Part 9

"Soul newly born in Paradise! Soul made for my delight! From thee, thou deathless one, I wait for life. From thee, thou flowery springtide, moon but two weeks old, From thee, my guardian angel, I wait for life. With joyous smiles thy face doth shine. I would not change thy glance against the throne of all the world. From thee I wait for life. Rose of the mountain, wet with the dew of dawn! Nature's chief favourite! Hidden treasure house! From thee I wait for life."

It was not, however, until the present century was well begun, that Georgian poetry abandoned the "Oriental inconsequence" to which I have just referred; the literary awakening which began about sixty or seventy years ago was largely due to the work of Western poets, such as Byron, with whom the Georgians became familiar chiefly through Pushkin and Lermontov. Prince Alexander Chavchavadze (1786-1846), a general in the Russian service, was the founder of the modern school; his song is all of love and wine. The influence of Western romanticism is still more clearly visible in the earlier productions of Baratashvili (1816-1846), but he succeeded in throwing off the gloomy misanthropy of his youth, and had the courage to acknowledge that he had been deluded by that "evil spirit" of Byronism.

To Prince Giorgi Eristavi fell the task of familiarizing his countrymen with the poetical literature of Europe. He was exiled to Poland for his share in a plot against the Russian government, and spent his leisure in studying Mickiewicz, Schiller, Petrarch, and Pushkin, selections from whose works he published in his native tongue. On his return to Tiflis he founded a National Theatre, for which he himself wrote many comedies. With Eristavi sentimentalism died, and the poets who succeeded him sought inspiration in patriotic ideals.

Prince Grigor Orbeliani (1801-1883), sang the past splendour of his fatherland, and bewailed the low estate to which it had fallen. In his "Ode to Tamara's portrait" he beseeches the great queen to look down with pity on Georgia, and bless her sons with strength and wisdom; he despairingly asks:--

"Shall that which once was wither'd, ne'er again Enjoy the fragrance of its former bloom? Shall that which fell, for ever fallen remain, O'erwhelm'd in an unchanging, cruel doom?"

His lines on the death of Irakli II. breathe the same spirit:--

"Ah! full of splendour were the fateful days That saw the quenching of thy quickening light, Thou sun of Georgia, yet thy dazzling rays Still lighten up the darkness of our night.

"Thine all-o'erpowering sword, whose mighty blows Scatter'd like chaff the bravest of the brave, Shall never more affright thy country's foes-- Georgia's fame lies buried in thy grave."

Orbeliani had a warm heart for the poor and suffering, and his "Lopiana the Fisherman" and "Bokuladze the Musha" (a musha is a carrier of heavy burdens) are masterpieces in their way.

While Orbeliani's eyes are ever turned regretfully to the past, Akaki Tsereteli (born 1840) looks hopefully forward to the future:--

"Ah no! our love is not yet dead, It only sleeps awhile...."

In elegant yet forcible lyrics he invites his countrymen to manfully follow the path of progress. Tsereteli has written a great historical poem called "Torniki," and is, besides, an orator and publicist of the first rank.

Of the same school is Prince Ilia Chavchavadze (born 1837), who is in many respects the most remarkable man that Georgia possesses. All his poems, and indeed all his work, whether as a poet, a novelist, a journalist, an orator, or a financier, breathe a spirit of the loftiest patriotism. The return of spring and the awakening of bird and flower to fuller life are to him a reminder of the long-delayed awakening of his beloved land; his elegies on the Kura, the Aragva, the Alazana are all full of the same feeling. It is, however, in "Lines to the Georgian mother" that he most clearly expresses his ideas; after reminding the matrons of Georgia how they have served their country in times past, cheerfully sending their sons forth to the fight and sustaining their courage in the hour of misfortune, he says:--

"... But why should we shed idle tears For glory that will ne'er return? The ever-flowing stream of years Leaves us no time to idly mourn.

"'Tis ours to tread an untried path, 'Tis ours the future to prepare. If forward thou dost urge thy sons, Then answer'd is my earnest prayer.

"This is the task that waits for thee, Thou virtuous mother of our land, Strengthen thy sons, that they may be Their country's stay with heart and hand.

"Inspire them with fraternal love, Freedom, equality and right, Teach them to struggle 'gainst all ill, And give them courage for the fight."

Chavchavadze's tales and poems have done more than anything else to awaken the Georgian people to a sense of the duties they have to perform in the altered conditions under which they now live. His poem, "Memoirs of a Robber," which portrayed the lazy country squires who lived on the toil of their serfs, made a powerful impression on the class it was meant for; and the tale, "Is that a man?" which describes the life of a young noble who spends his whole time in eating, drinking, sleeping and folly, brought a blush to the faces of hundreds of his countrymen, and prompted them to seek a worthier mode of existence. At first, the more conservative part of the nobility were bitterly opposed to the radical ideas of Chavchavadze, but he has now succeeded in bringing round the majority of them to his way of thinking. He is editor of a daily paper, Iveria, which is read by all classes of society, and most of his time is spent between his journalistic duties and the management of the nobles' Land Bank, an institution founded for the relief of the farmers.

