|
|
|
|
|
|
RUSTAVELI,
DANTE, PETRARCA. ELGUJA KHINTIBIDZE Love is central to the world view of The Man in the Panther’s Skin*. It is the subject of Rustaveli’s theoretical comments in the Prologue of the poem, and which is more important, the subject axis of the MPS runs through love. Love in the poem is not only interralation of pairs in love; it is a broader human sentiment: natural affect of the soul, linking – apart from the pairs in love – friends too. Under this token the MPS is in full accord with Christian theology, with the thesis of love at its centre. It should be added here that, under the same token, Rustaveli echoes both the Persian epic of his day (Fakhr ud-din Gurgani, Nizami Ganjevi...) and Arabic poetry, as well as the European literary process: love is the principal thematic motif of European lyric and epic of the 11th-14th centuries. Yet, in Rustaveli’s conception of love there is something that makes the MPS unique in the Eastern as well as Western poetry of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. This conclusion is arrived at by Moris Bowra, a well-known researcher of the world literary process on the basis that a harmonious and well thought out theory of love is felt in the poem that defines its entire structure. The poet lays on it a religious mission, as it were. Manifested in different forms, it (love) rarely leaves the lines of the poem[1]. At the same time, I would like to add, this love is real, it is a normal happening of human relations, rather than an abnormal and morbid deviation of the mind. We must begin interpretation of love in the MPS with the traditional dilemma of Rustvelology: to what extent is the love of the poem only worldly or human? In other words, may it be assumed as opposed to divine love? On the other hand, is love in the MPS a mystical-allegorical reflection of divine love? Or does Rustaveli consider worldly, human love a lower type of love, differing from divine or first type? My point of view – argued in the present paper and implied in my monographs – differs from the above statements of the problem. To begin with, in the Prologue Rustaveli does not speak on “first love” as divine love and its opposite – other or worldly – love. As I argued[2] , Rustaveli’s words: vTqva mijnuroba pirveli da tomi gvarTa zenaTa _ “I speak of love which is first and foremost among heavenly ideas”(20,1)[3] , contrary to the popular interpretation of these words, does not point to the first type of love that differs from the second and third types of love described later. In this stanza mijnuroba pirveli does not mean first among the several types of love interpreted here. Rustaveli says: I speak of love that is the greatest of divine (heavenly) commandments (tomi gvarTa zenaTa) and first in order among them. Compare the words of the Gospel: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God... This is the first and great commandment” (Matt. 22, 37. 38). Furthermore, the theory of love, expounded in the Prologue does not say that love of God is the first, highest type of love, while worldly, carnal love is a type inferior to and opposed to it. It rather says: The divine manifestation of love – the love of God (“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God”) is not expressible in human tongue, is not perceived by human hearing, and is not comprehended by human mind (“Sages cannot comprehend that one love; the tongue will tire, the ears of the listeners will become wearied“– 28)[4] . Therefore I shall speak of love, ‘frenzies’ that are of this world and that imitates it – the love of God (“I must tell of lower frenzies, which befall human beings” (28). This view per se directly echoes the humanistic stand of the Renaissance period, which – based as it is on the thesis of the unknowable nature of the divine – excludes the transcendental world from the sphere of literature, turning only man and this worldly reality into the subject of aesthethic reflection[5]. The same thesis is a fundamental stand of the new thinking of the Late Middle Ages (Dante, Petrarca). Dante points out directly: Inasmuch as the divine essence is unattainable to our nature, we naturally do not attempt to know it” (Feast, III, VI, 10). Thus, in my interpretation of the theory of love in the Prologue, the foremost and greatest to Rustaveli among heavenly, divine concepts is the idea of love. Its divine manifestation (“Love thy God”) is incomprehensible and unatterable by human tongue. Hence he speaks of its worldly, human manifestation that is an imitation – like it (divine love). In this statement Rustaveli is in full agreement with the credo of the Gospel (Matt. 22.37-40): “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God... This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matt. 22.37-40). In other words, in Rustaveli’s view, divine and worldly love are two manifestations of a single idea – that of love (cf. the Holy Father Basil the Great’s words: “At all places the Lord will bring these concepts together – the love of God and one’s neighbour” – The Asketikon). The poet may speak only of this worldly manifestation of love, inasmuch as divine love is inexpressible. In my view, the love of the MPS is a direct development of this interpretation, i.e. the love expressed in the narrative part of the poem. It is a literary expression of a single idea of love, in its manifestation in the only, human, worldly form of its human imagination and reflection, which is at the same time a constituent part of divine love. The present paper is devoted to the argumentation of this novel interpretation and to determining Rustaveli’s place from this angle in the process of Christian thought. Love as a leading literary theme and idea took shape in Christian secular literature in 11th-12th century court poetry, lyrics (troubadours, trouveres and minnesinger lyric). It resulted from the shift of accent to a humanist world view and reflects worldly, human, real love relations. Of course, religious experience is not alien to courtly lyric. Moreover, the poetry of troubadours occasionally takes a deep look into religious symbolism; however, it uses religious images and terms predominantly to convey human love experiences[6]. The general image of a woman-love of European court poetry is an ideal woman – an elevated personification of all best virtues. The poet adores her. However, at the same time this ideal personification is interpreted not as a symbolic image of a goddess but a real woman[7]. This trend of the 12th-century court literature – removal of the allegorical reinterpretation of worldly love to divine love – develops with variable intensity in Christian lyrics of the subsequent