დიმიტრი უზნაძე კალიგულაზე და ნერონზე

Abstract

The present paper is historiographical in nature and aims to identify two interesting issues that have not been studied in the historical literature to date: 1. Interest in Caligula and Nero's work in Georgian historiography and 2. Dimitri Uznadze on Caligula and Nero. This issue is an integral part of the first problem. In Georgia, the interest in this issue has a much longer history than it was thought during the Soviet period. We consider its beginning in 1921 to be delayed by the Sovietization of Georgia. He took the first modest steps not after the Sovietization of Georgia, as it was thought until now, but a little earlier. The opening of Tbilisi State University on January 26, 1918 by the great Ivane Javakhishvili and the creation of the Democratic Republic of Georgia in 1918-1921 are a gradual event in the study of ancient world history in Georgia. This was a reality that the Bolsheviks did not spare their strength to somehow erase from the consciousness of the Georgian society, but in vain. The interest in this issue in Georgia became scientifically popular in the Democratic Republic of Georgia in 1918-1921 and was mainly reflected in the textbooks of ancient world history. They just could not do more. Whatever they managed to do, of course, it was no small matter. As it turns out, the Georgian historiography of the Soviet period in this field did not even start its activity on an empty ground, from scratch, but met a prepared environment, which they tried in vain to silence. A general picture and periodization of the study of this issue in Georgia, which was distorted by the efforts of the totalitarian-Bolshevik regime. We tried to correct this inconsistency and restore reality. Not all good deeds are associated with the Soviet government. The main starting point of a different approach was the resuscitation and rehabilitation of the contribution of the Democratic Republic of Georgia in this field in 1918-1921. The precondition for the scientific development of this field in Georgia is clearly read. Whether or not political cataclysms, the Sovietization of Georgia, there is a high probability that the work started will be completed, but in reality it did not happen. The development of Georgian historiography has taken a completely different direction, which is difficult to consider as a continuation of the original path, a step forward. Particularly painful is the fact that our source base looks very modest. This is the only school textbook where he naturally pauses briefly on the rule of Caligula and Nero. This, of course, is too little, it should not be enough, but we do not have other more extensive material and we have to believe what we have. Dimitri Uznadze's attitude towards the rule of Caligula and Nero, obviously, is not accidental, did not arise on empty ground, and the echo of his negative attitude towards the dynasty of Julius Claudius was rebound. Is one of its constituent components. This section of Dimitri Uznadze's textbook is, in fact, the first or not one of the first attempts to popularize Caligula and Nero's rule in Georgian reality. It has a purely cognitive load. He can say that he did not miss this cultural mission. We consider this to be his success. This information would help the Georgian society, first and foremost, of course, the student youth, and help to form a general idea of the rule of Caligula and Nero. The main thing, this is what it should be, the meaning of this reasoning, we think, this is exactly what it should be. We consider the correct, scientific, assessment and awareness of the rule of Caligula and Nero by Dimitri Uznadze, the knowledge of empirical, factual, material as the main dignity of his discussion on this topic. He shared the opinion spread in the scientific literature and perceived Caligula and Nero's work negatively. As the first attempt to cover this issue, naturally, it could not be flawless. Resolving some issues has left us feeling a certain sense of inadequacy. As for Caligula's personality, Crint has no engine in his domestic and foreign policy. The same can be said of Nero's foreign policy.