Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tbilisi 2018
giorgi CubinaSvilis saxelobis qarTuli xelovnebis
istoriisa da ZeglTa dacvis erovnuli kvleviTi centri
Tbilisi 2018
ISBN 978-9941-8-0635-3
winaTqma .............................................................................................. 7
Contents
Foreword ............................................................................................. 7
winaTqma
Foreword
7
2. saqarTvelos damoukideblobis aqti (anot. 2)
Act of Independence of Georgia (Annot. 2)
vaxtang beriZe
vaxtang beriZe
10
vaxtang beriZe
11
kultura da xelovneba
12
vaxtang beriZe
13
kultura da xelovneba
14
vaxtang beriZe
15
kultura da xelovneba
16
vaxtang beriZe
17
kultura da xelovneba
18
vaxtang beriZe
19
kultura da xelovneba
20
vaxtang beriZe
21
kultura da xelovneba
22
vaxtang beriZe
23
vaxtang beriZe
25
kultura da xelovneba
tician tabiZe
„cxeni angelosiT“
26
vaxtang beriZe
valerian gafrindaSvili
27
kultura da xelovneba
28
9. saqarTvelos gerbi (anot. 6)
National Coat of Arms of Georgia (annot. 6)
kultura da xelovneba
30
vaxtang beriZe
31
kultura da xelovneba
33
kultura da xelovneba
34
vaxtang beriZe
35
kultura da xelovneba
1916. 15. V
_ moxseneba tfilisSi Zveli Senobebis gegmebis da suraTebis gadaRe-
bis Sesaxeb. saWirod iqna cnobili gegmebis gadideba. inJiner petre mam-
raZes da arqiteqtor simon kldiaSvils (universitetis Senobis avtors)
daevalaT `daaTvalieron qalaqSi aseTi Zveli Senobebi da gadaiRon su-
raTebi, sadac saWiro iqneba~.
_ `sakiTxi mxatvris n. firosmanaSvilis naxatebis gamoZebnis, SeZeni-
sa, misi binadrobis aRmoCenisa da biografiuli cnobebis Sekrebisa~.
`ganCineba. gamgeoba sayuradRebod scnobs n. firosmanaSvilis naxatebs
da aucilebel saWirod miaCnia maTi aRmoCena, SeZena. radganac sazo-
36
kultura da xelovneba
1917. 22. X
_ `moxseneba komisiisa qarTvel moRvaweTa panTeonis gegmis Sesaxeb~.
gamgeobam `daadgina sTxovos qarTvel xelovanT miiRon monawileoba
savanis gegmis SedgenaSi~.
_ ramdenime sxdomaze ganixileboda sakiTxi qarTuli freskebis
pirebis gamofenis Sesaxeb. gamofenas awyobdnen saqarTvelos saisto-
rio da saeTnografio sazogadoebasTan erTad. igi gaixsna 8 ianvars
eqvTime TayaiSvilis moxsenebiT qarTuli freskebis Sesaxeb, daixura 19
Tebervals. inaxula 7000 kacze metma. sazogadoebis oqmis Sesabamisad,
`jariskacebi da Raribi mowafeebi ufasod iyvnen SeSvebulni~.
1918. xelovanTa sazogadoeba Suamdgomlobs mTavrobis winaSe
`didebis taZris~ misTvis gadacemis Sesaxeb.
1919
_ d. SevardnaZem Seitana mTavrobaSi suraTebis galereis gaxsnis
proeqti.
38
vaxtang beriZe
39
kultura da xelovneba
40
vaxtang beriZe
41
kultura da xelovneba
44
vaxtang beriZe
45
kultura da xelovneba
46
vaxtang beriZe
47
kultura da xelovneba
48
vaxtang beriZe
49
kultura da xelovneba
viqtor gamyreliZisa 1918 wels,26 vaso abaSiZisa 1919 wels27. vaxt. gari
kis angariSis mixedviT, es namdvili zeimi iyo; imarTeboda gastrolebi,
mag. aleqsandre imedaSvilisa (warmoadgines `otelo~).28 im wlebSi did
xans TamaSobdnen TbilisSi moskovis samxatvro Teatris msaxiobebi (maT
Soris, vas. kaCalovi), rac ueWvelad mniSvnelovani movlena iyo Tbili-
sis kulturul cxovrebaSi (maSindel gazeTebSi ibeWdeboda anonsebi da
recenziebi).
ramdenadac vici, 1918_20 wlebSi gadaRebuli qarTuli mxatvruli
filmi ar darCenila da arc Cans. magram cnobilia, rom pirveli qarTu-
li mxatvruli suraTi `qristine~ (eg. ninoSvilis moTxrobis mixedviT)
gadaRebul iqna 1916 wels reJisor al. wuwunavas mier. operatori iyo
al. diRmelovi, igi Semdeg didxans moRvaweobda qarTul kinoSi, mxat-
vari _ dimitri SevardnaZe, romelic SegviZlia CavTvaloT am dargis
50
vaxtang beriZe
51
kultura da xelovneba
52
vaxtang beriZe
53
kultura da xelovneba
1992 weli
54
vaxtang beriZe
SeniSvnebi
55
kultura da xelovneba
57
18. d. kakabaZe, `Zveli Tbilisi~ 918-1919 (anot. 1)
D. Kakabadze, “Old Tbilisi” 1918-1919 (annot. 1)
dimitri TumaniSvili
damateba
dimitri TumaniSvili
60
dimitri TumaniSvili
61
xuroTmoZRvreba da mSenebloba
62
dimitri TumaniSvili
63
xuroTmoZRvreba da mSenebloba
64
dimitri TumaniSvili
65
xuroTmoZRvreba da mSenebloba
66
dimitri TumaniSvili
67
xuroTmoZRvreba da mSenebloba
68
dimitri TumaniSvili
69
xuroTmoZRvreba da mSenebloba
70
dimitri TumaniSvili
71
dimitri TumaniSvili
73
xuroTmoZRvreba da mSenebloba
74
dimitri TumaniSvili
75
xuroTmoZRvreba da mSenebloba
76
dimitri TumaniSvili
77
xuroTmoZRvreba da mSenebloba
2008 weli
SeniSvnebi
78
dimitri TumaniSvili
79
25. d. kakabaZe, `Zveli Tbilisi~ 1918-1919 (anot. 1)
D. Kakabadze, “Old Tbilisi”, 1918-1919 (annot. 1)
Vakhtang Beridze
Vakhtang Beridze
82
Vakhtang Beridze
materials, ethnographic articles (including “Saingilo” by Mose Janashvili, “Pshavi da
Misi Ts’utisopeli” (Inhabitants of Pshavi and Their Worldview) by Vazha-Pshavela,
“Arkeologiuri Mogzaurobani” (Archaeological Voyages) by Ek. Takaishvili, etc.);
second series of the recueils “Sakartvelos Sidzveleni” (Georgian Antiquities), in
which hundreds of historic documents were published. These are enormous volumes:
volume II comprises 600 pages, volume III – 612 pages.
Highly fruitful were expeditions organised by the Society for the study, recording
and copying of the monuments of Georgian art, especially, two of them:
a. That of 1916, to the vill. Nabakhtevi; its church has preserved murals of the
first half of the 15th c., with the interesting historical portraits (Kutsna Amirejibi,
King Alexander I and others). This expedition, organised together with the Society
of Georgian Artists, was participated by L. Gudiashvili, G. Eristavi, Mose and Irakli
Toidzes, Dim. Shevardnadze, M. Chiaureli. They made copies of almost all preserved
fragments (later, in 1935, due to the most vulnerable state of frescoes, one part of the
fragments was removed from the walls and taken to the State Museum of Art). The
expedition was initiated by Ekvtime Takaishvili and Ivane Javakhishvili.
b. That of 1917, to the southern Georgia – Tao-Klarjeti – headed by Ek. Takai-
shvili. The expedition was participated by the painters: Dimitri Shevardnadze, Lado
Gudiashvili, Mikheil Chiaureli, poet Ilia Zdanevich (Georgian, from his mother’s
side), architect Anatoli Kalgin, who had greatly contributed to the graphical recording
of the monuments of Georgian architecture and, also as a creative architect – he is
the main author of the Georgian Nobility Bank building (present, Building I of the
National Library). The materials of this expedition (measured drawings of the most
significant monuments of Tao-Klarjeti, including Oshki, Ishkhani, Khakhuli cathe-
drals, E. Takaishvili’s study) up to now is the basis of our knowledge on the richest
architectural heritage of this region (E. Takaishvili has started his study of the antiq-
uities of southern Georgian provinces far earlier: in 1902, he organised an expedition
to Akhaltsikhe Mazras3 and Chirdir-Artaani district, in 1907 – to Kars region. At that
time, this region was still within the boundaries of the Russian Empire.4
Kartvelian studies had achieved higher scholarly level thanks to the school of
Kartvelology formed at the Petersburg University and headed by the academician
Niko Marr. Of special significance were his works on the Georgian philology. At the
83
Culture and Art
same time, already in the first years of the 20th c., preparations for the foundation of
the Georgian University were undertaken. In 1907, Iv. Javakhishvili – then Privat-Do-
cent of the Petersburg University – organised Georgian Scientific Circle at this Uni-
versity. In 1915, collected works of the members of this Circle were published, edited
by Iv. Javakhishvili.
Already from that time, Iv. Javakhishvili started to look for and select peda-
gogues for the future National University, among the Georgian students and young
scholars. And Georgian scholars studied both in the university cities of the Russian
Empire (in Petersburg, Moscow, Kiev, Tomsk, Kharkov, Dorpat, Odessa, Warsaw,
Kazan) and in the West Europe – in Germany (mainly), Austria, France, Switzerland.
Here received their education those, who took the leadership of our University and,
science, in general – apart from Ivane Javakhishvili himself, Pilipe Gogichaishvili,
Korneli Kekelidze, Akaki Shanidze, Ioseb Kipshidze, Giorgi Akhvlediani, Davit Kip-
shidze, Vukol Beridze, Simon Kaukhchishvili (in Russia), Dimitri Uznadze, Giorgi
Chubinashvili, Aleksandre Natishvili, Aleksandre Aladashvili, Spiridon Virsaladze,
Svimon Amirejibi, Ivane Tikanadze, Nikoloz Kakhiani, Aleksandre Machavariani,
Gabriel Gambashidze, Solomon Kurdiani (forester-selectionist), Ilia Jandieri (live-
stock specialist), Konstantine Amirejibi, Yulon Lomouri (agronomist), Konstantine
Modebadze (wine-making specialist) and many others.
Before the revolution important studies were published, focused on the history
of Georgia (classical “Kartveli Eris Ist’oria” (History of the Georgian Nation) by
Iv. Javakhishvili, books and articles by T. Zhordania, Ek. Takaishvili, Mose Janiash-
vili, Davit Karichashvili, Sergi Gorgadze, Sargis Kakabadze), old Georgian litera-
ture (Niko Marr, Aleksandre Khakhanashvili, Korneli Kekelidze, Yustine Abuladze),
language dictionaries (Niko Marr, Akaki Shanidze, Ilia Chkonia, Vukol Beridze);
Georgian culture, namely, antiquities were given considerable place in “Khristianskiy
Vostok” (Christian Orient) – a journal founded by Niko Marr (articles by N. Marr him-
self, Iv. Javakhishvili, Ek. Takaishvili, Niko Janashia, Ioseb Kipshidze, K, Kekelidze,
Giorgi Chubinashvili, Leon Melikset-Begi. It should also be remembered that in 1911,
N. Marr published one of the masterpieces of the old Georgian literature – “Grigol
Khandztelis Tskhovreba” (Life of Grigol Khandzteli) by Giorgi Merchiule, with the
Russian translation).
84
Vakhtang Beridze
85
Culture and Art
In 1916-17, Society of Georgian Physicians and Natural Scientists, headed by
Spiridon Virsaladze, was founded and on 25 May, 1918 – this is well known – Univer-
sity was opened. Its foundation slightly precedes declaration of the Independence, but
the very fact of foundation of the Georgian University is indivisible from the general
situation, from the spiritual atmosphere, n which achievement of the Independence
became possible. And, certainly, years of Independence cannot be imagined without
the University – from the very first years, it managed to maintain active scholarly (and
not only educational) activities.
Georgian press gave detailed reports on this most significant fact in the history
of national culture. This is one of the announcements published in the newspaper:
“Georgian University in Tbilisi will be opened in mid January, 1918. Department of
the Humanitarian Philosophical Studies is being formed. Lectures will be in philoso-
phy, history, literature, linguistics, pedagogy and social sciences”.5
On 25 January, list of the first University teachers was published: Rector – Petre
Melikishvili, Professor Emeritus, Dean of the Philosophical Studies Faculty – Profes-
sor Ivane Javakhishvili.
Secretary – Professor Ioseb Kipshidze.
Professors – Andria Benashvili, Korneli Kekelidze, Dimitri Uznadze, Pilipe
Gogichaishvili.
Associated Professors – Andria Razmadze, Svimon Avaliani, Shalva Nutusbidze,
Giorgi Akhvlediani, Akaki Shanidze.
Academic Supervisors – Ekvtime Takaishvili, Yustine Abuladze.
Lecturers – Elisabed Orbeliani (French language), Arthur Leist and Ilia Kipshidze
(German language), Vanda Gambashidze (English language).6
Information concerning the University opening ceremony, portraits and biogra-
phies of P. Melikishvili and Iv. Javakhishvili were also published. In the Georgian
Club “Georgian students organise quite an interesting ball for the benefit of the Geor-
gian University. Best representatives of the Georgian actors and singers will partici-
pate”.7 Comprehensive articles about the University were published. The press also
shows that opening of the University was perceived by the wide public as an event of
the great national significance.
From the autumn of the same year, the University was joined by new members,
86
Vakhtang Beridze
including Giorgi Chubinashvili, who headed the Department of Art History and Cabi-
net of the History and Theory of Art. From this time, a new page in the history of study
of Georgian art was turned, foundation was laid to the history of Georgian art, as an
independent scholarly discipline, on the level of the modern requirements. Looking
back at the first “generation” of the University professors, it can easily be concluded
that, due to its level, our newly established University would definitely equal well-es-
tablished Universities with great traditions. The professors, with minor exception,
were young enough – Ivane Javakhhishvili was 42 years of age, Korneli Kekelidze
– 39, Akaki Shanidze, Dimitri Uznadze, Shalva Nutsubidze, Ioseb Kipshidze, Giorgi
Chubinashvili – 30 or 2-3 years older, Andria Razmadze – 28 (even Ekvtime Takaish-
vili was only 55). The shortest spell will pass and all of them, even the young ones, to
say nothing of the elders, will become famous scholars of the European scale – leaders
of the branches of science and founders of the scholarly schools. Likewise, merely
87
Culture and Art
several years will pass and other Georgian higher education institutions will be given
birth within the University – Polytechnic, Medical and Agricultural Institutes. It can
be said that, with the foundation of the University, new era begins in the history of
Georgian culture and science (in the same 1918, on 3 September, the University, ini-
tially considered a private institution, was declared a State one and from August 1918,
it was given the entire building of the Georgian Gymnasium – initially, it availed of
only three rooms).
