakli and Tamara.

THE LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE OF GEORGIA.

The origin of the Kartlian or Kartvelian language is still involved in some doubt, but the general opinion of philologists seems to be that it does not belong to the Indo-European family, although it has been powerfully influenced by Zend, Sanskrit, Persian, and Armenian. The ancient speech of the country is preserved to us in the ecclesiastical rituals and books of devotion, which are written in characters differing very considerably from the civil alphabet, the "war hand," the invention of the latter being ascribed to King Pharnavaz I., a contemporary of Alexander the Great. The Khutsuri, or ecclesiastical character, bears a striking resemblance to Armenian; an excellent specimen of it may be seen in the British Museum Library, in the famous Moscow Bible of 1743, recently purchased. The number of letters is the same in both alphabets, viz. thirty-eight, and the modern alphabet is as follows:--

a
b
g
d
e
v
z
é (short)
th (not English th but t followed by sound of h)
i (English ee)
c
l
m
n
i (short)
o
p
zh
r
s
t
u (oo)
vi (vee)
ph (p followed by sound of h)
k
gh (guttural)
_ (something like a guttural k)
sh
ch
tz
dz
ts
dch
kh
khh
j
h
ho

The orthography is purely phonetic. There is very little difference between the language of the sacred books and that of to-day, not nearly so much as between Anglo-Saxon and English; but many foreign words have been introduced in modern times.

The earliest specimens of Georgian literature which have come down to us are translations of the Scriptures, and theological works written under the influence of the Greek clergy, who, until the eleventh century, occupied almost all the high ecclesiastical offices in the land.

In the eleventh and twelfth centuries of our era the relations between Georgia and Greece were of the most intimate character. The young nobles of the court of King David the Renewer and his immediate successors frequented the schools of Athens, and brought back with them Platonic and Aristotelian teachings which exerted a very powerful influence on the intellectual and social life of that period, and prepared the way for the golden age of Georgian literature, which dawned on the accession of Queen Tamara. Sulkhan Orbeliani, in the preface to his dictionary, compiled early in the eighteenth century, says that he consulted translations of Proklus, Platonicus, Nemesis, Aristotle, Damascenus, Plato, Porphyry, and many other Greek writers. If these MSS. were still extant, they might prove valuable to classical scholars.

During the stormy times that soon followed, the countless lyrical pieces which were produced were nearly all lost, but the epic which is now looked upon as the greatest masterpiece in the language has escaped with but a few mutilations. This is "The Man in the Panther's Skin" (Vepkhvis Tkaosani) by Shota Rustaveli.

History tells us very little about Shota Rustaveli. We only know that he was born in the village of Rustavi, near Akhaltsikhe, that he received his education in Athens, returned to his native land, where he wrote his great work, was secretary to Queen Tamara, then became a monk, and died in the monastery of the Holy Cross, near Jerusalem, where his portrait may still be seen. Tradition says that the poet was passionately enamoured of his royal mistress, and this assertion seems to be borne out by many passages in the poem.

During nearly seven centuries of ceaseless struggles for freedom, the Georgians have kept this great work fresh in their minds. It has inspired them with hope and courage in the darkest hours, and at the present day it is as great a favourite as it ever was. Not only are many of its verses household words in cottage and hall, but there are not a few Georgians, especially among the women, who know every word of it by heart; indeed, there was a time when no woman was allowed to marry unless she could repeat the whole poem. The reason for this extraordinary popularity is to be found in the fact that the poem is a thoroughly national one in its smallest details. Although the heroes and heroines are described as Arabians, Indians, Chinese, they are all Georgians to the very finger tips.

The plot is of the simplest description possible. Rostevan, a patriarchal Eastern king, who has renounced the throne of Arabia in favour of his daughter Tinatina, is out hunting one day with Avtandil, one of his generals, when he sees a weeping youth of wondrous beauty, dressed in a panther's skin. The king orders his guards to seize the stranger, but the latter kills several of them and mysteriously escapes, whereupon the old king falls into a fit of sadness so deep that Tinatina at length promises her hand to the knight who will satisfy her father's curiosity. Avtandil sets out to seek the man in the panther's skin, wanders about for three years, meeting with wondrous adventures, before he finds the object of his search, who turns out to be Tariel, a young knight enamoured of Nestan Daredjan, daughter of the king of India, and then returns to claim the hand of his queen.

