Cjss second Issue: cjss second Issue qxd

third Armenian version of the Typicon and why he signed it in Armenian. The
above-given point of N. Mar seemed to explain the contradiction. That is why
the version turned out viable. Since then, some scholars have considered
Grigol to be Georgian (Protitch, A, 1923. p. 17; Honigmann, E. 1953. p. 222).
Others believe he was Armenian (Grabar, A. 1922. pp. 121-122; Uspenski,
1948. p. 75; Hans Georg Beck, 1959. p. 218).
As it later turned out, the Petritsoni Monastery Typicon does not exist
any more. The original seems to have been seriously damaged as early as XIII
century. Therefore, the monks of the Monastery copied the Greek and the
Georgian versions of it. These versions were stitched in the Koraisi Library on
the Island of Kios. The discovery of a copy of the Georgian version brought
more clarity into the research on the descent of Grigol Bakurianisdze.  In the
Georgian version of the Typicon, there is no indication of the existence of the
Armenian version. In addition, the Georgian version is the one that has been
preserved unchanged. It has been copied from the original of 1803 while the
Greek text does contain changes (Shanidze, 1971. pp. 21-40 ). Akaki Shanidze,
the publisher of the Georgian version considers that a information on the Ar-
menian version of the Typicon and the Armenian sign of Grigol Bakurianisdze
have been entered by the person who copied the Greek version. Seemingly,
the copier did not know Georgian and considered the Georgian version to be
Armenian (Shanidze, 1971. pp. 21-40 ).
Armenian historians P. Muradian (Muradian, 1968. pp. 103-118) and V.
Arutinova-Fidanian (Типик Григория Пакуриана, 1978) tried to substantiate
the Armenian descent of Grigol Bakurianisdze. Georgian scholars A. Shanidze
(Shanidze, 1979. pp. 173-180), G. Gozalashvili (Gozalashvili, 1970. pp. 167-
192), L. Menabde (Menabde, 1980. pp. 253-276) and N. Lomouri (Lomouri,
1981. p. 16) prove that Grigol Bakurianidze was of Georgian descent. There
is also a lack of unanimity among Russian and Western scholars. Some of
them agree to the opinion of N. Mar and V. Arutinova-Fidanian and consider
Grigol Bakurianisdze to be an Armenian Kalkedonit, while others believe that
the words of Grigol Bakurianisdze “Georgian by origin” prove the Georgian
descent of the latter. 
All scholars, who have touched on the ethnicity of Grigol Bakurianisdze,
no matter whether they considered him Armenian or Georgian, unanimously
agreed that he was from Tao.  This opinion, which was first introduced by N.
Mar, has never been questioned. It is interesting to note that in reality in his-
torical sources there is no indication on the descent of Grigol Bakurianisdze
from Tao. 
In the Typicon Grigol Bakurianisdze provides the following information
on his descent:
91
Caucasus Journal of Social Sciences

---

“.... In the Petritsoni Monastery that was described and proven by an
order of me  - Grigol, by the will of God, the Sevastros and Megas Domestikos
of all the West, the desired son of Bakuriani - the Sovereign of Eristavis (the
corresponding part of the Greek text reads: “the own son of blessed Bakuriani
- the bright Eristavteristavi”) of the East and of Georgians... and the kin of my
brother  - the desired Abaz Magistratos” (Shanidze, p. 62 (2)).
“Fathers and brothers who live in the present Monastery, since we are
Georgian by kindred, strong and brought up as fighters... “ (Shanidze, p. 61
(4))
“Since our blessed father passed away early and left us orphan little
and not mature by age, our mother with whim  distributed all that our father
has gained, all his property and gave to other siblings - our sisters and left us
portionless, without estates. Our sisters took all their portions and went to
their husbands. The squandered all the property in strange parts and lost all”
Me too, with my servants and rudunebi, was looking for and a living
place in Armenia, Georgia and sasarkinozeti and later in Greece. And I spent
a long time this way. And all this – whatever I have gained and deserved, the
honour of an official bestowed upon me -  all that happened to me was God’s
will and the merit of the prayers of my parents, as well as the long pains, trou-
bles and bloodshed I have gone through” (Shanidze, p. 101 (8-9)).
“And went for three days to Msgepsi for Sepa: on one day –for my father
Bakuriani, on another day – for the brother of my father Khosrovan, and on the
third day – for the nephew of my father Bakuriani” (Shanidze, p. 116 (2)). 
“Other gold ring indicated I were the sovereign of Prastins as I wished, my
relatives and my servants, since they were Armenian by faith” (Shanidze, p. 123).
“Nuns of my Monastery are Georgian by family name” (Shanidze, p. 126 (3).
“Those who entered the Fortress of Periton that was the possession of Abaz,
the brother of Aghsartan, our relative by marriage...” (Shanidze, p. 71 (7).
The quotations give us a clear picture of the following: 1. Grigol could
distinguish between nationalities: by origin and by faith. 2. He refers to Arme-
nians as to people related to him by faith, and not relatives. There must have
been many people like this in Georgia of  XI century, when a significant part
of Kvemo Kartli was occupied by Armenians. It is obvious that the two-cen-
tury Armenian rule in Georgia could not have passed without leaving a trace.
Some noblemen from Kvemo Kartli would have converted to Monophysitism
– the faith of Armenians. Apart from that, at the mentioned time Kakheti was
ruled by the Kvirikian and we cannot exclude that Gagik the King of Kakheti
and Aghsratan  - his son, Armenians by father were also Monophysitists. The
brother of Aghsartan and his close relatives must have been Monophysitists,
too. In general, we have to make one point. “The Iberian community” of
92
Caucasus Journal of Social Sciences

---