Browse
Recent Submissions
Item Coin Issues in Georgia. General Survey – Presentation of Online English-Georgian Catalogue of Georgian Numismatics(ივანე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტის გამომცემლობა, 2025) Dundua, TedoItem ურბანიზაცია-დეურბანიზაცია-რეურბანიზაციის პროცესი ჯვარის დასახლების მაგალითზე(ივანე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტის გამომცემლობა, 2025) ციმინტია, ქეთევან / Tsimintia, KetevanUrbanization is a significant social phenomenon worldwide, as the majority of the population resides in cities. Urbanization, as an irreversible historical process, is still relevant today and attracts the interest of researchers. Various factors contributed to the urbanization process of the town of Jvari, but the most important was the construction of the Enguri hydroelectric power plant, which accelerated the rapid growth of the population of this area. The town of Jvari is located in the Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti region, in the Tsalenjikha municipality, in western Georgia. In terms of population, the town is in second place after Tsalenjikha. The urbanization of Jvari took place quite quickly and effectively. Various political, social, and economic factors related to urbanization had a significant impact on the town, the social life, culture, and lifestyle. We decided to study the urbanization process and the current situation of Jvari because the city is located in the mountainous part of Samegrelo, in the Tsalenjikha municipality. The city of Jvari has undergone a clear process of urbanization and deurbanization, which did not affect the center of the municipality, Tsalenjikha. Locals also lived in Jvari, but a larger number of the population came here from the historical and ethnographic parts of Georgia and from various republics of the Soviet Union. Accordingly, the specific nature of the city of Jvari – the urbanization-counterurbanization-reurbanization process in a specific territory led to our special interest in this settlement. The issue is investigated using the method of document analysis, literature review, and interviewing, taking into account the induction method. In the early 1990s, the collapse of the Soviet Union was followed by an influx of people from various places, including outside Georgia, to live and work in Jvari. It can be said that Jvari first underwent urbanization, and then counterurbanization; however, this process did not last long. Soon, the population displaced from Abkhazia, a historical and ethnographic part of Georgia, settled in Jvari. The population of Jvari is still experiencing individual migration today, mainly abroad. Today's city of Jvari is a symbiosis of urban and rural life. Part of the population here lives in the city, part is engaged in agricultural activities, and some do both.Item ხელოვნების ისტორიასა და ხელოვნებათმცოდნეობას შორის: საგანმანთლებლო დებატები XIX საუკუნის დასასრულისა და XX საუკუნის დასაწყისის გერმანიაში და მათი მნიშვნელობა ნაციონალური ხელოვნების ისტორიის ფორმირებისათვის საქართველოში (1918-1921)(ივანე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტის გამომცემლობა, 2025) სიმონიშვილი, ნინოThe paper deals with the politics of art historical research and addresses the problem of conflict between academic research, nationalist policies and the changing political situation in Europe and Georgia in the last decade of the 19th and the first decade of the 20th century, which helps to gain an insight on its importance for the creation of national art history in Georgia during the short lived First Democratic Republic (1918-1921). The first part of the essay discusses the contrasting pedagogical views of art historians in the context of German academic and intellectual history and shows how the different approaches in art history was itself prompted by two issues: how to teach the students in the lecture halls and how to deal with the growing research materials emerging from both: Western and non-Western areas during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The later caused a problem for a discipline fixated esthetically on the classical Greek civilization. The education debates signaled the need to adopt new methodological principles a ‘scientific’ approach which provided a legitimization for the former humanistic art history (Kunstgeschichte) to become the more objective Kunstwissenschaft. In the context of contemporary politics in Germany the paper discusses how the academics in the humanities wanted to develop pedagogical instruments that would counteract a prevailing trend towards unspiritual (geistlos) scholarship divorced from education (Bildung). The second part of the essay discusses how the rise of academic art history overlaps with the emergence of national movements, especially stressing the political aspirations of previously oppressed ethnic communities. Concerned with questions of heritage and identity, along with the writing of art history and the canon formation of the discipline this part of the paper shows how the national art history can be seen not only as a scholarly practice and discipline, but also an institution in almost political sense inevitably serving the demands of the present. It intends to offer insights into a formation of Georgian art history with special emphasis