In 1918-1920, Georgian scholarly literature was enriched with new important
studies and University manuals, first and foremost, in humanities, e.g., Iv. Javakh-
ishvili: “Kalakebi, Sakalako Ts’q’obileba da Tskhovrebis Vitareba Sakartveloshi
XVII-XVIII Saukuneebshi” (Cities, Structure and Conditions of the Urban Life in
Georgia in the 17th-18th cc.) (journal “P’romete” [Prometheus], 1918, №1), “Kartveli
Eris Mok’le Ist’oria” (Concise History of the Georgian Nation), book 2 – 1st-12th cc.
(1918, Kutaisi), “Damok’idebuleba Sakartvelosa da Rusets shoris XVIII Saukuneshi”
(Relations between Russia and Georgia in the 18th c.) (1919, edition of the Georgian
Club), “Sakartvelos Sazghvrebi Ist’oriulad da Tanamedrove Tvalsazrisit Gankhiluli”
(Borders of Georgia Historically and Discussed form the Modern Viewpoint) (1919,
88
Vakhtang Beridze
edition of the Society for Spreading Literacy among the Georgians), “Kartuli Samar-
tlis Ist’oria” (History of the Georgian Juridical System), book 1 (1919, Kutaisi. As
can be seen, Iv. Javakhishvili dedicated his works not only to the remote past, but also
responded to the most acute modern problems); K. Kekelidze: “K’imeni” (Keimena),
vol. 1, “Kartuli Hagiograpiuli Dzeglebi” (Monuments of the Georgian Hagiography)
(1918), “Targmanebay Ek’lesiast’isay Mit’ropane Zmürnel Mit’rop’olit’isay” (Com-
mentaries on Ecclesiastes by Metrophanes, Metropolitan of Smyrna) (1920); G. Akh-
vlediani: “Enatmetsnierebis Shesavali. Lektsiebi” (Introduction to Linguistics. Lec-
tures), edition of the Board of University Students’ Union, three parts (1918); “Rusuli
Enis Gramat’ik’a Umaghles Dats’q’ebit Sasts’avlebeltatvis” (Grammar of the Rus-
sian Language for the Colleges. I. Phonetics. II. Morphology) (1919), “Sansk’rit’is
Mok’le Gramat’ik’a da Nats’q’vet’ebi K’lasik’uri Sansk’rit’idan da Rigvedadan”
(Concise Grammar of Sanskrit and Excerpts from the Classical Sanskrit and Rigveda
89
Culture and Art
with the Vocabulary) (1920, edition of the University).
In 1919, “T’pilisis Universit’et’is Moambe” (Bulletin of Tpilisi University №1,
part 1, Faculty of Philosophical Studies) was published with the articles by Ioseb
Kipshidze, Shalva Nutsubidze, Korneli Kekelidze, Dimitri Uznadze, Akaki Shanidze,
Simon Avaliani and Ekvtime Takaishvili (volume II, 1921-1922, was published only
in 1923).
Apart from the University, which had very soon turned into the centre of the
Georgian science and scholarship, several scholarly institutions and organisations,
directly linked with the study of the Georgian culture, also existed at that period:
a. Museums: Caucasus Museum, which in 1919 was turned into the Museum
of Georgia – present S. Janashia State Museum of Georgia; at first Georgian materi-
al was insufficiently presented here; former Ecclesiastic Museum; Museum of the
Society for Spreading Literacy among the Georgians; Museum of the Historical
and Ethnographic Society; Museum of the Domestic Industry. These four muse-
ums, actually, had no possibility to display their collections; their profile was very
heterogeneous, objects of absolutely different character were collected in one and
the same Museum and, at the same time, exhibits of the same kind were scattered in
different Museums. Certainly, such a situation was not considered normal, but then
there was not enough time for the re-organisation of the museum management and it
was undertaken only gradually, in the second decade.
b. Societies: Caucasus Department of the Moscow Imperial Archaeological
Society (the latter was founded in 1901), in the activities of which Georgia occupied
far not insufficient place. It had its own periodical – “Izvestiya” (Proceedings) – vol.
V was published in 1919, vol. VI – in 1921. Lev Lopatanskiy, scholar of the Iberi-
an-Caucasian languages, was its Chairman, Board Members were Leon Melikset-Be-
gi and Dimitri Gordeev, among the honorary members were Ekvtime Takaishvili and
Praskovya Uvarova – a famous scholar of the Caucasian and Georgian antiquities,
Oliver Wardrop, among the members were Mose Janashvili, Giorgi Chubinashvili,
Svimon Avaliani, Sargis Kakabadze; Caucasus Department of the Russian Impe-
rial Geographic Society, which soon ceased to exist; Technical Society of Georgia,
which published “T’eknik’uri T’erminologia” (Technical Terminology) in 1920 and
1921; members of the initiative group for the elaboration of the terminology were
90
Vakhtang Beridze
(already in 1919) Giorgi and Rusudan Nikoladzes, Ivane Beridze, Vasil Kakabadze,
Giorgi Gedevanishvili, Mikheil Shalamberidze, D. Berekashvili, Irakli Mchedlishvili;
this had laid a foundation to the most important activity for the development of the
Georgian science, which had achieved wide scale in the succeeding decades; Society
of the Physicians and Natural Scientists was already mentioned above.
c. Historical-Archaeological Institute of the Caucasus of the Academy of
Sciences of Russia, founded in 1917 by the initiative and leadership of Niko Marr;
its members were Ekvtime Takaishvili and Giorgi Chubinashvili, junior scientific as-
sistants – D. Gordeev and S. Tigranyan. The Institute organised expeditions to Lazeti
(Ioseb Kipshidze), Akhaltsikhe Mazra (Niko Marr, D. Gordeev, Taranushenko), Java-
kheti (Silibistro Lomaia, Davit Kipshidze), in order to study dialects of the Georgian
language and Laz language, history and monuments of art; to survey Borjomi an-
tiquities (G. Chubinashvili); remarkable works were published in the recueils of the
Institute.
In 1920, most significant fact is the exhibition of the old Georgian architecture,
organised by the Historical and Ethnographic Society of Georgia, all the more impor-
tant that it was the first exhibition of this kind. Majority of the exhibits was measured
drawings and photographs – outputs of the expeditions of Ek. Takaishvili, including
1902, 1907 and 1917 expeditions to southern Georgia, 1911, 1913 and 1914 expedi-
tions to Kakheti, as well as drawings of the monuments measured by the architects
– Ebralidze, Kalgin, Severov, Kalashnikov and others – in diverse regions of Geor-
gia, numerous photographs (from the collection of D. Ermakov, by Zanis, Kühne,
Polevoi). Georgian and Russian catalogues, containing information on each monu-
ment were published. Author of the Georgian catalogue was Ek. Takaishvili himself
and the part concerning Tao-Klarjeti monuments is, actually, the first concise report of
his expeditions (and in its entirety it was even more – concise annotated revue of the
history of Georgian architecture); author of the Russian catalogue was D. Gordeev,
who had received information from Ek. Takaishvili, G. Chubinashvili, I. Zdanevich,
D. Shevardnadze and M. Kalashnikov. On the exhibition presented were fragments
of the ornamented stones, wooden doors, copies of the frescoes and inscriptions. The
catalogue comprised 289 entries and many unnumbered photographs.
Next to the science and University, introduction of the Georgian language as
91
Culture and Art
a language of education in the secondary
school should be mentioned as equally
great achievement; its foundation was laid
in the years of Independence and the pro-
cess was finalised later on.
Following statistic data is available:
according to the last statistics of the Tsa-
rist period, 864 schools with 80 234 pupils
were registered in Georgia, while in 1921,
i.e., the last years of Independence – 1 925
schools with 162 030 pupils. From 1918,
Ministry of Education (at first, the Minister
was Giorgi Lashkhishvili and then – Noe
Tsintsadze) and Education Commission of
the National Council started to support the
re-organisation of schools. From the very
beginning, re-training of the teachers was
put on agenda and respective courses were
opened. Tbilisi Pedagogic Institute, Kho-
ni, Gori and Sokhumi Pedagogic Semi-
naries were declared state institutions and
Georgian was introduced as a language
of education there. Governmental bodies
of the education system tried to introduce
practical experience of the advanced Eu-
ropean countries into the education sys-
tem.8 New curriculums were elaborated
– for these reasons an Extraordinary Com-
92
Vakhtang Beridze
mission with the participation of the famous scholars and teachers was formed at the
Ministry of Education. Great attention was paid to the training of the instructors in
agronomy and applied technical sciences for Erobas9 (in this respect great was assis-
tance from the University). Georgian textbooks for the secondary schools were pub-
lished, e.g., Aleksandre Janelidze: “Pizik’a Sashualo Sasts’avleblisatvis” (Physics for
the Secondary Schools) (Kutaisi, 1918), “Dats’q’ebiti Pizik’a. Ts’elits’adi P’irveli”
(Elementary Physics. Year First) (Kutaisi, 1919).
Schools of the ethnic minorities were turned into the subject of special care (this
should be especially underlined!); were opened Armenian schools – 81, Russian
schools – 60, Tatar (Azeri should be implied) schools – 31, Greek schools – 66 and
Ossetian schools – 48.10
75 young people were sent abroad to receive their education, later on they (who
were lucky enough to survive) joined the ranks of Georgian scholars and teachers.
Due to its significance, introduction of the Georgian as a language of education
into the schools was of no less importance than the foundation of the University.
Very active and diversified was the literary life. Already in early 20th c., creative
activity of a number of prosaists and poets had marked a new stage in the history of
the Georgian literature, once again confirming, after several stages of the 19th c. devel-
opment, adoption of the new European artistic culture.
19th c. was, indeed, the great epoch of the Georgian literature and public opinion.
But this epoch, marked by the great achievements of the national culture, ended. Great
coryphaei, almost all, had passed away in the beginning of the 20th c. New time had
put forward new tasks and ignoring of these tasks, avoiding them would have turned
Georgian literature into imitatory. World literature had wonderful achievements in
the second half of the 19th c., e.g., French Symbolism, which was especially fasci-
nating for the new generation of the Georgian poets. At the same period, Balmont,
Brusov, Blok and others were active in Russia. Turn of the centuries and early 20th
c. is the time of “boiling” of the world art – new trends were emerging in literature,
Fine Art, music; they were either co-existing or replacing one another. In Georgia,
the soil proved to be already prepared for the adoption and organic “digestion” of
innovations. Luckily, similar to the case in science, literature also availed of the entire
generation (generations!) of highly talented writers. It suffices to recollect several
93
Culture and Art
names: prosaists – Niko Lortkipanidze, Grigol Robakidze, Mikheil Javakhishvili, Leo
Kiacheli, Konstantine Gamsakhurdia; poets – Galaktion Tabidze, Ioseb Grishashvili,
Aleksandre Abasheli, Sandro Shanshiashvili, Siko Pashalishvili, Giorgi Leonidze; on
the turn of 1915 to 1916, in Kutaisi “Tsisperi Q’ants’ebi” (Blue Wine-horns) “were
born” – very young Paolo Iashvili, Valerian Gaprindashvili, Titsian Tabidze, Shalva
Apkhaidze, Sandro Tsirekidze, Sergo Kldiashvili and others; young critics and histo-
rians of literature Geronti Kikodze, Vakhtang Kotetishvili started their activities, Kita
Abashidze was already active . . . many others could also be named. Some writers
were then just beginners, some – immediately managed to achieve mastery and re-
veal their distinct individuality. Many writers and critics published purely publicistic
articles, mainly, on the national issue, which, naturally, sounded acute both in the
pre-Independence period and in the time of Independence, since declaration of the
Independence as such, did not mean solving of the most complex extant problem and,
at the same time, overcoming of the conceptual-ideological contradictions.11
Naturally, writers differed by their individuality, aesthetic interests and principles
94
Vakhtang Beridze
(to say nothing of the talent), but, as already noted, for their major part essential was
striving for novelty, so to say, “matching” the newest world literature, which by no
means implied betrayal of the national identity. National and Universal – this was
the main essence of the progressive Georgian culture – not only of the literature,
but (as will be shown lower) also of the painting, music and, a bit later, of the thea-
tre. Characteristic is an anonymous article published in the newspaper “Sakartvelo”,
2.03.1919, “Kartuli Khelovnebisatvis” (On Georgian Art), undoubtedly written by
Geronti Kikodze, Editor of the newspaper. It says: “Striving for new ways is discer
nible in almost all branches of Georgian art. The trend, unfairly called Futurism and
Decadent Movement on the journalist jargon, is a true revolutionary phenomenon,
which violates traditional forms and creates elements for the new aesthetic synthesis,
while to accomplish revolution in art is extremely hard. That is why, special appreci-
ation is due to young Georgian poets, painters, musicians, boldly fighting against the
95
Culture and Art
misunderstanding and hardship, to give renewed art to the renewed Georgia”.
What did “violation of the traditional forms” mean? To say the least, the fact
that striving for independent, autonomous form – “art for art’s sake” – was put on
agenda. For Georgian Tsiperq’ants’elebi12 congenial was creative activity of Baude-
laire, Mallarmé, Rimbaud – their works were even translated. Let’s recollect Titsian
Tabidze’s “I plant Baudelaire’s evil flowers in Besiki’s garden”, words implying cer-
tain programme; congenial was Verlaine’s famous formula “De la musique avant toute
chose” – “music first and foremost” (they, when acting as “over-throwers” of the old,
had such a statement – 19th c. had turned our literature into a newspaper). Literary
Impressionism (N. Lortkipanidze, L. Kiacheli) had also left certain traces in the lite
rature of that period. Galaktion Tabidze was neither left indifferent towards the French
Symbolism and Impressionism; he, who was organically connected with the traditions
of the 19th c. Georgian poetry, to say nothing about the depth of his creative activity,
great emotionality, he has imparted masterly brilliance to the Georgian verse, its form,
its technique. Apart from many other traits, his interest towards the French poetry is
evidenced by the French epigraphs – lines from the verses by Baudelaire, Gautier,
Henri de Régnier (the verse “Vin Aris Es Kali” [Who is This Woman]). For the new
generation, European Expressionism was neither alien.
These issues are being studied by the specialists and I, certainly, make no claims
on their detailed discussion. It is beyond my competence, but it would not be out of
place to have a look at a couple of samples (line by line translations) of this new poet-
ry, less known at present, and compare them with the 19th c. Georgian poetic heritage
– drastic difference will immediately become obvious:
Titsian Tabidze
96
Vakhtang Beridze
Horse with the Angel”.
Valerian Gaprindashvili
(both verses were published in 1920, in the journal “Meotsnebe Niamorebi” [Re-
vering Chamois]).