In Avtandil we have a Christian chevalier of the East who is worthy of comparison with our Rolands and Red Cross Knights, while Tariel is a wild Mussulman, whose passion drives him to excesses worthy of Amadis of Gaul.

The interest is powerfully sustained all through the poem, and its dramatic unity is never lost sight of; yet, however interesting the narrative may be, it is chiefly as a picture of life in Georgia in the days of Tamara that "The Man in the Panther's Skin" is valuable.

Tinatina, who is none other than Tamara herself, is described as follows:--

"One daughter only had the aged king,
And she was fair as is the Eastern sun.
He upon whom her gaze but once did rest
Was ravish'd of his heart and soul and thought."

Tinatina is a beautiful type of womanhood, such as we might expect to find in the literature of Western Europe, but hardly in a little country standing alone amid the wild hordes of Asia. Her wisdom, her strength of character, the purity and loyalty of her love, have made her the model of many a generation of Rustaveli's countrywomen, who have ever behaved nobly alike in joy and sorrow.

Avtandil is thus portrayed:--

"A prince's son was Avtandil, the very first
'Mong all the bravest warriors of the aged king
His form was slender as the cypress-tree,
And clear and beauteous was his piercing glance.
Though young, his soul was true and strong
As adamant is hard.
The fire from Tinatina's eyes had long
Set his young heart aflame with strong desire,
And stricken him with wounds that never heal'd.
Many a day he hid his burning love,
And sunder'd from his mistress, all the red
Fled from his roselike, tender cheeks;
But soon as fate did bring him near to her again,
The wildly beating heart crimson'd his face,
And all his aching wounds did gape afresh.
Thus hidden love doth torture youthful breasts."

From "The Man in the Panther's Skin" we learn that the ideal hero of Rustaveli's times was distinguished for bravery, truthfulness, loyalty to promises, self-sacrifice, munificence, and burning love.

"Falsehood's the root of all the thousand ills
That curse our race. Lying and faithlessness twin sisters are.
Why should I try to cheat my fellow-man?
Is this the use to which my learning should be put?
Ah, no! far other aims our hearts inspire,
We learn, that we may near the angelic choir."

The most famous line in the whole poem is, perhaps, the one which says:--

"A glorious death is better than a life of shame."

And many a warrior has sought death, in the hour of defeat, with these words on his lips.

Another verse which has become proverbial is:--

"That which thou dost on other's wants bestow, is thine,
While that thou hoardest is all lost to thee."

The ideas of love expressed by Rustaveli are partly of the Ovidian type, without any of the indelicacy of the Latin poet. But he had not studied Plato for nought, and we see in his work traces of those metaphysical theories which S. Bonaventura, Dante, and many of their contemporaries and successors found in Christianity.

In the last strophe we have a prophecy, conscious or unconscious, of the evil days that were about to dawn.

"Their deeds are ended, like a dream at night.
With them their golden age has ended too.
Far other days have dawn'd.
Such is that old deceiver Time; he makes
That which at first did everlasting seem
As short as is the twinkling of an eye."

As far as style is concerned, we find that Rustaveli strikingly resembles the European writers of his own time, to wit the troubadours, and we can easily imagine that his career was not unlike that of some of those sweet singers who enjoyed the favour of the noble ladies of France and Italy. Among the great poets of Europe, Ariosto and Tasso are, perhaps, the ones who are most akin to Rustaveli. The Platonism of the latter furnishes another ground of resemblance, in addition to the similarity of theme.

The poem in its present form consists of about 1600 quatrains. There are sixteen syllables in each line, and the four lines end with the same rhyme. The rhythm is due to the accents, as in English verse, and may be called hexametric, i.e. there are in each line six feet, divided into two sets of three by means of the cæsura; the fourth line invariably begins with the particle i, which does not count as a syllable.

As far as I know, the poem has not been translated into any European language; although fragments and abstracts of it have been published in Russian and Polish magazines, and I have seen the name of "Rostavvelo" quoted in one of Gioberti's works. By the publication of a carefully collated text, about a year ago, Georgian critics have prepared the way for those who may wish to make the national epic known to European readers.

Among the contemporaries of Rustaveli may be mentioned the following:--

Chakhrukhadze, the author of the "Tamariani," a long poem in honour of Queen Tamara; it is composed entirely of epithets, thus:--

"Tamartsknari, shesatsknari, khmanarnari, pirmtsinari,
Mse mtsinari, sachinari, tskalimknari, momdinari,"

i.e.

