Niko Gogotchuri # 5
Why Amiran is Called “The Son of Darejani”
Mose Khoneli’s “AmiranDarejaniani” is the well-known production, having a chivalrous content that depicts the so-called serfdom age of feudalism. This production was and is still attracting the attention of Georgian, as well as of foreign researchers deservedly. Amongst we can name such famous scientists, as: Mose Janashvili, Aleksandre Khakhanashvili, Niko Mari, Korneli Kekelidze, Aleksandre Baramidze, Pavle Ingorokva and others. Origin of the plot of production, author’s personality, writing date, historical environment matters and etc. are emphasized in scientists’ works.
Around the problematic questions of “AmiranDarejaniani” there are diversity of ideas among scientists. Some researchers consider this production as non-original one, translated from an Islamic epos – “Kisai Hamza”; Some consider it as partly original, some – wholly original, some regard it as anewed from Georgian folk-lore, while others consider the folk-lore “Amirani” as the popular version of “AmiranDarejaniani”. Some researchers consider the previous period of Rustaveli – the beginning of XII century as the time of writing “AmiranDarejaniani”, while others – move the period of Mose Khoneli’s work till XI century, and the academician K.Kekelidze confirms, that “AmiranDarejaniani” is the following monument of “The Knight in the Panther’s Skin”.
Even we have some kind of ideas about the above mentioned issues, but we are refraining from mentioning them here, within the aim of keeping specificness and laconism of the essay. Now we don’t set the monographic research of all problematic issues connected with the production as an object. We review a number of questions only generally, express our positive opinion about them so much, as far as it will be directly connected with our research problem. Herewith, we briefly express our standpoint only about the matter of writing time of “AmiranDarejaniani” and “The Knight in the Panther’s Skin”.
These productions are made in one epoch by the contemporary writers. “AmiranDarejaniani” was advanced to some extent, then comes “The Knight in the Panther’s Skin”.
This is also confirmed by reviewing works according to the method of psychoanalysis: Rustaveli in 13-15 strophes, practically, makes a dispute towards co-writers, states the low-grade value of them and their productions. For an easy explanation, when Rustaveli was composing critical lines, was taking into consideration the concrete writers and their productions (there-fore, there were already existed such ones!). Whom was Rustaveli mentioning, who might be they? Even the final strophe of “The Knight in the Panther’s Skin” gives a proof response. Among the famous writers, enumerated there Mose Khoneli (and his “Amiran the son of Darejani”) is named as the first one. Here it is certainly meant the grade of co-writers (recognized at that time), age and also the chronology of making productions (what, as it seems was very familiar for the author of this strophe).
As we have mentioned at the very beginning of this essay, we are mainly interested in researching the question – why Amiran is called “The son of Darejani”. Neither author himself, nor the production give the response for this. Amirani is mentioned as “The son of Darejani” even in folk-lore epos, also – in the poetical version, wrote poetry by Taniashvili, in “The Knight in the Panther’s Skin” too and, generally, in followed literary sources. Majority of researchers pass around the exhaustive explanation of this matter, in spite of, that – this is the question of the best quality under literary point of view. Its research-specification, as we’ll see is connected with many literary-folk-lore, historical-ethnographical and linguistical problems. We preliminarily represent the issues included within our research theme with the form of theses:
1. Amirani, the name of the main personage of “AmiranDarejaniani” and even the main part of the subject itself comes from Georgian mythos, in order to find out this, as we think we need not a particular scientific effort. This in the work – as it is said – “is put on the palm”. It is kept not only the name of mythical hero – Amirani, but also myth’s main plot lines and separate plasts, is kept the “soul” and psychoideology of early historical mythical epos, knitted in personages’ moral and characters. The latest one is combined with the ideas characteristic for chivalrous works. Names of Amirani’s brothers are kept in “AmiranDarejaniani” and (what is the main and important thing for us now!) even the name of Amirani’s mother, - with the figurative form. After existing such facts, explaining the origin of “AmiranDarejaniani’s” content and the name of main personage with the foreign etimology should be considered as compulsion over facts and an obvious artificial thing. We think, also it has an end in itself to prove, that Amirani’s myth is made by Mose Khoneli’s writing. Researcher of “AmiranDarejaniani” will not be able to prevent from providing Amirani’s myth - its folk-lore basis. Herewith: We are far from the standpoint, as if the folk-lore origin overshades literary production and its author. On the contrary! The myth, obviously, is the oldest cultural layer. Underestimation of the myth, mythology, or ignoring with some kind of form and giving priority only to the literature should be considered as the serious professional mistake (this, undoubtedly, under the traditional clerical approach, - is explained with the secret tendentiousness towards paganismic culture!). Literary-folk-lore creative interconnection should be comprehended within a whole culturological context, with the form of phenomenon. This, under our firm belief, should be provided by all researchers, as a priori leading one. Herewith in addition, this concerns not only to the research of Mose Khoneli’s production issues, but also – in general, to our writings, whose creative work connected folk-lore with mythos.