More than one remarkable work of the Modern Georgian literature belongs to
the years of Independence or slightly precedes it: Galaktion Tabidze – “Art’ist’uli
Q’vavilebi” (Artistic Flowers), Vasil Barnov – “T’rpoba Ts’amebuli” (Martyred
Love), “Gvelis Zeimi” (Snake Feast) (then two-volume collection of his works was
published), Niko Lortkipanidze – “Zhamta Siave” (Times of Hardship) and many
miniatures, many famous verses by Ioseb Grishashvili (“T’riolet’ebi Shaitanba-
zarshi” [Triolets in Shaitanbazar], “Akhpashkhanisk’en” [Towards Ashpashkhana]
and others), “Daisebi” (Sunsets) – first collection of poems by Valerian Gaprindash-
vili (1919), cycles of verses, verses by Paolo Iashvili and Titsian Tabidze, critical pub-
licistic articles by Grigol Robakidze, Konstantine Gamsakhurdia, Geronti Kikodze,
Vakhtang Kotetishvili and many others.
Activeness of the press is one of the most characteristic traits of the cultural life
at that period. Numerous literary and artistic journals and newspapers – weekly and
monthly – were being published (certainly, purely political newspapers are not im-
plied here). Some of them were founded earlier (e.g., Ioseb Imedashvili’s most pop-
ular, illustrated “Teat’ri da Tskhovreba” [Theatre and Life], humorous “Eshmak’is
Matrakhi” [Devil’s Whip], managed by highly talented Nestor Kalandadze, the same
97
33. m. ToiZe, peizaJi, 1918 (anot. 10)
. M. Toidze, Landscape, 1918 (annot. 10)
Vakhtang Beridze
“Eshmak’i” [Devil] and Shalva Sharashidze, the same “Taguna” [Mousy], “Sapi
roni” [Sapphire], founded in 1916, Editor – Giorgi Leonidze), some were new. Some
of them soon ceased their existence, others proved to be more lasting, but all together,
they formed a varied and interesting general picture.
To quote some of them: Tsisart’q’ela (Rainbow) – monthly journal, edition of
the “Culture and Education Commission” at the Central Board of the Trade Union of
the Railway Workers. “Poetry, belles-lettres, drama, critics, bibliography”. Editorial
Board: Ivane Gomarteli, Sasha Abasheli (such was his signature), Polio Ireteli, Arch-
il Rukhadze, Orphan Worker (Solomon Tavadze). It was published from December
1919.
Mshvildosani (Archer) – journal of Tsisperq’ants’elebi, Editor – Sandro Tsire-
kidze; it was published from January 1920; Meotsnebe Niamorebi – monthly journal
of Tsisperq’ants’elebi, Editor – Valerian Gaprindashvili (with a sketch by Lado Gudi-
ashvili on the cover); it was published in 1919-1924; Barrik’adi (Barricade) – one
more journal of Tsisperq’ants’elebi, Editor – Titsian Tabidze; it was published from
1920; Buneba da Khelovneba (Nature and Art) – 1920; “monthly literary and artistic
journal”; Momavali (Future) – “scientific-literary and political journal of a group of
State University students, Editor – Andro Shilakadze, January 1921; Ars – Russian
“monthly journal of art and literature”, edited by Sergey Gorodetskiy, famous Rus-
sian poet, at that time migrant to Georgia; works by the Russian poets and prosaists
(including Anna Antonovskaya) were published in №№2-3, 1918. Georgian writers
collaborated with this journal very actively; published were translations of the works
by Georgian classic authors and modern poets, mainly, Tsisperq’ants’elebi, studies in
Georgian art and culture (including critical articles by Ekvtime Takaishvili, D. Gor-
deev and L. Melikset-Begi; critical articles by Grigol Robakidze concerning Andrei
Beli); Iskusstvo (Art) – non-political newspaper of Boris Korneev and Vasil Katanyan
(1919).
Special mention should be made of the less-known and nowadays completely
forgotten journal T’eat’ri da Musika, published in Kutaisi and edited by Ioseb Aslan-
ishvili, public figure, physician, sportsman and man of letters. The journal published
articles on theatre and music, most interesting information on the contemporaneous
artistic life, photographs, sketches, caricatures (by Shalva Kikodze, Al. Salzmann,
99
Culture and Art
Mikheil Chaiureli – he actively collaborated with the Georgian press as a painter).
Group photographs published here are documents of the historical significance. Cover
of the first issue (March 1919) was adorned with the reproduction of “Merani” by
Lado Gudiashvili. Artistic design and layout of this journal, as well as of the majority
of above mentioned journals, is executed with the refined taste.
Amazingly intensive daily artistic, so to say, poetic life is one more, most charac-
teristic traits of that period. There were artistic cafés – a kind of artistic clubs with tru-
ly creative atmosphere – which had turned into an inseparable part of the everyday life
of the artistic intelligentsia. Here lectures, presentations, disputes on various topics of
art and literature were held; these were also actively participated by non-Georgians,
Russian poets, migrants from Russia, who had found shelter in Tbilisi, including, apart
from already mentioned Gorodetskiy, Osip Mandelstam (one can recollect his verse
“Mne Tiflis Gorbatỵy Snitsya” (I See Humpbacked Tiflis in My Dreams), written in
1920), a whole pleiad of Futurists – Kruchonikh, Igor Terentyev, Vasiliy Kamenskiy,
Ilia Zdanevich, Kolau Chernyavskiy (he stayed in Tbilisi forever).13
Among these cafés most popular were “Artisticheskiy Kabachok” (Artistic Ta
vern), 12, Rustaveli avenue (in which, mainly, Russian Futurists gathered) and, espe-
cially, “Chimerioni” (in the basement storey of the Rustaveli Theatre), established
with the initiative of the writers and decorated by the most talented painters (in the
Soviet times, the murals, possibly, as ideologically improper, were plastered, although
they contained nothing “hazardous” and only recently survived fragments were re-
stored).
Announcement from the newspaper “Sakartvelo” (1920, 17 October, №124):
“Chimerioni. Every day best actors from Petrograd, Moscow and locals will perform.
Every three days the programme changes. Orchestra conducted by Stupelli. Cuisine is
paid special attention to. Buffet avails of the foreign and local drinks”. “On Sunday,
17 October, big party of the “National Party” will be held. Best artists of Tbilisi are
participating. Preliminary booking of tables is accepted”. Merely these two announce-
ments bear sufficient evidence that Chimerioni was highly popular cultural centre.
Years preceding the declaration of Independence and years of Independence
proper can righteously be considered a significant stage in the history of the Georgian
national painting.
100
Vakhtang Beridze
As is known, foundation to the Modern Georgian painting is laid – after the tran-
sitional period of the first decades of the 19th c. – in late 19th c., when young Georgian
painters with the European artistic education began to work – firstly, Romanoz Gvele-
siani, Aleksandre Beridze, Gigo Gabashvili, later on, Davit Guramishvili, Aleksandre
Mrevlishvili, Mose Toidze, graphic artist Anton Gogichaishvili (as well as the only
sculptor Iakob Nikoladze).14 Their historical mission was to enrich Georgian painting,
which, due to the historic destiny of our country, still remained within the medieval
“bandages” up to the 19th c., with the Post-Renaissance realistic European painting:
i.e., we were to reach the stage of development, which was long enough achieved
by Europe and, somewhat later, by Russia as well. They had fulfilled their mission
quite well; but meantime – first, in the second half of the 19th c., and later on, in early
20th c. – world painting had taken enormous step forward, passing several new stag-
es: Impressionism and Post-Impressionism, later on, Fauvism and many other trends,
101
Culture and Art
rapidly replacing one another. The same was the case in Russia.
It was at this time proper that the new generation of the Georgian artists had
started their creative activities; these were painters – Dimitri Shevardnadze, Valerian
Sidamon-Eristavi, Aleksandre Tsimakuridze, Mikheil Chiaureli, Davit Kakabadze,
Lado Gudiashvili, Shalva Kikodze. Shevardnadze had received his education in Mu-
nich, Gudiashvili – in Tbilisi, Sidamon-Eristavi, Tsimakuridze and Kakabadze – in
Russia. Their attitude towards the new trends was not the same – creative activity of
some is closer to the traditional, is less “revolutionary”, some – first of all, Davit Ka
kabadze and Lado Gudiashvili, those with the most distinct individuality – will say a
new word. But all had made their own contribution to the establishment of the Modern
Georgian painting: Dimitri Shevardnadze had mainly spent those years (he returned
from Germany in 1916) on public and organisational affairs and his contribution to
the national art is truly invaluable; later he had achieved much as a scenographer, a ci
nema artist and a graphic artist; Tsimakuridze was the first Georgian painter, who had
dedicated his entire creative activity to one genre – landscape. It is him, who should
be credited with the establishment of this independent genre in Georgian painting;
Sidamon-Eristavi has laid foundation to the Georgian historical genre.
Davit Kakabadze was the only theorist among the representatives of this genera-
tion. He was not only a theorist, but also a scholar of the old Georgian art and an inven-
tor (later he invented three dimensional stereoscopic cinema, realisation of which was
blocked by the Russian bureaucrats). He published articles, books (when in France) in
Georgian and French on the ways of Modern Georgian art. What kind should the 20th
c. Georgian art be to answer modern requirements and, at the same time, to retain its
national character? To put it otherwise – modern and national – this is the main sub-
ject of Davit Kakabadze’s thoughts and strivings. And one more thing – the problem
of “autonomy” of art, problem of mastery, of autonomous value of the specific modes
of artistic expression, independent of the contents (remember, what was said earlier
about the Georgian literature of that period). Writing about the representatives of the
elder generation of Georgian painters, he appreciated high public significance of their
activity, but he argued that the “art proper” was not on the proper level in their works.
D. Kakabadze thought that it was the duty and mission of specifically his generation
to find solutions to the artistic tasks put forward internationally.
102
Vakhtang Beridze
Many remarkable works of the Georgian painting are ascribable to the years of
Independence. Without any exaggeration, it can be said that Davit Kakabadze and
Lado Gudiashvili, who were soon to leave for Paris, already then, before going there,
were well-formed painters with distinct, unique individuality. Mere mention of Davit
Kakabadze’s masterpieces is sufficient: “Imeruli Nat’urmort’i” (Imereti Still-life)
(1918), “Imereti – Dedachemi” (Imereti – My Mother) (1918), “Imereti. Ts’iteli Gza”
(Imereti. Red Road) (1918), sketches for the murals of Chimerioni (1919), series of
sketches dedicated to old Tbilisi (1918); from 1920 (in Paris) – new “chapter” of his
creative activity begins, when he, absolutely intentionally, turns into a follower of
abstract painting (however, he has neither rejected realistic art); at that period Lado
Gudiashvili had already created several pictures of the “K’int’o15 series”, which were
a new word in the Georgian painting: “Khashi”16 (1919), “K’int’oebis Keipi Kaltan”
(K’int’os’ Carousal with the Woman) (1919), “Sadghegrdzelo Garizhrazhze” (Toast
on the Daybreak) (1920), “Idilia” (Idyll) (1920), “Mokeipeni Etlshi” (Carousal Par-
ty in the Carriage) (1920), “Tevzi – Tsotskhali” (Fish – Tsotskhali) (1920), as well
as “Nadiroba” (Hunting), “Mts’q’emsi Mek’ameche” (Herdsman); what he created
later, in Paris, was a direct continuation of what was conceived and formed in Tbilisi.
To the same period belong “Tamar Mepe” (King Tamar) (1917) and “K’rts’anisis
Brdzola” (Krtsanisi Battle) by V. Sidamon-Eristavi – first pictures, subjects of which
were taken from the history of Georgia.
Such is the chronicle of events in the sphere of Fine Art in these years: in 1916,
Dimitri Shevardnadze (1885-1937), having returned from Munich, founded Society
of Georgian Artists and Giorgi Zhuruli, famous public figure, was elected its Chair-
man. Dimitri Shevardnadze was his Deputy and actual leader of the Society activities.
Society Statute, published in the same year, 1916, in Georgian and Russian, states that
“Society of the Georgian Artists is being founded in Tpilisi, with the aim to support:
a) connection-union of painters, sculptors and architects; b) collection, protection and
study of the remnants of art among the Georgians”. In order to fulfil these aims, the
Society was to establish an Art Gallery and a Library at it, to organise expeditions to
study old Georgian art, to support development of the artistic craftsmanship among
the Georgians, to care for the material well-being of the painters and scholars of the
old art.
103
Culture and Art
This programme leaves no doubt that it was foreseen for many years and its au-
thors intended to implement it in the free Georgia. It can be said that during the first
4-5 years a lot was made.
It is amazing, how energetically, systematically and purposefully the Society
started its activities from its very foundation. Two expeditions – that of 1916 to Na
bakhtevi and that of 1917 to Tao-Klarjeti – participated by the members of the Society,
were already discussed above.
Minutes of the Society Board meetings bear evidence of the diversity of the So-
ciety interests; here are some of the discussed issues:
1916.15.05.
– Presentation, concerning drafting plans and taking photographs of old buildings
in Tpilisi. Drafting plans was considered necessary. Engineer Petre Mamradze and ar-
chitect Simon Kldiashvili (author of the University building) were charged to examine
such old houses in the city and take photographs, where necessary.
104
Vakhtang Beridze
106
Vakhtang Beridze
Kikodze, Tamar Bilanishvili, Elene Akhvlediani, Tamar Tavadze, Erekle Toidze, Sa-
lome Nikoladze, Vasil Jorjadze. For the first time exhibited were Pirosmani’s works
“Korts’ili K’akhetshi” (Wedding Feast in Kakheti), “Aghdgomis Bat’k’ani” (Easter
Lamb), “Keipi Rtvelis Dros” (Carousal during the Vintage), “Dgheoba” (Ecclesiastic
Feast), “Mogzauri” (Traveller), “Keipi” (Carousal), “Iremi” (Deer), “Nat’urmort’i”
(Still-life) (from these, a couple of pictures belonged to the Society of Artists, others
– to D. Shevardnadze, N. Chernyavskiy, Zdanevich brothers. At present, all these are
kept at the State Museum of Art). Greatest number of works (painting and graphic art)
was exhibited by D. Kakabadze, L. Gudiashvili, V. Sidamon-Eristavi and sculptor I.
Nikoladze. With a couple of exceptions, as is well known, above mentioned painters
had left a deep mark in the Modern Georgian art. Some of them were at the very be-
ginning of their creative activity at that time.
– In December, exhibition of non-Georgian painters living in Georgia was orga
nised.
1920
Constituent Assembly approved the proposal for opening National Gallery. “The
institution is subjected to the Ministry of Education and is subsidised by the State”.
From the very beginning, the Gallery (opened on 20.03.1920) was headed by Dimitri
Shevardnadze, he was assisted by the painter Giorgi Natidze, who, later on, till his
death, worked at the library of the State Museum of Art.17 At the very beginning, ex-
hibited were portraits of the 19th c. Tbilisi School, Persian miniatures (very important
samples) and Western European pictures and drawings (relatively smaller number).
As is known, collection of the National Gallery formed basis for the State Museum
of Art.
Apart from the above mentioned exhibitions, other exhibitions were also orga
nised in 1918-1920, those of the individual painters (Gudiashvili, A. Bazhbeuk-Me-
likov, Armenian by birth, residing in Tbilisi, of Moscow Futurists – on 12-14 April
1918, etc.).