"Tamara, the mild, the pleasing, the sweetly speaking, the
kindly smiling,
The sunlike shining one, the majestic, the gently moving, like
a full river."

Shavteli was even more highly prized than Rustaveli, but his greatest work is lost. Khoneli and Tmokveli, the former in "Daredjaniani," the latter in "Visramiani" and "Dilariani," have left us romances of chivalry and adventure which are still much admired, and are well worthy of comparison with the best European literature of the same class. About the same time the national chronicle, called "Kartlis tzkhovreba," i.e. Georgia's Life, was written.

This period of literary activity was brought to an abrupt close by the terrible invasion of Genghis Khan, and for about four centuries the incessant wars in which the country was engaged gave plenty of opportunity for acting romances, but little time for writing them.

Towards the end of the seventeenth century Prince Sulkhan Orbeliani described his "Journey through Europe," and wrote a collection of fables and folk-tales, lately published in Russian. Orbeliani had lived at the court of Louis XIV., and was very friendly with La Fontaine, who is indebted to the Georgian prince for some of his fables. His greatest service to his country was, however, the compilation of a dictionary, containing 25,000 words, which has formed the basis for all later lexicographical works.

In 1712 King Vakhtang VI. opened a printing office in Tiflis, and issued the chief poems and romances of the Tamarian period at such a price as to make them attainable by all his subjects. Irakli II., of glorious memory, continued to act as the Augustus of Georgian literature, and in the Catholicos Antoni it found a Mæcenas or Pollio. The chief writers of the eighteenth century were Prince Vakhusht, son of Vakhtang VI., who compiled a "History of Georgia" and a "Geography of Georgia," and the Catholicos Antoni, who published many educational and religious works. Guramoshvili and Savatnava sang the triumphs of Irakli in powerful lyrics which are still familiar to every peasant.

The following serenade belongs to this period; it was copied down by Pushkin in 1829, and he says of it, "There is in it a certain Oriental inconsequence which is not altogether devoid of poetical worth."

"Soul newly born in Paradise!
Soul made for my delight!
From thee, thou deathless one,
I wait for life.
From thee, thou flowery springtide, moon but two weeks old,
From thee, my guardian angel,
I wait for life.
With joyous smiles thy face doth shine.
I would not change thy glance against the throne of all the world.
From thee I wait for life.
Rose of the mountain, wet with the dew of dawn!
Nature's chief favourite! Hidden treasure house!
From thee I wait for life."

It was not, however, until the present century was well begun, that Georgian poetry abandoned the "Oriental inconsequence" to which I have just referred; the literary awakening which began about sixty or seventy years ago was largely due to the work of Western poets, such as Byron, with whom the Georgians became familiar chiefly through Pushkin and Lermontov. Prince Alexander Chavchavadze (1786-1846), a general in the Russian service, was the founder of the modern school; his song is all of love and wine. The influence of Western romanticism is still more clearly visible in the earlier productions of Baratashvili (1816-1846), but he succeeded in throwing off the gloomy misanthropy of his youth, and had the courage to acknowledge that he had been deluded by that "evil spirit" of Byronism.

To Prince Giorgi Eristavi fell the task of familiarizing his countrymen with the poetical literature of Europe. He was exiled to Poland for his share in a plot against the Russian government, and spent his leisure in studying Mickiewicz, Schiller, Petrarch, and Pushkin, selections from whose works he published in his native tongue. On his return to Tiflis he founded a National Theatre, for which he himself wrote many comedies. With Eristavi sentimentalism died, and the poets who succeeded him sought inspiration in patriotic ideals.

Prince Grigor Orbeliani (1801-1883), sang the past splendour of his fatherland, and bewailed the low estate to which it had fallen. In his "Ode to Tamara's portrait" he beseeches the great queen to look down with pity on Georgia, and bless her sons with strength and wisdom; he despairingly asks:--

"Shall that which once was wither'd, ne'er again
Enjoy the fragrance of its former bloom?
Shall that which fell, for ever fallen remain,
O'erwhelm'd in an unchanging, cruel doom?"

His lines on the death of Irakli II. breathe the same spirit:--

"Ah! full of splendour were the fateful days
That saw the quenching of thy quickening light,
Thou sun of Georgia, yet thy dazzling rays
Still lighten up the darkness of our night.