Besides those I have mentioned, Chavchavadze has written many other works; with the following extract from "The Phantom" I conclude this brief notice of him:--

"O Georgia, thou pearl and ornament of the world. What sorrow and misfortune hast thou not undergone for the Christian faith! Tell me, what other land has had so thorny a path to tread? Where is the land that has maintained such a fight twenty centuries long without disappearing from the earth? Thou alone, Georgia, couldst do it. No other people can compare with thee for endurance. How often have thy sons freely shed their blood for thee! Every foot of thy soil is made fruitful by it. And even when they bowed under oppression they always bravely rose again. Faith and freedom were their ideals."

The novel of social life is represented by Prince Kazbek, a young and energetic writer, many of whose productions have appeared as serials in the newspapers. The best writer of historical novels is Rtsheuli; his "Queen Tamara" is a great favourite with the people.

The National Theatre is kept well supplied with new and original comedies by Tsagareli and others, and Prince Ivané Machabeli, who, as far as I know, is the only Georgian who can read English literature in the original, has translated some of Shakspeare's plays; these always draw a full house, and are thoroughly appreciated. Leaving out of the question "King Lear," which has a special interest for the people, on account of its reminding them of Irakli II., this hearty admiration for Shakspeare is somewhat remarkable; in my opinion it is to be explained by the fact that the Georgian people are in almost the same state of intellectual and social development as were our forefathers in the days of Queen Elizabeth, and they can, therefore, the more fully enter into our great poet's way of thinking. Besides the essential part of his work, the effect of which on the minds of men will always be the same, there is an accessory part, a tone, an atmosphere, which more particularly belongs to the early part of a period of transition from feudalism to freedom, from faith to rationalism, from the activity of war to the activity of peace; ten or a dozen generations have lived in England since this stage in our history was reached; in Georgia there still live men who were born in the age of chivalry and adventure.

Prince Machabeli, in spite of the fact that he is only about thirty years of age, is, perhaps, after Prince Ilia Chavchavadze, the man who enjoys the greatest influence among his fellow-countrymen. His studies at the University of Paris, and his intimate acquaintance with the intellectual and social life of Europe, have enabled him to bring the younger generation at least to a fuller appreciation of the superiority of the West over the East; everything which savours of Asia is now rigidly proscribed or ridiculed, and Romano-Germanic ideals prevail. As the editor of Droeba (Time), a capital daily paper, Machabeli had an opportunity of spreading his opinions throughout the country, but an imprudent article brought about the suppression of the journal by the Censure.

This notice would be incomplete without a brief reference to the venerable Bishop Gabriel of Kutais, whose homilies are at once elegant in style and simple in doctrine; they have had a very powerful influence on the Georgian people, and their author is sincerely loved by all his countrymen. An English translation of his earlier sermons has been published by the Rev. S. C. Malan.

The popular literature of Georgia is rich in folk-tales, fables, ballads, riddles, &c., and would well repay an attentive study (v. Bibliography).

THE POLITICAL CONDITION OF THE KINGDOM OF GEORGIA.

It is well known that there are within the Russian frontiers peoples not inferior in historical importance or intellectual development to the regnant race, and we might reasonably suppose that Russophobes would give us some information about those nations which would probably be their allies in the struggle which they profess to consider inevitable. Yet the course of action likely to be adopted by Poland, Finland, or Georgia, in case of an Anglo-Russian war, is hardly ever discussed, and when a passing reference is made to the matter, the most erroneous ideas are expressed.

As far as I know, the only living English statesman who knows anything at all about the condition of the Caucasus, is Professor James Bryce, who, in a work published in 1877, records the impressions received during a short visit made in the previous year. His remarks are interesting in the highest degree, and exhibit a rare keenness of insight; yet that part of them which refers more particularly to Georgia is open to three very serious objections.

1. The shortness of the author's stay forced him to come to conclusions which a longer experience would have modified very considerably. He himself frankly acknowledged this in many places.

2. Mr. Bryce did not come into contact with any prominent Georgians; he was, therefore, obliged to depend upon foreigners for information about the political condition of the country and the aspirations of the native population. This is why he said so little about Georgia in the last chapter of his book. In that chapter the place of honour is reserved for the Armenians, whose recognized champion our illustrious fellow-countryman has now become.

3. There has, of late, been a great change in the country. The Georgia of to-day is not the Georgia of 1876. Certain causes, which will be touched upon in the present article, have, in the meantime, brought about an awakening as sudden as it is complete.