on its German connection and analyzes its foundation as a university discipline during the creation of the First Democratic Republic of Georgia (1918-1921) in an international context. The research shows the intellectual parallels and connections between the founder of Georgian art history, G. Chubinashvili (1885-1973) and the scholarship of some key figures in Germany of this period – especially of the Swiss-German art historian H. Wöllflin (1864-1945). The main focus of the paper is to outline the complex process of an adaptation of a transported academic discipline and its methods which was intended to lead to better understanding of the national past, the discovery and formation of a national artistic canon, and affirmation of the identity of the Georgian nation as well as an international understanding of Georgian culture and Georgian political interests. This was particularly important at the time of political crisis between the foundation of the first Democratic Republic of Georgia and its dramatic change in 1921 to the Soviet republic of Georgia. The paper illustrates which scientific and political factors played a key role to determine the adoption of specific art historical texts, methods and approaches in a time when art historical scholarship made a significant contribution to the formation of ideas of national identity.Item საქართველოს ადმინისტრაციულ-ტერიტორიული მოწყობის საკითხი XX საუკუნის 20-იან წლებში(ივანე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტის გამომცემლობა, 2025) კოხრეიძე, არჩილ / Kokhreidze, Archil; ფხაკაძე, გვანცა / Phkhakadze, GvantsaOn February 25, 1921, Soviet power was established in Georgia. After that, it had to experience all conceivable and inconceivable experiments that were carried out in the country by the Soviet totalitarian regime. Soon after the establishment of Soviet power, the idea arose that the Soviet socialist republics of Transcaucasia were unable to ensure their existence independently and that they should unite into a unified federal republic. On March 12, 1922, a conference of representatives of the authorities of all three Transcaucasian republics was held, where a union treaty between the republics of Transcaucasia was approved. After that on December 10 of the same year, the Federative Union of Transcaucasia, which had existed until that time, was transformed into a unified federal state called the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic. The advisability of creating such an artificial state was the subject of serious debates within the ranks of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union itself. In Georgian Soviet historiography, this event is assessed as a great historical phenomenon. Georgia was part of this state entity for almost 15 years. Many issues related to the functioning of the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic have not yet been studied. Including issues related to the existence of borders within this new federal state in 1922-1936. The object of the study of this article is the issue of the internal administrative-territorial structure of Georgia in 1921-1925. From the very first years of the establishment of Soviet power in Georgia, it became obvious that the existing administrative division of the country is not able to promote the solution of political and economic tasks and needs faced by the country. After the emergence of new realities, it was necessary to bring the national economy and administrative management of the country into maximum compliance. The new administrative-territorial division was based primarily on economic factors. At the same time, attention was also paid to issues related to the national peculiarities of the country. A. Kaladze notes as follows: "The administrative structure of the country on a basis of raions had a very pragmatic significance. The division of the republics into the smallest administrative units ensured a high level of totalitarian rule. The communists acted according to the well-known principle of such ancient conquerors as the Roman Empire and others - divide and conquer." Such administrative policy was primarily directed against the Georgian population. It was necessary to erase from the consciousness of Georgians their national identity and the memory of their historical roots. This ultimately had to lead to the creation of a new type of person and, if you like, a new nationality – the Soviet people. The administrative-territorial division in the years 1921-1936 was a rather complex and dynamic process. During this period, the administrative structure of Georgia underwent significant changes, which were due to political and administrative reforms carried out by the leadership of the Soviet Union. The purpose of these changes was to establish a strict control over the population and economy of the country. During this period, the Autonomous Republics of Abkhazia and Adjara, as well as the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast were created. This was part of the Soviet Union's policy for managing small ethnic groups.Item აკაკი ჩხენკელის ფაქტორი(ივანე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტის გამომცემლობა, 2025) შველიძე, დიმიტრიThe prominent Georgian Social-Democrat Akaki Chkhenkeli was elected in 1912 as a member of the Fourth State Duma of Russia. Initially, it was believed that A. Chkhenkeli supported cultural-national autonomy for Georgia. During his famous speech in the Duma on December 10, 1912, A. Chkhenkeli effectively put forward the demand for political autonomy for Georgia. The demands he listed corresponded more to political autonomy than to cultural-national autonomy. He believed that Social Democrats should equally fight not only for social equality, but also for achieving national freedom. A. Chkhenkeli's such national position was sharply criticized by V. Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Subsequently, the position of Lenin and the Georgian Bolsheviks was entirely shared by Soviet historiography. Our goal was to substantiate Akaki Khankheli's special role and merit in Georgian Social-Democracy through the initial raising, and then the implementation, of national-state priorities. He, more than anyone else, played a decisive role in the process of the nationalization of Georgian Social-Democracy. In this regard, it is entirely possible to speak of the Akaki Chkhenkeli factor, in the process of Georgian Social-Democracy's turn toward national-state values - which began in the 1910s and was particularly realized during the three-year existence of the First Republic of Georgia. Akaki Chkhenkeli truly earned a special and honorable place among Georgian patriots. For a long time, Soviet historiography labeled Akaki Chkhenkeli's national position as bourgeois-nationalist and believed that his goal was the restoration of a bourgeois-landowner state. An objective assessment of Akaki Chkhenkeli's work became possible in the conditions of modern free Georgian historiography.Item The Caucasian Sericulture Station – Its Foundation and Historical Significance(ივანე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტის გამომცემლობა, 2025) Avdaliani, EmilItem სოლომონ ლიონიძე და 1796 წელს ერეკლე II-ის წინააღმდეგ მოწყობილი შეთქმულება(ივანე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტის გამომცემლობა, 2025) დათუაშვილი, გიორგი / Datuashvili, GiorgiIn Georgian historiography, we find a conspiracy against Erekle II in 1796, in which mainly Tbilisi merchants and people close to them participated. It is known that this conspiracy was reported to the king by Solomon Lionidze and the conspiracy ended in vain. As is known, Solomon Lionidze is considered a loyal associate of Erekle II. In addition to his diplomatic service, he was also a good warrior, which is why he received a certificate of honor from the king early on, so it is confusing that the king punished him at the same time as the conspiracy was revealed. The reason for the conspiracy is the economic factor. The battle of Krtsanis in 1795 and the sacking of Tbilisi dealt a great political blow to the country and the population. As a result, great losses were incurred in the trade-workshop sector and the economy as a whole. Therefore, the disgruntled citizens tried to organize a conspiracy against the king It should also be noted that at the time of the raid on Tbilisi, the Persian attitude of the citizens was greatly weakened. The conspiracy of 1796 against King Erekle should be related to this situation. In the article, we integrated the opinions expressed in Georgian historiography. The researchers expressed their opinions, but we think it was necessary to clarify some details. In the work, we integrated historical documents and archival materials. There are a number of documents that confirm that Tumanishvili, Bebutashvili and others confronted Solomon Lionidze. Some of them were officials. It was also interesting to discuss the letters written by Goderdzi, one of the figures of the conspiracy, as well as the role of Dimitri Orbeliani in provoking Lionidze. Obviously, these materials were about Solomon Lionidze and the conspiracy. The discovery of Solomon Lionidze in the crime was doubtful considering that we are facing his rapid political rehabilitation. Solomon Lionidze's letter to Erekle II on August 5, 1797 is preserved in the Korneli Kekelidze National Center of Manuscripts, on the basis of which it can be assumed that by the beginning of August 1797, Erekle II confessed Solomon's innocence. In addition, there are other archival materials, for example, the certificate book issued by Queen Darejani, which refers to the return of estates after the acquittal of Solomon Lionidze by Erekle II. In addition, there are other archival materials, for example, the certificate book issued by Queen Darejani, which refers to the return of estates after the acquittal of Solomon Lionidze by Erekle II. It is clear from the documents that Solomon Lionidze cited the fact that his enemies exposed him unfairly as the reason for his political degradation. Among the enemies, we should consider Tumanishvili, Bebutashvili, Goderdzi, Dimitri Orbeliani and others. As it turned out, Dimitri Orbeliani, Tumanishvili and other enemies were of Russian political orientation. Therefore, Russia's political plans for both Kartli-Kakheti and the region as a whole in 1796 are interesting. It is known that after the tragedy of Krtsanis, there was still a threat of Agha-Mohammed-Khan's invasion, so the Georgian side asked Russia for help. According to the decision of Catherine II, in December 1795, two Russian