2. Among scientists, we consider, it shouldn’t be disputable the fact, that Amirani’s epos is the myth originated on the basis of Georgian language and culture. It is world-wide with its Greek version – about Prometheus. It is understandable too, that the myth was being originated in the epoch of mythosic thinking, that was a thousand years ahead from Mose Khoneli’s and Rustaveli’s epoch. Even our mythology and literature should be considered as unite culturological research object under national point of view. Disconnection of Amirani’s mythical epos and “AmiranDarejaniani”, moreover, their opposition with some form shouldn’t be considered as the true scientific position.
3. Both writings separately, - folk-lore “Amirani” and Mose Khoneli’s writing too, here and there contains such episodes or passages, that are obviously pragmentary and difficult to explain even now. If we unite them, it will be turned out, that they fill each other, make entire and the content becomes quite clear. Such facts should be considered as the confirmation of the thing, that at the time of Mose Khoneli, Amirani’s epos (which he used) was containing the most extensive and complete content, that reached us. A number of passages or complete plots incuded within the myth, lost over the centuries are preserved in Mose Khoneli’s writing. Even from “AmiranDarejaniani” some things were made popular and joined with the myth.
4. Historical comprehending of mythology and the fact, that it is given in the heroic literature dated by XII century, gives us right to consider, that Amirani’s mythical image and his adventure was a vast heroic epos in middle ages, which was widely popular, as in powerful and heroic Georgia at that time, as well as in its neighbor Christian and non-Christian countries. This epos, under folk-lore contamination, as it seems, was considerably feeding as the folk-lore of that time, as well as heroic literature. Some researchers, who refer to the resemblance of Amirani’s subject and “Kisai Hamza’s” episodes, we suppose, that there should be provided if which production took what from where! Contamination of folk-lore subjects having different origin is quite natural, a well-known fact. There took place the double process of mixing Amirani’s mythosic plots and foreign plots: part of foreign plots, as it seems, was earlier mixed in Amirani’s epos, and some of them had been processed by Mose Khoneli himself and included in his writing. He had Caucasian or Near East legends, which he processed and tried to fit them artistically with Georgian epos plot (it seems from the fact that some episodes or personages of “AmiranDarejaniani” don’t exist in Georgian epos and couldn’t be existed). The writer in some chapters of “AmiranDarejaniani” (IV, VII, VIII) somehow copes with the artistic-compositional interfitting of Georgian and foreign materials successfully, but in some chapters he can’t do this. That’s why great part of the composition isn’t tied together. Researchers consider some chapters as an independent writing. Under our conclusion, nowadays it is almost impossible to find out exactly which was mixed even in folk-lore source from foreign plots and which the writer included himself in 12 chapter of “AmiranDarejaniani”. We should imply, that these chapters or episodes, which are in more logical and artistic connection with each other in folk-lore were contaminated with epos.