Besides, the role of the contemporaneous Georgian periodicals in the development
of the graphics, first and foremost of caricature, should, necessarily, be touched upon.
Great was contribution of Oskar Schmerling, German, living in Tbilisi and A. Salzmann,
from Georgians most active were Mikh. Chiaureli, Shalva Kikodze (with the pseudonym
107
Culture and Art
Shaliko), Sandro Shanshiashvili.
I think that all above said confirms the viewpoint expressed at the beginning
that the years of Independence mark the stage in the history of Modern national art,
remarkable in many respects, without which the general picture of this history can-
not be drawn. It can be added that at present, artistic life in Tbilisi and in Georgia, in
general, in those years, attracts vivid interest of the Western European scholars. This
is evidenced by the presentations of Italian and German art historians on the Sympo-
sium on Georgian Art, as well as a volume “L’Avanguardia a Tiflis” – “Avant-garde
in Tbilisi”, published in 1982, in which special place is given to Tsisperq’ants’elebi
and Russian Futurists, active in Tbilisi in those years. Published are very interesting
articles: “History and Theory of the Georgian Avant-garde (1915-1924)” by L. Maga-
rotto, “David Kakabadze’s Consideration on Art” by G. Buachidze, “Futurism of the
Menshevik Period” and others.
In the last decade of the 19th c., in the epoch of awakening of the national move-
ment, increased interest towards the history of the country, historic monuments was
quite natural. Likewise, the interest towards the national music – care for the pro-
tection and collection of the folk songs – was also greatly increased. From 1870s,
collection and publication of the folk songs was begun (recueils by Machavariani,
A. Benashvili, Z. Chkhikvadze and Ia Kargareteli). In 1882, choir of Meliton Ba
lanchivadze was formed, in 1885 – that of Lado Agniashvili, conducted by the Czech
Joseph Ratil.
Professional music performers appear: pianist Aloiz Mizandari (pupil of Rubin-
stein), violinist and composer Andria Karashvili, conductor Ivane Paliashvili, opera
singers Pilimon Koridze and Kakabadze.
On the turn of the centuries, founders and pioneers of the professional Geor-
gian music – Meliton Balanchivadze, Dimitri Arakishvili, Zakaria Paliashvili, N. Sul
khanishvili, K. Potskhverashvili. They, excluding Sulkhanishvili, had received their
education in the conservatoires of Russia. During their stay in Russia, they had never
ceased their contacts with Georgia, organising expeditions to various regions of Geor-
gia to record folk songs and concerts of Georgian songs in the cities of Russia, actively
promoting Georgian folklore. As early as the end of the 19th c., Meliton Balanchivadze
108
Vakhtang Beridze
began writing first Georgian opera “Tamar Tsbieri” (Tamar the Insidious) (later it was
named “Darejan Tsbieri” (Darejan the Insidious) and Paliashvili started composing
his “Abesalom da Eteri” in 1912. In Tbilisi there was a musical school of the Geor-
gian Philharmonic Society and in 1917, Tbilisi Conservatoire was founded. As evi-
denced by the press, in 1918-21, musical life was very intensive in Georgia, first and
foremost, certainly, in Tbilisi. Active were: “Georgian Musical and Charity Society”,
“Union of the Georgian Musicians-Singers” (in 1920, Mikheil Nanobashvili (Michel
Dariali), singer returned from Paris and was elected its Chairman), “Georgian Philhar-
monic Society”, founded in 1905 by the initiative of Zakaria Chkhikvadze, “Georgian
National Choir”, choirmaster was Mikh. Kavsadze, “Choir of Western Georgian Folk
Singers” under the supervision of famous Dzuku Lolua; mixed choir of the Georgian
Military Union, under the supervision of Niko Sulkhanishvili; in 1919, with the as-
sistance of the Cooperatives’ Union, Georgian Musical Society founded the Choir
under the supervision of Arakishvili and Danovskiy.18 The Choir travelled to western
Georgia, “gave national concerts in every region” (this is a quotation from “Teat’ri da
Tskhovreba”, 1920, №1, information is supplemented with the note: “regretfully, staff
of the Choir, excluding men, is almost non-national”, but, hopefully, ultimately, it will
become national; on 10 June, 1918, above mentioned Choir of the Georgian Military
Union gave “first Georgian national concert of the national works by our composers
(D. Arakishvili, M. Balanchivadze, N. Sulkhanishvili, Z. Paliashvili and I. Jabadari).
Participants are I. Sarajishvili, O. Kalandadze, V. Kalandadze, Iliko Abashidze, free
artiste and performer on the violin, is appointed co-ordinator of the concert. Catholi-
cos-Patriarch Kirion is invited to the concert”.19 In June, 1918, a concert dedicated to
the works by Dim. Arakishvili was organised, which received enthusiastic comments
from Zakaria Chkhikvadze – we have professional musicians, true interest towards
the Georgian music is being awaken, he said.20 On 16 May, 1919, in the State Theatre
(i.e., Opera House), concert of the wind instruments was given, “Akhali Lit’urgia”
(New Liturgy) by Dimitri Arakishvili was performed. Many other concerts were also
organised.21
In 1919, musical school was opened in Kutaisi and Meliton Balanchivadze was
appointed its Director. In 1920, branch department of the Georgian Musical Society
was established in Signagi. Every institution – City self-governance, Eroba, Coop-
109
Culture and Art
eratives’ Union, simultaneously “put aside”
funds to purchase instruments for the military
orchestra – 20 000 roubles, monthly 8 000
roubles were allocated for the Kapellmeister,
teachers of choral singing and piano.22
Contemporary press lively and, some-
times, very emotionally responded to the
issues of Georgian music, musical educa-
tion and Georgian opera, their problems. On
25.08.1920, newspaper “Sakartvelo” pub-
lished a critical article “Kartuli Saeklesio
Galobis Sherq’vna” (Profanation of the Geor-
gian Ecclesiastic Chants) by Vasil Karbelash-
vili, in which he gives quite a severe evalu
ation to the contemporaneous chanting in the
churches. In the issue 17 of the same year (S.
Tsereteli, Shenishvnebi Khelovnebaze [Notes
on Art]) considerable concern is expressed
with the fact that the Conservatoire is Rus-
sified, that Russian diction is taught and not
Georgian. “Why should not Georgian Opera
Studio with the national repertoire be founded,
as well as Georgian choral classes” (it seems
likely that attempts to found such studio were
undertaken already in 1919 – “Teat’ri da Tsk-
hovreba”, 1920, №1 contains information that
“with the funding of the Cooperatives’ Union,
37. Jurnali `Teatri da Georgian Opera Studio was established under
cxovreba~ (anot. 17)
the supervision of Stollermann”; in №6, 18
Journal “Theatre and Life”
(annot. 17) portraits of the “Opera Studio singers” were
published. What happened to this Studio? Had
it left any traces?)
110
Vakhtang Beridze
The issue of the Georgian opera was very acute for the public. Characteristic is an
article in Teat’ri da Kalaki (Theatre and City) (1918.16.06., №9), which states: “Apart
from drama, capital of Georgia also needs opera. Opera troupe should be formed and
foundation laid to the future of the Georgian opera, we avail of both, repertoire and
performers. Operas “Tamar Tsbieri”, “Vepkhist’q’aosani” (Knight in the Panther’s
Skin), “Shota Rustaveli”, “Abesalom da Eteri”, “Krist’ine”, “Ghalat’i” (Treason),
“K’erp’ta Damkhoba” (Demolition of Idols) and others. We have singer-actors, scat-
tered here and there”. From the mentioned operas, “Tamar Tsbieri” was not fully
completed by that time and was staged only in 1926; it seems likely that “K’erp’ta
Damkhoba” by K. Potskhverashvili, was left unfinished; I know nothing about “Vep-
khist’q’aosani”; “Ghalat’i” belongs to the Russian composer Ipolitov-Ivanov (after
the play by Al. Sumbatashvili), while others very soon appeared on the stage and their
staging proper had turned into the most significant event in the contemporaneous mu-
sical life (and Georgian culture, in general).
Revaz Gogniashvili’s opera “Krist’ine”, after Egnate Ninoshvili’s story and Po-
lio Ireteli’s play was the very first among the Georgian operas.
This opera, absolutely forgotten today, as well as its author, was first staged on
21.05.1918 and succeeding days, five times in total, in the Georgian Club, with the
initiative of the “Georgian Singer-Musicians’ Union”. The opera consisted of 3 acts
and 4 scenes; performance was directed and conducted by Nikoloz Kartvelishvili. The
same year, Gogniashvili had completed his second opera – “K’udiani” (Witch), but
no traces of it are discernible, maybe it was never staged.23
1919 was especially remarkable for the history of the Georgian opera: on 5 Feb-
ruary, D. Arakishvili’s opera “Tkmuleba Shota Rustavelze” (Shota Rustaveli Story)
was first staged – this was the first Georgian opera on the stage of Tbilisi Opera House,
which, by that time, already had 70 year-old history. The opera was staged by Alek-
sandre Tsutsunava, greatest Georgian opera director, who from 1918 was appointed
manager (commissar) of the Opera House. Scenographer was Al. Salzmann, German
painter residing in Tbilisi (as a caricaturist, he actively collaborated with the Georgian
press), conductor – S. Stollermann. Role of Rustaveli was performed by Vano Sara-
jishvili, that of Tamar – by Spitko. A booklet dedicated to the opera, with the text by
Iliko Abashidze, was published.
111
Culture and Art
On 21 February, “Abesalom da Eteri” was premiered. The author was conduct-
ing. Role of Eteri was performed by O. Khakhutashvili-Shulgina, that of Abesalom
– by Zalipskiy, that of Murman – by S. Inashvili; director and scenographer were
again Tsutsunava and Salzmann, respectively (several reproductions of the decora-
tions sketches were published in the journal “Teat’ri da Tskhovreba”, 1919, №1).
“Opera was attended by very many people, including representatives of the foreign
states. The evening had left inerasable impression on the public and had acquired
festive character”.24
On 25 February, newspaper “Sakartvelo” published comprehensive review by
Inen on “Abesalom”: he praised many things with enthusiasm, he considered certain
things unnecessary and to be taken out (in fact, Paliashvili took out certain passages).
Many other reviews were also written on both operas. All stated that this was a great
event in the history of the national culture, but made some critical comments as well.
On 25 February of the same year, “as a mark of Z. Paliahsvili’s gratuitous work”,
his opera was staged again. “Public greeted the author with great sympathy and ap-
plauded him with proper ovations. Representatives of the Government also attended
the opera. As a sign of respect, the Government awarded ten thousand roubles to Z.
Paliashvili and a special badge depicting a lyre and the coat of arms of Georgia”.25
Earlier, on the premiere of the “Tkmuleba”, Dimitri Arakishvili was also awarded.
On 11 December, 1919, for the first time staged was Viktor Dolidze’s “Keto da
K’ot’e”, which, similar to Paliashvili’s “Abesalom” is up to now on the stage and was
also performed beyond the boundaries of Georgia.
Discussion of these operas far exceeds both, the limits of aims of this article
and my competence. But I think it necessary to quote the words of D. Arakishvili
and Z. Paliashvili from their autobiographies. These words are essential for the un-
derstanding of their artistic credo.
D. Arakishvili: “I try to stretch invisible threads between Georgia and Europe.
I think that purely national creativity, with a tint of ethnographic character, will be
of merely local significance, which is, certainly, noteworthy, but which, at the same
time, will not exceed the boundaries, exactly because it would be coloured with the
local paints only. That is why, to give Georgian musical creativity general character,
boundaries of the creative activity should also be widened. One should create not in
112
Vakhtang Beridze
the ethnographic, local style, but equipped with the knowledge provided by the musi-
cal technique and European theory, one should use this technique in the formation of
the Georgian music. To put it shortly, one should create such music from the national
melodies, which will be similarly received both by the Georgians and the Europeans.
This is the opinion I share and try to realise in my creative activity”.26
Z. Paliashvili: “My foremost aim and striving, in every my work, was and will
always be that “harmoniser” or author of the Georgian melodies should not betray
the principle, which is the primary treasure. In the treatment or creation of the folk
melodies, this principle implies complete and pure preservation of the Georgian “co
louring”, born from the heart of the people. Certainly, this should be shaped in Euro-
pean, or rather, world musical forms and based on its musical canons and technically
elaborated. I am, and will always be, supporter of this principle, since this is the only
way, which can contribute to the efflorescence of our musical art and develop it”.27
These two texts, actually, express one and the same general idea in different
words, which is shortly formulated in the very first sentence of D. Arakishvili: “I try
to stretch invisible threads between Georgia and Europe”. It is significant that the
position of Georgian composers, their “direction” principally coincides with the aims
of Georgian writers and most talented painters – it was exactly what would answer
requirements of the new epoch.
Other remarkable steps in the life of the Tbilisi Opera House were performance
of foreign operas in Georgian: translated and staged were “The Barber of Seville” by
G. Rossini and “Demon” by A. Rubinstein. This initiative was, regretfully, not main-
tained in the succeeding years, ceased quite soon.
Years of Independence seem to be a kind of transitional period in the history of
Georgian theatre.
Similar to the case of other branches of culture, here the problem of the old and
new was also very acute. In 1919, Akaki Pagava wrote: “we repeatedly spoke and
wrote about the Georgian drama. Old should necessarily die, to give birth to the new
– and now we clearly see that the old theatre, although distinguished and deservedly
celebrated, is, nonetheless, dying. No one should feel hurt at this, since it is absolutely
natural, because nothing happens without the time and space. That is why, the old
should pass away as an outdated”. The author mentions great figures of the old theatre
113
38. d. kakabaZe, `imeruli naturmorti~, 1918
D. Kakabadze, “Imeretian Still-life“, 1918
Culture and Art
– Mako Saparova, Vaso Abashidze, Nino Chkheidze, Lado Meskhishvili and others
with respect, but he thinks that the new theatre has new tasks to solve. He and, simi-
larly, Mikheil Koreli underline low professionalism of the actors, general low level of
the theatrical culture.28
Great hopes were anchored on the Studio founded in 1918 by Giorgi Jandieri,
newly returned from France (there he worked in Odeon Theatre). First performance of
the Studio (Brieux’ play “Religion”) was mentioned with praise, were glad that “intel-
lectual young generation, enthusiasts of the work on stage and creative activity, flocks
around the Studio” (members of the Studio were Veriko Anjaparidze, Mikheil Ge-
lovani, Akaki Vasadze, Shalva Gambashidze, Ushangi Chkheidze, Mikheil Chiaureli).
The Studio has staged plays by Rostane, Hauptmann, Sio Chanturishvili. G. Jabadari
took his job very seriously. He even had enough time to publish a book in Georgian
“Diktsia Msakhiobebis da Orat’orebisatvis” (Diction for Actors and Orators). But the
Studio seems likely to have been hindered by numerous obstacles, in 1920 it was
closed and Jandieri returned to France.
