Work dossier · summary and historical context
This Old Georgian hagiographical text, preserved in a single manuscript witness (TITUS-1) dated palaeographically and linguistically to the 10th–11th centuries, recounts the martyrdom of virgin Christian women during the Diocletianic Persecution. The narrative follows the topos of a ruler seeking a bride through portraits, leading to the discovery and persecution of a community of virgins in Rome. The work survives without colophon or external references, and its limited circulation is suggested by the absence of liturgical use or citation in later Georgian collections. The edition lacks a critical apparatus, leaving scribal corrections and lacunae unexamined.
This text is significant as a rare witness to the Georgian reception of the Diocletianic martyrdom narratives, particularly the tradition of Rhipsime and Gayane. It illustrates the adaptation of a common hagiographical topos—the emperor's search for a bride through portraits—into a Georgian context. The manuscript's unique survival and unexamined scribal interventions offer potential insights into textual transmission and scribal practices in medieval Georgia.
The text is set during the reign of Diocletian (284–305 CE), who initiated the Great Persecution (303–311) targeting Christians, including ascetic communities. The narrative locates the events in Rome, a traditional setting for the early lives of Rhipsime and Gayane before their mission to Armenia, as known from Armenian and Georgian sources. The Old Georgian translation likely originated in a Georgian monastic or scholarly milieu, possibly in the Georgian communities of Palestine or on the Black Sea coast, where hagiographical translations from Greek and Armenian were common. The sole manuscript, TITUS-1, shows signs of scribal correction and lacunae, indicating a complex transmission history. The absence of a colophon or external references leaves the date of composition uncertain, with only palaeographic and linguistic features suggesting a 10th–11th-century date for the manuscript. The work's limited circulation and lack of liturgical use suggest it may have been a private or local translation, not widely adopted in the Georgian ecclesiastical tradition.
Apparatus · what the pipeline recorded
| Coptic | Rendering | Count | First |
|---|---|---|---|
| no glossary terms recorded | |||