battalions entered Georgia, and two battalions were sent to Dagestan. Finally, the campaign in the South Caucasus began in 1796 and the troops were commanded by Valerian Zubov. Ganja, which had been under the power of King Erekle for years, was decided by the Russian side to settle 2,000 young Russians. It should also be said that General Zubov, sent in connection with the campaign in Iran in 1796, tried to send Batonishvili – Iulon, sons of Alexander Erekle and son of Davit Giorgi to Russia. The reason was given by Queen Darejan's desire to take her son Iulon as king, bypassing Giorgi Erekle's son. Zubov spread the word that all this would cause unrest in Eastern Georgia, and therefore Batonishvili should be recalled to Russia. According to the information mentioned above, Russia's expansionist plans can be seen. As officials of the empire participated in the implementation of these goals, it was such a group that opposed Solomon Lionidze, it was the force that provoked the secretary and ultimately played a big role in depriving him of his political rights. It appeared that in 1796 local forces were operating against Erekle II. They, in turn, confronted Solomon Lionidze. Solomon prevented the conspirators from realizing their goals. All this was followed by the provocation of the judge by the local forces and practically his political punishment, as for the issue of rehabilitation, based on the historical documents published with antiquities and archival materials, we can conclude that he was soon rehabilitated by King Erekle due to his innocence.Item მძევლების საკითხი რუსულ-ქართულ ურთიერთობებში (1784-1798 წწ.)(ივანე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტის გამომცემლობა, 2025) თაბუაშვილი, აპოლონ / Tabuashvili, ApolonAccording to the opinion established in historiography, the Russian side did not try to take hostages from the Georgian kingdoms. After the signing of the “Treaty of Georgievsk”, the departure of Erekle II’s children - Mirian and Anton Batonishvili - to Russia is presented as a desirable reality for both sides. In historical documents we find different information . From the letters of Caucasus line General-in-chief Pavel Potemkin turns out that the Russian side insisted on the immediate departure of Prince Mirian (Batonishvili) to St. Petersburg since the beginning of October 1783. In Russia it was decided to call up Prince Anton (Batonishvili) soon after the signature of the treaty. From the same letters, we see that Erekle II left the request unanswered, which led to a corresponding reaction from Potemkin. Later the king of Kartli-Kakheti lingered on the departure of his children to Russia due to road problems and other circumstances. It is clear from the documents that from January 1784, the Russian side repeatedly demanded from the king to send royal children. As a result, they departed from Tbilisi to St Petersburg on May 23, 1784. Archival documents confirm that after the departure of the princes, to return their children Erekle II and Queen Darejani were sending numerous letters to the imperial court. They applied different tactics to return the princes back. Eventually, the Russian government allowed Anton to return to Georgia in 1788, which was linked to his election as a Catholicos. Mirian was not released to his homeland until 1798. Mirian’s departure was linked to the illness of Erekle II. Mirian was no longer interesting to the empire because they could not use him as a lever to pressure the future king. At that time, Giorgi’s son Prince Davit was in Russia, and the Imperial court shifted the focus to him. According to the available reports, it can be said that the Georgian princes, regardless of the status of ‘guest of honor’, were held hostage in Russia. It is interesting that in one of the letters sent to Ottomans in 1791-1792, Erekle II himself mentioned that his children were taken as hostages by the Russians.Item იაკოვოს კამბანელისი(ლოგოსი / Logos, 2024) ცინცაძე, ქეთევან / Tsintsadze, Ketevan; შამანიდი, სოფიო / Shamanidi, SophieItem იანის რიცოსი(ლოგოსი / Logos, 2024) ბერიშვილი, ანნა / Berishvili, Anna; შამანიდი, სოფიო / Shamanidi, SophieItem გიორგოს სეფერისი(ლოგოსი / Logos, 2024) შამანიდი, სოფიო / Shamanidi, SophieItem ბერძნული განმანათლებლობა(ლოგოსი / Logos, 2024) ბერიკაშვილი, სვეტლანა / Berikashvili, Svetlana; შამანიდი, სოფიო / Shamanidi, SophieItem კრეტული რენესანსი(ლოგოსი / Logos, 2024) შამანიდი, სოფიო / Shamanidi, SophieItem პენელოპეს სახე ახალ ბერძნულ ლიტერატურაში(ლოგოსი / Logos, 2022) შამანიდი, სოფიო / Shamanidi, SophiePenelope is undoubtedly one of the most virtuous and beloved characters among Homer's heroes – a woman who has transformed into a symbol of a faithful wife and an exemplary mother; A woman who faithfully waited for her husband for 20 years; A woman who, in fact, raised her child all alone; A woman who kept her household sacred. However, we encountered controversial interpretations of Penelope's image since ancient times: ancient sources sometimes refer to Penelope as Pan's mother or as a woman being in intimate relationships with all of the 112 suitors. Various explanations are attributed to why Odysseus decides to set up a test for his wife, the jealousy of Telemachus or the interpretation of Penelope's dream. On the other hand, Homer has never claimed that