"Thine all-o'erpowering sword, whose mighty blows
Scatter'd like chaff the bravest of the brave,
Shall never more affright thy country's foes--
Georgia's fame lies buried in thy grave."

Orbeliani had a warm heart for the poor and suffering, and his "Lopiana the Fisherman" and "Bokuladze the Musha" (a musha is a carrier of heavy burdens) are masterpieces in their way.

While Orbeliani's eyes are ever turned regretfully to the past, Akaki Tsereteli (born 1840) looks hopefully forward to the future:--

"Ah no! our love is not yet dead,
It only sleeps awhile...."

In elegant yet forcible lyrics he invites his countrymen to manfully follow the path of progress. Tsereteli has written a great historical poem called "Torniki," and is, besides, an orator and publicist of the first rank.

Of the same school is Prince Ilia Chavchavadze (born 1837), who is in many respects the most remarkable man that Georgia possesses. All his poems, and indeed all his work, whether as a poet, a novelist, a journalist, an orator, or a financier, breathe a spirit of the loftiest patriotism. The return of spring and the awakening of bird and flower to fuller life are to him a reminder of the long-delayed awakening of his beloved land; his elegies on the Kura, the Aragva, the Alazana are all full of the same feeling. It is, however, in "Lines to the Georgian mother" that he most clearly expresses his ideas; after reminding the matrons of Georgia how they have served their country in times past, cheerfully sending their sons forth to the fight and sustaining their courage in the hour of misfortune, he says:--

"... But why should we shed idle tears
For glory that will ne'er return?
The ever-flowing stream of years
Leaves us no time to idly mourn.

"'Tis ours to tread an untried path,
'Tis ours the future to prepare.
If forward thou dost urge thy sons,
Then answer'd is my earnest prayer.

"This is the task that waits for thee,
Thou virtuous mother of our land,
Strengthen thy sons, that they may be
Their country's stay with heart and hand.

"Inspire them with fraternal love,
Freedom, equality and right,
Teach them to struggle 'gainst all ill,
And give them courage for the fight."

Chavchavadze's tales and poems have done more than anything else to awaken the Georgian people to a sense of the duties they have to perform in the altered conditions under which they now live. His poem, "Memoirs of a Robber," which portrayed the lazy country squires who lived on the toil of their serfs, made a powerful impression on the class it was meant for; and the tale, "Is that a man?" which describes the life of a young noble who spends his whole time in eating, drinking, sleeping and folly, brought a blush to the faces of hundreds of his countrymen, and prompted them to seek a worthier mode of existence. At first, the more conservative part of the nobility were bitterly opposed to the radical ideas of Chavchavadze, but he has now succeeded in bringing round the majority of them to his way of thinking. He is editor of a daily paper, Iveria, which is read by all classes of society, and most of his time is spent between his journalistic duties and the management of the nobles' Land Bank, an institution founded for the relief of the farmers.

Besides those I have mentioned, Chavchavadze has written many other works; with the following extract from "The Phantom" I conclude this brief notice of him:--

"O Georgia, thou pearl and ornament of the world. What sorrow and misfortune hast thou not undergone for the Christian faith! Tell me, what other land has had so thorny a path to tread? Where is the land that has maintained such a fight twenty centuries long without disappearing from the earth? Thou alone, Georgia, couldst do it. No other people can compare with thee for endurance. How often have thy sons freely shed their blood for thee! Every foot of thy soil is made fruitful by it. And even when they bowed under oppression they always bravely rose again. Faith and freedom were their ideals."

The novel of social life is represented by Prince Kazbek, a young and energetic writer, many of whose productions have appeared as serials in the newspapers. The best writer of historical novels is Rtsheuli; his "Queen Tamara" is a great favourite with the people.

The National Theatre is kept well supplied with new and original comedies by Tsagareli and others, and Prince Ivané Machabeli, who, as far as I know, is the only Georgian who can read English literature in the original, has translated some of Shakspeare's plays; these always draw a full house, and are thoroughly appreciated. Leaving out of the question "King Lear," which has a special interest for the people, on account of its reminding them of Irakli II., this hearty admiration for Shakspeare is somewhat remarkable; in my opinion it is to be explained by the fact that the Georgian people are in almost the same state of intellectual and social development as were our forefathers in the days of Queen Elizabeth, and they can, therefore, the more fully enter into our great poet's way of thinking. Besides the essential part of his work, the effect of which on the minds of men will always be the same, there is an accessory part, a tone, an atmosphere, which more particularly belongs to the early part of a period of transition from feudalism to freedom, from faith to rationalism, from the activity of war to the activity of peace; ten or a dozen generations have lived in England since this stage in our history was reached; in Georgia there still live men who were born in the age of chivalry and adventure.