In 1920, the journal “Teat’ri da Tskhovreba” (№1), over-viewing the situation
of the previous year, wrote: “Drama is in a bad state. 1919 season started in the State
Theatre, but, due to the conflict with the administration, the troupe was left in the
street. Now they perform at the Georgian Club”. The situation changed drastically,
when in 1920, “Tbilisi City Board decided to forcefully take away Artistic Society
building from Yuzbashev” and handed it over to the Georgian drama (this is present
Rustaveli Theatre building).29
Notwithstanding such a critical attitude, it should be stated that Georgian theatre
also had certain success. Kutaisi Theatre, headed by Mikh. Chiaureli and Al. Imedash-
vili, worked very actively, although it had serious financial problems (Kutaisi availed
of its own “Dramatic Society”). In those years, in Georgian theatre active were fol-
lowers of the Moscow Arts Theatre (those, who had worked at that Theatre, or those,
who had received their education there): Al. Tsutsunava, who paid particular attention
to the opera theatre, highly talented Valerian Shalikashvili, who had passed away very
early (in 1919), Akaki Pagava, Mikh. Koreli, Aleksandre Akhmeteli just started with
his first bold artistic experiments.
Georgian Dramatic Society showed certain activity – announced enrolment to
116
Vakhtang Beridze
the new Studio, nominated awards for the best original play.30 In 1918, “Teat’ri da
Tskhovreba” (№6) published information, maybe, forgotten by many, nowadays – on
7-12 March annual meeting of the Georgian Artists’ Union was held (Shalva Dadiani
was elected Chairman of the Society). It was resolved to invite “famous Kote Marjan-
ishvili” as a director. At that time, he could not manage to come, he headed Rustaveli
Theatre only from 1922 and, as is known, revival of the Georgian theatre is connected
with his name proper.
From the theatrical life of those years, also noteworthy is the fact that several
workers’ theatres were opened, jubilees of famous actors were organised, e.g., that of
Viktor Gamkrelidze in 191831, of Vaso Abashidze in 191932. According to the report of
Vakht. Garrice, it was a true fete; tours were organised, e.g., of Aleksandre Imedash-
vili (“Othello” was performed)33; in those years, actors of the Moscow Arts Theatre
(Vas. Kachalov, among them) performed in Tbilisi for quite a long time, which, doubt-
less, was an important event in the cultural life of Tbilisi (announcements and reviews
were published in the contemporaneous newspapers).
As far as I am concerned, Georgian feature film created in 1918-20 is not pre-
served and is neither mentioned anywhere. But it is known that the first Georgian
feature film “Kristine” (after E. Ninoshvili’s story) was shot in 1916, by the director
Al. Tsutsunava, camera-man was Al. Digmelov, later on he was long enough active in
Georgian cinematograph, painter was Dim. Shevardnadze, who can be considered a
pioneer in this sphere of national cinematograph, producer was Germane Gogitidze,
actual founder and organiser of the Georgian cinematograph. Main role was played
by Aneta Abolishvili, co-starring were famous actors of the Georgian theatre – Vaso
Abashidze, Vaso Arabidze, Tsetsilia Tsutsunava, Giorgi Pronispireli, Niko Gvaradze
and others.
If we avail of no other contemporary feature film, documentary films were pro-
duced quite early and this sphere was quite active at that time. Akaki Tsereteli’s voy-
age to Racha, filmed in 1912 by Vasil Amashukeli is widely known at present (before
that, he had already shot several films), but everything that was filmed during the
years of Independence, was hidden and inaccessible up to recently. It appeared that
much interesting was filmed (here again, Germ. Gogitidze was the leader), e.g., open-
ing of the Constituent Assembly, entry of the army of Democratic Republic of Georgia
117
Culture and Art
into Batumi, parade of 26 May, arrival of the foreign guests (delegations) and their
stay in Tbilisi, show of the Shevardeni (Falcon) sportsmen. S. Esadze, Director of
the Military-Historical Archive, had filmed funeral of Catholicos-Patriarch Kirion II,
assassinated in late June 1918 (the film is now lost).
There is information that in Europe documentary films on various monuments of
Georgia were being shown, as well as films with the participation of Georgian actors,
but it is unknown, when or by whom were these films shot. According to G. Gogitidze,
after having filmed “Kristine”, he decided that, due to the difficulties, including fi-
nancial problems, he would be unable to manage everything alone. “It became clear
to me that such an important business, as film industry, should, doubtlessly, be in the
hands of the State or a public organisation. My choice stopped on the cooperative
“Tsekavshiri”34. This organisation accepted my offer and the movie film “Kristine”,
together with it. To the same institution I handed over several newsreels filmed with
my own expenses”.35
As is known, development of the Georgian feature cinematograph belongs to the
succeeding decades.
During the years of Independence of Georgia, remarkable place in the life of
the Georgian intelligentsia was occupied by the sport. Society Shevardeni, head-
ed by the famous sportsmen and public figures – Giorgi Egnatashvili, Giorgi and
Tamar Nikoladzes, Data Javrishvili, Archil Bakradze, Gaioz Berelashvili, Giorgi
Merkviladze and others. Foundation of the Society was initiated by Giorgi Nikoladze,
before that founder and Head of one of the “Sokol”s (Falcon) in Petrograd, winner
of many sport awards. Shevardeni existed in 1918-1923 (Shevardeni was preceded
by the Society “Sok’oli”). Special attention was paid to the gymnastics, as well as
other sports. Shevardeni organised public shows, namely, participated in the 26 May
celebrations – in Vake Quarter, where there is a park at present – during the last years
of its existence, the Society published a journal “Shevardeni” (non-permanent organ
of the Union of Georgian Shevardnebi [Falcons]), Editor of the journal was above
mentioned physician Soso Aslanishvili, versatile public figure; members of the Edi
torial Board were: Giorgi Egnatashvili, Tamar Nikoladze, Ivane Machavariani. The
Society managed to publish the first issue of the journal only in January 1922, but the
entire material was prepared earlier and reflected activities of the previous years. The
118
Vakhtang Beridze
journal shows, how seriously Shevardeni leaders looked at their mission, righteously
considering it of national significance. Published material makes it clear that the Soci-
ety actively promoted sports all over Georgia, tried to attract boys and girls from the
childhood, elaborated Georgian sport terminology, held trainings in Georgian, drafted
manuals (in 1921, “Kartuli Modzravi Tamashobebi” [Georgian Outdoor Games] by
G. Merkviladze was published), in the journal methodological articles were published.
In the preface of G. Merkviladze’s book, Soso Aslanishvili wrote: “Shevardeni as
a vigorous power rushed into the life of our people, bringing certain turbulence into its
tranquillity and cosiness, went into the people for their own benefit, with the love for
them . . . Shevardeni is the child of the people, Shevardeni curbs sound republicans for
Georgia, Shevardeni forms strong, hardened generation . . . Shevardeni brings beauty,
swiftness, Shevardeni is the symbol of beauty. And this is the main reason of such a
successful development of the Shevardeni idea in Georgia”. In 1923, Shevardeni was
annulled as ideologically inacceptable, since it did not betray traditions of the period
of Independent Georgia.
119
Culture and Art
Finally, Democratic Republic of Georgia had its own national anthem “Dideba”
(Glory), its own coat of arms and flag. Author of the anthem words and music was
Kote Potskhverashvili, of the coat of arms – famous painter Joseph Charlemagne,
residing in Georgia, of the flag – sculptor Iakob Nikoladze.
At present, this anthem, coat of arms and flag, denied and forgotten for 70 years,
again returned to Georgia.36
Thus, we can definitely say that short existence of the Independent Georgia and
those years that preceded it, is an organic part of the history of our national culture, a
part, without which natural picture of development is absolutely disfigured; moreover,
this is the most significant landmark, which marks higher level reached by the Geor-
gian culture, a bold step towards managing latest achievements of the world science,
literature and art.
Georgian artistic intelligentsia fully comprehending their mission, with the great-
est responsibility started to lay the foundation to the independent national culture.
Over the shortest spell, they managed to reveal great creative potential of the na-
tion, to show that Georgian people is worth finding its own place within the modern
civilised world. And, although, having lost Independence, Georgia had to follow a
complex and hard way, all that was laid foundation to, had not vanished without any
traces. It is in those years that roots for many positive endeavours (of entire branches
of culture) should be sought, which were accomplished in the succeeding period on
the expense of great patriotic zeal, diligent work and self-sacrifice.
1992
120
Vakhtang Beridze
Notes
1. It is quite a characteristic (widely known, at present) fact that, when, in late
19th c., construction of the Georgian Gymnasium building started in Tbilisi, Nikoloz
Tskhvedadze, supervisor of the construction activities, well-known public figure and
other trustees of the Gymnasium, envisaged that this building would soon house then
non-existent Georgian University. This is also confirmed by the large-scale of the
building. It was neither casual that for the elaboration of the Gymnasium design pro-
posal they invited not any famous and experienced architect, but as yet unknown and
young Simon Kldiashvili (1865-1920), the first Georgian architect, who had received
his professional education in accordance with the European standards.
2. Concerning this Society see: R. Metreveli, Sakartvelos Saistorio da Saet-
nograpio Sazogadoeba (Historical and Ethnographic Society of Georgia), Tb., 1982.
3. Mazra - uyezd – lowest administrative division in Russian Empire (translator).
4. For these expeditions of Ek. Takaishvili, see: Materialỵ po Arkheologii Kavka-
za (Materials on the Archaeology of the Caucasus), vol. XII, Moscow, 1901; Ek. Taq’aish-
vili, Arkeologiuri Eksp’editsia K’ola-Oltisshi da Changlshi 1907 Ts’els (Archaeolo
gical Expedition to Kola-Oltisi and Changli in 1907), Paris, 1938; Idem, 1917 Ts’lis
Arkeologiuri Eksp’editsia Samkhret Sakartveloshi (1917 Archaeological Expedition
to Southern Georgia), Tb., 1960.
5. Newspaper “Sakartvelo” (Georgia), 1918.11.01., №8.
6. Newspaper “Sakartvelo” (Georgia), 1918.25.01., №20.
7. Ibid., 1918.18.01., №14.
8. B. Ramishvili, D. Shvelidze, P’irveli Dadgenilebebi (Ganatlebis Sist’ema
Sakartvelos Demok’rat’iul Resp’ublik’ashi) (First Decrees [Education System in the
Democratic Republic of Georgia]), newspaper “Gaenati”, №1, 1991.28.06.
9. Eroba - zemstvo – local rural self-governance body, elective district council in
Russian Empire (translator).
10. Kartveli Khalkhis Samsjavroze (For the Discussion of the Georgian Nation),
Paris, 1966, p. 11.
11. Niko Lortkipanidze started his literary activity in 1902, Mikheil Javakhish
121
Culture and Art
vili – in 1903, Geronti Kikodze – in 1905, I. Grishashvili and S. Shansiashvili – in
1906; Galaktion Tabidze published his first verses in 1908, Leo Kiacheli, his first
story – in 1909, Titsian Tabidze and Paolo Iashvili, their first verses – in 1911, Vakht.
Kotetishvili, his first articles – in 1912, first verses and critical articles by Konst.
Gamsakhurdia were published in 1914.
12. Tsisperq’ants’elebi – members of the group Tsisperi Q’ants’ebi (Blue Wine-
horns) (translator).
13. It seems likely that Futurists felt themselves quite free here, they were incre
dibly active: they founded organisations, formed groups (“Put’urist’ebis Sindik’at’i”
[Syndicate of Futurists], group “410”, which broke away from the “Syndicate”), or-
ganised cycles of presentations and lectures on Futurism and Futurists, often with
“shocking” titles – this was their well-tried mode (e.g., “Lyubovnoe Priklyuchenie
Mayakovskogo” [Love Adventure of Mayakovski], “O Teatre v Tupike [On the The-
atre in a Deadlock]; Futu na Podmostkakh, o Kinematografakh i Miniatyurakh, o
Stsenakh Marionetti, Tarto, Vsyakoy Vsyachine i Svoikh Dra” [Futu on the Stage, on
Cinematographs and Miniatures, on the Scenes of Marionetti, Tarto, Odds and Ends
and Their Own Dra]; “Vecher Intuitivnoy i Bezumnoy Poezii” [Evening of the Intui-
tive and Crazy Poetry], etc.), organised exhibitions of the Futurist painters, etc.
Besides, there was the so called Aristerium in Tbilisi (already founded before the
declaration of Independence), which systematically organised serious presentations
(in Russian) on poetry and art (lectures were often delivered by Grigol Robakidze),
exhibitions of Tbilisian and visiting painters. Kruchonikh, who resided in Tbilisi in
1916-late 1918, was the main protagonist of Futurism.
14. In 1913, opening of Ilia Chavchavadze’s tomb, with the figure of Mourning
Georgia by I. Nikoladze, was a fact of great public significance, while the monument
proper is one of the remarkable samples of the Georgian sculpture.
15. K’int’o – a kind of hawker in Old Tbilisi (translator).
16. Khashi – a kind of soup made of boiled offal (translator).
17. Archive of the Society of Georgian Artists is kept at the State Museum of Art.
18. All these “Societies”, “Unions” and “Choirs”, their history, deserve a special study.
19. “Teat’ri da Tskhovreba”, 1918, 2.06., №8.
20. Newspaper “Sakhalkho Sakme” (Public Matter), 1918, 4.06., №248.
122
Vakhtang Beridze
21. Newspaper “Sakartvelo”, 1919, 13.01., №102.
22. Ibid., 1920, 9.06., №95.
23. “Teat’ri da Tskhovreba”, 1918, №№8 and 14.
24. Journal “Teat’ri da Musik’a” (Theatre and Music), 1919, №1, p. 65.
25. Ibid.
26. Journal “Teat’ri da Musik’a”, 1919, №1, pp. 12-13.
27. Ibid., p. 25. From the same autobiography: “Our Government seems likely to
wish to encourage certain public figures and improve their material situation. Some
Georgian composers, including me, were awarded one-time assistance of thousand
tumani (10 roubles) each; for this most praise-worthy decision of our Government, all
of us express our great respect and deep gratitude to it”.
28. Ak. Pagava, Kartuli Sastseno Khelovneba (Georgian Theatrical Art), journ.
“Teat’ri da Musik’a”, 1919, №1, pp. 6-7; Mikh. Koreli, Chveni Stsenis Dghevandeli
Sach’iroeba (Present-day Needs of Our Theatre), journ. “Teat’ri da Musik’a”, pp. 27-36.
29. “Teat’ri da Tskhovreba”, 1920, №6, 15.02.
30. Newspaper “Sakhalkho Sakme”, 1918, №253.
31. Newspaper “Sakhalkho Sakme”, 1918, №253.
32. Newspaper “Sakartvelo”, 1919, №51.
33. Newspaper “Sakhalkho Sakme”, 1918, 5.04., №213.
34. Tsekavshiri – Central Union of Cooperatives (translator).
35. Aleksandre Gventsadze, Ep’izodebi Damouk’idebeli Sakartvelos K’ine-
mat’ograpiuli Tskhovrebidan (Episodes from the Cinematographic Life of the Inde-
pendent Georgia), journal “Cinema”, 1991, №5, pp. 4-6.
