Work dossier · summary and historical context
The Georgian Chronicle (Kartlis Ckhovreba), Vol. I, is an anonymous medieval historiographical work that recounts the history of Georgia from ancient times to the early 14th century. Composed in Old Georgian, it survives in multiple manuscripts, the earliest from the 13th–14th centuries, though its origins may be earlier. The text blends historical narrative with legendary and hagiographic elements, tracing Georgian kings and people through biblical genealogies, including descent from Noah via Japheth. It served as a foundational source in Georgian ecclesiastical and court circles, influencing later chronicles. This edition lacks a full critical apparatus, and variant readings are not systematically recorded, requiring cautious interpretation of its chronology and attributions.
Kartlis Ckhovreba is a cornerstone of Georgian historical identity, providing a continuous narrative from antiquity to the medieval period. It integrates Georgia into biblical and universal history, linking its rulers to Noah, and offers insights into medieval Caucasian ethnography and political ideology. The chronicle influenced later Georgian historiography and remains essential for studying the region's medieval history, though its legendary elements require critical reading.
Kartlis Ckhovreba was likely compiled in the 13th–14th centuries within the Georgian Kingdom, a period marked by Mongol invasions and subsequent fragmentation. The work reflects the interests of the Georgian court and Church, aiming to legitimize royal authority through biblical and legendary ancestry. Its language is Old Georgian, and it belongs to the genre of national historiography, common in medieval Caucasian societies. The chronicle was widely copied and transmitted in monastic and courtly circles, with later redactions expanding its coverage. It draws on earlier Georgian sources, oral traditions, and biblical models, particularly the Table of Nations. The text's survival in multiple manuscripts indicates its enduring importance, though the lack of a critical edition means its textual history and authorship remain uncertain. The traditional ascription to Leonti Mroveli is not universally accepted, and the work's composite nature suggests multiple authors or editors over time.
Apparatus · what the pipeline recorded
| Coptic | Rendering | Count | First |
|---|---|---|---|
| no glossary terms recorded | |||