მლარწველ ფუძის გააზრებისათვის

Abstract

It should be noted that despite a thorough study of the Georgian vocabulary carried out by lexicologists, certain cases of lexical units (that capture our attention due to their form and content) remain more or less unexamined on the level of the literary language. At this point, our study will deal with a particular lexical unit, mlarc’vel-i (in The Histories and Eulogies of the Sovereigns) and the context attested in the historical source, attributed to an unknown, 12th-century author, i.e. Queen Tamar’s historian and one of her contemporaries. Before proceeding to the discussion on making sense of the mlarc’vel stem, we believe, the historical context in which the abovementioned lexical unit occurs is worth brief consideration. Namely, Georgian historical science is well acquainted with the fact that the eldest son would receive an inheritance from his father, according to feudal law. Demetrius I [1125-1156], King David the Builder’s eldest son violated the very law by proclaiming his youngest son, George III [1156- 1184] his successor. This significant infringement contributed to pervasive discontent that first became obvious among the Georgian society of the time. The renegade feudal lords supposedly took advantage of such dissatisfaction to a great extent that finally resulted in the revolt of 1178. In Georgian history, the above-mentioned fact is known as the revolt led by the Orbelis. The most complex ongoing process of internal disturbances and military confrontation in the country led to an intolerably cruel punishment of Prince Demetre-Demna as well as that of the Orbelis. When evaluating this circumstance, Georgian historiography essentially examines it from the perspective of the authority of George III and the aspiration toward centralization of Georgia, observing the tragedy of Prince Demna with a relatively simple approach; however, we believe, still many are concerned with the infringement of the law, uppermost of whom is Iv. Javakhishvili. He states, “from the 9th century on, always the late King’s eldest son, the Prince would ascend the throne. Therefore, in a legitimately organized setting, David, the eldest son of Demetrius I should have reigned, however, his father’s decision prevented it from happening. When new and sufficient records are made widely available, the future will unravel whether Demetrius I had some valid document when he deprived his eldest son of the inheritance right or he was biased and overwhelmed with fondness and love” (Javakhishvili, 1983, p. 239). It is obvious that the father of Kartvelology had faith in the future. He thought that the future discovery of “new and sufficient records” would shed light on what contributed to the breach of the Georgian feudal law. However, these expectations never materialized, merely leaving us equipped with scholarly views. Iv. Javakhishvili explains the above-examined circumstance through Demetrius’ lack of love and hatred toward his own eldest son [David V] (Javakhishvili, 1973. p. 240). Let us examine the part of the composition by Tamar’s historian of the 12th century, the unknown author of The Histories and Eulogies of the Sovereigns which discusses the reasons for changes introduced by Demetrius I in the line of inheritance. The text reads: “Demetre (Demetrius I – I. Sanikidze) … had two sons, [whose names were] David and George. (Demetre) gave preference (marčeveli) to his youngest son as Isaac did with Jacob and he became mistrustful of [and] reviling (mlarc’veli mk’icxveli) the eldest son. God, who listened to Demetre’s supplications, shortened David’s days, calling David to himself before his father. And God the Father, together with His son Jesus Christ, raised the dearest son – who resembled his father – to his side to share the throne with him, exposing him, like the Sun among the heavenly bodies” (The Histories and Eulogies of the Sovereigns, 1959. p. 3). Obviously, due to a bias towards the dynastic line of rulers such as George III and the subsequently enthroned Queen Tamar, the unknown chronicler tries to justify the behavior of Demetrius I and George III, most importantly, believing in this line of thought. What should be considered to be human kindness? - The fact that in this case Demetrius I preferred one son over the other [“gave preference to his youngest son”], giving priority to the younger? Or the fact that he asked God for the “shortening of days” for his eldest son David, not only condemning him to death but also offering prayers for his own son’s untimely death? And who is the one who commits such an act? - It is Demetrius I. The one who has become a monk, being an author of one of the most popular Georgian hymns entitled Thou Art a Vineyard. Such questions naturally emerge to be answered by Tamar’s historian, providing convincing evidence of his partiality; however, we think, the answers