The Unknown Edition of Baratashvili’s “Bedi Qartlisa” (“Fate of Kartli”): (Self-Censorship or the Poet’s Creative Will?)

Abstract

In the second section of Bedi Kartlisa, King Erekle II converses with Solomon Lionidze and discloses his intentions – he is prepared to “offer his inheritance” to the Russian Tsar so that “he may bring prosperity to Kartli.” The judge’s attempt to dissuade the monarch (“What has happened to us so far that we should sell our freedom?”) proves almost futile, as Erekle’s foremost desire is to “see Georgia in peace.” In the end, the king ostensibly accepts the judge’s advice, yet still declares:

“I will take heed of your advice

And will silence my heart’s desire,

But do not forget my words,

That whether today or tomorrow,

The Russian Tsar will protect Kartli.”

In this context, the king’s compromise appears paradoxical. On the one hand, he renounces his own aspiration (“I will silence my heart’s desire”) and acknowledges the judge’s concern about losing national freedom; on the other, he expresses faith that Russia will soon become Georgia’s protector. If Erekle is confident that Russia will safeguard the country, why is he still troubled? What “heart’s desire” does he suppress?

The answer lies in a previously unknown edition of the poem, which was most likely transcribed from one of the poet’s autographs by Dimitri Kipiani in 1847. This manuscript, catalogued as H-1430, is preserved at the Korneli Kekelidze National Centre of Manuscripts.

In the earliest version of the poem, the king’s statement differs slightly: “Whether today or tomorrow, the Russian Tsar will seize Kartli.” This alternative reading sheds new light on the king’s anxiety and his political decision. Erekle realizes that peace may come at a heavy cost. He under­stands that Russia’s growing ambitions in the Caucasus entail an inevitable threat of annexation. Therefore, he seeks to act preemptively –preferring a controlled integration to a forced conquest – and to preserve Georgia’s sove­reignty while allying with a more powerful neighbor.

Within the poem, it appears as though the king’s defeat at Krtsanisi (1795) led him to sign the Treaty of Georgievsk (1783), an evident historical anachronism. The poet may have intentionally employed this device to un­derscore how “justified” Erekle’s political decision appeared and how “secu­rely” Georgia was later “protected” by its sworn brother, Russia.

Currently, two autograph manuscripts of the poem are known (S2517; H-2034), along with two printed sources (Tsiskari, 1858, No. 9; Poems by N. Baratashvili, 1876). In addition, eleven manuscript copies transcribed by various individuals have been identified. A letter from Mikheil Tumani­shvi­li’s archive reveals that in 1852, Vakhtang Eristavi also produced a copy of the poet’s works. It is noteworthy that none of the known autograph manuscripts, printed sources, or later copies reflect this particular textual variant.

The present study aims to determine the authenticity of Kipiani’s manuscript of Bedi Kartlisa, which, unlike other versions, exhibits numerous substantive, lexical, grammatical, and structural deviations. By comparing Kipiani’s manuscript with other autograph copies – texts later revised by Baratashvili – we seek to establish the rationale for these alterations: whe­ther they stemmed from self-censorship or represent the poet’s final creative intention.

It is significant that the principal twentieth-century editions of Bara­tashvili’s works (1922, 1939, 1945) were unaware of Kipiani’s manuscript. Although the editions of 1968 and 1972 do mention it, they fail to note its textual variations. It remains intriguing why such prominent editors as Pavle Ingorokva and Ivane Lolashvili overlooked this version. Was it due to fear of censorship, or was the manuscript dismissed as unauthentic, with its revi­sions not attributed to the poet himself? If the latter, who introduced these changes, and for what reason would Kipiani copy an altered text while still ascribing it to Baratashvili?

Baratashvili was a frequent guest at Dimitri Kipiani’s home. As Kipi­ani’s memoirs attest, young intellectuals often gathered there; it was within this circle that “Tato’s poetic talent developed – here he first read his poems, received comments, and later presented revised versions.” It is plausible that during this period, Kipiani obtained an early draft of Bedi Kartlisa.

In 1846, Baratashvili’s friends initiated a project to publish his works, leading to the collection and transcription of his manuscripts. Kipiani was likely involved in this process – copying the poem into his personal album and subsequently handing over the autograph.

It seems highly improbable that Kipiani arbitrarily modified the poem. First, he was known for his scrupulousness and sense of responsibility. Se­cond, as a representative of the Georgian nobility integrated into the Russian administration, he viewed Georgia’s alliance with Russia not as a loss of independence, but as an opportunity for national advancement – economic, political, and cultural. Finally, it is implausible that a figure such as Dimitri Kipiani would introduce extensive lexical, grammatical, or structural chan­ges to Baratashvili’s text.

It is noteworthy that most of the alternative readings found in Kipi­ani’s copy correspond to the readings of the autograph manuscripts and their derivative printed editions – except for the single phrase “will seize.”

A comparative textual analysis of Kipiani’s handwritten copy of Bedi Kartlisa (No. 1430) with the known autograph manuscripts, manuscript co­pies, and printed versions leads to the following conclusion:The alternative reading in Kipiani’s manuscript profoundly reshapes the ideological trajec­tory of the poem. Consequently, we consider this version to represent one of the poem’s earliest authorial editions. The numerous lexical, grammatical, and structural divergences from other versions suggest that Kipiani’s manus­cript may have been transcribed from a now-lost autograph.It appears that sometime after composing the poem in 1839, Baratashvili’s political views evolved. In 1843, he revised Bedi Kartlisa twice, at a time when he had al­ready written The Grave of King Erekle (1843) and The War of the Geor­gi­ans (1844) – works that unambiguously affirm his positive attitude toward Erekle’s political choice.

Thus, the poet’s final creative intention is reflected in the later autog­raph manuscripts of Bedi Kartlisa, revised in 1843.This previously unknown edition of the poem will appear in the first volume of the forthcoming two-volume academic collection of Baratashvili’s works, under the section “Alternative Editions”.