There is one Englishman who could accurately describe the political condition of Transcaucasia, and it is a subject for congratulation that he is Her Majesty's Vice-Consul at Batum. When the British Government wakes up to a recognition of the fact that we have interests to protect in the region between the Black Sea and the Caspian, the consulate in Tiflis (abolished in 1881, "because the objects for which it was founded were not accomplished") may, perhaps, be re-established, and in that case no more able and sympathetic consul could be chosen than Mr. D. R. Peacock, who for so many years has upheld the honour of our flag in the fever-stricken swamps of Poti and Batum.

The writer of the present article is well aware of his unfitness for the task he has set himself, yet he feels sure that the result of his unprejudiced observation cannot fail to be interesting; if he only succeeds in provoking adverse criticism he will be satisfied, for thereby attention will be drawn to a question the discussion of which must lead to a far better understanding of many points of vital importance.

At the very outset it is necessary to remove from the mind of the reader an opinion which is almost universally held in Europe, and which is, perhaps, the chief cause of that apathy with which politicians look upon the Caucasus. It is generally believed, even by some of those who have been in the country, that Transcaucasia is inhabited by a vast number of tribes, more or less wild, having nothing in common but the doubtful benefits of Russian rule. Nothing could be more misleading. Students of ethnography may amuse themselves by making elaborate investigations into the origin and characteristics of the Khevsur, the Svan, the Pshav, the Osset, it is sufficient for us to know that all these peoples are, politically at least, Georgians, and have fought under the Kartvelian kings since the days of William the Conqueror. Between the Caucasus, the Black Sea, the Caspian, and the frontiers of Turkey and Persia, there are only three native peoples who deserve our consideration, viz.:--

The various Lesghian tribes in the E., numbering about 1,500,000 The Armenians, in the S., numbering about 740,000 The Georgians, in the W., numbering over 1,000,000

The latter total is made up as follows:--

(a) Kartlians, Kakhetians, and Ingiloitsi 310,000 (b) Highlanders, i.e. Khevsurs, Pshavs, Tushes 20,000 (c) Imeretians and Gurians 380,000 (d) Adjartsi, Kobuletsi (in valleys near Artvin) 46,000 (e) Mingrelians 200,000 (f) Lazes (near Batum). The majority are still in Turkey 2,000 (g) Svans 12,000 To these may be added:-- The Apkhazi (near Sukhum) 32,000 and The Ossets (south of the Caucasus) 53,000

There are also many Georgians in Turkey, and a few in Persia. The numerous local appellations given above mean no more than Yorkshireman, Cornishman, or Aberdonian do to us. If I succeed in impressing upon my readers the fact that there is a politically homogeneous region stretching from the steppe of Baku to the Black Sea, my labour will not have been fruitless.

It is a significant fact that the pure Georgian language is now far more generally spoken than it has been for many centuries, and that the dialects are rapidly disappearing. This is due in a great measure to the growth of a taste for literature, which is fostered by the newspapers and other periodical publications. There are, besides, many schools where the language is taught, for the Georgians have hitherto escaped the fate of the Armenians, whose schools were closed after the recent insurrection, and a society exists in Tiflis for the dissemination of the national literature among the peasants. All this has helped to produce a national feeling, stronger than any that has existed since the fatal partition of the kingdom in the fifteenth century. The petty jealousies between Kartlian, Kakhetian and Imeretian have been forgiven and forgotten, and when Georgia's voice is again heard in Asia she will speak with that authority which belongs only to a united, patriotic people.

In order to understand the state of political feeling in Georgia during the present century, it is necessary to remember what her previous history has been. During a long period, stretching back to ages of which we have only fragmentary records, the country had ever been at war; often conquered, still more often conquering, never crushed, this brave little state maintained its existence for a thousand years, alone in the very midst of those fierce fanatics whose fame made all allied Europe quake. At length, rent by civil war and ravaged by the infidel, it wisely resolved to throw itself into the hands of a Christian power able and willing to protect and avenge. After availing themselves of Russia's help, it was but natural that the Georgians should seek the repose of which they were so much in need; and, though they were ever ready to fight against the common foe, yet, with a few praiseworthy exceptions, they busied themselves little with the internal administration of their land. Indeed, there was no call for such interference as long as they were under the mild and beneficent rule of that ideal Tsar, Alexander I., represented by such worthy lieutenants as Tsitsishvili and Yermolov. They continued to live thus contentedly and, it must be confessed, lazily for about two generations; only ten years ago it used to be said in Tiflis, "If you see a shopkeeper asleep, he is sure to be a Georgian." This sleepiness is now at an end. Opinions may differ as to the cause of the awakening; harsh measures on the part of Russia, whose policy in Transcaucasia has been becoming more and more irritating ever since the removal of Prince Vorontsov, in 1854, and culminating last year in the enforcement of military service, have undoubtedly had some effect of this kind, but unless there had been a simultaneous progress in the intellectual and social development of the nation, this overbearing legislation might have been sullenly submitted to without complaint.