period. With Dante Alighieri this medieval allegorical-symbolic model is subjected to a different reinterpretation. Generally speaking, in Dante’s poetic style allegory holds a very important place. Yet, at the same time, the allegorical images of The Divine Comedy have an independent, real interpretation as well, often representing historical persons[8]. Finally, with Francesco Petrarca, elements of worldly, human truth are clothed in allegorical guise. Allegory is no longer a symbolic reflection of a transcedental creator God. In the process of European civilization, as a result of such world view reinterpretation, allegory and symbol in Renaissance poetry are already poetic adornments rather than a style of medieval world view thought – that of reference to transcendental or divine[9]. In Rustaveli’s poetic world view position typological parallels are noticable in this new poetic style. The ideal lovers of the MPS come close to the lyric of Christian court literature by their loftiness, hyperbolization of best qualities and – which is most important – reality. By accenting the latter quality on principle, Rustaveli’s ideal lover somewhat differs from the ideal image woman-love of European court poetry. The claim is felt in Rustaveli’s poem that Nestan and Tinatin are rather real life personages in the objective world rather than imaginative or fantastic[10]. More interesting here is the fact that, unlike European courtly lyric, Rustaveli’s ideal woman-love is not allegorically personified. No suggestion is felt of this in the poem. Furthermore, like the woman-ideal of the Provenзal lyric, Rustaveli’s ideal beloved is a hyperbolic image of best, superior qualities; she is good, illuminator of the world. However, whereas in Provenзal poetry this woman is compared even to God (rather than God seen in a woman) she is good similar to God, her smile is like that of God (Raimbaut d’Orange), the poet, gazing at the woman, thinks he sees a goddess (Peire Vidal); Rustaveli even in his inordinate hyperbolization (“Tinatin contemned the sun, but the sun aped Tinatin” – 51; Nestan – “that maid like two suns” – 1150) is strictly correct and reasonably cautious: Nestan and Tinatin – as woman- beloveds – are never compared to God. Beginning with the first half of the 13th century the attitude to woman and the conceptualization of love gradually changed in European literature. This too was due to the peculiarity of that stage of the process of Christian thinking which shifted from humanistic ideals to the science of the day: scholasticism and metaphysics. Interest in biblical exegesis declined, which is explained by the intellectual-scholastic approach to theological issues rather than by mystic interpretation. Also by the dominance of Aristotelianism, followed by metaphysics and logic, instead of a search for a purportedly hidden idea in the text. The attitude to woman – even among theologians based on earlier exegetic tradition – is negative, also due to the authorities of Aristotle and Apostle Paul. The position of mystics is more tolerant toward woman. The same is the attitude in lyric as well, where the 12th-century woman – as an ideal – developed and was rendered concrete into a superhuman creature – a heavenly being, endowed by God with power to take man to heaven. Woman is a medium between God and man. The development of this line in 13th-century European lyric turns Holy Mary into an ideal woman. At the same time, conceptualization of a woman as a medium has its opposite side as well. It is often perceived as weapon not only of lofty but of low forces as well. It is thus interpreted occasionally as a force tempting men, standing in the way of the salvation of individual’s soul and hindering his movement to the highest ideal or God. This trend largely took shape in the courtly romance. The Vulgate recension of the romances of the Arthurian cycle is very broad, consisting of several independent romances, each developing against the background of conflictual opposition of various traditions. The principal among these conflictual traditions are religious and chivalrous. The chivalrous tradition conceptualizes woman and love as an impulse of inspiration and worthy deeds. The religious tradition is inclined to portray woman as highly dangerous, man being overly weak in relations with her. Finally, in the context of the Graal cycle the amorous quest develops into religious search. Here woman is already the subject of worldly temptation, standing in the way of man attaining his highest goal – the salvation of his soul. A similar dual world view dominates in the popular “Romance of Rose”, in which supernatural personification of love is obvious, on the one hand, and an antifeministic tendency, on the other, seen largely in different parts of the poem. Thus, European romance of the 12th -13th centuries (chiefly of the Arthurian cycle) tendsto reject love as human relationship, which is expressed not only in the condemnation of sexual relations but also underestimation of family love and chivalrous friendship: the ideal of the worldly activity of both man and woman is total self-sacrifice to God. The elevated attitude to woman-love of 12th-century Provenзal poetry is somewhat preserved in the 13th-century new poetic school known under the name of dolce stil nuovo. Poets of this school believe in love as a kind force, perceiving in this love the road leading to God. However, similarly to the same romance cycle, they too are concerned over the independent value of secular love. As compared to the troubadours of the 11th -12th centuries, they are less emotional-realistic and are more stylized and scientifical-analytic. The new conception of Dante Alighieri (1265-1321) proceeds from poetry of this style[11]. Love in the MPS has less in common with the attitude to woman displayd in 13th-century European literature. The loved women in Rustaveli’s poem are ideals of independent and wordly value for the men who love them, rather than media linking them with God. The proplem of the loved woman of the romances of the Arthurian cycle as subjects of worldly temptation is generally alien to the MPS. There are more chances to find typological parallels of individual elements of Rustaveli’s conception of love in Vita nuova and in the image of Beatrice in the Divine Comedy. In the first place this is the fact that Beatrice – like Nestan and Tinatin – is an earthly person of this world. She is a woman who strolled the streets of Florence and was loved by Dante. In his relationship with Beatrice in the other world, Dante preserves an earthly, human attitude. He finds it difficult to speak to Beatrice, hangs his head at her reproofs, weeps, grows weak (Purgatorio, XXX-XXXI), similarly to Tariel in his imagined meeting with Nestan in the other world (“I shall meet her, she shall meet me; she shall weep for me and make me weep” – 863). But, at the same time, Beatrice of the Divine Comedy is a medium that leads Dante to God. Furthermore, Beatrice is an image of wisdom and theology – she is a reflection of God in human form. Here there is no likeness with Rustaveli’s conception of love. Proceeding from the philological-philosophical principles of modern medieval studies, in the MPS it is impossible to trace symbolical-allegorical meaning that dominates in the Divine Comedy. The point is that Beatrice has resemblances with Christ, to which Dante points unequivocally. In his Vita Nuova, Dante paves the way for us to identity Beatrice with Christfrom a definite point of view. Recall Dante’s vision of the death of Beatrice, with the angels seeing her off singing Hosanna! (Vita Nuova, XXIII), and Dante’s further vision (Vita Nuova, XXIV): as Christ in this world had a forerunner in the person of John the Baptist, Beatrice is preceded by Giovanna Primavera (Prima versа – he who will come first). It is not only separate passages in the Divine Comedy that make evident Beatrice’s associations with God’s mystic daughter-in-law (the words from the Song of Songs (4,8): “Come, bride of Lebanon!” are addressed to Beatrice (Purgatorio, XXX, 11), and with Christ himself (Beatrice is addressed in the same way as Christ (Matth. 21,9): “Blessed art thou that comest!” (Purgatorio, XXX,19)[12] ; but, generally, the generalization of Beatrice’s action: Beatrice acts for the salvation of Dante by the desire of the Virgin Mary and together with Her. The Holy Mary sent Beatrice to awaken Dante’s mind, in the same way as God sent Christ for the salvation of man[13]. It has been noticed that Dante’s conception of woman as a saviour, instructor and, at the same time, inspiring and charming human being, largely points to the personal world of the poet and thinker, his personal intellectual and spiritual phenomenon rather than to the world around him – to the world view and attitudes of his day. The conception of woman of 13th-century European literarure is more negative, which is explained by that century’s more sombre attitude to humanistic values. In contrast to this, the generally positive presentation of woman in 12th-century literary thought is accounted for by the newly exploded interest of this century in man, life – by the ascendance of humanistic ideals[14]. From the end of the Middle Ages to the age of the Renaissance (11th-14th centuries) the development of 12th-century socio-literary thought appears to have been most appropriate for the shaping of a conception of love as is found in Rustaveli’s MPS. In the opinion of some researchers, the 12th century is that of the discovery of love. This view is primarily addressed to the Provenзal poetry of the troubadours. Of course it is very hard to concur with this categorical view; suffice it to say that the lyrics of the troubadours is to some extent indebted to Arabic poetry too. At the same time, it should be also observed that fromthe viewpoint of literary reflection of worldly, human love the 12th century is indeed unique in the long process of the Christian Middle Ages. To revert to the love of 12th-century European courtly poetry, the woman-love or queen of courtly, chivalrous literature urges heroic deeds from the knight enamoured of her, setting him a task of serving the king and country – to unravel some mystery. The demands to the enamoured knights, set at the Western royal court, are approximately similar to the duties of the mijnuri in the Prologue of the MPS (fidelity to a single love, secrecy of love, turning pale at meeting one’s love, shuddering, etc.)[15]. Like Rustaveli, the Provenзal poets consider the purpose of poetry itself, the poet’s main duty to tune his tongue for his beloved, to make his poetic lyre sound for his beloved (“He must employ all his art for her, he must praise her, he must set forth the glory of his beloved; he must wish for nought else, for her alone must his tongue be tuneful” – 25). The woman of the poetry of the troubadours in most cases excites genuine love that gives her beloved an impulse for worthy and elevated action. It is the woman who feels love first in the enamoured pair and she expresses it. The woman of European courtly poetry is the source of all good and elevated qualities: she is an ideal conceived by the poet and adored by the lyrical character. But at the same time she is a real woman and the poet desires to possess her physically (cf. Tariel’s words regarding Nestan: “I longed to do so, but could not bring myself to clasp and embrace her” (530). That is why I believe that Rustaveli’s conception of love is based on the worldly, human, real love of 12th- century courtly poetry[16]. The foregoing should not be taken to mean that Rustaveli’s conception of love falls within courtly love and is equated with the love lyrics of European troubadours[17]. Love in the MPS is characterized primarily by specific features that impart uniqueness to it. To begin with, the love of the MPS is obviously linked to a higher degree with oriental culture and literature than European courtly or, for that matter, troubadours lyric proper. This statement is supported not only by Rustaveli’s frequent reference to characters of the Persian epic, pairs in love, in particular; or the highly significant fact per se that Rustaveli refers to love by the Arabic word mijnuroba, himself pointing to its Arabic provenance: “Mijnuri means madman in the Arabic tongue” (22); or the fact that individual details of the theory of love set forth in the Prologue come close to the views on love current in the Arab world of the period (being with the love and thinking of the beloved is the highest happiness, love should not be disclosed, etc.). More important is the fact that in the love of the MPS there indeed is oriental frenzy, going mad, imitation of ranging in the field, looking for an abode among beasts, which is largely characteristic of Sufistic love of Arabic provenance. That Rustaveli does not stick to this stand to the end is another matter. However, he does not censure such interpretation of love, but overcomes it. Rustaveli depicts Tariel as a typical lover of the Persian epic: “Wise! Who is wise, what is wise, how can a madman act wisely? Had I my wits such discourse would be fitting” (866); with his abode in a den of beasts, hoping to join his love in the other world: “Lovers here parted, there indeed may we be united, there again see each other, again find some joy” (862). But Rustaveli does not remain within the