36. In 2004, new national symbols were adopted: coat of arms with the image of
St. George, flag with five crosses and anthem “Freedom” (translator).
123
40. d. kakabaZe, “Zveli Tbilisi”, 1918-1919 (anot. 1)
D. Kakabadze, “Old Tbilisi”, 1918-1919 (annot. 1)
Dimitri Tumanishvili
Appendix
Architecture and Construction Activities
in 1917-1920 in Georgia
Dimitri Tumanishvili
1917-1921, the time of the “Great Russian Revolution” and Democratic Republic
of Georgia, is both, the “white spot” and the gap in the history of our architecture – it
seems as if construction activities stopped in 1915-1916 and restarted in 1921-1922.
One of the reasons of this is the Soviet “tradition”, which had given credit to
Bolsheviks even for the foundation of Tpilisi University; second – that nothing in the
architecture and construction activities of that period can be comparable with the con-
temporary poetry and prose, neither with the 1919 exhibition of the Georgian painters,
nor with the great opera premieres of the same 1919.
And still – this is far not the time of emptiness and fruitlessness. This is evi-
denced by the contemporary press, excerpts of which constitute the contents of the
present article. For the sake of objectiveness, periodicals of diverse political parties
are referred to – governmental organ “Sakartvelos Resp’ublik’a” (Republic of Geor-
gia), that of the Social-Democrats, the ruling party (i.e., official, for the greatest part)
“Ertoba” (Unity), that of the Socialist-Federalists “Sakhalho Sakme” (Public Matter),
that of the National-Democrats “Sakartvelo” (Georgia); besides – “Kavkasiis Kalaki”
(City of the Caucasus), a newspaper of the Caucasian Cities Union (it formed part of
the All-Russian Cities Union), later, of the Georgian Cities Union and from 1919 had
turned into “Eroba da Kalaki” (Eroba and City), a joint organ of the “Cities Union”
125
Architecture and Construction Activities
and Union of Erobas.
Discussion of purely engineering and infrastructure projects, such as paving of
the streets, construction of the water pipelines, paying and repair of roads, electrifica-
tion, establishment of the postal service units, arrangement of the telephone stations,
reinforcement of the rivers banks (e.g., river Rioni), would take us too far; but all this
was implemented in those years, slowly and with difficulties, but still, all over Geor-
gia, both in the cities and in the countryside, as a continuation of what was initiated
earlier.
Let us just have a look on what was built at that period, e.g.: in 1917 – a theatre
in Gurjaani (Sakhalho Sakme, 1917, №17) and a reading room in Kapana (Ertoba,
1918, №156); in 1919 – a courthouse in Najikhevi (Sakhalho Sakme, №686), a theatre
in Surami (Sakhalho Sakme, №669; Kavkasiis Kalaki, 1919, №№13-15); in 1920 –
Nadzaladevi workers’ club in Tbilisi (Sakhalho Sakme, №816), K. Kautski House of
the People’s Guard (Ertoba, 1920, №281); schools in Shukhuti (Ertoba, 1920, №198)
and Gverki (Sakartvelos Resp’ublik’a, 1920, №181), people’s house1 in Tobanieri
(Ertoba, 1920, №240); and what was under construction, e.g.: schools in Tobanieri
(Ertoba, 1919, №113) and in Tskemi (Ertoba, 1920, №232) or – quite surprising
at that epoch, when atheism was gaining strength – a church in Chiatura (Sakart-
velos Resp’ublik’a, 1920, №102); besides, foundation was laid, e.g.: for the people’s
house in Chancheti (Ertoba, 1918, №248; 1920, №178), or E. Ninoshvili Agricultural
School in Chanceti (Ertoba, 1919, №89).
One cannot say, this is too much and, on the other hand, these buildings would,
likely, have been of quite mediocre architectural merits. Noteworthy is, in this re-
spect, accentuation of the fact that certain buildings (e.g., above mentioned school
in Tobanieri, or a college in Onodia [Ertoba, 1918, №138]) were built of stone. All
the more, bringing to mind photographs of the schools constructed by the Society for
Spreading Literacy among Georgians before the Revolution, it is obvious that “great”
architecture was unlikely to be expected. At the same time:
a. It should be taken into account that all this, similar to the previous period –
1890s and 1900s – was, actually, a local, grass-root initiative: that of the private per-
sons, rural communities, urban self-governance bodies – e.g., referring to the workers’
club in Nadzaladevi, it is underlined that the construction was financed by the workers
126
Dimitri Tumanishvili
127
Architecture and Construction Activities
markable is that a contest for the design proposals of the “people’s house” in Senak i was
launched and, actually, held! (the exhibition was opened on 23.11.1919 – Sakhalkho
Sakme, 1919, №689). Design proposals were elaborated for several public buildings
in Ozurgeti, namely, “people’s house”, gymnasiums for boys and girls, City Council
building and the hospital (K’avk’asiis Kalaki, 1919, №4, p. 70). Laying of the foun-
dation for the Poti port workers’ house was welcomed with great enthusiasm by the
wide public (e.g., Ertoba, 1920, №182); this building was also thoroughly planned:
according to the information of the “Sakhalkho Sakme” correspondent, signed by his
pseudonym “Ikauri” (local inhabitant), it was designed as a two-storey brick structure
with the lecture hall, dining room, office, ambulatory care clinic, etc.).
As yet, only one project proposal is know, elaborated by the engineer Niko
Tumanishvili – a vast Neo-Classicist architectural complex to be built on the
bank of river Rioni for the sport society “Shevardeni”. It reflects contempora-
neus public taste and indicates high professionalism of its author (“Shevardeni,”
1920, №1, 24-26).
129
Architecture and Construction Activities
Alteration and transformation works were also undertaken at that period – e.g., in
Telavi, movie theatre was transformed into the so called “new theatre” by the Arme-
nian Charity Society (Sakhalkho Sakme, 1919, №629); in Dusheti, local sub-division
of the People’s Guard enlarged one of the old barracks (according to another evidence
– military club) and transformed it into a theatre (the latter proved quite “unlucky” and
vanished in fire in November of the same 1920 – cf., Ertoba, 1920, №140 and №272).
However, most interesting seem to be transformation works carried out in 1920, in
130
Dimitri Tumanishvili
Kutaisi theatre building, during which its audience hall, stage and foyer were, all,
enlarged (cf., Ertoba, 1920, №№181 and 231).
Moreover: deliberation and care for the architecture of the public buildings is
quite obvious. In 1919, S. Robakidze, Head of the Education Unit of the Cities Union,
published an article “Construction of Schools” (K’avk’asis Kalaki, №2, pp. 20-26;
№3, pp. 17-24; №4, pp. 31-35), in which he detailed number of rooms necessary for
the school, desirable capacities of the site to be allotted, interior fixtures and fittings
(lighting, etc.). The same year, on the II Convention of the same Union, S. Robakidze
put forward the issue of the necessity to staff the Union Unit by an engineer-techni-
cian and a paramedic-physician, who would elaborate project proposals for the diverse
school building typologies and submit them to the self-governance bodies (K’avk’asi-
is Kalaki, 1919, №5-6, p. 31). “Technical Unit” of this Union seems to have been
quite effective – majority of the above mentioned projects (at least, those for Ozurgeti,
Surami) were drafted by this particular Unit (see presentation of Z. Zurabyan, Head
of the Unit on the same Convention of the Union – K’avk’asiis Kalaki, 1919, №5-
6, p. 70). This Unit had also elaborated typical design projects for the hospitals and
bath-houses (four, for each typology – V. Mnovich, Zemskaya i Gorodskaya Zhisn’
[Zemstvo and Urban Life], Eroba da Kalaki, 1920, №7, p. 43), etc.
Certain urban development activities were also undertaken. As early as 1918, the
same “Technical Unit” had prepared urban planning project proposal for the cities
of Georgia (K’avk’asiis Kalaki, 1918, №13-14, p. 46). Next year, Main Executive
Committee of the Cities Union considered “elaboration of the City Plans” necessary
and even formed a group of land-surveyors, headed by the engineer N. Sokolov. But
even more remarkable might be the aims of these works – and these were “putting in
order” and “embellishment” of the cities (K’avk’asiis Kalaki, 1919, №11-12, p. 17).
Report of the “Technical and Production Unit” (M. Rusia) states that without plans it
is impossible “to build and put in order the young cities” (Ertoba, 1919, №64). Thus,
the goal, would, doubtlessly, have been implementation of certain urban development
actions in the future. Some of them were, actually, undertaken in those years, e.g., in
August 1918, “technician” Rcheulishvili (this is, surely, Dimitri (Tito) Rcheulishvili,
father of Prof. Levan Rcheulishili3) presented the project proposal for the improve-
ments in Telavi, which envisaged not only construction of the water supply system,
131
paving of the streets, reinforcement of the stone-bank
and arrangement of a bridge over it, but also repair
of the railway station and building of fifty “taverns”
(Ertoba, 1918, №166). In 1919, two new streets were
to be laid in Chiatura – one, behind the railway sta-
tion and one, in the “Lezhavas Quarter” (K’avk’siis
Kalaki, 1919, №18-19, p. 34). In 1919-1920, during
one year of “turning Lanchkhuti into a town”, ac-
cording to the correspondent, “fine and wide streets
were arranged in Lanchkhuti; a bath-house and an
electric station were built . . . (Meteor, Lanchkhuti
Town, Ertoba, 1920, №177). On 19.02.1920, Tbilisi
City Council made a decision to widen 19 February
street, applying the mode, quite unusual for present
– simultaneously replacing old houses with the new
ones (Sakartvelos Resp’ublik’a, 1920, №212).
Of no less – I rather think, of greater – interest
are two more things:
a. In 1920, in Ozurgeti, not only laying and “cor-
rection” of roads and streets was prohibited (only re-
pair was allowed!), but also new construction activ-
ities and even “major repairs”, before the City “Plan
was approved” (Eroba da Kalaki, 1920, №7, p. 45)
– this is a doubtless evidence of an intention “to make
the city more regular”! That this was not a private
whim, but a response to the demand of the wide pub-
lic, is confirmed by the following:
b. A group of land owners of Tsnori-Tskali, a
settlement developed around the railway station,
concerned with the fact that the settlement was being
built “without a system”, “without a plan”, demanded
from the Mazra Eroba to send them a “technician”
Dimitri Tumanishvili
and if there was no other way, they were ready to cover all the costs (Sakhalkho
Sakme, 1920, №984). Thus, they, village inhabitants, wished to have “correct” plan-
ning, regularity had become adequate to the general daily and aesthetic requirements.
At the same period, new urban development ideas also begin to find their way
in Georgia. On 07.04.1917 a Society “Settlement Garden” (the Trustees: M. Aruti-
nyan, V. Rokhlin, A. Loskutova, G. Eliozov) was founded in Tbilisi; it seems, the
Society was aimed at establishing “Town-Garden” in Georgia (Ertoba, 1917, №214).
That this was far not a groundless fantasy, but quite a possible thing, is confirmed by
K. Machavariani’s article “Garden-City in Guria” (Ertoba, 1918, №49), in which he
speaks about building of a garden-city in Grigoleti, initiated by Sergi Anisimov and
the author, seems likely to sympathise with the endeavour4. It should also be noted
that construction of the above mentioned theatre in Surami was perceived, as a com-
ponent part of the efforts undertaken by Shakro Khidirbegishvili, Mayor of the town,
and his associates “to turn Surami into fully adorned and neat resort site” (Sakhalkho
Sakme, 1919, №669) – i.e., here again, certain purposefulness, intentional striving
is discernible, which would, necessarily, comprise certain artistic and architectural
(even vague) idea-ideal.
All activities discussed above were undertaken during the works for the rehabili
tation-rebuilding of Gori, in response to the devastating earthquake of 20.02.1920,
which had ruined Gori and its neighbouring villages. Approximately in a week af-
133
Architecture and Construction Activities
ter the disaster, Gori “Rebuilding” Commission was formed, headed by the engineer
Grigol Kurdiani (Ertoba, 28.02.1920, №47). In one more week, further to the request
of the “Artistic Centre” (headed by Kote Makashvili), Noe Zhordania included Di
mitri Shevardnadze into the Commission5, so that “immediately attention is paid to the
cultural and artistic planning of Gori and the villages” (Sakhalkho Sakme, 06.03.1920,
№177). A bit earlier, on 28 February, on a meeting of the “Georgian Technicians
Society”, it was concluded that the place, where Gori and the ruined villages should
be built, was to be identified; types of the “firm” houses were to be elaborated and devel-
opment should be undertaken in accordance with these types, “new plans” and the last
word of technology; for these purposes, the Society formed its own task group: Mi
kheil Kaukhchishvili (Head), Vasil Kakabadze, Ivane Avaliani (ibid). On 09.03.1920,
Extraordinary Governmental Commission appealed to the owners of the ruined hous-
es, requesting to suspend construction of the houses, since the proposal of the “seis-
mic proof” house was already drafted and in a month’s time the model would be
available (Ertoba, 1920, №55). On 17 May, initial terms and conditions of the contest
for the typical project of the “seismic proof” house (with two options – for the lowland
and for the sloping areas) were published (members of the contest commission were:
Gr. Kurdiani, Gabriel Ter-Melikov, I. Richgorski-Savich; Sakartvelos Resp’ublik’a,
1920, №84; reprinted in №№85-87). Results of the contest were published on 27
June (Ertoba, 1920, №143). First “prize” was not given, second – was awarded to the
proposal with the motto “Saklya” (highlanders’ dwelling); proposal “Vesyi” (scales)
“was also purchased”. It seems likely that, due to this, “obligatory resolutions” for the
construction works (separately for the clay, wooden, brick and stone buildings) were
elaborated and in early july published (Sakartvelos Resp’ublik’a, 1920, №№149-184,
157, 160-161). They define, what we now call, acceptable parameters, violation of
which – as evidenced by the title – was considered inacceptable and impossible. In
the beginning of August, opinion of the Geological Commission became known –
rebuilt Gori was to be developed at a certain distance from its initial location, on the
hills closer to Uplistsikhe (Ertoba, 1920, №173) – this, certainly, is indicative of a
comprehensively thought off planning.
And again – as far as the local initiative is concerned: already in the beginning
of April, local Eroba had purchased a land plot for the construction of private houses
134
Dimitri Tumanishvili
(Ertoba, №90) and by the end of May “Union of the Immovable Property Owners –
Victims of the Earthquake” was founded. The latter availed of the Technical Unit,
responsible for drafting of plans and cost estimations, preparation of requests and
petitions, purchase and selling of buildings (Ertoba, 1920, №122). Private opinion
concerning the future of Gori was also expressed. Supported by Badriashvili, Mayor
of the City, a certain Moseshvili, Moscovite engineer (residing in Moscow? arrived
from Moscow?) proposed to turn Gori into a garden-city. This time, the proposal was
considered disputable – at least, Zak. Kitiashvili, correspondent of the newspaper
“Sakartvelo” strongly objected to it, since its implementation would require felling
of the extant gardens and demolition of the survived buildings (Sakartvelo, 1920,
№106). On the other hand, this is one more proof that the idea of the “garden-city”
was quite stirring at that period in Georgia.