5. As for the story of Indian king, that represents the main part of “AmiranDarejaniani”, obviously seems, that it is writer’s method. And this method is significant in many respects. From one side, it repeats the tradition of making the plot of heroic writing, from another side it resembles enough to the composition of “The Knight in the Panther’s Skin”. The plot of both productions begins with insignificant, conventional action of miner heroes - hunting. Indian king Abesalomi and Arabian king Rostevani during hunting met with the strange, interesting facts; one – the wall inscription, - about the strange heroes, and the other – the unknown weeping man at the river bank. In both writings the knot is made so. After that main heroes “come to the stage” and by telling their adventures the content of the production is being made. This is already an independent research theme for literary criticism. Here we only mention that because of such analogy it will not be correct to give priority to some productions. Common basis of such analogy is to be found out in literary traditions and sociological psychoideology of middle ages.
In “AmiranDarejaniani” there are other important literary problems, which we are not going to consider here. Let’s pass to concrete purposeful theme: why Amiran is called “The son of Darejani?” We consider this issue as an important literary problem, finding out of which gives us “key” for explaining the artistic, lingual or historical-ethnographical phenomena given in the writing. First of all it’s necessary to explain the etymology of writing’s title – “AmiranDarejaniani”.
The academician Niko Mari was explaining these words with the help of Persian language. He considers, that the title of the production is shifted in the following way: “Ameer Andare Jahan”, which is translated in Georgian – “Ameer the sovereign of the country”. Majority of scientists justly denied such kind of explanation. First of all, neither in “AmiranDarejaniani” and nor in folk-lore Amirani had been mentioned Ameer and the sovereign of the country! Besides, “Darejani” figurates in Georgian as the proper name of Amirani’s mother and its falling into several words (“Andare Jahan”) is obviously artificial.
Whose “son” is Amirani, from where comes such metaphoric supertitle? Who is this “Darejani”, is he man, or is she a woman? (Darejani is woman’s name in Georgian language). It is impossible to consider “Darejani” as Amirani’s father (Sulkalmakhi, or other man) even because of the fact that it isn’t confirmed as man’s name in Georgian reality. One of Svanian text includes note, that Amirani’s father was called Darjalani. This is the well-known phenomenon in folk-loristics, - typical popular etymology. Amirani’s parents aren’t mentioned in Mose Khoneli’s composition, but in spite of this, Amirani is mentioned as “The son of Darejani”.
Amirani is mentioned as “The son of Darejani” for several times even in popular epos. Now we focus our attention on one example: Giant asked to the son of Darejani not to kill him. Here it seems, that the giant by “The son of Darejani” means his mother’s name, swears him his mother’s hat. Here providing the tradition, that the child (boy) is mentioned as “son” not of mother, but of father gives us ground for doubting. This is legalized so after patriarchal epoch. We should provide the epoch of originating Amirani’s myth. Amirani’s myth, as it is recognized in science is made in the middle period of the second thousand years of A.D. For example, academician Shalva Nutsubidze connects the content of this epos with “Gilgameshiani” (Nutsubidze 1956:162). Amirani’s report should be explained by “mother’s son”, first of all, by existing the mother’s surname. The fact, that this is so is confirmed by other arguments as well:
Let’s remind Amirani’s parents: one mortal hunter and hunting goddess Dali. Amirani is their “hybrid“, or god, because of not his father’s, but of his mother’s divine origin. He had all distinguished god features from his mother exactly. To say nothing about patriarchal consciousness, golden-haired is mentioned as goddesse’s “son” and it was emphasizing, showing that Amirani was distinguished (as well, as the social-class titles in the following centures – prince, count, and etc.).
