დანტეს პარადიგმა ისტორიული ემიგრაციის დისკურსში

Abstract

World Classics. There are authors you should know about, there are books you should read at least once. Dante Alighieri is also considered in this space of “necessity”. One memory is known to the public. Its author is Konstantine Gamsakhurdia, restoring the days of his stay in Germany; The Democratic Republic of Georgia is taking the first steps. He has a different attitude towards Akaki Chkhenkeli; the relationship between these two people does not end with a formal etiquette. The sudden offer will also be highlighted when the Foreign Minister offers him a one-year business trip and two thousand pounds sterling to go to Italy and facilitate the translation of Dante’s “Divine Comedy”. As Gamsakhurdia knew Italian, Chkhenkeli believed that every cultural nation should have this book on the shelf. Georgia’s first democratic republic fatally ceased to exist. The political or intellectual part of the country was scattered abroad. Georgian historical emigration responded to a number of problems, discussing social or economic issues in Georgia and abroad. What place can Dante occupy in this area, or even in the above context what load should he imply. The variety of themes creates a diverse picture. There are people of different views in emigration (even if they were representatives of one party). Psychological and geographical distances are evaluative. As I said, Dante’s “recitation” or “testimony” takes place in different contexts. Often, it is only mentioned in the list of world classics. Examples: Revaz Gabashvili will read the report “Rustaveli and Some East-West Parallels” in “Paris Society”. A small report on page # 87 of the newspaper “Tetri Giorgi” (White George) will be read by the Georgian readers residing in France in 1935. When Mikheil Tsereteli publishes a letter “A Little about Vepkhistkaosani”, he names the poem “World-Vision” and, at the same time, he the works of Shakespeare, Dante and Wagner. Not only in the letter to Rustaveli, but also in the “Poet - Akaki Tsereteli” when he responds to his German counterpart and needs some context, he lists: Dante and Shakespeare, Byron and Cervantes, Victor Hugo and Tolstoy, Firdaus and Rustaveli. The great scientist, Rustvelologist, Viktor Nozadze will write an extraordinary study in Paris, “Dante – Rustaveli”. Two short books by Lado Beliashvili are also published in Paris: “The Mystery of Rustaveli and Dante”, the first word, 1956, and the second word, “The Mystery of Rustaveli and Dante”, 1957. This time, I will talk about one discourse held in emigration. Ideal and the given reality - this is the crossroads where their opinions intersect. Speaking of twentieth-century Georgian literature, Dante’s paradigm in relation to modernity is interesting. Leispirelli’s “Letters on Literature” and “Art Politics” were published in sequels in the French newspaper “Voice of Struggle” published in Paris. It was the monthly organ of the Foreign Bureau of the Georgian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party. However, maintaining periodicity was often not possible. In 1938-1940 it was transformed into a magazine. The letter we are talking about was published in the newspaper - # 68, # 70, # 71 of 1937. As the title suggests, the author is interested in the “politics” that the current government is trying to legitimize. I also note that the author has a sharply negative attitude towards the works written in Georgia and he also mentions Dante. His impression regarding a number of literary texts and authors is negative. The magazine “Socialist Thought” (which was published in Paris in 1934-1939 and was a Georgian social-democratic magazine) will publish a response letter from Kuchuk-Naib. It is also interesting that the epigraph is preceded by Dante’s words, and the letter itself ends with Dante’s lines. Kuchuk-Naib’s “A Letter to a Friend” was published in issue # 8 of the magazine in 1937. We mentioned a one-party rule above. I will repeat, as a party they may share one worldview, but they think differently about values. Kuchuk-Naib (in both cases, of course, we are dealing with pseudonyms) does not refer to any of the authors specifically, but objectively explains the reality which urged them to make these concessions and pay “tribute” for the possibility of publishing other literary texts. It is easy to say that this “tribute” specifically harms their creativity. Without it there would be one big gap and even talking about it would be incomprehensible. The discourse that began in the historical emigration should have had its continuation, but it is no longer preserved in the press.