„Holy are the books of Martyrs“ or „Holy are the parts of Martyrs“ To clarify one question in „Torture of Shushanik“

Abstract

At the beginning of „Tortures of Shushanik“ the word „mar­tyrium“ is mentioned which meant a Christian church or a cons­truc­­tion erected on the graves of saints in old Georgian. When Varsken changed his religion, Shushanik told him: „Your father erected martyrium and built churches…“ Abuladze, 2020, 15).

Besides that, martyrium also meant reliquaries, such as boxes, crosses, icons, necklaces, and sometimes even books, which con­tained special nests for keeping martyrs pieces. Is it possible that in the text the author meant reliquaries?

The author writes about Shushanik when she was forced to leave the church for the castle: „And she went and took Gospel and Holy Book of Martyrs“ (356v). This is the oldest version of the manuscript. But according to all the rest, or ten manuscripts (with very few stylistic or orthographic changes), Shushanik took pieces of saints: „And she went and took Gospel and relics of martyrs“ (A130, 172).

Shushanik really could have had the Gospel (and Psalms as well), because the existence of translations of biblical books in the 5-th-6-th centuries is confirmed in Georgian reality in the forms of palimpsests: frag­ments from the Sabatsminda four chapters (A999, V century), from the prophets of Isaiah (A 884, the 5-th century), frag­ments of Jeremiah from Cairo Geniza (VI-VII centuries), frag­ments of the Gospel(A 89, A 844, VI-VII centuries), etc. But what is meant by the phrase: „Holy is the book of martyrs?“ According to the phrase, the queen brings several books with the Gospel, books describing the merits of the martyrs. There is also a point of view that this may be a collection of hagiographic readings. We think, that neither of these points is true. Why should the queen take some books to the evening prayer? We can’t even think of a collec­tion as „the books“ is in the plural form in this phrase. We think here we have to deal with the wrong opening of the valve. In the translated version of the phrase „Tsni igi ntslni/ntsni mostametani it is easy to have lost letters. Thus, the version of Parkhli manuscript that Shushanik took the books describing the deeds of martyrs from the church to the palace should not be correct. Is it possible that Shushanic had reliquaries with her, i.e. „the holy one is part of martyrs?“

The traditions developed in the artistic centers in the Chris­tian Eastern countries were reflected in the Toreutics of the pre-Christian Era. It is known that works of applied art from the men­tioned centers as well as from Rome and Byzantium: pendant icons, medallions, crosses, pyxes, censers, and reliquaries were wi­dely im­ported to us. Such reliquaries were very common in ancient Geor­gia. Probably, Shushanik should have had this kind of part with her.

Thus, although it is documentarily proved that in the 5-th century in Georgia there already was a liton of translated (and we think original) mar­ty­rological writings, Kymenian readings, but „The Tortures of Shushanik“ cannot be used as an argument for this. It is more logical to think that Shushanik takes the reliquary from the church to the palace, a reliquary in which the relics of the holy martyrs are kept, especially, since this version is also supported by the ten manuscripts that have survived to this day and not „holy are the books of Martyrs“, that is the version offered by many chapters of Parkhli.