Penelope is faithful to her husband. Homer most often characterizes Penelope with the epithet "περίφρων," which means "clever" or "wise". Penelope is referred to as "faithful" – "πιστή" only once in the whole Odyssey and that too by the embittered (and already dead) Agamemnon. The first and most radical interpretation of Penelope's character in modern literature probably belongs to James Joyce ("Ulysses" 1922) – his Molly Bloom is the complete antithesis of the faithful (or wise) Penelope. Joyce is a foundation for this interpretation of Penelope in Western literature. Joyce's interpretation of Penelope became very attractive to writers. Obviously, this metamorphosis was, first of all, an echo of the era. Modern Greek writers proved to be much more sensitive towards Penelope compared to their European counterparts; however, each subsequent interpretation of Penelope's image is bolder and much distanced from her initial prototype. The article reviews the interpretations of Penelope's image in modern Greek literature, trying to understand what most authors focus on in different eras and why is Penelope's image addressed mainly by female authors.Item Μεταμορφώσεις της Κλυταιμνήστρας (Γ. Σεφέρης - Γ. Ρίτσος - Ι. Καμπανέλλης)(Ευρωπαϊκή Εταιρεία Νεοελληνικών Σπουδών / European Society of Modern Greek Studies, 2015) Shamanidi, SophieItem თავად ჭავჭავაძეთა საგვარეულოს ისტორიიდან(ივანე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტის გამომცემლობა, 2025) ჯავახიშვილი, ნიკო / Javakhishvili, NikoIn the historical sources of XVI-XIX centuries, the princes Chavchavadze's were named as the faithful warriors and administrators, specifically, community governors (in Georgian – “Mouravi”) of Georgian kings, from the royal dynasty of Bagrationi. According to family tradition, the origin of the Chavchavadze family is associated with the highlands of Kakheti, specifically with the Ertso-Tianeti region. It should also be noted that the noble Chavchavadze family owned estates both in Ertso, which is in the contemporary Tianeti district, and in other parts of Kakheti, namely in the present-day districts of Telavi, Kvareli, and Akhmeta. The estates of the prince Chavchavadze family bordered the estates of the nobility: prince Makashvili (from the west), prince Jandieri (from the south), prince Gurgenidze, and prince Jorjadze (from the north). To the east, the prince Chavchavadze estates adjoined the royal fief of Kiziki (East part of Kakheti). The Chavchavadze family itself was divided into two branches. Their common ancestor was Roshniya Chavchavadze, who is mentioned in historical sources in 1470. One branch of the Chavchavadzes resided in Kvareli, while the other was in Tsinandali. In these settlements were located their palaces, fortresses, and family churches. The family necropolis of the Chavchavadzes of Kvareli is, to this day, the Church of St. John the Baptist, which is also located in Kvareli. The family necropolis of the Tsinandali branch of the Chavchavadzes was represented by the Shuamta Monastery, located near Telavi (Akhali Shuamta). On July 24, 1783, in the list of Georgian nobles who signed the Treaty of Georgievsk, the Chavchavadze family is mentioned as the tenth prominent house among the 24 princely families of Kakheti. For such loyalty to the kings the Chavchavadze's were highly appreciated by Georgian kings from the royal dynasty of Bagrationi.Item ყივჩაღები და საქართველო დავით აღმაშენებლის მემკვიდრეების ხანაში(ივანე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტის გამომცემლობა, 2025) კაკალაშვილი, ნინო / Kakalashvili, NinoThe relations between Georgia and Qipchaqs did not cease after the death of David Aghmashenebeli. There are opinions expressed about their staying or leaving Georgia. We think that after the death of David Aghmashenebeli, some part of the Qipchaqs stayed in Georgia. The reasons for their departure from Georgia were both internal and external. They lost the support of Georgian royal court. During the reign of Demetre I, they did not appear in the military-political arena. After the death of Vladimir Monomakh, the unity of Russ ceased and the Qipchaqs restored their positions. So the Qipchaqs could return to the steppes. The political situation in Georgia changed during the reign of Giorgi III. The Qipchaqs, stayed in Georgia, restored their military-political influence and took part in the battles of the Georgians. Kubasar the leader of the Qipchaqs got the position of Amirspasalari and Mandaturtukhutcesi. The successors of Otrok the son of Sharucan continued the relations with Georgia and were the vassals of Georgia. The policy of Giorgi III did not change during the reign of Tamar. Giorgi III and King Tamar supported the Qipchaqs to participate in the battles. There was a new group of Qipchaqs in Georgia for to settle in Georgia and they were known as “New Qipchaqs” and the Qipchaqs for military service. Savalat, the brother of Sevinj the King of the Qipchaqs, was in Georgia for military service. Thus, the Qipchaqs did not cease the relations with Georgia. There were some difficulties but the part of Qipchaqs stayed in Georgia. Georgian Kings, David IV, Giorgi III and Tamar supported the Qipchaqs and they were in their service.Item „უცხოს“ ჰიპოდიგმური გააზრებისათვის ქართულ ჰაგიოგრაფიასა და