In the first stanza of “The Man in the Panther Skin” Rustaveli tells us about creation of the universe by God. The stanza develops the Biblical point of view on God as creator, in accordance with the first book of Moses - Genesis: “In the beginning the God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1.1; see https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search= Genesis+1&version=NIV). In the same manner Psalm defines creation of the sky and the earth: ^“Ye are blessed by the Lord who made heaven and earth. / The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord’s; but the earth hath He given to the children of men.” (Ps. 115, 15/16; see https://www. biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20115&version=KJ21). In the second stanza, “the poet addresses God; he prays to God for himself, for his soul. This praying begins with the words: ‘O God, O One, You created the form (literally: face) of every [natural] body’ (2, 1)” (see E. khintibidze, 2009, pg. 306, for details, pg. 306-337). The researchers of “The Man in the Panther Skin” have expressed many different points of view concerning the above Rustavelian utterance. Taking into account the purpose of the present encyclopedia, I shall consider at length only those interpretations of the above line (2, 1), which show the trace of reflection of Classical tradition. Meanwhile, I think, that without taking into consideration the Classical tradition, it is impossible to interpret correctly the poet’s words - “The form (literally: face) of every [natural] body”.

P. Tsintsadze was the first scholar, who paid attention to the resemblance of the line under consideration with Aristotle’s doctrine. In his view, according to both Aristotle’s works and the concept expressed in the line 2, 1, “God […] ‘created the form of every body’, that is, gave form to them, and transformed everything into something concrete, i.e., definite” (see P. Tsintsadze, 1936, pg. 17).

M. Gogiberidze substantiated P.Tsintsadze’s opinion, mentioned above, and made it more thorough. Namely, in his view, the line 2, 1 is an Aristotelian utterance, as the “face” means “form”, and the “body” corresponds to “matter” and thus, Rustaveli, taking into consideration the Aristotelian point of view on the form and the matter, says, that God created the forms of every matter and not the “eternally existing” matter itself (see: M. Gogiberidze, 1941, pg. 216; the same author, 1961, pg. 25, 58-59).

N. Natadze deems it possible to share M. Gogiberidze’s point of view (see: N. Natadze, 1963; the same author, 2006, pg. 465), but he also considers possible different interpretations of the line 2, 1 presented in other researcher’s works. Namely, B. Bregvadze (see B. Bregvadze, 2002, pg. 342-346), according to whom, “The form (literally: face) of every [natural] body” - taking into account Platonic and Neoplatonic theory of Ideas - means “the face, that is, the Idea of every body, that is, of every object; and Z. Gamsakhurdia, in whose view (see Z. Gamsakhurdia, 1972, pg. 46-47) - as it is in the case of “heavenly Adam” by Philo of Alexandria and the Apostle Paul - “the face of all bodies” means “the heavenly Adam existing before the creation of the universe”, the idea of a human being, who comprised in himself the prototypes of all things and beings, their Ideas (see N. Natadze, ibid.).

Sh. Nutsubidze did not share M. Gogiberidze’s view (see above), because through this interpretation, the first stanza of “The Man in the Panther Skin” - which unequivocally talks about the creation of the whole universe, i.e., the matter as well as its form - contradicts the first line of the second stanza, which, according to M. Gogiberidze’s interpretation, talks about God creating allegedly only the form of the matter (see Sh. Nutsubidze, 1958, pg. 82). In his works Sh. Nutsubidze presented two mutually exclusive interpretations of the line 2, 1. According to the first, the words - “O God, O One, You created the form (literally: face) of every [natural] body” must figuratively be understood as “God, you are the face of things” (see Sh. Nutsubidze, 1958, pg. 82). This interpretation of the line 2, 1 has been deemed groundless by the researchers of Rustaveli’s poem (see N. Natadze, 1963); and in addition, it is clear, that in the case of sharing it the line 2, 1 still contradicts the meaning of the first stanza (see E. Khintibidze, 2009, pg. 308). According to the second interpretation of Sh. Nutsubidze, the “face” means “kindness” or “goodness”, as it is detected in the Medieval Georgian translation of the works of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (see Sh. Nutsubidze, 1966, pg. 98), the groundlessness of which had been pointed out by I. Lolashvili (see I. Lolashvili, 1966a)

In the view of I. Lolashvili himself, “the form / face of every body” means “the body of every firstborn animal”, i.e., in the line 2, 1 Rustaveli depicts “the Christian and theological conception of creation (bringing into existence) of all the forms of firstborn creations” by God (see I. Lolashvili, 1966a; 1966b pg. 67-68).

In E. Khintibidze’s view, according to I. Lolashvili’s above-mentioned interpretation, the line 2, 1 “is still not in agreement with the first stanza of the poem”; besides, some contradictions are noticeable in it. For instance, Rustaveli talks not about the creation by God of the form of body “for only all firstborn animals, but for every [natural] body”, that is, for all living beings, i.e., both for all animals and humans (see E. Khintibidze, 2009, pg. 309, for details see pg. 308-310). 