Prince Machabeli, in spite of the fact that he is only about thirty years of age, is, perhaps, after Prince Ilia Chavchavadze, the man who enjoys the greatest influence among his fellow-countrymen. His studies at the University of Paris, and his intimate acquaintance with the intellectual and social life of Europe, have enabled him to bring the younger generation at least to a fuller appreciation of the superiority of the West over the East; everything which savours of Asia is now rigidly proscribed or ridiculed, and Romano-Germanic ideals prevail. As the editor of Droeba (Time), a capital daily paper, Machabeli had an opportunity of spreading his opinions throughout the country, but an imprudent article brought about the suppression of the journal by the Censure.

This notice would be incomplete without a brief reference to the venerable Bishop Gabriel of Kutais, whose homilies are at once elegant in style and simple in doctrine; they have had a very powerful influence on the Georgian people, and their author is sincerely loved by all his countrymen. An English translation of his earlier sermons has been published by the Rev. S. C. Malan.

The popular literature of Georgia is rich in folk-tales, fables, ballads, riddles, &c., and would well repay an attentive study (v. Bibliography).

THE POLITICAL CONDITION OF THE KINGDOM OF GEORGIA.

It is well known that there are within the Russian frontiers peoples not inferior in historical importance or intellectual development to the regnant race, and we might reasonably suppose that Russophobes would give us some information about those nations which would probably be their allies in the struggle which they profess to consider inevitable. Yet the course of action likely to be adopted by Poland, Finland, or Georgia, in case of an Anglo-Russian war, is hardly ever discussed, and when a passing reference is made to the matter, the most erroneous ideas are expressed.

As far as I know, the only living English statesman who knows anything at all about the condition of the Caucasus, is Professor James Bryce, who, in a work published in 1877, records the impressions received during a short visit made in the previous year. His remarks are interesting in the highest degree, and exhibit a rare keenness of insight; yet that part of them which refers more particularly to Georgia is open to three very serious objections.

1. The shortness of the author's stay forced him to come to conclusions which a longer experience would have modified very considerably. He himself frankly acknowledged this in many places.

2. Mr. Bryce did not come into contact with any prominent Georgians; he was, therefore, obliged to depend upon foreigners for information about the political condition of the country and the aspirations of the native population. This is why he said so little about Georgia in the last chapter of his book. In that chapter the place of honour is reserved for the Armenians, whose recognized champion our illustrious fellow-countryman has now become.

3. There has, of late, been a great change in the country. The Georgia of to-day is not the Georgia of 1876. Certain causes, which will be touched upon in the present article, have, in the meantime, brought about an awakening as sudden as it is complete.

There is one Englishman who could accurately describe the political condition of Transcaucasia, and it is a subject for congratulation that he is Her Majesty's Vice-Consul at Batum. When the British Government wakes up to a recognition of the fact that we have interests to protect in the region between the Black Sea and the Caspian, the consulate in Tiflis (abolished in 1881, "because the objects for which it was founded were not accomplished") may, perhaps, be re-established, and in that case no more able and sympathetic consul could be chosen than Mr. D. R. Peacock, who for so many years has upheld the honour of our flag in the fever-stricken swamps of Poti and Batum.

The writer of the present article is well aware of his unfitness for the task he has set himself, yet he feels sure that the result of his unprejudiced observation cannot fail to be interesting; if he only succeeds in provoking adverse criticism he will be satisfied, for thereby attention will be drawn to a question the discussion of which must lead to a far better understanding of many points of vital importance.

At the very outset it is necessary to remove from the mind of the reader an opinion which is almost universally held in Europe, and which is, perhaps, the chief cause of that apathy with which politicians look upon the Caucasus. It is generally believed, even by some of those who have been in the country, that Transcaucasia is inhabited by a vast number of tribes, more or less wild, having nothing in common but the doubtful benefits of Russian rule. Nothing could be more misleading. Students of ethnography may amuse themselves by making elaborate investigations into the origin and characteristics of the Khevsur, the Svan, the Pshav, the Osset, it is sufficient for us to know that all these peoples are, politically at least, Georgians, and have fought under the Kartvelian kings since the days of William the Conqueror. Between the Caucasus, the Black Sea, the Caspian, and the frontiers of Turkey and Persia, there are only three native peoples who deserve our consideration, viz.:--

