იაკობ გოგებაშვილი ქართული ბატონყმობის თავისებურებათა შესახებ

Abstract

For centuries, serfdom was the basis of the socio-political system of Georgia. From a modern point of view, it is diffi cult to see anything positive in this social institution, which often became a precondition for the violation of human dignity and property. Numerous works by Georgian writers have been devoted to exposing serfdom. However, it is also noteworthy that some of the nineteenth-century Georgian thinkers distinguished Georgian and Russian models of serfdom. For example, Alexander Orbeliani argued that historically serfdom in Georgia did not have a brutal form and that in ancient times worthy Georgian princes had a paternalistic attitude towards serfs. In the article “Early Serfdom in Georgia” (“Tsiskari”, 1859, # 11) Alexander Orbeliani states: “It is true that the word serfdom existed in Georgia, but Georgian serfdom had a diff erent character. Earlier the peasant aspired to fi nd a master and be protected because he treated him like his own child” (Orbeliani 1859: 216). According to Alexander Orbeliani, the serf could visit the master at any time, come for advice or beg. The master and the serf were often together, having dinner together, caring for each other, standing side by side in times of trouble and famine. Of course, such a view is largely romantic (which is why Alexander Orbeliani was declared a reactionary by Soviet historiography and criticism), but it should be noted that such a view is expressed not only by the writers of the “Fathers’ generation”, but also by the prominent fi gures of the sixties – Akaki Tsereteli and Iakob Gogebashvili. Akaki Tsereteli wrote: “Until recently, serfdom had not had such a character in Georgia as elsewhere; He was just an older-younger relationship with each other ... Our old word “serf” does not mean a slave, but - a boy, a young man. Rustaveli often calls Tariel and Avtandil serfs. So serfdom meant equal, fraternal relations, not coercive domination. In the letter “Serfdom in Russia and Georgia” (“Nakaduli”, 1911, # 2-4) Iakob Gogebashvili also develops a very interesting opinion on this issue. He points out that serfdom in Georgia has not been as brutal as in Russia, because there stood between the two strata, a “third force” in the form of a regular army, which was the masters’ weapon to punish serfs, and in Georgia, there was no such mediator. After the establishment of Russian rule, an army emerged between the nobility and the peasants, which widened the gap between the social strata. “Serfdom had a diff erent character in Russia and Georgia. There was a permanent army in Russia, defending its country from outside enemies, and even helping the lords when angry serfs rebelled. Georgia did not have a permanent army. Our country was mainly defended by the peasantry itself. After the unifi cation with Russia, the serfdom took on a diff erent character in us. The defence of our country from outside enemies was undertaken by the Russian perpetual army. In the middle of the lords and slaves came a new, third force - the regular army, and began to sue the fi rst. The lords lost their fear of the peasants’ dissatisfaction and demanded much more service from them”(Gogebashvili 1955: 401). At the same time, according to Iakob Gogebashvili, if in the old days the lords followed a simple life and were little satisfi ed, in the new time their needs became more diverse, imitating the Russian aristocracy they began to live in luxury, which ensured the peasant’s neck and thus ruined the historically formed relatively humane character of Georgian serfdom.