Noteworthy considerations concerning the line 2, 1 have been expressed by Z. Gamsakhurdia and B. Bregvadze (see above; see also.: Z. gamsakhurdia, 1977, pg. 168; E. Khintibidze, 2009, pg. 310-314, 320, note 1, pg. 324, note 1, 329-331; the same author, 1975, pg. 190-192), also by E. Chelidze (see: E. Chelidze 1984, pg. 59-69; E. Khintibidze, 2009, pg. 324, note 1, 331-334), who made an attempt to substantiate, that the “face” of the line 2, 1 is an identical concept to “the universe”, and “every body” “to the living bodies existing in the visible universe” (see E. Chelidze, 1984, pg. 63).

Taking into account the above-mentioned mutually exclusive interpretations the question arises: what relation is there between, on the hand, the line 2, 1 and the first stanza of the poem and on the other, between the same line 2, 1 and the rest of the lines (2-4) of the second stanza? In my view, it is obvious, that the words of the line 2, 1 – “O God, O One, You created […]” repeat the words of the first line from the first stanza – “He (i.e., God) - Who created […]”. This peculiarity of the poetic expression of Rustaveli, which can be called contact parallelism and, which, in its various forms, is found in Homer’s poems, as well as the Western European heroic epic of the Middle Ages has lots of analogues in the text of “The Man in the Panther Skin” (for details see Z. Khintibidze, 2005, pg. 88-134). Observing them makes it clear, that from the compositional point of view, the line 2, 1 links the first stanza and the 2-4 lines of the second stanza; that is, the line 2, 1 speaks about the same, what is in the first stanza and also, what is rendered in the rest of the lines (2-4) of the second stanza. However, the first stanza speaks about the creation by God of the universe, i.e., everything existing and in the line 2, 1 by repeating the words (“God created”), that is, by using the compositional principle of contact parallelism something concrete is singled out from everything existing, which is created by God. What this certain thing may it be? Naturally, it must be the thing that is mentioned in the lines (2-4) of the second stanza, i.e., the poet’s personality, his soul, for the salvation of which he prays to God (“You, protect me […]”). So, “The form (literally: face) of every [natural] body” means “every soul”. Thus, the statement of the first stanza is: God created the whole universe and humankind; the prayer of the second stanza is: O God, you have created every soul, so You are the only One, whom I ask to protect me, as well” (see E. Khintibidze, 2009, pg. 326).     

Thus, taking the above-mentioned into consideration, in my view, it is doubtless, that the second stanza of the poem, unlike some scholars’ interpretations, does not contradict the first one (see above) and neither, unlike some other researchers’ interpretations, completely repeats it (see above); instead, it develops the meaning of the first stanza along another line. Due to this after the first stanza it was necessary to be such a passage or line, by means of which the Biblical picture of the creation of universe depicted in the first stanza would naturally and smoothly - without rousing the feeling of artificiality in the reader / listener - transform into the poet’s personal pleading depicted in the second stanza. It is exactly this compositional function, which is fulfilled by means of the line 2, 1 (“O God, O One, You created the form (literally: face) of every [natural] body”). From the mentioned point of view, the line under consideration (2, 1), as one specific case of contact parallelism, accomplishes the same compositional function, as more than sixty of its analogues found in the text of “The Man in the Panther Skin” (For details see Z. Khintibidze, 2005, pg. 99…)

It only remains to be clarified, through which teaching does Rustaveli name “every soul” “The form (literally: face) of every [natural] body”? The answer to this question has already been provided within Rustaveli studies. This is Aristotle’s doctrine about the soul, which is depicted in his treatise “On the Soul” (see E. Khintibidze, 2009, pg. 314-316). In particular, according to the researcher, the point of view expressed many times in Rustaveli studies is correct; the “face” of the line 2, 1 means Medieval Georgian philosophical and theological term “form” (in ancient Greek: “eidos”, “morphe”). However, the “body” of the line 2, 1 means not “matter” (in ancient Greek: “hyle”, and in old Georgian: “thing”) - as it was misunderstood by M. Gogiberidze (see above) - but  “the body of both human beings and animals” (in ancient Greek: “soma”, and in old Georgian: “gvami” - “corpus”, “body”); this had earlier been pointed out by Teimuraz Bagrationi (see Teimuraz Bagrationi, 1960, pg. 3) and later shared by I. Lolashvili (see above).