I think it righteous to touch upon the “monuments protection” issues, since the
Bolshevik government credited itself for not only solving the problems, but even for
putting them forward. In this respect as well, available material shows somewhat dif-
ferent picture, although, far not simple and straightforward. The situation is quite
remarkably revealed by the article “Gori Fortress Is Vanishing” by “Sanganidze”
(Sakhalkho Sakme, 1918, №265). He states that, in the past, Gori Fortress was well
patronized by the General Ivane Givi Amilakhvari (he had stabilized its walls, planted
a garden within and installed a water supply system).6 Although, continues the corre-
spondent, 1905 Revolution has brought the hatred towards the past, but up to recently,
the Fortress was, at least, guarded – and now, there is no guard, the Fortress church
is ravaged and desecrated, etc. However, most characteristic are words of a certain
People’s Guard member, said on one of the mass-meetings – “Gori is a beautiful city,
if not disfigured by an old fortress” – quoted in the article. That such an attitude was
not casual, is confirmed by the following: on 20.10.1919, on a meeting of the Tbilisi
City Council, Benia Chkhikvishvili, a well-known Social-Democrat, proposed to re-
move the name of Erekle II from one of the schools, since he was a king (Sakhalkho
Sakme, №659). He was, certainly, opposed by the National-Democrats and Social-
ist-Federalists. Responding to this, Federalist “Sitkva” (word) (pseudonym of Samson
Pirtskhalava) among others, quoted words of Irakli (Kako) Trsereteli, famous orator
of Russian and Georgian Social-Democracy – “I abhor the past” (Sakhalkho Sakme,
135
Architecture and Construction Activities
№663). In his another article, “Sitkva” explained his own viewpoint, stating that it
was his “misfortune” that Erekle II was born as a king, but he must be given credit
for all the good he had brought to the nation (Sakhalkho Sakme, №669). Here one
can clearly see, to what an extent dubious was an attitude towards the past at that
period and how it ranged – almost apologetic in National-Democrats, respect mixed
with the skepticism in Socialist-Federalists and denial in Social-Democrats. It is quite
obvious that the general situation was not that simple, such a generalization makes it
too “single-dimensional”. There was sufficient number of educated persons among
Georgian Social-Democrat-”Mensheviks” (a few even among “Bolsheviks” – Davit
Kandelaki, Ivane Kavtaradze . . .), who had a good understanding of all values (Grigol
Lortkipanidze, Ivane Gomarteli, Viktor Nozadze . . .), while the general ratio was,
doubtlessly, such. At the same time, one of those, who spoke about the necessity of
protecting antiquities, was also Social-Democrat – Davit Turdospireli (Chkheidze).
On 17.05.1919, he published an article “Let’s Take Care of Old Georgia” in “Ertoba”
(№107), justifying his viewpoint based on the “case study” of Kvetera fortress-site.
Steps to safeguard the heritage of old Georgia were already undertaken before
the restoration of statehood. In February 1918, article 3 of the Statement of the Art
Section of the National Council,7 specifically mentions protection of the “historic
remnants”; the Section takes responsibility for the guardianship of them all and pro-
hibits their selling, restoration or excavation without the permission of the Section
(Sakartvelo, 1918, №42; Ertoba, 1918, №43). This is, doubtlessly, the first statement
of the State care for the antiquities in Georgia. In the current situation, it could not,
naturally, have been immediately realized. That was why, in 1919, looking at the
Garikula “Marshliant”8 Palace in Akhalkalaki in Kartli, a certain “Vigindara” (jerk)
wished, the State could take care of it (Sakhalkho Sakme, №472). By the end of the
same 1919, actual actions were also undertaken; namely, further to the request of the
Catholicosate Council, the Government intended to allocate 50 000 roubles for the
restoration of the churches (Sakhalkho Sakme, №648) – in December an Order was
issued to safeguard Gareji desert monasteries from the robbery (Ertoba, 1919, №268;
Sakartvelo, 1919, №237); on 30.12.1919, 1 000 000 roubles were earmarked for the
purchase of the museum objects (Sakartvelos Resp’ublik’a, 1920, №13). The latter
funding seems unlikely to be considerable – on 25.12.1919, 13 347 000 roubles were
136
Dimitri Tumanishvili
137
Architecture and Construction Activities
“put aside” for the maintenance of the diplomatic corps; however, once again, taking
into account contemporary hardship, even little should be considered much. But of the
uppermost significance is the fact that in October 1919, Ekvtime Takaishvili present-
ed to the Constituent Assembly a report on the protection of the “historic monuments
and remnants of culture”, prepared by the Commission of Art; based on this report,
he was authorised to prepare a draft law (Sakhalkho Sakme, 1919, №658). Future
fate of this particular law is not reflected in the press, but understanding of the State
responsibility for the preservation of the cultural heritage for the future is distinctly
discernible. In May 1920, Ministry of Internal Affairs sent a Circular to the rural and
urban self-governance bodies, requesting from them “to take measures, so that . . .
historic-archaeological buildings” (fortresses, churches, monasteries) “extant in the
region are safeguarded from the destruction and are timely repaired, if needed” and
to inform the Ministry about the objects of “archaeological significance” (Sakartvelos
Resp’ublik’a, 1920, №118). Almost simultaneously, on 20.05.1920, Constituent As-
sembly issued a Decree – of utmost importance! – “prohibiting export of . . . historic,
138
Dimitri Tumanishvili
archaeological, artistic and cult objects” from Georgia (Ertoba, 1920, №№117, 119).
At the same time, arrangement of the “monuments protection” became interwo-
ven with the problem of relations between the State and the Church. In the vision of
Socialists, i.e., atheists, their alienation was absolutely obvious and this had given
rise to a dilemma – the problem of the Church property, considerable (in our reality –
greatest) part of which was formed by the old churches and antique precious objects.
In the beginning of July 1920, a Commission for the elaboration of the protection
measures for the “valuable archaeological property” was established; the Commis-
sion was formed of the representatives of the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Internal
Affairs and Ecclesiastic Council (Ertoba, 07.07.1920, №151). In a week, “ Ertoba “
published an article “The Church and Us” as its editorial, in which it was stated that,
since the Church was no more “interwoven” with the State, it would be unable to
protect “cultural remnants” and the State should become their owner and everything,
excluding “icons for prayer” should be handed over to it. The same was also repeated
further on – in this newspaper and with a somewhat lesser boldness9 in the Federalists’
“Sakhalkho Gazeti” (1920, №№875, 885). Once, “Ertoba” (1920, №282, editorial
“Democratic State and the Clergy”) even wrote that in the past, property of the Church
belonged to the State, since they were indivisible, but now, this property should be
given to the State. Firstly, there is no great logic in these words and, secondly, their
author seems to be unaware that, in Georgia, at least, the property of the royal treas-
ury, of princes, nobility, etc. was one thing and the property of the Church – another.
Based on these prerequisites, legislative resolutions were elaborated in the au-
tumn of 1920 and before that, on 11.08.1920, Constituent Assembly “put aside” 2
000 000 roubles “for the protection and repairs of the monuments of old architecture”
(these works were to be supervised by the Ministry of Education and the Council of
the Museum of Georgia) (Ertoba, 1920, №№177, 182-183; Sakartvelos Resp’ublik’a,
1920, №188). For the sake of comparison, it should be noted that, simultaneously, 20
000 000 roubles were allocated for the rehabilitation of the schools destroyed by the
earthquake in Gori Mazra. Later on, funds for the heritage protection were, most like-
ly, increased (due to the inflation or devaluation?), since in December, from 10 000
000 roubles fund, 10 000 roubles were earmarked by the Government for the protec-
tion of Mgvimevi and 20 000 roubles – for Gelati (Ertoba, 1920, №279; Sakartvelos
139
Architecture and Construction Activities
Resp’ublik’a, 1920, №278), and before that (20.11.), separate funding was “found”
for the restoration of Gori Fortress (Ertoba, 1920, №273; Sakartvelo, 1920, №139).
As for the draft laws connected with the Church property, at first, state institu-
tions and self-governance bodies were prohibited to spend money on the religious
associations, but – apart from the chapels in the army garrisons, hospitals and prisons
– churches of the historic and artistic value were exceptions (see, e.g., Ertoba, 1920,
№241); later on (Ertoba, 1920, №251), Church property was handed over to the reli-
gious societies and only the “property” of historical and artistic significance was left
to the State, namely, under the management of the Ministry of Education. It is note-
worthy that, couple of weeks before this (21.10-04.11), Ministry of Education was
authorised “to compile a list of properties” of historic and artistic value (Ertoba, 1920,
№233). This law is, certainly, far better than the Soviet one, of later date, according to
which, even the clergymen’s vestments no longer belonged to the Church – the latter
was merely a tenant. But still, there were many difficulties, non-tackled by the Law,
namely, this “property”, which “went to the State ownership”, comprised a consi
derable number of donations from the congregation, confiscation of which would be
offensive for the faithful and, what is important, sacred objects, e.g., miracle-working
icons were also included.
The difficulties soon began, when in December, I. Akhvlediani, Chief of Kutaisi
militia, discovered objects supposedly “stolen” by the monks from Gelati monastery
and, under this pretext, confiscated entire treasury of the monastery. This caused oppo-
sition of the Catholicosate Council, personally of Catholicos-Patriarch Leonide and
Nazar, Metropolitan of Kutaisi (in 1924 he was martyred and is now canonised); the
Church was defended by National-Democrats and the state officer – by Social-Demo-
crats, who spared neither abuses, nor “collective letters” of the workers – alas, so well
known to us (see, Ertoba, 1920, №№279-280; 282-283; 287; 289; Sakartvelo, 1920,
№№169-171); Socialist-Federalists only slightly reacted to these regretful events with
an article by Petre Mirianashvili (Sakhalkho Sakme, 1920, №1004). Most deplorable
is the fact that the situation was easily clarified – explanation was immediately pro-
vided: monks from Gelati, to save the congregation from starving, put on sale recently
donated contemporary jewellery, deprived of any artistic or historical value, with the
permission of the bishop (Sakartvelo, 1920, №№169, 170). No less unpleasant and
140
Dimitri Tumanishvili
hardly understandable is, so to say, the “Tsalenjikha case” of 1921 – at first, “Ertoba”
informed that the clergy had hidden the objects, but later on, accused them of robbery
(cf., 1921, №№18 and 35).
Naturally, it is hard to say, what heritage protection legislation would ultimately
have been, or which units would it have formed, etc. However, it is quite obvious that
such units would have, necessarily, been established and neither doubtless is the fact
that national heritage values were well appreciated in the independent Georgia.
Finally, I would like to mention one more event, remarkable for the future –
not only for 1910-1920s, but also for our own – completion of the building for the
Museum of Georgia. Based on the material available for the scholars, its construc-
tion, suspended during the World War I, was renewed with the extraordinary contest
launched in 1923. While the data of old periodicals show the following state of things:
as early as August 1918, old Construction Commission was annulled and Histori-
cal-Ethnographic Society was authorised to manage the construction of the Museum
(Sakartvelos Resp’ublik’a, 1918, №16). Later on, in January 1920, Ministry of Edu-
cation appointed “new Construction Commission for the completion of the Georgian
Museum”: Giorgi Zhuruli (Head), Ekvtime Takaishvili, Noe Kipiani (Director of the
Museum), engineer Neprintsev and Anatoli Kalgin (Sakartvelos Resp’ublik’a, 1920,
№20; Ertoba, 1920, №21; Sakartvelo, 1920, №20). On 13.03.1920, Commission, to-
gether with the representatives of the Artistic Centre, artistic and public organisations,
elaborated guidelines, according to which: 1. an entire Quarter was to be allotted to
the Museum; 2. since – these definitions should be paid attention to! – “Persian style”
does not correspond to the epoch and national dignity”, “free artistic creativity in con-
cert with the trends reflected in the Georgian national architecture should be request-
ed”; 3. a contest for the design of the facades of the extant building and the layout of
the other part should be launched (Sakartvelos Resp’ublik’a, 1920, №61).
It is hard not only to overvalue, but to adequately highly evaluate significance of
the point 2, which gives an amazingly clear vision of the “medial” way – neither deny-
ing the “old”, nor ignoring the “new” – which our architecture was to follow in those
days and, I think, would rather do so today (and not only Georgian architecture!).
Most remarkable is that here, nothing is said about the “Georgian style”, the notion,
our best scholars referred to. Instead it says: “trends reflected in the Georgian national
141
Architecture and Construction Activities
48. 142
S. qiqoZe, `guria~, 1921 (anot. 20)
Sh. Kikodze, “Guria” 1921 (annot. 20)
Dimitri Tumanishvili
architecture”, i.e.: not to imitate the outward forms (this is demanded not only by
the “Georgian”, but by any “historic” or “historicist” style – “Gothic”, “Byzantine”,
“Moorish”, “Russian”, etc.), but to discover the essential trend and follow it. Without
any hesitation, one could have said that at that period, only two persons thought so
in Georgia – Davit Kakabadze and Giorgi Chubinashvili, while only the latter could
formulate the idea in this way. Luckily, there is no need in drawing any assumptions
– newspaper “Sakartvelo” (16.02.1920, №57) had published the minutes of the above
mentioned meeting held on 13 March. Based on this, we know that Giorgi Chubinash-
vili was the main speaker on the meeting. He proceeded from the statement that the
building could not be completed in accordance with the initial concept; that in Europe,
19th c. Eclecticism was followed by a “great transformation”, there, architecture had
proceeded along the “national ways” and the same should happen in Georgia – “the
building should be an expression of the soul of Georgian nation, realised through the
free creativity. Such a façade should be created, which would reflect development of
the trends manifested in the Georgian architecture” – certainly, it is most eloquent
that these, seemingly “intricate” ideas were shared by the others (they had their own
opinions to express – Dimitri Shevardnadze proposed to launch a contest for the entire
building, Iakob Nikoladze and Gabriel Ter-Melikov offered to allot entire Quarter to
the Museum . . .). It was thus that the concept of one of the best buildings in Georgia
in 1920s was worked out and, what is important, a possible direction of the develop-
ment of the Georgian architecture was outlined, the direction, forsaken and distorted
in numerous, true or false obstacles appearing in the Soviet times.
So, in 1917-1920, architecture in Georgia was far not “silent”. Due to quite
understandable reasons, it seems quite modest, but everything that was done – was
essential, equally, all that managed to survive in the Soviet epoch and all that was
destined never to find any continuation after 25 February, 1921; but of utmost signifi-
cance is the existence of this form of creativity and its vivacity, its participation in the
completeness of the national life.