framework of oriental, Sufic love. The worldly insurmountable obstacles that, according to the Sufic model, render love unrealizable in this world, are surmountable by the endeavour and philosophy of action of Rustaveli’s characters. Rustaveli seems to overcome the Sufic obstacle of the unrealizability of love in this world, and he does succeed in it. In this his philosophy rests on the new impulses of his day – those of Christian civilization, asserting the indomitability of human power, endeavour and reason; analytical philosophy of action, rather than trust in mythical fatalism, or expectation of a transcendental miracle, Rustaveli overcomes his contemporary model of oriental love too, looking for a philosophy crowning love in this world, finding a support for this in national-Christian consciousness, viz. marriage of the lovers. It is by such a solution of the conception of love that the MPS differs from the Sufic understanding of love, as well as from the courtly ideal of love. European chivalrous love, whose main model remains within the love of the enamoured knight for the spouse of his king or patron[18], rules out the ideal of happy married life. Neither does the poetry of the troubadours (with a few exceptions) praise the ideal of married love; nor does love develop into marriage with Dante. Consideration by Rustaveli of the love of marital relations as the ideal of his conception of love is based on Georgian national consciousness. The Georgian phenomenon regards marriage as the greatest ritual of worldly happiness, this being unequivocally attested both by Georgian customs and mores, ethnography and folklore and by present-day Georgian consciousness. Rustaveli’s main source from Classical philosophy – Aristotle’s Ethic – also paves the way for such a solution of the conception of love of the MPS. In contrast to Plato’s position, Aristotle highly appreciates marital love in which he sees man’s natural striving for coexistence and sympathy[19]. And, which is most important, marital life is idealized by medieval public opinion[20], and this idealization is based on the Bible – the foundation of Georgian consciousness. It should be noted here that this ideal of love is in general – as well as in principle – in agreement with the final thesis of Christian mystics: the marriage of Christ and the individual soul. According to Christian mystics, marriage is the highest form of human love, inasmuch as it is thought of as mystic marriage between Christ and the individual soul. It should be also noted that this interpretation became active in 12th-century Christian mystics, viz., in St. Bernard’s teachings on the Song of Songs. Thus, love as a conception in the MPS rests on the humanistic principles of Rustaveli’s era, i.e. of 12th-century Christian courtly literature. The literary model of the enamoured pairs of the poem is based on the image of a beloved of the Persian epic of the time (knight gone mad and ranging because of his failure to reach his beloved). Rustaveli’s conception of love stands higher than the dualistic Persian epic and Sufic philosophy, as well as the standardized conventionality of courtly poetry. According to national consciousness, the Georgian poet sees the ideal of the mutual striving of the enamoured pairs in their union or marriage in this world. Thereby he brings his own conception of love into conformity with the supreme ideal of Christian mystics: wedding of the individual soul with Christ – is the finite bliss of divine harmony. It is generally assumed that the unravelling of the genuine essence of the modern human nature of love commenced in European culture at the beginning of the 2nd millennium A.D.. Of course this does not mean that love with its candid, spiritual and elevated form was unkown to ancient cultures – Indic, Greek and so on. The statement implies only the principal trend that was essential to one or another culture. Under this token, it is indicated that love in Greek mythologywas basically erotic, although the Classical world is aware of many unprecedented examples of desperate love[21]. In any case, feeling as a spiritual affection is relegated to the second place in Greek mythology. It has been noticed also that, according to Homer’s epic, when Achilles is deprived of Briseis, it is his dignity that is infringed rather than his feeling. Yet, this novelty of the 11th century was not a revolution in the process of civilization. It was a continuation, union and development of Classical, in particular Platonic, philosophy as well as medieval Christian ethics. From this point of view, as has been noted, the novel interpretation of the essence of medieval love is highly important, taking place first in developed scholasticism, on the basis of which Dante paves the way for the thesis of conceptualizing human love as part of divine love. In particular, passages are cited in the Divine Comedy – Virgil’s two conversations with Dante in the Purgatory (XV, 40-75, XVIII, 19-75): a new conceptualization of love is born, in which the thesis of the love of monastic brotherhood (Purgatorio, XV, 55), the natural love of Patristics as an instinctive striving towards good and light[22], the spiritual motion of scholastics, conveyed in Aristotelian vocabulary and defined as the spiritual love conditioned by man’s free will (Purgatorio , XVIII, 62-63, 73), turned into a subject of analysis and argumentation of the rational soul, striving towards high ideals and disassociating from the low[23]. This is how the new ideal of love began to be introduced towards the end of the European Middle Ages, which a century later became established as “Platonic love”. A typological parallel of this new ideal of love is found in Rustaveli’s conception, as expressed in the dissociation of genuine love from fornication as well as movement along the path of love by human free will – reasoning and analysis and, which is most important, basing human love on the thesis of the divine essence of love of one’s neighbour. To
revert to the place of Rustaveli’s conception of love in the process of
Christian thought from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. As noted above,
Rustaveli bases himself and develops the world view of the secular, courtly
poetry of his day (the 12th century) – both generally and specifically on his
conceptualization of love. However, he does not limit himself to the love of
courtly poetry. In Rustaveli’s conception of love, his coming close to its
Renaissance counterpart is accounted for not so much by the impulses of
the times but predominantly by theheight of the personal creativity of the poet
and thinker himself – in the same way as this is the case with Dante’s work.