Thus, the question arises: what is the form of living or natural body? This question, in the observation of E. Khintibidze, is answered in Aristotle’s treatise “On the Soul” (see De Anima, II, 1, translated by R.D. Hicks, https://archive.org/details/aristotledeanima005947mbp): “Soul is substance in the sense that it is the form of a natural body having in it the capacity of life” (see E. Khintibidze, 2009, pg. 317). However, in the scholar’s explanation, the abovementioned does not mean that Rustaveli’s utterance - “God created every soul” originates from Aristotle (see ibid., pg. 324, note 1). “[…] this is not Aristotelianism (more precisely, this does not mean that Rustaveli depicts poetically the creation of the universe through Aristotle’s conception). This is an insertion of Aristotle’s metaphysical and logical terminology and discourse into the Christian thinking, to which resorted the intellectual theologians of Rustaveli’s times (XI-XIII cc)” (see ibid., pg. 331). Namely, Aristotle’s utterance – “Soul is the form of natural body” similarly to Rustaveli, was shared by: the greatest representative of Arabic Aristotelianism in the East - Avicenna  and in the West - Averroes, in Byzantium – John Italus, in Europe of the late middle ages - Alfredus Anglicus (also known as Alfred of Sareshel - ca 1217), Siger of Brabant, Thomas Aquinas, Dante Alighieri, Albert the Great, Duns Scotus, Meister Eckhart, the Platonists of the Renaissance period, namely, Marsilio Ficino (see ibid., pg. 319-321). E. Khintibidze considers the Rustavelian “utterance – God is a creative cause of the soul the possible theological interpretation of Aristotle’s views” on the soul and “the innovation for Christian theosophy”, which “is found in Rustaveli’s poem half a century prior to Thomas Aquinas” (for details see ibid., pg. 322-324). So, as the researcher concludes, “Rustaveli advocates the standpoint of Christian theology both in the first and the second stanzas: the Creator of the universe, the earth and the soul is the Christian God”, but the poet “calls the soul created by the Christian God through Aristotelian definition” (see ibid., pg. 331). Thus, Rustaveli “unchangeably preserves the common Christian perception of the soul. Namely, in Rustaveli’s view, according to Christian belief, every soul is created by God, which contradicts the Aristotelian doctrine on soul” (see ibid., pg. 45).

Bibliography

Bagrationi, Teimuraz (1960) The Explanation of the Book of “The Man in the Panther Skin”, edited by G. Imedashvili, Tbilisi. (In Georgian)

B. Bregvadze (2002) Plato and Rustaveli, in the book: Plato, “Parmenides” (Translation, Foreword with Appendices and Commentary by B. Bregvadze), Tbilisi. (In Georgian)

E. Chelidze (1984) The Reflection of Gregory of Nyssa’s Treatise “On the Work of the Six Days” in Georgian Literature, The Herald of the Department of Social Sciences of the Georgian Academy of Sciences (The series of Language and Literature), 4, pg. 52-65. (In Georgian)

Z. Gamsakhurdia (1972) “The Man in the Panther Skin” in English, Herald, Series of Language and Literature, 2, pg. 33-56; 4, pg. 89-108. (In Georgian)

Z. Gamsakhurdia (1977) An Issue of Rustavelian Anthropology, Literary Articles, 2, pg. 163-187. (In Georgian)

M. Gogiberidze (1941) The History of Philosophy, Tbilisi. (In Georgian)

M. Gogiberidze (1961) Rustaveli, Petritsi, Preludes, Tbilisi. (In Georgian)

E. Khintibidze (1975) World Outlook Issues in “The Man in the  Panther Skin”, Tbilisi. (In Georgian)

E. Khintibidze (2009) The World View of Rustaveli’s “Vepkhistqaosani” (“The Man in the Panther Skin”), Tbilisi. (In Georgian)

Z. Khintibidze (2005) Homer and Rustaveli – The Homeric Principles of Compositional Organization and the Epic Tradition, Tbilisi. (In Georgian)

I. Lolashvili (1966a) Towards the Rustaveli’s World Outlook, Public Education (Newspaper), 21, IX [Tbilisi]. (In Georgian)

I. Lolashvili (1966b) Historical and National Origins of Rustaveli’s World Outlook, The Collection of Works - “Shota Rustaveli” (The Anniversary Collection of Works of Shota Rustaveli Institute of [Georgian] Literature), Tbilisi, pg. 32-87 (In Georgian)

N. Natadze (1963) The Theory Regarding Rustaveli’s “Pantheism” and the Text of “The Man in the Panther Skin”, Literary Georgia (Newspaper), 35 [Tbilisi]. (In Georgian)

N. Natadze (2006) Shota Rustaveli, “The Man in the Panther Skin”, School Edition with Introduction, Literary Review, Dictionary and Commentary, Edited by N. Natadze, Tbilisi. (In Georgian)

Sh. Nutsubidze (1958) Rustaveli’s Oeuvre, Tbilisi. (In Russian)

Sh. Nutsubidze (1966) The Issue of Entire “The Man in the Panther Skin”, The Journal Tsiskari, 5, pg. 97-107. (In Georgian)

P. Tsintsadze (1936) “The Man in the Panther Skin” (The World Outlook and the Artistic Design), Tpilisi. (In Georgian). [Z.Kh.]