DSpace Repository

ხალხური ჩვეულებითი სამართალი და საეკლესიო სამართალი იაკობ ხუცესის „წმიდა შუშანიკის წამებაში“

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author გრიგალაშვილი, ია
dc.date.accessioned 2022-02-15T11:28:50Z
dc.date.available 2022-02-15T11:28:50Z
dc.date.issued 2021
dc.identifier.citation XV საფაკულტეტო სამეცნიერო კონფერენცია, თეზისები, ივლისი 5-6, 2021, 47-52 გვ./ XV Faculty Scientific Conference, Abstracts, July 5-6, 2021, pp. 47-52 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://dspace.tsu.ge/xmlui/handle/123456789/1186
dc.description კონფერენცია მიძღვნილია აკადემიკოს კოტე წერეთლის 100 წლის იუბილესადმი/ DEDICATED TO THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF ACADEMICIAN KONSTANTINE TSERETELI en_US
dc.description.abstract “Martyrdom of Saint Shushanik” by Iakob Khutses is a well-studied hagiographic work from a historical-philological point of view, however, disregarding the norms of customary law and Christian ecclesiastical law hinders the hermeneutical analysis of the text. Iakob Khutses constructs a hagiographic work by using a method of controversy: Varsqen Pitiakhsh who denied true faith opposes the faithful Queen –Saint Shushanik, Christian-National strive of the hagiographer is revealed against Persians’ treacherous policy that had been addressed to subordinate Georgians, folk customary norms are weakened on the background of the protection of ecclesiastical laws. Anger of St Sshushanik during the feast has been the subject of discussion up today. It is not entirely clear why the Saint did not have the desire to partake the meal with apostate Varsken, Christian Jojik and his wife, for the assertion that wine symbolically is the blood of Christ and bread – the flesh is insufficient to understand the context of a particular episode. Bread and wine take sacral meaning only during the Eucharist and not while having the family dinner. Jojik and his wife remained to be Christians for the rest of their lives. So, while discussing the mentioned episode, pointing to the theological meaning of Eucharist, as if the Queen did not wish to partake the bread and wine with her apostate husband, is unconvincing. We consider that the norms of ecclesiastical laws of that time have to be taken into account. Saint Shushanik is the thorough defender of these norms. It is known that from the second half of the 3rd century, holding of the Agape feast, where men and women partake the meal together, was forbidden in Churches. Such prohibition was caused by the disorder that ensued due to excessive satiety when Aagape feast- or love-feasts were held. In the I-II centuries, countless offerings were gathered in the churches, the rich and the poor ate the gathered food and provisions together. According to the decree of the Ecclesiastical Council of Laodicea in 343, it was forbidden to hold Agape feasts, to eat large quantities of food, to take them home, and women and men could not have a meal together (Explanations … 2007,525). Thus, St. Shushanik adheres to the ecclesiastical ordinance in refusing the partaking the meal with men. At that time the partaking in the meal by men and women together was forbidden not only in the churches but also at homes. It’s confirmed by the law that had been taken later, about after two centuries, only according to the Ordinance of the 2nd Ecclesiastical Council in 787 in Nicea, it was allowed having the meal together for men and women were allowed to have a meal together, but they had to thank God (Explanations …2007, 594). According to the “Martyrdom of Saint Shushamik,” the Head of the family is Varsqen Pitiakhsh. The term “On the donkey to Kari” (karad karaulita), confirms that the husband had an undefined power towards his wife. And this term meant folk customary law: to mount a guilty wife on the donkey in public/paraded a guilty woman on a donkey as a punishment. The punishment instituted for a moral crime had been existed up to XIX_XX centuries CE in Georgia (Nadareishvili 1973, 314-315). It is significant that Saint Shushanik ironically answers to the threat of Varsqen that if he sent her to Chord, goodness would await her. So, the norm of folk customary law is presented in the text impoverished: Varsqen changed his mind to fulfil the threat. According to Georgian folk tradition, for a noblewoman to go out in society by a noblewoman without a headdress was considered a great shame. So Varsken tried to humiliate the queen exactly in this way when he took her to the prison barefooted and without the headdress and the horsemen followed her. Nobody dared to cover the head of the queen. According to customary law, the husband had unlimited rights over his wife. Beating Shushanik by Varsken during the feast in the palace, also on Easter Monday, confirms the above-mentioned custom. Imprisoning the Queen means that Varsken as a Pitiakhsh enjoyed unlimited rights. Nobody dared to oppose him. Though, according to hagiographic reading text by Iakob Khutses, queen Shushanik joins with the host of Saints by bearing suffers, defending ecclesiastical laws. en_US
dc.language.iso ge en_US
dc.subject საეკლესიო en_US
dc.subject სამართალი en_US
dc.subject ხალხური en_US
dc.subject ჩვეულებითი en_US
dc.subject ჰაგიოგრაფია en_US
dc.subject Ecclesiastical en_US
dc.subject Law en_US
dc.subject Folk en_US
dc.subject Customary en_US
dc.subject Hagiography en_US
dc.title ხალხური ჩვეულებითი სამართალი და საეკლესიო სამართალი იაკობ ხუცესის „წმიდა შუშანიკის წამებაში“ en_US
dc.type Thesis en_US

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace

Advanced Search


My Account