This elevation of Rustaveli’s conception of love lies primarily in the fact
that it reflects and turns into an object of his creativity not love per se
as a personified idea – not so much the object of love, i.e. woman, but a
person in love – the subject, his psychological experiences and spiritual or
intellectual ascendance. Thus, the love of the MPS is worldly or human,
without its symbolic-transcendental reinterpratation. Furthermore, according
to Rustaveli’s conception, human love per se (rather than its symbolic
reinterpratation) is already divine love. Approximately in the same way
does Dante’s conception of love rise above the troubadour love lyric as well
as that of the so-called dolce stil nuovo. As noted in the specialist
literature, it is clear with Dante that human love of a real woman is the
first step, and hence part, of divine love[24].
But Dante’s conception of love subsequently takes a different path
of development from that of Rustaveli. With Dante worldly love is a
road or means of reaching the divine (and God Himself). With Rustaveli,
however, worldly love is already a value in its own right – it is the highest
goal and happiness in this world. A typological parallel of such
conceptualization of human love in the process of Christian thought may be
sought in Petrarca’s work (1304-1374). The argumentation of worldly or human love as well as its reflection, turned by Petrarca into the principal theme of his work and established as the poetic style of his contemporary Europe, is much more real and human than the love expounded by the dolce stil nuovo and by Dante. This realness and worldliness are due to two essential circumstances. To Petrarca love exists not in the life of the soul after death but in worldly consciousness. Unlike Dante’s Beatrice, Laura is a real, actually existing woman not only at the initial stage of the inception of love but in Petrarca’s imagination she remains to the end the only existent object of love. Both alive and dead, she is equally appealing, beautiful and real, existing in Petrarca’s worldly imagination and memories rather than in the life in the other world. In other words, in contrast to Dante, Petrarca does not follow his love into the other world, he does not reflect this love in the paradisical life of the other world; he rather reflects his memories of life in this world, in which Laura – both live and after her death – is equally attractive and tantalizing. The other essential novelty of Petrarca’s conception is that worldly human love – thefeeling itself that equally evokes both joy and grief and torment – exalts man in his worldly existance. This love, if it is genuine (cf. Rustaveli’s “They imitate it when they wanton not” – 28), ennobles man, enriches him with love for life and the beauty of this world, elevates him to better know himself and his place and duty as a human being – again and again in the worldly life[25]. Typologically, Rustaveli’s love resembles such understanding of love in the process of European lyrics. Rustaveli takes up as the object of his reflection the type of love (“frenzy”) that imitates divine love by its sincercity, is worldly and human, short of being wanton (“I must tell of lower frenzies, which befall human beings; they imitate it when they wanton not, but faint from afar” – 28). Petrarca enters into polemic with the theological conception of love, and he states that only passion and yearning for a wanton woman deserve to be censured; love is a rare virtue and highest happiness (“My Secret”). In the MPS, too, love is a worldly, natural and human feeling that brings great joy or great suffering and pain at seeing the live beloved, as well as at communicating with her or remembering her. Love in the MPS is an ennobling, elevating feeling – one that directs man’s action towards a high ideal. Rustaveli not only states this verbally (“Love exalteth us” – 772); “It is better to exhibit to the beloved deeds of heroism” (364), but makes it the mainline of the subject of the poem. Directing his attention to man’s worldly action led Rustaveli’s philosophy to pronouncing worldly ideals to be the highest. “It is better to get glory than all goods” (780), Rustaveli states, revolving the subject of the poem round the character imbued with this idea. Striving for fame and glory is the primary characteristic of Petrarca as a thinker and personality[26]. The same is a clearly-defined characteristic of Dante too, it being also a new, natural gain of Renaissance thought. The establishment of man’s worldly nature and activity in their own right led to the assessment of man’s activity by worldly criteria, search for man’s immortality in mankind’s memory and history. Discussing the place of Rustaveli’s conception of love in the process of European poetry from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, the following question arises from the outset. How can Rustaveli – a 12th-13th centuries writer – evince a typological likeness with the understanding of love that gained ground in Europe’s Christian thought fromthe second half of the 14th century? Rustaveli is a thinker of the initial stage of the transitional period from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, while in Petrarca’s world view transition from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance was already completed[27]. The first manifestation of a Renaissance explosion is noticable with Rustaveli. As generally observed, any explosion of something new – specifically Renaissance – is more radical. The new establishes itself pushfully and uncompromisingly. In the historical process of thinking the stage following the establoshment of the new is characterized by a calming down of the first explosion and uncompromising aspiration and by looking back to the traditional and adjusting to it. It is only after this that the new establishes itself step by step and more basically, later attaining the principled, but stabler, level that characterized the first explosion[28]. This is why the first explosion with Rustaveli typologically resembles the final establishment of the Renaissance (after a look-back to the Midlle Ages) with Petrarca. Of course