King Dimitri the Self-Sacrificer and "King Dimitri the Self- Sacrificer": Historical Data and Literary Narrative (Part Two)

Abstract

In the long poem, „King Dimitri the Self-Sacrificer“ (1877-1879), written by Ilia Chavchavadze, three attitudes towards the intention of the devoted king were outlined: first, that it is necessary to protect the dignity of the nation and the king, as the embodiment of the nation; second, that every Christian person is obliged to save his soul, which may require sacrificing himself for another person, which represents the implementation of the highest Christian virtue; third, that the duty of the supreme ruler is different from the duty of others, which is why he is obliged to take care of the daily needs of the nation and, moreover, to govern, lead, and direct the life of the nation.

For his part, King Dimitri makes an unwavering decision and chooses self- sacrifice, dedication to others, as the duty that is closest to the vision of a representative of the Christian faith, a clergyman, a high priest.

Later, in captivity, while praying, the king asks God that the sacrifice he made may not serve to save his soul – he does not ask for retribution, since he refuses to receive spiritual benefits in return for his spiritual merit. Dimitri fervently asks that his personal sacrifice, the life he gave as a martyr, be used not for his own benefit, but only for his people, his subjects.

Thus, ultimately, the physical sacrifice is accompanied by a spiritual sacrifice: the king gives up his own life to save the lives of others, but he also gives up the salvation of his own soul, again for the benefit of others.

It is noteworthy that the three views reflected in the poem and their clear separation from each other are entirely the poet's own – this section of the work represents the embodiment of Ilia Chavchavadze's creative imagination. The point is that in the historian-chronicler's narrative, the response and attitude towards the king's decision are unified, no one separates the points of view that are somewhat different from each other.

Compared to and in contrast to the historical chronicle, it is noteworthy that Ilia Chavchavadze decided to distinguish between different attitudes towards King Dimitri's intentions, to sacrifice himself to save the lives of his subjects, and to have the trial itself take place before the sovereign left his homeland, so that neither he nor others would make an unpopular decision. At this time, on the one hand, the supreme authority stands, and on the other, representatives of different strata of the nation, and the difference in points of view allowed the poet, immediately after announcing Dimitri's plan, to show three different views, which, presumably, according to the author's plan, express three different situations and different ratios of values in the public environment: if for warriors, represented by nobles and military leaders, the decisive value is courage, perseverance, and steadfastness, the denial of which will only bring shame to both the supreme person of the state and its people; the Christian clergy clearly foresees the immeasurable spiritual value of self-sacrifice to save the lives of others, which, from a Christian point of view, is considered the clearest manifestation of religious devotion; but a representative of ordinary people, that is, the lower strata, an old man, is ready to easily sacrifice even his own sons. For the common goal, for the country, for the head of state (who is the representative of the country), he nevertheless reminds King Dimitri of his necessary public duty to his subjects – a duty that, as the old man believes, the king is neglecting by abandoning the country and the people, which is why he does not approve of the sovereign's decision of personal heroism, because this old man, as a representative of the majority of the country, speaks on behalf of and with responsibility for a united assembly, that is, the nation.

It is conceivable that the indignation expressed in liberal-left public circles of the last quarter of the nineteenth century due to the fact that Ilia Chavchavadze dedicated his new work, the poem „King Dimitri the Self-Sacrificer“, – moreover, written almost two decades after the previous poem (“A Few Pictures, or Episodes from the Life of a Robber”, 1860), which clearly expressed the revolutionary-violent spirit, this time to the brilliant face of a historical ruler, to the glorification of a kingmartyr, was caused not only by the fact that the hero of the poem was a monarch, but rather by the fact that the work not only presents to the reader, but also artistically exalts an outstanding personality and outstanding heroism, personal decision and personal sacrifice, which is precisely what is alien or unacceptable to any collectivist ideology.

It seems that Ilia Chavchavadze took into account the environment or perception of the poem's readers to some extent, which is why the poet considered it necessary to introduce among the characters of the work a representative of the simple, unenlightened people, about whom the chronicler says absolutely nothing and who had something special to say in the poem, not only to the king, but also, in general, about the king and his duties.

In addition, there is one more circumstance worth considering: although Ilia Chavchavadze expressed his reproach or grief (shortly before „King Dimitri the Self- Sacrificer“ was written and shortly after „King Dimitri the Self-Sacrificer“ was written) that the Georgian chronicles describe only the lives of kings and that the life of the nation is less visible on the pages of the chronicles (which, apparently, refers to the daily life of ordinary people), and such a narrative, based on his consciousness and attitude, did not completely captivate him, nevertheless, he himself created a poem about the king, which depicts the noble life and devoted actions of the supreme ruler, ending with his violent but voluntary death.

Furthermore, Ilia Chavchavadze, in general, doubted the value of historical chronicles, but the main sections of his poem completely (often literally) coincide with the chronicle narrative. However, it should also be said that the poet rejected both the extensive and meticulous presentation of the historical setting of the event, and the in-depth presentation of the hero’s face, including the king’s numerous arbitrariness, treason, and abduction, which are so clearly described by the chronicler in his „Hundred-Year Chronicle“.

When perceiving a broad picture of Ilia Chavchavadze’s personal and creative development, the poet’s writing and publication of „King Dimitri the Self-Sacrificer“ indicates the writer and figure’s gradual shift towards more conservative values and his increasing distance from Russian revolutionary-radical ideology, his return to national history and national tradition, which was so clearly expressed in this famous work.

It cannot be disputed that later, in the formation of the public heroic image of Dimitri the Self-Sacrificer, the decisive importance was played not so much by the information preserved in historical chronicles as by the work of Ilia Chavchavadze,

„King Dimitri the Self-Sacrificer“ whose poetic vision and inspiring influence firmly established themselves in Georgian public and cultural-intellectual life, including in academic research.