ჰიმნოგრაფიაში(ივანე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტის გამომცემლობა, 2025) სულავა, ნესტან / Sulava, Nestan“Stranger” acquires a hypodigmatic meaning after the biblical creation process, when the first created Adam and Eve, as a result of the Fall, left the paradise that God had given them as their abode. They became alienated from the paradise world, leaving paradise for a foreign world, which was expressed in the paradigmatic lexical unit “stranger”. The concept is often used in theological literature, especially in ascetic-mystical, exegetical, hagiographic, hymnog-raphic, and homiletic works, in several contexts: 1. To denote ascension to the heavenly realm, 2. To denote leaving the homeland, and 3. To denote going to another world. The essential meaning of alienation is explained in the Old and New Testaments, in Christian theological literature. Following the evangelical-apostolic teaching, the saints are presented as “strangers” in a multifaceted sense, because, first of all, they are different, in a foreign/other country; i.e., the spirituality of the saint is embodied in the “stranger.” St. Gregory of Nyssa explained the theoretical-theological basis for understanding the “stranger.” From his point of view, the Saviour became a stranger to humanity, which allows the latter to see all the worldly delights around him with the purified eyes of the soul, because “strangership,” in a mystical sense, is devotion to the angelic nature and liberation from carnal desires and worries about them. In the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa, the foreign, the alien-made is “something that has been made into something higher.” Alienation is directly related to the saints, who are alien because they, having emerged from themselves, having been taken from the beginning, having been made alien, must appear before the Most High. Alienation is being different; this “other” indicates a difference from the predecessor. In the faces of the saints we are reminded of a spiritual existence, an orientation towards spirituality; they are not motivated by material things. According to all of this, the earthly life, merit, and martyrdom of the saints are understood in the light of the perception of time and space on the basis of their “foreignness.” In Greek hagiography, the departure of the saints to another world is marked by the word “ξένος”, which, like the Georgian “foreigner”, has a different semantic understanding. From a lexical point of view, Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani’s definition of “stranger” in the dictionary, which is understood as “other”, is important. In hagiography and hymnography, “stranger” means being different from others, which is of great importance in representing the nature of a saint. “Stranger” has a temporal and spatial value, because the “strangership” of a saint follows his departure to another world, which separates him from the time spent in his homeland. Accordingly, the strangeness of the saints is to be explained on the basis of a deep mystical understanding. In presenting the virtues of the saint, hagiographers and hymnographers placed special emphasis on renunciation from the world, on strangeness as a departure from the homeland, that is, on being different, on the desire to leave one’s native environment and go out into the outside world, which is based on the Old Testament and evangelical-apostolic teaching; St. Gregory of Nyssa considered “foreign” as one of the main pillars of the saint’s acquisition of divine citizenship. “Foreign” is confirmed in Georgian hagiography and hymnography, specifically in all the texts of “The Conversion of Kartli”, in which St. Nino is perceived as foreign; in Iakob of Tsurtavi’s “The Martyrdom of St. Shushanik”, in which the synonym for foreign – “other” is used to denote spatial and essential difference; in “The Martyrdom of St. Eustathius of Mtskheta”, in which the biblical patriarch Abraham, who sought the Promised Land, is considered as “other”; in “The Martyrdom of St. Abo” by Iovane Sabanisdze, in which St. Abo’s “foreignness” has a symbolic meaning of faith, geographical space and sacred time; In hagiographic works about the Assyrian fathers and martyred children, mainly, the geographical space, and therefore the hagiographic spatiotemporal mission, is assigned to it; in “the Martyrdom St. Constanti Kakhi”, in “St. Gobron’s Martyrdom” by Stephane Mtbevari, in all editions of “St. Hilarion the Georgian’s Life”, in “St. Serapion Zarzmeli’s Life”, “stranger” is connected with the spatiotemporal movements of the main characters; in “St. Gregory Khantseli’s Life” by Giorgi Merchule it is found with various meanings: it heralds novelty in the activities of the characters, it is a herald of the spatiotemporal movement of the characters, it is emphasizes the social class of the character; in In the “Life of St. Jovane and Euthime” by Giorgi Mtatsmindeli, in the “Life of St. George Mtatsmindeli” of Giorgi Mtsire, it acquires an ethnic, religious, and temporal symbolic meaning; in the hymns about St. Nino, St. Abo, St. Shio Mgvimeli, St. Hilarion Georgian, St. Jovane and Euthime, St. Giorgi Mtatsmindeli and St. Iodasaph, there is one temporal dimension and the saints are already represented as settled in the heaven. In each