the foregoing should not be taken to mean that Rustaveli’s conception of love is identifiable with that of Petrarca. Against the background of typological similarity, there is an essential difference between them. With Rustaveli the worldly ideal of the atmosphere of the first Renaissance explosion, namely human love as the highest happiness, brings along with it a new world view slogan – the declaration of a new truth. Hence it is uncompromising and unattended by doubt. Note that the love of Rustaveli’s characters is ageless; it does not alter, retaining its intensity at inception throughout all the stages of narrative development. The beauty of the charatcers of the poem is unfading: the passage of time, years fail to age the character or wither his/her beauty; beauty is affected only by grief, sorrow, “perfidy of the world”. Pridon sees that Tariel’s inimitable beauty has been consumed by life: “What has thus consumed thee, or who first made thee full?” (582). After defeating the “perfidy of the world” – after pulling the Kajeti fortress down, Tariel’s beauty is again like the brilliance of the luminaries: “...they were like when Mushtar and Zual are united. When the sun surrounds the rose they become fair and reflect the rays” (1397). In Petrarca’s works, the stage of establishment of the new, Renaissance ideal is comleted, which yields a considerable difference from Rustaveli’s world view. Whereas with Rustaveli the establishmentof the worldly ideal of love in the medieval world view takes place by its uncompromising introduction, while Rustaveli sees no contradiction in the medieval and the Renaissance and dreams of their harmony, Petrarca already gives thouhgt to the relation of worldly love with its medieval counterpart. To him the medieval differs from the Renaissance. He takes the Renaissance stand, but sees the difference of this position from the medieval. It has been suggested that Petrarca still remembered that love was perceived as a sin. With this agitated consciousness he does recall Laura and explains her failure to share his love by medieval virtue[29]. It has been noted that Petrarca’s love is already somewhat sublimated, as it were, its dissipation and evaporation have started. It has even been suggested that towards the close of his life Petrarca supposedly again came close to traditional notions of paradisical love[30]. Unlike the MPS, sorrow is born in Petrarca’s Canzoniere because beauty is witherable and transient[31]. It should be also noted that in Rustaveli’s harmony of the medieval and the Renaissance, the latter enters on medieval basis in such a way as not to negate the medieval ideal (“Therefore are we taught that we may be united with the choir of the heavenly hosts” – 771). Rustaveli does not declare the demolition of the medieval ideal (which is inevitably brouhgt about by his new thinking). On the contrary he tries to preach the wholeness of the medieval conception (“What God wills not will not become fact” – 774). Such tendencies are less perceptible with Petrarca. Furthermore, Rustaveli’s and Petrarca’s conceptions of love, resting as they did on the initial and final stages of transitional thought from medieval to the Renaissance – notwithstanding their essential similarity, expressed in the philosophical thesis of the divine nature of human love, recognized in both conceptions – led them to presenting love as a human affect in different aspects. The love of the MPS is a titanic feeling of the universe – seemingly the whole essence of human life. It is the strongest and enormous. This hyperbolization is a philosophical statement and an emphasis of the demonstration of a this worldly quality, viz. of the feeling, realness and live content and nature. This is assertion of the principal world view thesis of the initial stage of transitional thought from the medieval to the Renaissance. This is the beginning of the great discovery established by the 11th-13th centuries in European civilization, which we may call consideration of human affectas divine love. Petrarca’s Canzoniere reflects the final stage of the thought of the transitional period. Its love is spread in affects of a variety of human psychology, becomes diversified, divine greatness embedded in this wordly life, in the multiplicity of human experiences – admiration and sorrow, pain and joy, hope and despair – dissolves into manifold manifestation and hues, becoming human. But, at the same time, the vision of love in Petrarca too retains the conventionality and idealization of transitional thouhgt to the Renaissance. So far it is not properly of life, i.e. realistic. It has been noted that Petrarca’s love for Laura in real life was not precisely such as it was depicted in poetry. As a poet, Petrarca depicts it rather angelically, as powerful and divine. In real life, Petrarca as a person in love was rather ordinary. At any rate, his love for Laura did not stand in the way of his expression of human love for other women[32]. Thus, in their conceptualization of love Rustaveli and Petrarca are at opposite poles of the same position, viz. the initial and concluding stages of transition from the medieval to the Renaissance. I think one more important question must be answered. Inasmuch as we consider Rustaveli’s conception of love in the transitional process from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, and as Rustaveli appears to have introduced the new – Renaissance – trend at the initial stage of this transitional process uncompromisingly, and as, I believe, Rustaveli introduced this Renaissance novelty in the medieval not through opposition but by harmoniously blending it, the question arises as to the theoritical premises that allowed the poet to effect this harmony, i.e. introduction of the new into the old without opposition. Rustaveli’s theoritical-philosophical premise is medieval, his basis being theological. It is an interpretation of the conceptualization of love according to the Gospel, proposed by Rustaveli in the Prologue. He basis himself on the following statements of the Gospel (Matthew 22. 37-40; Mark 12. 30-31; Luke 10. 27). 