Also, in connection with this consideration in Georgian onomastics up to now there are preserved (mainly, spread in East Georgia) men’s proper names originated by “mother’s son” (“Dedisdzeoba”): Nanaisdze, Tamarisdze, Natelisdze, and etc. Also surnames: Tamarashvili, Natelashvili, Ninua and etc. Its analogy is “The son of Darejani” too. Such names, surnames undoubtedly refer to the fact, that originating initial Georgian surnames and names are given even in matriarchal consciousness and not in sixteenth-seventeenth centuries, as some modern researchers consider it. Initial notion of all kind surnames, names are given, first of all on the basis of grouping according to the genetic, posterity markers.
In “The son of Darejani“ the fact that it was meant mother’s son and not father’s (then he should be mentioned as the son of “Sulkalmakhi”), this was undoubtedly obvious at the time of Mose Khoneli. This supertitle (primitive “surname”) was so connected with the name of the hero in the myth, that the writer used it without change and hesitation in his composition so, that he didn’t mention his parents. As it seems, the fact, that Mose Khoneli didn’t mention Amirani’s parents had another reason, which we are going to explain below.
As it seems from the facts, Amirani is Dali’s “son” from one side, from another side he is mentioned as “Darejani’s son”. Therefore, Darejani is identical to Dali! Here appears another, logical question: Why and how the goddess of hunting - Dali is considered as Darejani? For clearing up this it’s necessary to make thorough literary analysis of these words (names).
In Georgian folk-lore sources and scientific literature it was defined long ago, that Dali is the hunting idol – “Shepherdess of aurochs” (its historical-ethnographical or folk-lore content is studied by such famous scientists, as: Ivane Javakhishvili, Sh.Nutsubidze, S.Janashia, M.Chikovani and others. The name of Dali is widely popular in Georgian and non-Georgian ethnos). Her divine power is treasured in her golden hair. Hunter found her asleep, cut her hair and then he subordinated her. The goddess Dali dies! (Join this fact with the world’s mythology, mainly – with Grecian myth’s personages, gives us important conclusions, which we are not going to consider). The son of Dali, - Amirani had the features characteristic for her: great, heavenly power, inaccessibility of enemy’s weapon (besides the little finger, which is as weak, mortal place for him, as the heel for Achilles), gold tooth, “bolter shaped” eyes and etc.
By brief review this is Dali’s image and content according to myth’s plot. And as we mentioned above, Dali isn’t mentioned with Mose Khoneli. As the writer used Amirani’s super title – “The son of Darejani” without change and hesitation in his composition, we can’t doubt, that he knew the significance of this supertitle, - i. e. Amirani’s origination and parent’s personality very well (as the passages representing this would be kept more completely in the epos of his time). Omission of Amirani’s birth and his parent’s personality by Mose Khoneli shouldn’t be an occassional fact. In order to make this fact more precise, first of all we should clear up who was Mose Khoneli himself? Secular or ecclesiastic person? (in spite of famous researcher’s attempts, Mose Khoneli’s biography doesn’t seem to be reliable). If he had been even layman, he undoubtedly should be orthodox believer Christian and representative of that time elite. Not only clericals, but the state ideologists even in XI-XII centuries, “were severely opposed to personification of natural forces with the god’s image” (Nutsubidze 1956:169). That’s why the popularization of Amirani as the hero, born by heathen personified hunting goddess should be unacceptable for Mose Khoneli. By concealing parents Khoneli was undoubtedly hushing up the “heretic” version of borning Amirani.
Towards Amirani’s epos such kind of influential sign seems clearly by other side: Undoubtedly clerical circles made the evidently tardy episodes or passages, where Amirani is considered to be the god-son of Christ himself, who christened him all dignities. Then Amirani competed with his godfather, for which he had been punished by his godfather and chained on Caucasus Mountain. In Prometheus’ Grecian
version, which seems had been mastered by Greeks before the “christianization”of this episode, Amirani was chained on Kavkasioni not by Christ, but by gods. Not speak more about this issues, let’s return to the linguistic analysis of “Dali”.