The various Lesghian tribes in the E., numbering about 1,500,000
The Armenians, in the S., numbering about 740,000
The Georgians, in the W., numbering over 1,000,000

The latter total is made up as follows:--

(a) Kartlians, Kakhetians, and Ingiloitsi 310,000
(b) Highlanders, i.e. Khevsurs, Pshavs, Tushes 20,000
(c) Imeretians and Gurians 380,000
(d) Adjartsi, Kobuletsi (in valleys near Artvin) 46,000
(e) Mingrelians 200,000
(f) Lazes (near Batum). The majority are still in Turkey 2,000
(g) Svans 12,000
To these may be added:--
The Apkhazi (near Sukhum) 32,000
and
The Ossets (south of the Caucasus) 53,000

There are also many Georgians in Turkey, and a few in Persia. The numerous local appellations given above mean no more than Yorkshireman, Cornishman, or Aberdonian do to us. If I succeed in impressing upon my readers the fact that there is a politically homogeneous region stretching from the steppe of Baku to the Black Sea, my labour will not have been fruitless.

It is a significant fact that the pure Georgian language is now far more generally spoken than it has been for many centuries, and that the dialects are rapidly disappearing. This is due in a great measure to the growth of a taste for literature, which is fostered by the newspapers and other periodical publications. There are, besides, many schools where the language is taught, for the Georgians have hitherto escaped the fate of the Armenians, whose schools were closed after the recent insurrection, and a society exists in Tiflis for the dissemination of the national literature among the peasants. All this has helped to produce a national feeling, stronger than any that has existed since the fatal partition of the kingdom in the fifteenth century. The petty jealousies between Kartlian, Kakhetian and Imeretian have been forgiven and forgotten, and when Georgia's voice is again heard in Asia she will speak with that authority which belongs only to a united, patriotic people.

In order to understand the state of political feeling in Georgia during the present century, it is necessary to remember what her previous history has been. During a long period, stretching back to ages of which we have only fragmentary records, the country had ever been at war; often conquered, still more often conquering, never crushed, this brave little state maintained its existence for a thousand years, alone in the very midst of those fierce fanatics whose fame made all allied Europe quake. At length, rent by civil war and ravaged by the infidel, it wisely resolved to throw itself into the hands of a Christian power able and willing to protect and avenge. After availing themselves of Russia's help, it was but natural that the Georgians should seek the repose of which they were so much in need; and, though they were ever ready to fight against the common foe, yet, with a few praiseworthy exceptions, they busied themselves little with the internal administration of their land. Indeed, there was no call for such interference as long as they were under the mild and beneficent rule of that ideal Tsar, Alexander I., represented by such worthy lieutenants as Tsitsishvili and Yermolov. They continued to live thus contentedly and, it must be confessed, lazily for about two generations; only ten years ago it used to be said in Tiflis, "If you see a shopkeeper asleep, he is sure to be a Georgian." This sleepiness is now at an end. Opinions may differ as to the cause of the awakening; harsh measures on the part of Russia, whose policy in Transcaucasia has been becoming more and more irritating ever since the removal of Prince Vorontsov, in 1854, and culminating last year in the enforcement of military service, have undoubtedly had some effect of this kind, but unless there had been a simultaneous progress in the intellectual and social development of the nation, this overbearing legislation might have been sullenly submitted to without complaint.

There can be little doubt of the fact that the excessive precautions taken by the police, with a view to put down political agitation of any kind, have produced the very thing they are intended to prevent. A country squire in talking to me, one day, about a little market-town near his home, said, "They have posted a gendarme there. Until he came nobody ever bothered about politics. Now there is nothing else talked of." Some time ago the young Georgian nobles who were serving in the Russian army became infected with the doctrines of revolutionary socialism, and not a few suffered for their imprudence (e.g. the famous Tsitsianov, in 1877); at the present time the national feeling has become so strong as to leave no room for these ideas. Nevertheless, during my stay in Tiflis, last summer, a rumour was rife to the effect that a large number (a hundred or two) of young noblemen were about to be exiled, in view of the visit of the Tsar, who was expected to arrive at his new palace at Tsinondal, near Telav, in the autumn. The fact that this report was believed by the parties interested, is a powerful testimony to the arbitrary character of the proceedings of the Russian police.