1. Love the Lord – this is the first and greatest commandment; 2. The second commandment resembles the former: Love your neighbour; 3. The entire faith and prophets depend on these two commandments. Rustaveli bases himself on the following theological commentary of these propositions: inasmuch as divine wisdom unites the loveof God and the love of neighbour resembling Him, inasmuch as the love of God is not comprehended by human mind and is not expressible in human tongue, fulfilment of the love of a worldly neighbour is generally fulfilment of love (hence of divine love). This commentary on the love of Christian religion has another essential basic proposition in the New Testament, viz. Chapter IV of John’s first letter. This is the chapter that gives the highest Christological statement: “God is love” (I John, 4.8). John the Theologian says: ”No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us” (I John, 4. 12). Thus, it is the New Testament that gives Rustaveli ground to see divine love in worldly love (of a friend, neighbour). Equation of the love of a neighbour with the love of God is a specific thesis of Christian religion. The Old Testament love of one’s neighbour (“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” – Lev. 19. 18) received new development in the Gospel. Jesus Christ says explicity: “This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you” (St. John 15. 12). At the Last Supper the Saviour warns his disciples: “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another, as I have loved you” (St. John 13. 34). Jesus teaches his pupils also that there is no greater kind of love than love of one’s friend: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (St. John 15. 13). This is Rustaveli’s theological basis for considering worldly love to be divine love. This interpretation of one’s neighbour’s love is an accepted thesis in theology. Basil the Great stated clearly that the love of one’s neighbour comes from divine love, perfecting it: “The Lord ... defined love of God as the first and greatest love, pronouncing the love of one’s neighbour as second and similar to it – further perfecting the former and issuing from it”[33]. To Rustaveli reflection of worldly love is the same reflection of divine love, as it is an imitation of the latter – issuing from it, i.e. being its part. It is with such medieval theological postulates that Rustaveli argues the new, Renaissance, proposition: worldly love is divine love. To draw a parallel, we shall recall Marcilio Ficino, a Platonist of the Renaissance period, who saw three partners in genuine friendship: two men, the third, God. It has also been noted that this novel interpretation of love by Platonists of the Renaissance period (namely, that love will attain divinity without rejecting the human nature; that it may become spiritual even when it preserves its carnal nature) does not stem from Plato’s philosophy, being a development of a tradition taking root fromlate medieval, viz, 11th century troubadour, lyric[34]. It is this human love, commented in a novel way, that Rustaveli makes the principal theme of his poem. The question arises here: Does the love reflected in the narrative part of the MPS preserve the same interpretation? In other words, does the love of the characters of the MPS contain the conceptualization that it is at the same time divine love? In my view, this questuion should be answered in the affirmative. It is assumed in the MPS that the beloved (Nestan) is dead and the character (Tariel) is striving towards her. But in Rustaveli’s view, Tariel’s arrival in the other world to his beloved will not be coming into the presence of God – the Supreme. In the other world, Tariel will find the worldly Nestan, with human love and human feelings (“I shall meet her, she shall meet me; she shall weep for me and make me weep” – 863). Therefore, Rustaveli believes that worldly love retains its worldliness in the other world too, i.e. worldly love is the highest form of love – it is divine and will exist in worldly form in the other world too. Owing to similar tendencies in Dante’s work, researchers into European thought come to the conclusion that in Dante’s view, worldly love is part of divine love[35]. From this point of view, special importance attaches to Dante’s conduct in the presence of Beatrice in the other word. As noted above, before entering Paradise, Dante stands in front of Beatrice with worldly feelings: he finds it difficult to speak, he cries, lowers his head or being rebuked, faints. Worldly human love with Dante is no longer a symbolic reflection of the divine. It (worldly love) is like divine love, though of course not identical with it[36]. Rustaveli speaks of worldly love and worldly human relations in categories of divine love. He characterizes human love by features of divine love. This is one more proof of the fact that for Rustaveli worldly love, love of one’s neighbour, to which he dedicates the poem, is a variety of love in general and of divine love in particular, being part of divine love inasmuch as it is like it – is its imitation, viz.: Avtandil argues the strength and acuteness of his love for Tariel to Rostevan: “I cannot remain sundered from him, the kindler of my fires” (769); “How can I endure the lack of him, or how can life please me!” (774). Then he reminds Rostevan that love is the highest ideal which elevates man. And in this characterization of love, he rests on the apostle’s apology of divine love: “Thou hast read how the apostles write of love, how they speak of it, how they praise it; know thou it and harmonize thy knowledge: ‘love exalteth us’; this is as it were the thinkling burden of their song” (772). Therefore, Rustaveli describes the worldly variety of love (Avtandil’s love for Tariel) by Christian theosophic attribution (Paul the Apostle’s apotheosis of love) of divine love. With an analogous connotation, on another occasion, Rustaveli invokes the apostle’s view on divine love to characterize the love of one’s neighbour on divine love (“Truly saith the Apostle: Fear makes love” – 1023)[37]. The conclusion is the same: Rustaveli considers human love to be part of divine love. Perhaps there is a need to discuss one more