As we have found out above, Dali is meant within Darejani. This similarity seems doubtful until we make lingual definition for “Darejan” form and seperate “Jan” part. According to the academician Niko Mari the word “Jan” is Persion “Jahan” and means “country”. If this consideration is true, we can use it for making positive conclusions. Below we will mention Jan-Jahan, but here, first of all the first part of the word is to be explained – “Dare(i)”. Etymological explanation of this word takes place quite reliable by Georgian language. First of all we will notice the lingual fact, that Dali and Dari (“Dare”) are similar words obviously. More precisely: - their roots are one and the same, and difference of l-r sounds are explained by an easy phonetical interchange known in Georgian language. Below we’ll see, that this form is one and the same practically by etymological and lexical content.
As a point of departure it should be considered clearing up the content of “Dari”. Even in modern Georgian we say: “brightening up”, “fine weather”, “bad weather” and etc. This clearly means the sunny weather and weather without sun. The question arises: if Dari, or Dali is the ancient name of the sun, Ivane Javakhishvili tried to find out?
In the 1st volume of “Georgian Nations’ History” (pg. 169), where he considers Geogian heathen beliefs, specially refers: “first of all we should research the sun’s etymology, in order to find out the ancientest name of this luminary and idol” (Javakhishvili 1979:169). Analysis of Georgian languages, also other Caucasian languages drew the scientist to the conclusion, that the word “sun” figurates with more or less form alternation in most Caucasian languages. Herewith, he mentions not always the sun, but – here and there – moon too, that it is the “mouthpiece of luminary’s general notion”. The researcher himself considers the sun as participle or adjective and supposes “gaze” as its full form. At the end of the vast discussion over these problems he concludes: “As the sun seems participle or adjective and it should have the meaning of luminary at the beginning, that’s why this term with its initial form hadn’t been used only for the day’s great luminary, but it’s possible – for other big luminaries. Because of this, the sun, of course, should have its particular name and now it’s desirable to research that name. In itself it’s clear, that if this name, as changed by the adjective “sun” will be found out in the monuments, reached to us is rarely possible.
These scientifically foreseen considerations give clear orient to researchers towards positive conclusions. That’s why here we will not mention the opinions of Strabon, Guldenshtedt, Radde, Veselovsk, and other famous non-Georgian scientists, who were penetrating the true content of the research problem with more or less approach.
According to our analysis and conclusion, the sun is really adjective or participle, as, - we’ll see below – it answers the question “what kind?” The word is defined with the full conformity of Georgian language: m-ze (the s-un) = being-up (being on top, standing upward). Here “m” (we have different versions in Georgian) is the prefix and m-ze (the sun) is made so, as for example, M-egreli, m-roveli, m-kvdari and etc. The given etymology makes the lexical and semantic content of the word quite understandable: with the help of m prefix it is marked origin, being. That’s why m really fits with all up standing luminary’s objective content. It isn’t the proper name of only one astral body (Hellios), that’s why it is used also for remarking other luminaries.
The “initial particular name, which had been changed by the sun” and the great scientist had been interested in researching it was Dari, or Dali.
As we see, in the monuments reached to us, more precisely – in the language, the sign of ancient name isn’t noticed as in the words – “fine weather”, “clear up” and etc. is meant the sun again. As for Iv. Javakhishvili’s thesis, that the complete form of the sun should be gaze at first, this is quite right. The form is divided so: mze-ra (in Georgian). In the last syllable (ra) it maybe meant the old Egyptian name of the sun – Ra. If this is so, then shifted m-ze-ra gives the following content: ze-myofi-ra (Ra being up). Here the general sign of the luminary (being upwards) and the concrete name (Ra) are expressed too.
If we consider the initial name of the sun as being found out and shifted, the following logical question should be responded: how and why is called Amirani’s mother, beasts’ goddess the ancientest name of the sun Dari//Dali?