of the above-mentioned texts, the saint departs from his/her native environment; passes into another spatial world, which becomes the initial stage of a new life. “Stranger” presents the time and space of each saint, which requires an understanding of the chronotopic essence; it is a paradigm with several meanings and is used in hagiography and hymnography with various missions. These are religious, ethnic, social class, and temporal-spatial. Based on the understanding of the “stranger” and its analysis, it becomes clear that each saint appears before the reader/listener as someone who has emerged from his own and has been taken for granted, who must be presented to society transformed into a stranger, and ultimately presented to the Supreme. “Stranger” from a temporal-spatial point of view indicates the mundane and supramundane existence of a person, a hagiographic and hymnographic character, and the perception of the world in a unified system by hagiographers and hymnographers, because being foreign is an indication of the existence of a dual world.Item „უცხოს“ ჰიპოდიგმური გააზრებისათვის ქართულ ჰაგიოგრაფიასა და ჰიმნოგრაფიაში(ივანე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტის გამომცემლობა, 2025) სულავა, ნესტან / Sulava, Nestan“Stranger” acquires a hypodigmatic meaning after the biblical creation process, when the first created Adam and Eve, as a result of the Fall, left the paradise that God had given them as their abode. They became alienated from the paradise world, leaving paradise for a foreign world, which was expressed in the paradigmatic lexical unit “stranger”. The concept is often used in theological literature, especially in ascetic-mystical, exegetical, hagiographic, hymnog-raphic, and homiletic works, in several contexts: 1. To denote ascension to the heavenly realm, 2. To denote leaving the homeland, and 3. To denote going to another world. The essential meaning of alienation is explained in the Old and New Testaments, in Christian theological literature. Following the evangelical-apostolic teaching, the saints are presented as “strangers” in a multifaceted sense, because, first of all, they are different, in a foreign/other country; i.e., the spirituality of the saint is embodied in the “stranger.” St. Gregory of Nyssa explained the theoretical-theological basis for understanding the “stranger.” From his point of view, the Saviour became a stranger to humanity, which allows the latter to see all the worldly delights around him with the purified eyes of the soul, because “strangership,” in a mystical sense, is devotion to the angelic nature and liberation from carnal desires and worries about them. In the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa, the foreign, the alien-made is “something that has been made into something higher.” Alienation is directly related to the saints, who are alien because they, having emerged from themselves, having been taken from the beginning, having been made alien, must appear before the Most High. Alienation is being different; this “other” indicates a difference from the predecessor. In the faces of the saints we are reminded of a spiritual existence, an orientation towards spirituality; they are not motivated by material things. According to all of this, the earthly life, merit, and martyrdom of the saints are understood in the light of the perception of time and space on the basis of their “foreignness.” In Greek hagiography, the departure of the saints to another world is marked by the word “ξένος”, which, like the Georgian “foreigner”, has a different semantic understanding. From a lexical point of view, Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani’s definition of “stranger” in the dictionary, which is understood as “other”, is important. In hagiography and hymnography, “stranger” means being different from others, which is of great importance in representing the nature of a saint. “Stranger” has a temporal and spatial value, because the “strangership” of a saint follows his departure to another world, which separates him from the time spent in his homeland. Accordingly, the strangeness of the saints is to be explained on the basis of a deep mystical understanding. In presenting the virtues of the saint, hagiographers and hymnographers placed special emphasis on renunciation from the world, on strangeness as a departure from the homeland, that is, on being different, on the desire to leave one’s native environment and go out into the outside world, which is based on the Old Testament and evangelical-apostolic teaching; St. Gregory of Nyssa considered “foreign” as one of the main pillars of the saint’s acquisition of divine citizenship. “Foreign” is confirmed in Georgian hagiography and hymnography, specifically in all the texts of “The Conversion of Kartli”, in which St. Nino is perceived as foreign; in Iakob of Tsurtavi’s “The Martyrdom of St. Shushanik”, in which the synonym for foreign – “other” is used to denote spatial and essential difference; in “The Martyrdom of St. Eustathius of Mtskheta”, in which the biblical patriarch Abraham, who sought the Promised Land, is considered as “other”; in “The Martyrdom of St. Abo” by Iovane Sabanisdze, in which St. Abo’s “foreignness” has a symbolic meaning of faith, geographical space and sacred time; In