2008
143
Architecture and Construction Activities
Notes
1. People’s house – a kind of community centre (translator).
2. “People’s house”, as a rule, comprised a library-reading room and a stage for the
performances of amateurs or invited professionals and concerts, as well as for diverse
events – e.g., literary mornings, meetings and the like; they were designed for the less
wealthy social layers or the settlements, where large cultural institutions could not be
present.
3. Prof. Levan Rcheulishvili – prominent art historian, one of the founders of the
Institute of History of Georgian Art, main centre of the art historical studies in Georgia,
Professor of Art History at A. Kutateladze Tbilisi State Academy of Art (translator).
4. A sketch published far earlier, in the illustrated appendix (p. 4) to the Tsnobis
Purtseli (Information Leaflet), 02.06.1902, №43, might be non-deprived of importance
for the history of the Georgian architectural thought – the sketch visualises, how the
“electorate of the Second and Third Quarters”, participants of the elections of the Tpilisi
City Council, and, most likely, the editors of the newspaper, our future Socialist-Fede
ralists, saw the future of Mtstsminda – its slope was to be planted all over with trees and
bushes, with small private houses scattered among them – this also looks quite like a
“garden-city”.
5. Kote Makashvili – poet, first Chairman of the Writers’ Union of Georgia; Noe
Zhordania – first President of Georgia (translator).
6. It is quite strange that I. Amilakhvari, known for his monarchism, piety and
patriotism, was so warmly mentioned in more or less leftist newspaper. Once, in 1980s,
Giorgi Tarkhnishvili, lawyer (1891-1985), whose youth was closely connected with the
Federalists (Varl. Gelovani, Ar. Jorjadze, Goglo Kazakhashvili and others), characte
rised the General, in connection with the book by Sh. Megrelidze “Our Famous Military
Ancestors” as follows – there “Ivan Givich is referred to as a democrat, but he was a
reactionary and a fool”.
7. I think that the significance of this inter-party institution is not fully recognised;
its existence has – to a certain extent, at least – turned 26.05.1918 Declaration of Inde-
pendence into reality.
144
Dimitri Tumanishvili
8. Marshal – here, Head of the Mazra nobility (translator).
9. Here again, greater respect of the traditions by the Socialist-Federalists is defi-
nitely discernible. However, concerning certain issues – e.g., that of the property –
they were radicals to such an extent that in the first years of the October Revolution,
they were more loyal towards “Bolsheviks” than Georgian “Mensheviks”; on the other
hand, “Mensheviks” themselves, fearing to give pleasure to the “bourgeoisie” and
“feudals”, quite controlled themselves and referred to the actions of the Bolsheviks
merely as “tactless”.
145
49. d. kakabaZe, `Zveli Tbilisi~, 1918-1919 (anot. 1)
D. Kakabadze, “Old Tbilisi”, 1918-1919 (annot. 1)
kultura da mxatvruli cxovreba
anotaciebi
1. d. kakabaZe, `Zveli Tbilisi~, 1918-1919 (il. 1, 18, 25, 40, 49, 50)
1918-1919 wlebSi daviT kakabaZem Zveli Tbilisis grafikuli seria
Seqmna da am Temas igi mogvianebiTac daubrunda. mxatvris maxvili
TvaliT danaxulma da marjved Caxatulma qalaqis quCabandebma sad
Reisod ukve erTi saukunis winandeli qalaqi Semogvinaxa, romlis
siZvelis dasacav Rirebulebas, ukve maSin gansakuTrebuli simwvaviT
grZnobnen da afasebdnen im drois sxvadasxva dargis moRvaweebi. da
v
iT
ma specialuri werili `Zveli tfilisi~ (Jurn. `Svidi mnaTobi~,
1918) uZRvna am sakiTxebs da is, rac Cvens winaSea, Teoriuli da
ZeglTa-dacviTi naazrevis, SeiZleba iTqvas, mxatvruli dokumentia.
CanaxatebSi, romlebic Zaldautaneblad da amave dros, zedmiwevniT
asaxavs Senoba-nagebobebsa Tu quCebs, ukve igrZnoba im kubistur-
kostruqtivistuli mignebebis safuZvlebi, romelTac d. kakabaZem
Semdeg wlebSi Seasxa frTebi.
147
Culture and Artistic Life
3. universitetis profesor-maswavleblebi (il. 4)
pirvel rigSi _ mixeil koniaSvili, grigol naTaZe, ivane javaxiSvi-
li (reqtori), mixeil zandukeli, aleqsandre didebuliZe, mixeil Taq-
TaqiSvili; meore rigSi _ andria benaSvili, niko CigogiZe; mesame rigSi:
niko mgelaZe, sergo gorgaZe, iason moseSvili, vasil kakabaZe, solomon
qurdiani, giorgi axvlediani, giorgi koniaSvili, korneli kekeliZe, ev-
geni WoRoSvili.
150
kultura da mxatvruli cxovreba
151
Culture and Artistic Life
damfasebel-aRmomCenTagani swored lado iyo. siuJeturad, SeuZlebelia
ar gagvaxsendes firosmanaSvilis mravalricxovani `nadimebis~ scenebi,
Tumca Zveli, `aRmosavluri~ qalaqis Semswre da motrfiale gudiaSvili
sul sxvagvar, qalaqis mcxovrebTa erTdroulad dramatizmiTa da
bohemiT savse saxeebs gvTavazobs.
14. artistuli kafe `qimerioni~, moixata 1919 wels (il. 28-30, 32)
xanmokle damoukideblobis periodSi saqarTvelo da kerZod, Tbi
lisi, parizis, berlinis, niu-iorkis da ramdenime sxva qalaqis msgavsad
xel
ovnebis erT-erT meqad gadaiqca, sadac, mraval politikur-
ekonomikur sirTuleTa miuxedavad, mxatvruli cxovreba namdvilad
`duRda~. aq Tavs iyridnen adgilobrivi mxatvrebi, mwerlebi da
kritikosebi, qu Taisidan TbilisSi gadmosuli `cisferyanwelebi~,
ruseTis revolucias gamoqceuli xelovanebi. im dros TbilisSi
arsebul mraval artistul kafeTa da gaerTianebaTa Soris ki, udavod,
152
kultura da mxatvruli cxovreba
153
Culture and Artistic Life
arsebobis periodSi Jurnals mxedvelobidan ar gamorCenia saqarTvelos
Tu saerTaSoriso arcerTi mniSvnelovani movlena da politikosi,
erovnuli Tu regionuli sakiTxi, xelisuflebisa Tu opoziciaSi myofi
partiebis arcerTi qmedeba, rasac mudam mwvave kritikisa da moswrebuli
iumoris daundobel gamoxmaurebas agebebda.
154
kultura da mxatvruli cxovreba
uxu
ces da yvelaze warCinebul mxatvarTagani, xanmokle damoukideb
lobis bolosTvis Semzadebuli da oficialurad, ukve bolSevikuri
reJimis dros (1922 wels) dafuZnebuli samxatvro akademiis pirvel
pedagogTagani iyo. gardacvalebamde, gabaSvilsac mouwia xarkis gaReba
oficiozuri xelovnebisadmi, ramac tragizmiT aRbeWda, rogorc misi
SemoqmedebiTi biografia, ise sakuTriv mxatvruli xelwera da winamde-
bare avtoportretic am winaaRmdegobriobas asaxavs.
155
Culture and Artistic Life
20. S. qiqoZe, `guria~, 1921 (il. 48)
qarTvel modernistTa Semoqmedebis Tanadrouli dasavluri mo
dernizmis wamyvani tendenciisagan ganmasxvavebeli erT-erTi niSani,
erovnuli Ziebaa. es imdenadaa mniSvnelovani, ramdenadac modernizmis
Zireuli mxatvruli mimarTuleba, rogorc wesi, formis universalobis
princips efuZneboda da garkveulwilad, TiTqmis uarhyofda kidec
xelovnebis erovnul raobas. cxadia, evropel Tu mogvianebiT, amerikel
modernistTa ZiebebSi mniSvnelovan adgils ikavebs aborigen xalxTa
materialuri kulturis nimuSebisadmi cxoveli interesi, xalxuri
motivebis gadamuSaveba yofili ruseTis imperiis erebSi; xolo qar T
veli avtorebi da kerZod, S. qiqoZe, warsulis erovnul xelovnebas
_ kedlis mxatvrobas, safasado reliefs, Wedurobasa da miniaturas
daefuZnen, romelsac sakuTari modernistuli identobis Ziebis
kvalad axal dazgur suraTSi Tanamedrove sametyvelo ena da axali
konteqsti SesZines. suraTi `guria~ Salva qiqoZis erovnuli Tematikis
nawarmoebebs Soris erT-erTia, romelic swored am, erovnuli da
msofliuri Rirebulebebis erToblivad matarebelia.
156
kultura da mxatvruli cxovreba
157
50. d. kakabaZe, `Zveli Tbilisi~, 1918-1919 (anot.1)
D.Kakabadze, “Old Tbilisi”, 1918-1919 (annot. 1)
kultura da mxatvruli cxovreba
Annotations
1. D. Kakabadze, “Old Tbilisi”, 1918-1919 (ill. 1, 18, 25, 40, 49, 50)
In 1918-1919, Davit Kakabadze made a graphical series of Old Tbilisi, returning
to this theme later. Streets and alleyways of the city, caught by the keen eye of the
painter and sketched by his masterly hand, have preserved an image the city had already
a century ago; values of its oldness, which were to be protected, were already then
acutely felt and appreciated by the representatives of diverse circles of society. Davit
had dedicated a special article “Old Tiflis” (journ. “Shvidi Mnatobi” [Seven Heavenly
Bodies], 1918) to these topics and what we see is, so to say, an artistic document of his
theoretical and heritage preservation concept. Sketches, effortlessly and, at the same
time, scrupulously representing streets and buildings, are indicative of those fundamen-
tals for Cubistic-Constructivist “findings”, which D. Kakabadze had developed in the
succeeding years.
160
kultura da mxatvruli cxovreba
161
Culture and Artistic Life
ing the period of strengthened national ethos became especially active in 1918-1921.
Aleksandre (1874-1939) and Mikheil (1880-1951) Kavsadzes’ eastern-Georgian Choir,
Dzuku Lolua’s (1877-1924) western-Georgian Choir, Choir of Tbilisi Singers, Choir
of Lovers of Singing, Choir of Sisters Tarkhnishvili and others contributed to the great
diversity of the national music. Choirs actively studied creative activity of the elderly
folk singers, collaborated with the professional Georgian composers, who, in their own
turn, worked on the recording of folklore samples and author transformation of the na-
tional motifs. The Choirs received a significant support from the State, which regularly
assisted them, provided transport, etc. for them, helped them to organise concert tours in
various provinces of Georgia, and special concerts in the army divisions.
11. Georgian Writers Assembled in Kutaisi To Celebrate the Poetry Day (ill. 23)
Georgian writers assembled in Kutaisi to celebrate the Poetry Day. First row, seat-
ed: Vasil Tsereteli, Teopile Khuskivadze, Iakob Pantskhava, Davit Kldiashvili, Ilia
Chkonia, Aleksandre Garsevanishvili and Isidore Kvitsadze; second row, standing: Do-
menti Okroshidze, Sergi Gersamia, Iason Gabelaia, Karpez Beridze, Mikheil Gavasheli,
Shalva Dadiani, Niko Lortkipanidze, Valerian Gaprindashvili, Kolau Nadiradze, Sergo
Kldiashvili, Sandro Tsirekidze, Aleksandre Chirakadze and Davit Chkheidze.
162
kultura da mxatvruli cxovreba
163
Culture and Artistic Life
similar to Paris, Berlin, New York and several other cities, had turned into one of the
“Meccas” of art, in which, despite numerous political and economical problems, artistic
life was truly “seething”. It was the gathering place for local painters, writers, critics,
“Tsisperq’ants’elebi”, who had moved from Kutaisi to Tbilisi, artists, who had fled Rus-
sian Revolution. Among numerous artistic cafes and organisations extant in Tbilisi in
those days, “Chimerioni” (present lower foyer of Shota Rustaveli Drama Theatre) is,
undoubtedly, the biggest and distinguished in many respects; it was founded in 1919
and painted in the same year, mainly, by Lado Gudiashvili, Davit Kakabadze, Sergei
Sudeykin. The painting is a synthesis of the early 20th c. Tbilisian and European way of
life, modern rethinking of the national and classical mythology, fully representing those
two elements, which nourished Modernism in our country at that time – national and
international, in its artistic, linguistic and cultural manifestations.
164
kultura da mxatvruli cxovreba
fictive initials. In the course of its several-year long existence, the journal never failed
to keep an eye on any event or politician of importance for Georgia or international
community, any topic of national or regional significance, any action of the authorities
or oppositional parties, always mercilessly reacting on them with severe criticism and
witty humour.
165
Culture and Artistic Life
both, his creative biography and his artistic manner. Present self-portrait well reflects
these contradictions.
166
kultura da mxatvruli cxovreba
repoussé work and miniature painting – imparting it modern artistic “language” and
new context in the new easel painting, alongside efforts to find their Modernist identity.
“Guria” is one of Shalva Kikodze’s works on national theme, sharing both, national and
universal values.
167
Culture and Artistic Life
168
kultura da mxatvruli cxovreba
5/II 1921
№131
To the Head of the Government
Council of the Professors of Tiflis State University on its first meeting after the de
jure recognition of the Independence of Georgia sends its fervent congratulations to
the Government of the Republic with the brilliant accomplishment of the precious and
long-desired undertaking and expresses its readiness to be on guard of the progress of
the intellectual life of Georgia with doubled energy and indefatigable work. Long live
Georgian nation Government of the Republic, Georgian nation and its cultural future!
Rector, Professor
Ivane Javakhishvili
169
Culture and Artistic Life
ilustraciebis wyaroebi:
170
kultura da mxatvruli cxovreba
Illustration credits:
George Chubinashvili National Research Centre for Georgian Art History and Heritage
Preservation – Sergo Kobuladze Monuments Photo Recording Laboratory: 8, 22, 24,
26, 29, 32, 50
Apolon Kutateladze Tbilisi State Academy of Art Museum: 39
TSU National Scientific Library – Ioseb Grishashvili Library-Museum: 6, 7, 21, 37
National Archives of Georgia: 9-11, 51
National Parliamentary Library of Georgia – Digital Library “Iverieli”: 2, 3, 13-17,
23, 27, 34-36, 45-47
Georgian National Museum – Shalva Amiranashvili Museum of Fine Arts: 1, 5, 12,
18-20, 25, 33, 38, 40-43, 48, 49
Arts Interdiscilpinary Research Lab: 28-32
Goga Demetrashvili: 44
Irine Kvlividze: Anniversary Logo
Baadur Koblianidze Private Collection: 4
Artefacts presented in the illustrations are kept an the following state institutions:
Georgian National Museum – Shalva Amiranashvili Museum of Fine Arts: 1, 5, 8,
18-20, 22, 24-26, 32, 33, 38, 40, 41, 44, 48-50, 51
Apolon Kutateladze Tbilisi State Academy of Art Museum: 39
National Archives of Georgia: 2, 9, 10, 11, 52
171