We should begin answering this question by recalling the fact widely known in science, that, historically, in Georgian beliefs and cosmogonic performances, the sun had been considered not only the concrete astral subject, herewith, it was the feminine idol (here, we can also notice, that our ancestors – and not only they – by the level of their consciousness were quite near with objective truth, under the opinion, that the sun is really the “mother” of life on earth, which grants continuity to it. The sun is the main source of life. This was the basis of its idolization. And the ability of granting continuity to the life was considered, as feminine’s feature). The sun was considered, from one side, as the supreme abstraction, - the god, who gives turns to the country, from another side it was varied and according to anthropomorphysm it was distributed with the form of “branch” idols. Its analogies are given in Asian religious performances, also in the pantheon of antique period. The sun’s cult is the ancientest phenomenon even in the History of Georgia. Such diversity of the god is explained by the famous writer, mythologist and historician Gr.Robakidze interestingly. He connects the origin of the universe with this occurence: “in the origin of the universe the word “Elohim” is riddle. Simply it means “gods”. Why? Why they say god and want to hear “gods”? In mythical performance, of course, the matter deals with one god only. But he vaguely feels, that nobody, even the god can contain the fullness of life, if the god is avoided from everything, is considered in his unity. In closed area there is only gloom and calmness. That’s why the origin of the universe carefully sends uncertain multiplity within gods’ bowels, first of all according to the name. For being alive the other thing is needful, the god needs other. He looks at the strange spheres and the world is being originated. Here, suddenly appears the idea of the third chapter for the origin of the universe : “the god ordered to make Adam”. Who was there, when the god said “we”? Only the god can understand this, - but vaguely too” (‘’Chakluli Suli’’, pg. 15).
As it’s necessary to review the history of the sun’s cult, together with it, we should mention the moon cult too. We should mention it because, analysis of moon and the sun cult are sometimes given as mixed-identified in historiographycal literature too. In Georgian and non-Georgian Historiography, beginning from Strabon till now, it’s known, that among Georgian tribes Tetri Giorgi was widely popular, which, according to scientists’ opinion is nothing, but moon’s cult. In our opinion, idolization of moon is a comperatively latest phenomenon, it should be the result of introducing patriarchat. The earliest one is adoration of the sun. Moon, as the man-idol, couldn’t be appeared in matriarchat, as there the priority was given to feminine gender.
Besides, in cross-icons of the mountain the priest delivers a speech with the text, where the sun is much praised: “Fame to the day, fame to the sun, fame to the angels, accompanied to the sun’’. There the moon, as a cult isn’t mentioned. First of all the sun should be identified with the god on duty. Sulkhan-Saba considers “on duty” as cronos, which the academician Ivane Javakhishvili considers as of Prygian origin, and about moon’s cult he concludes: “if it isn’t mastered by Asurians or Shumerians, it should be more latest one” (emphasizing is our, N.G.). Herewith, we mention the concluded idea of the academician Sh.Nutsubidze, which we mentioned above generally. The scientist in the named work widely considers Amirani’s problematics, confirms many times, that Amirani’s myth with its ideological-creative dimensions – “is in direct connection wth “Gilgameshiani”, which, by its side, expresses the caldic epoch of existing the sun ido”’. Scientists’ conclusions represent everything with laconic and clear way.
Above we have made clear the fact, that the earlier name of “the sun”, which had been changed by the adjective form, was Dari or Dali. We have also found out, that mythosic Dali’s image is identical to the sun god, - by the way of anthropomorphysm the beasts’ idol of feminine gender (though this role fitted to the man more). Besides idol, sun’s attributes are given within Dali’s features symbolically, that shows its identification with the sun idol. For example., Dali’s divine power is in her golden hair, and after cutting it silently the hunter subordinated her. Dali’s golden hair is the symbolization of the sun’s rays: The sun’s strength is revealed by the rays, and at the time of ceasing the vision of these rays the sun’s power falls too.
