„პიღასი“, „აფროსინელთა შინა სიტყუა“, „თასისა ირაკლისის“ (ანტიკურობასთან დაკავშირებული ზოგიერთი პასაჟის ახლებური წაკითხვისა და ინტერპრეტაციისთვის ჟამთააღმწერლის „ასწლოვან ისტორიაში“)

ანოტაცია

It is widely known that in the "Life of Kartli" there is a lot of material related to the Greco-Roman world, which was studied by both the publishers of the text and other famous scientists. The relatively late text of "Life of Kartli" is particularly distinguished by its variety of depictions of antiquity, the author of which we know as the Anonymous Chronicler, and his work – under the conditional title "The Hundred Years’ Chronicle". Despite the fact that a number of important studies have been dedicated to commenting on passages depicting antiquity, the definition of several terms and contexts, by the scientists' own admission, could not be achieved due to the distortion of the text or the mistakes of copyists. The article presents an attempt to read and interpret just a few of these so-called an "obscure" passage in a new way, based on which the content of the text and the meaning of several terms related to antiquity become clear, which, naturally, is important for the correct understanding of the context of the works.

These Passages are:

1. “Eristavi Samadavla, a man gifted with all kinds of military virtues and a chosen archer, like the Jew Mosomakhos, or the chosen Neoptolemeos Pighas of glorious tutor of the Myrmidons”.

Until now, the meaning of the word "Pighas" was not determined, which made it difficult to fully understand the content of the sentence. We believe that "Pighas" is a scribal error and should be replaced by “Pighos” – in late Byzantine Greek pronunciation of word "Pyrrhus", the second name of the son of Achilles – Neoptolemus. My proposed reading of the text easily explains the moment why the author connects the name of Neoptolemos with "Pyrrhus" and also with such a phrase as "of glorious tutor of Myrmidons” (i.e. Achilles, E.K.), because another Neoptolemus is also known in history, in particular – the leading warriors in the army of Alexander the Great. Those Pyrrhus descended from the Aeacids, the kings of Epirus (Arr. Anab. ii.27). Also, it is noteworthy that there was another Pyrrhus, the king of Epirus (319/318-272 BC) and "Pyrrhus of Neoptolemus" without the special definition "of glorious tutor of the Myrmidons" the reader could understand that Neoptolemus, a descendant of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, is mentioned here. It is worth noting that Pyrrhus, in the form of "Pviro" can also be seen in the "Fables of the Hellenes", in particular in the work "Judgments of Julian the First". It is said about Priam's daughter Polyxene that Achilles, fascinated by her, was fatally wounded by Paris with an arrow in the temple of Apollo.

It is important that Pyrrhus is also mentioned by 12th century poet Chakhrukhadze. In “Tamariani”, Chakhrukhadze says in praise of Tamar's son, Lasha Giorgi, that he is “a new Pyrrhus”.

Thus, it turns out that the tradition of comparing with Neoptolemus existed in Georgian fiction as early as the 12th century, which was repeated by the Anonymous Chronicler two centuries later in connection with another character.

2. “But it is written, as in Aphrosinians writings, someone tells, that fights with Antipatros and young Cassandros killed him”.

Despite numerous attempts, the word "Aphrosinians" could not be understood correctly, which is why the essence of the sentence remained unclear. We believe that this section of the work, which provides information about the death of Alexander the Great, is related to the following phrase a few paragraphs later: „But it is said that he may have been poisoned by his wife Esukan as it is said by one writer („viTar sityჳsmoqmedi ityჳs“) of the Macedonian, to whom, having a headache and being in thought was given a poison by Midos and Antipatros“. First of all, we are convinced by the fact that, as T. Kaukhchishvili notes that the text is incomprehensible, because it is not clear who fought with Antipatros and who was killed by Kassandros. Thus the text should be restored as follows: „But it is said that he may have been poisoned by his wife Esukan as it is said by one writer of the Macedonian, to whom, having a headache and being in thought was given a poison by Midos and Antipatros, But it is written, as in Aphrosinians writings, someone tells, that fights with Antipatros and young Cassandros killed him”. In case of such correction or "filling" of the text, it becomes clear that there are two versions and two sources about Alexander's murder. Conditional "opposition" is more clearly defined – “one writer (sityჳsmoqmedi)” and other– “Aphrosinians writings” It is difficult to say who is meant in this particular case as the "the writer", however, based on the fact that P. Ingorokva believes that this story is taken from Alexander's novel, it is highly probable that the Chronicler here refers to Pseudo-Callisthenes. As for the meaning of "Aphrosinians", it is noteworthy that this source is not created by any "word maker" – historian or writer. I think this refers to the "Ephemerides" – Ἀλεξάνδρου ἐφημερίδων βιβλία (in ancient Georgian “efemeridni“), the diaries of Alexander's exploits, which were written by the king's private secretaries, Eumenes of Kardia and Diodotos of Erythrai. Thus, most likely, "Lies among the Aphrosinians" refers to "Alexander's book of Ephemerides", the existence of which could have been known to the Chronicler through various sources, it is also possible to assume that the name of this book was distorted by the Chronicler himself (because he knew it from oral transmission) or by the copyist.

3. “And it was said that he was poisoned by his wife Esukan, as the writer says about the Great Macedonian, who had a headache and was in thought, who feasted at the evening and drank the cup of Irakli. they say that Esukan took vengeance on him for putting to death Basil of Ujarma for his dishonorable behavior: Basil committed adultery with Esukan and dishonored the King's bed, and threw off his cassock, and stole the power. And for this dishonor, Basil was put to death”.

This passage can be seen in a relatively recently discovered two-page manuscript (H-1067) of the writings of Chronicles, which was published in 2009 and describes the fact of the poisoning of David Ulu by his wife, Esukni, which is compared to the death of Alexander the Great. In my opinion, this passage has been misunderstood and interpreted by the publisher, who thinks that it refers to Deianira poisoning Heracles out of jealousy. Thus, as V. Silogava explains, "jealousy, on the basis of which this happened, is compared to the poisoning and murder of the greatest mythological hero of the ancient world, Herakles ("Iraklis"), as well as jealousy-based poisoning." It is not clear which jealousy is being discussed when in the text it is clearly indicated that Esukni was not jealous of David, but committed the murder of revenge of her lover Basil of Ujarma, who was killed by the king. Here, the problem is caused by the wrong interpretation of "iWvisa" (which is not "jealousy" at all, but, according to the "The Dictionary of Ancient Georgian Language” (Il. Abuladze): "conscience", "thought"; "expectation") and again the wrong understanding of the context. In addition, "being in thought" is addressed not to Irakli, but to Alexander the Great. As fascinating as it is to see the myth of Deianira and Heracles here, it is impossible given the structure and content of the sentence. In my opinion, in this case we are dealing with the information preserved in the sources about the death of Alexander (which originates from the "Ephemerides"), according to which Alexander was poisoned when he emptied a large cup full of undiluted wine in honor of Heracles (Iust. 12.13.7; Plut. Alex., 75.3; Ar. 7.24.4-25.1; Diod. XVII, 117).