hagiographic works about the Assyrian fathers and martyred children, mainly, the geographical space, and therefore the hagiographic spatiotemporal mission, is assigned to it; in “the Martyrdom St. Constanti Kakhi”, in “St. Gobron’s Martyrdom” by Stephane Mtbevari, in all editions of “St. Hilarion the Georgian’s Life”, in “St. Serapion Zarzmeli’s Life”, “stranger” is connected with the spatiotemporal movements of the main characters; in “St. Gregory Khantseli’s Life” by Giorgi Merchule it is found with various meanings: it heralds novelty in the activities of the characters, it is a herald of the spatiotemporal movement of the characters, it is emphasizes the social class of the character; in In the “Life of St. Jovane and Euthime” by Giorgi Mtatsmindeli, in the “Life of St. George Mtatsmindeli” of Giorgi Mtsire, it acquires an ethnic, religious, and temporal symbolic meaning; in the hymns about St. Nino, St. Abo, St. Shio Mgvimeli, St. Hilarion Georgian, St. Jovane and Euthime, St. Giorgi Mtatsmindeli and St. Iodasaph, there is one temporal dimension and the saints are already represented as settled in the heaven. In each of the above-mentioned texts, the saint departs from his/her native environment; passes into another spatial world, which becomes the initial stage of a new life. “Stranger” presents the time and space of each saint, which requires an understanding of the chronotopic essence; it is a paradigm with several meanings and is used in hagiography and hymnography with various missions. These are religious, ethnic, social class, and temporal-spatial. Based on the understanding of the “stranger” and its analysis, it becomes clear that each saint appears before the reader/listener as someone who has emerged from his own and has been taken for granted, who must be presented to society transformed into a stranger, and ultimately presented to the Supreme. “Stranger” from a temporal-spatial point of view indicates the mundane and supramundane existence of a person, a hagiographic and hymnographic character, and the perception of the world in a unified system by hagiographers and hymnographers, because being foreign is an indication of the existence of a dual world.Item О терминах Колха/Колхети/Колхида и связанных с ними этнонимах(ივანე ჯავახიშვილის სახელობის თბილისის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტის გამომცემლობა, 2025) Пипиа, Натиа / Phiphia, NatiaThe geographical name “Colchis” derives from the name of the Colchian tribe. Its parallel and variously named forms at different times are “Kolkha” and “Kolkhis.” Kolkha/Kolkheti/Kolkhida/Kolkhis denoted the territory inhabited by the Colchians/Koli and encompassed primarily the territory of western Georgia. Historically, in some cases, it also included the territory of modern-day Turkey. The term is associated with Georgian ethnoculture; the Colchians are the ancestors of the modern western Georgian population, and accordingly, both the name of the tribe and the geographical name derived from it are associated with the ancestors of the Georgians and with Georgia. Colchis included the city of Pitiunt/Bichvinta and adjacent areas to the northwest, the city of Sarapanis/Shorapan and adjacent areas to the east as far as the Likhi Range, and the southern boundary of the economic system ran along the mouth of the Chorokhi River. At the same time, a second economic system/state existed on the territory of Georgia. It included the valleys of two rivers: the Chorokhi river, which is now mostly in Turkey, and the Mtkvari river, which is partially in Georgia. The locals called the country Kartli, while the Greeks called it Iberia, and its inhabitants the Iberi. Later, in the early 11th century, these two economic systems were united and named Georgia. The dominance of Eastern Georgia in Georgian sources eliminated Western Georgian political-geographical names, and accordingly, the term Colchis/Colchis was no longer used. Thus, it became a historical name. Later, this term gradually disappeared from sources, and by the Middle Ages even the historical memory of it was lost. Since the study of the history of Colchis began, especially in the early 20th century and more intensively during the Soviet period, the term has been revived, but as a reception of antiquity, not as a modern term. During the Soviet period, this term was used for various purposes, such as to describe a ship and other objects. It was also the name of a village in Abkhazia. During the Soviet era, Georgia was part of this political and economic system, and therefore the use of this term was permissible throughout the Soviet Union. At that time, Georgia lost its independence following Sovietization (1921) and did not have the right to independently decide when terms associated with its ethnoculture would be used. However, this is no longer the case, and since Georgia regained independence in 1991, Georgia and the Georgian people have the exclusive right to use this term, the term “Colchis.” This article is inspired by a lawsuit between Georgian and Russian citizens over the use of the term “Colchis” associated with Georgia as a trademark in the Russian Federation. This article is written in the form of an expert opinion and is published to assist interested parties in preventing similar cases in the future.