Dari//Dali this name figurates in refrains of Georgian national songs – “dari, darale, dali, dalale” and others, that is analogical of Asian ritual songs, which were sang to harvest idol, or directly to the sun. We may consider, that even the harvest idol being in the belief of ancient people was nothing, but personified sun, as the sun had significant meaning for making plentiful harvest.
In the reality of Georgia there is nowhere fixed the sun’s personification as the harvest idol (it’s unknown for us). But, its personification is kept with the image of beasts’ goddess – Dali. It is kept in mountinious zone of Georgia, which is quite regular and understandable under the reason, that hunting was one of the economic branch in the mountain. And for hunter tribes visibility –unvisibility of the sun (night, foggyness) had a decisive meaning. Of course, this was the main objective reason, which turned the sun into beasts’ goddess.
Dali’s (and because of her Amirani’s) idolity is confirmed symbolically-metaphorically by other passages as well. For example, Amirani’s struggle with whales is worth of attention. The black whale swallowed up Amirani, but he could not digest him, the whale had a pain in the stomach. He was troubled and told his mother, that he swallowed the gold-headed man. The mother told, that he should be one from Darejani’s family and he wouldn’t be able to digest him. (This happened so really, the whale couldn’t digest Amirani!).
Logically the following question arises: what means “he may be someone from Darejani’s family”? If we comprehend this expression completely, we’ll find out, that in its subtext the mythical struggle of the sun and whale are mentioned with the symbolic-metaphoric form: from time to time the whale swallows the sun, but the sun with the help of its divine, invincible power (heat) burned the whale’s entrails and appeared again. By some versions the whale himself threw up him back. Herewith there is one more important plast: Badri called to Amirani, being in whale’s stomach, that Darejani’ s sons could cut the throat of whale. Really Amirani tore the whale into pieces by the arm (knife, in some versions – sword). In Amiranology it is known, that the epoch of making an iron, cult of steel arm is sufficiently given in the epos, as the divine phenomenon. As we see the title of “Darejansdzeoba” is identified with divine origin, it is the basis of Amirani’s invincibility.
Research of passages in other aspect is undoubtedly interesting too, but now the main thing is to confirm, that Darejani is the same as Dari//Dali: Amirani, from one side, is the son of hunting goddess Dali, or the sun, from another side he is the son of Darejani’’, “Darejaniani”. The word “Jan” is non-Georgian. It is joined with Dali//Dari name even in middle ages, which is confirmed by mentioning woman’s name in the texts of “AmiranDarejaniani” and “The Knight in the Panther’s Skin” with the form of “Darejan”.
In the myth there are emphasized the episodes, that Amirani is the son of the hunting goddess Dali. We suppose, that Darejani and Dali are one and the same personages. As a result of this research it is found out, that Dali, or Dari by Old Georgian language is the name of the sun. Dari and the sun are used synonimically.
By philological research (mythological and lingual) it is confirmed, that the sun-idol of feminine gender in the epoch of anthropomorphysm had been personified as hunting goddess, - with the name of Dali (with the phonetical deformation of Dari). So, Amirani the son of Dali is the son of Dari, or the sun. Dar name was added by “Jan” word lately, from the Persion language, where it (“Jan-Jahan”) means the country. “Darejan” is shifted as = “the idol of the country”. That’s why Amirani is mentioned as the “son” of not Dali, or Dari, but of “Darejani”. As it seems the patriarchal consideration helped his naming in such way.
“Georgian National Folk-lore” Tbilisi, 1973, v. I;
Javakhishvili 1979: Javakhishvili v. I Tbilisi, 1979;
Kekelidze 1979: Kekelidze K. “History of Ancient Georgian Literature”. Tbilisi, 1979;
Chikovani 1978: Chikovani M. “Amirani”, Tbilisi, 1978;
Nutsubidze 1956: Nutsubidze, Sh. “History of Georgian Philosophy”, Tbilisi, 1956.
Volume 3, Issue 2