There can be little doubt of the fact that the excessive precautions taken by the police, with a view to put down political agitation of any kind, have produced the very thing they are intended to prevent. A country squire in talking to me, one day, about a little market-town near his home, said, "They have posted a gendarme there. Until he came nobody ever bothered about politics. Now there is nothing else talked of." Some time ago the young Georgian nobles who were serving in the Russian army became infected with the doctrines of revolutionary socialism, and not a few suffered for their imprudence (e.g. the famous Tsitsianov, in 1877); at the present time the national feeling has become so strong as to leave no room for these ideas. Nevertheless, during my stay in Tiflis, last summer, a rumour was rife to the effect that a large number (a hundred or two) of young noblemen were about to be exiled, in view of the visit of the Tsar, who was expected to arrive at his new palace at Tsinondal, near Telav, in the autumn. The fact that this report was believed by the parties interested, is a powerful testimony to the arbitrary character of the proceedings of the Russian police.

In the rural districts the people only know Russia as a foreign power that sends them tax-collectors, justices of the peace, and other civil servants, who perform obnoxious functions in a manner not calculated to conciliate the ratepayers. It is notorious that the chinovnik has an unpleasant reputation, even among his fellow-countrymen, and those who consent to a temporary exile in Transcaucasia are not precisely the flower of the profession, although their behaviour to Europeans leaves little to be desired. The justices of the peace, as in Poland, are directly appointed by the Minister of Justice at Petersburg; all the evidence has to be translated into the official language, and this accentuates the natural feeling of the litigants that they are being tried by foreign laws arbitrarily imposed from without. The personal character of the judges is, in many cases, not such as to inspire respect for the law; the arrogant, bullying tone of these personages is intolerable at any time, but especially when aggravated by alcoholism. I shall never forget one scene in particular at which I was present; a fine, tall mountaineer came humbly to present a petition to a puny, besotted judge, who was a guest at the house where I was staying; the representative of law and order was drunk, hopelessly drunk, and treated the suppliant in such a manner that I blushed to be in his company; I feared that the petitioner would take summary revenge for the insult, but he restrained his wrath; as he turned away there was on his face a look of hellish hatred, and I do not think that he will trouble the court again as long as he has a sharp kinjal of his own wherewith to settle disputes.

Whatever may be the cause of the awakening, there cannot be any doubt of its reality. Nevertheless, it is hard to give any definite description of the channels into which the national activity is finding its way. In any case it may be safely said that the Georgian people are not likely to imitate the imprudent conduct of their neighbours the Armenians, who have, more than once, unseasonably provoked popular movements which they had not the power to bring to a happy issue. The character of the Georgians is too frank and open for the hatching of plots; however strong their feelings may be, they know how to wait until an opportunity arrives for the satisfaction of those feelings; the perfect unanimity in the aims of the people renders an elaborate organization unnecessary.

It is interesting to notice that the political ideals of the country are borrowed from Western Europe. Excepting in Japan, perhaps, there is no such instance of a people passing directly from feudalism to liberalism. The grandsons of absolute monarchs, the men who little more than a quarter of a century ago were large slaveholders, are now ardent champions of the democratic idea, and loudly proclaim the freedom, the equality, the brotherhood, of prince and peasant, master and man. This is not the only case in which Georgia has turned her back on Asia and opened her arms to Europe--Parisian fashions, German rationalism, English sport and other products of our civilization are beginning to have an influence; however, it is a consolation to remember that the women, in every country the more Conservative and, at the same time, more patriotic half of the community, may be counted upon to restrain their husbands and sons from a too hasty advance in the slippery paths of modern progress.

It must not be supposed that the Georgian people are forgetful of what Russia has done for them in protecting them against Persia and Turkey; they have no hatred for their Slav fellow-subjects, indeed, it is hard to imagine how any one could dislike such an amiable individual as the average Russian, not being an official; but on the other hand, it must be remembered that this military aid is the only benefit Georgia has ever received. It is true that roads have been made, but their construction was only undertaken in order to facilitate the movement of troops, and they are practically worthless for the purposes of trade. The industrial and commercial development of the country has been wholly neglected; and, at the instigation of the late editor of the Moscow News, the transit of foreign merchandise was prohibited. At the present time a few Russian capitalists are endeavouring to get a footing beyond the Caucasus, but they experience some difficulty in doing so, for the Georgians prefer to avail themselves of the services of European investors; among others, the Rothschilds have not been slow to see that Transcaucasian wines, ores and oils are worth attention.