are to be clarified by the historical science; we, on the other hand, will offer our perspective on the mlarc’vel stem. It should be noted that the mlarc’vel-i stem as a lexical unit has been assigned a specific entry in A Georgian Dictionary by Sulkhan- Saba Orbeliani, referring to the specified section of The Georgian Chronicles itself as its relevant example. The quote reads as follows: “mlarc’veli mk’vircxl (mk’icxveli D) ikmna” [became mistrustful of, reviling (reviling D)] (Sulkhan-Saba, 1991, p. 492), while S. Kaukhchishvili who compiled the vocabulary supplemented to the volume 2 of The Georgian Chronicles, for his part, alludes to Sulkhan’s definition and specifies: “mlarc’veli (“mk’icxveli”) [“mistrustful of (“reviling”)”] (The Georgian Chronicles, 1959, p. 578). We believe, the confusion of the meaning of mlarc’veli and mk’icxveli stems is encountered in this part of the text of The Georgian Chronicles, the reason of which could be an incorrect understanding of the meaning of mlarc’veli (because of its rare use). Let us pose the following questions: does or does not the form mlarc’veli mean mk’icxveli when these two active participles are side by side in the text? Are they synonymous? Or do they differ in terms of meaning? Answering these questions is our primary objective. The scholia in the academic edition of the text of The Georgian Chronicles presents K. Kekelidze’s interpretation of the context under discussion, which, from the very beginning, apparently introduced some confusion into the meaning, leading the scholar to engage in the editing of the text. In our opinion, K. Kekelidze’s decision to insert the da (“and”) conjunction between these two lexical units has been a valid step, specifying the very context the following way: “mlarc’vel (mistrustful of) and mk’icxvel (reviling) Kek.” (The Histories and Eulogies of the Sovereigns, 1959, p. 3). In order to clarify the meaning of the mlarc’vel stem, at first, its morphological structure is to be observed. First of all, the confix m―el [cf. m-k’eteb-el-i, m-zomv-el-i, and so on] forming an active participle is apparent; once markers are removed, larc’v stem remains. The morphological structure of the word requires identification of the la- prefix of a verbal noun (masdar) as well [cf. la-x t’-i < *sa-xt’-i or a jump rope; just as in the la-rtx-i <*sartx- i form], the prefix that lost its historical function already in the Old Georgian and, in some cases, merged with the stem. V. Topuria examines the forms with la- / le- / li- prefixes together with the na- [na-tel’i] / ne- [ne-rc’q’u’i] / ni- [ni-k’ap’’i] derivative forms, attributing them to alternation of phonemes (a phonetic variation) and subsequently having them referred to as “prefixes with sonant n-/lelements” (Topuria, 1979, p. 93). The scholar considers the morphemes with an l- element to be primarily of the Svan origin: “rather active and frequent use of the li-, le-, la- prefixes has been observed in the contemporary Svan language…” (Topuria, 1979, p. 63). Thus, the historical la- prefix seems to be a masdar marker and, in our opinion, it is not a direct equivalent of na-. Therefore, if the *larc’v stem, in its turn, is a passive participle, which has its historical la- prefix restored, then rc’v must be identified as radical verbal elements that lead us to the form and content of the [a]-rc’ev-s [< rc’ev-a] verb. The reduction of the e vowel has occurred within the oldest masdar that derived from this radical stem, as for the la- prefix, it is a morpheme merged with the stem; the morpheme that has lost its derivative capacity in the Old Georgian, frequently failing to maintain the masdar meaning [cf. la-j-i < *sa-j-i, i.e. inner thigh]. Under these circumstances, it is clear that historically the m-la-rc’v-el-i form must mean nothing but swaying, i.e. double-minded, vacillating, here denoting mistrustful one, suspicious of his son [David V] or incredulous, having lost faith in his own son. Thus, mlarc’veli and mk’icxveli are not synonyms; the former is not an attribute either, hence, preventing us from understanding this context from The Georgian Chronicles as “mk’vircxl mk’icxveli” [/quick to revile?]. The point is that in terms of content and form, marčevali (the one giving preference to), mlarc’veli (mistrustful one, suspicious of), and mk’icxveli (reviling) ― all three of these active participles refer to Demetrius I, according to the text of The Georgian Chronicles. We believe, this obliges us to either include da (“and”) conjunction within a compact structure (as proposed by K. Kekelidze) or, at least, insert a punctuation mark, namely, a comma, specifying the text the following way: (Demetre) gave preference (marčeveli) to his youngest son as Isaac did with Jacob and he became mistrustful of (mlarc’veli), reviling (mk’icxveli) [or: mistrustful of (mlarc’veli) and reviling (mk’icxveli)] (the eldest son).