matter, viz. What does the Gospel’s “love of one’s neighbour” imply? In other words, according to Christian teaching, love of one’s neighbour is equal to the idea of divine love and a possible form of expressing it. Rustaveli transferred this connotation of love of one’s neighbour to all manifestations of human love, in particular to the love of man and woman. To what extent does the thesis of the Christian love of one’s neighbour allow this? The neighbour of Christian teaching is a very broad concept. It implies both friend and even foe: all persons coming into contact with one, of course one’s female friend also. What the second component of the Christian concept of “love of one’s neighbour” implies is another matter. Rustaveli clarifies this from the outset, ruling wantonness out of the manifestation of human love which he considers an imitation of the divine and which he turns into the principal theme of his poem (“They imitate it when they wanton not, but faint from afar” – 28). Under this understanding, love between man and woman may of course enter the broader concept of “love of one’s neighbour”. That is why, as noted above, Renaissance poetry accepted Petrarca’s statement at the very initial stage: love is supreme happiness – a rare manifestation of virtue; only intercourse with a wanton woman should be censured. Furthermore, love in the MPS does not imply only love betweenman and woman; it embraces friendship with equal success. That is why Avtandil asserts his love for Tariel so vehemently: “The fire of yon knight burns me, the flame that consumes him afflicts me; I am slain by longing and by not seeing the object of my desire” (715), “The fire of that knight burns me. I am consumed with hot fire; I pitied him, and I became mad, my heart grew furious” (981). Besides, Avtandil acts by the idea of the “love of one’s neighbour” even in an extreme manifestation of “neighbour” (the episode of his relation with Patman), as it were following in the wake of the Apostle’s commandment: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (St. John 15, 13). The transition of love to friendship with Rustaveli is extremely specific and original. On the one hand, he develops Aristotle’s philosophy – friendship is an action of love – and at the same time it differs from the Classical Greek position, the latter conceptualizing love in paler tones than friendship. From this point of view, Rustaveli proceeds rather from Christianity according to which, worldly realization of divine love (love of one’s neighbour) essentially amounts to friendship. Rustaveli not only describes these two highest manifestations (love and friendship) of humanity in the same terms, but refers to both with the same names: siqvaruli (‘love’) and ‘mijnuroba’ (‘madness’). (Rostevan in reference to Avtandil: “Has mijnuroba of this, like has of the nightingale of the rose”[38]). Furthermore, the poet generally does not mention the words “friendship” and “friend”. This, I believe, is solely due to the fact that Rustaveli lays stress on his novel point of view, according to which love is divine emotion of the human soul, linking men and bringing the divine into their existence. And this divine emotion of human existence is love of one’s neighbour, which may be manifested in the love of man and woman, and generally as interpersonal devotion called friendship. That is why Rustaveli finds a common name both for lover and friend: moqvare. At the same time he is wary, using mijnuri only in reference to woman and man in love, and never in reference to male friends. One more point. The ‘neighbour’ of the Gospel, readily substituted by ‘friend’ in the Holy Scripture (see St. John 15, 13, quoted above), is represented in the Greek original by plhsлoc (literal meaning near). In Georgian biblical texts (in all recensions) it became established from the beginning in the form of moqvasi. With its root, moqvasi is linked tothe word siqvaruli (love). Rustaveli conveys the Arabic mijnuri through its direct Georgian translation kheli, but predominantly through the term moqvare (“If the lover [moqvare] weep for his beloved [moqvrisatvis], tears are his due” – 31). The same moqvare in the MPS means – with equal success – ‘friend’ (“why should I abandon my friend, a brother by a stronger tie than born brotherhood?” – 771). Obviously enough, Rustaveli’s moqvare – equally denoting ‘lover’ and ‘friend’ – is definitely related to the moqvasi of the Bible, which is considered by Rustaveli. Finally, Rustaveli’s “love exalted us” contains to a certain extent a definition of the love of the MPS. The beloved knight of the MPS, according to the Classical Greek philosophical ideal, clearly becomes exalted from the love and service of a beautiful object (love of the beloved Tinatin), service of beautiful things (service of a beloved knight in trouble), and hence service of beautiful ideals – execution of the idea of the love of one’s neighbour (Patman’s episode)[39]. Love in the MPS is that of human existence – love of mankind. This too is the world view of a transitional period from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. The outlook of the period succeeded in establishing medieval ideals – the faith and hope in a kind and merciful God, and beside it of worldly, human love. It has been noted that Petrarca was inspired with love not only in poetry, but as a person he loved in a setting and with the idea of love of one’s neighbour (of his mother, brother, relative, numerous firends). Love of man, without which he could not imagine life, united his person and work[40]. One basic Renaissance thesis: “man is the goal” is considered to have been introduced into the process of European Christian thought by Dante. He sees human goal in humaneness which, in Dante’s view, is love of one’s neighbour (“Monarchy”), and the world harmony, of which Dante dreamd, should be based on each man being friend of all men (“Feast”)[41]. The same Renaissance thesis is the basis of the conception of love of the MPS. Rustaveli builds this new Renaissance ideal on medieval theosophy: amor amicitiae: love which is friendship is the great Christian ideal of the Middle Ages. |
|
|
|
|
|