Textual Commentaries to The Man in the Panther Skin:

Summarizing the Rustavelian Theory of Poetry

„მესამე ლექსი კარგია სანადიმოდ, სამღერელად,
“The third type of poems is good for the feast, declamation, (17.1 )

სააშიკოდ, სალაღობოდ, ამხანაგთა სათრეველად;
The game of love, amusement, a jest between friends; (17.2)

ჩვენ მათიცა გვეამების, რაცა ოდენ თქვან ნათელად,
We derive pleasure from theirs [their poetry], as well, what [i.e., which] they say only clearly, (17.3)

მოშაირე არა ჰქვიან, ვერას იტყვის ვინცა გრძელად.“
[However,] he cannot be called a poet, who is unable to say anything at length.” (17.4)

The 17th stanza from the Prologue to The Man in the Panther Skin is the last among those six stanzas (12-17) depicting the Rustavelian theory of poetry. From the outset, the explanation of the stanza under question has been complicated due to several peculiarities of various types, which occur within it.

From this point of view, it should be noted that within the whole poem only here is observed the case of real mixing of the two different poetic rhythms, those of the so-called high shairi, with four times four syllables in the entire line (4-4-4-4), and of the so-called low shairi, with the alternation of five and three syllables (5-3-5-3) within the line; thus, instead of 4-4 // 4-4 or 5-3 // 5-3 syllabic alternations, in the line 17.1 it is found the 5-3 // 4-4 mixed rhythm [6, pp. 58-9]: „მესამე ლექსი კარგია“ (5-3) – “the third type of poems is good” // „სანადიმოდ, სამღერელად“ (4-4) – “for the feast, declamation“. N. Marr was the first scholar who has observed the above prosodic peculiarity [11, p. 41].

According to his proper analysis, it might not have been difficult for Rustaveli to avoid such an obvious violation of rhythm through the simple change of a sequence of the same words: „არს მესამე ლექსი კარგი“, - “it is good the third type of poems” [11, p. 5]. Thus, Rustaveli’s decision to create this line in such an unusual form - for The Man in the Panther Skin’s poetic metre - presumably had been caused by some significant reason, which deserved to be explained logically. Instead, in one of the recent comments on the 17th stanza, it has been stated that the prosodic “mistake” under question reveals that this stanza is an interpolation and thus, it does not belong to Rustaveli [1, p. 30].

The 17th stanza has repeatedly become a subject of scholarly discussions, although for different reasons. However, before discussing these reasons, attention should be focused on the issue that the authenticity of the stanza under consideration has never been questioned until now. As is known, N. Marr (due to irrelevant reasons) erroneously considered several well-known stanzas from the prologue to The Man in the Panther Skin as interpolation [11, pp. 45-53]; however, even he never questioned the authenticity of the 17th stanza [11, p. 41].

Thus, while taking into consideration N. Marr’s interpretation of the 17th stanza, the researchers of Rustaveli’s poem explained the apparent consequential inconsistency that seems to exist between the fourth line of this final stanza (“He cannot be called a poet, who is unable to say anything at length” - 17.4) and the summarizing statement of the very first stanza among those reflecting the Rustavelian theory of poetry, according to which “a long word is told briefly, the poetry is, therefore, good” (12.4). In particular, according to traditional scholarly interpretation [12, pp. 312, 337-8; 3, p. 24; 5, pp. 45-8], in 17.4 Rustaveli indicates the priority of epic over lyric poetry and in 12.4 he discusses one of the stylistic or rhetorical aspects characteristic of poetry, that is, the brief, or laconic, manner of artistic speech. This above interpretation of the lines under consideration, as already mentioned, belongs to N. Marr and thus, since 1910 until the present time, it has been taught in the secondary schools of Georgia without any significant modification.

However, in recent years, it was considered that the statement – “a long word is told briefly” was unjustifiably regarded as a stylistic or rhetorical principle ([13, pp. 3-5]; esp. [8, pp. 145-7]). As for the second Rustavelian statement (“unable to say anything at length”), its traditional interpretation (“unable to create even one epic poem”) it still has not been revised in principle [8, pp. 150-2]. Consequently, below I shall discuss, as briefly as possible, a novel, or untraditional, interpretation of line 12.4, focusing, however, on revision of line 17.4.

Thus, there are two reasons, due to which the need arises for a novel interpretation of the 17th stanza:

1)It is necessary to clarify or even revise N. Marr's interpretation of the above stanza, which was recognized to be correct by researchers of Rustaveli’s poem, in order to explain in any possible way the apparent consequential inconsistency that seems to exist between the second half-line of 17.4 (17.4b) and the first half-line of 12.4 (12.4a);

2)It is obvious that within the framework of the 17th stanza several peculiarities of various types are observed [1, pp. 23-30], which require logical explanation.

The word “long” within the first half-line of 12.4 (12.4a: “a long word is told briefly”), in my view, is used with the meaning of “magnitude”, or “epic size”, of the poetic work. The issue is that, according to both Aristotle (Poetics, 1450b36-37) and Rustaveli, truly worthy poetry is required to possess a certain magnitude; however, how large must be the size of a poetic work? As it seems to me, Rustaveli, an author of an epic poem, without any doubt, uses the expression “long word” with the sense of monumental size characteristic of epic poetry. As it turns out, in the 13th and 14th stanzas Rustaveli discusses exactly the same issue, although in details, and summarizing it in the final 17th stanza .

As for “word” within the same half-line (12.4a: “a long word is told briefly”), it has two main meanings in The Man in the Panther Skin:

1) “thought” – according to N. Marr’s interpretation of the half-line 12.4a, “a long and extensive thought”, that is, the ancient Greek “Logos”, or “Word”, from the stylistic or rhetorical point of view, is “told briefly”, that is, concisely and laconically( [11, pp. 9, 40]; cf. [12, p. 146]);

2)“the subject of a talk” – according to M. Gogiberidze’s interpretation of the half-line 12.4a, “the poetry depicts briefly a vast theme, or the subject of a talk, and how much better this principle is carried out, the better will be a poem” [4, p. 117].

Since “a long” or even “extensive thought” is not a common expression for Georgian language, in my view, Rustavelian “long word” better corresponds to the second meaning; thus, it might mean “a vast theme”. However, taking into account the context of the 12th stanza, that is, reasoning dealing with the essence of poetry, as well as, considering the poem’s Commentary by King Vakhtang VI [18], “a long word”, i.e., a vast theme, the extensive subject of a talk, presumably means “a long tale”, or - taking into consideration the terms of contemporary literary criticism – “a long story”, that is, “a long fabula”. As it seems to me, the Rustavelian term “word” corresponds to Aristotle’s “myth” (μῦθος) [8, pp. 146-7 n. 6]; the main and initial meaning of which in Homeric poems, as well as generally in ancient Greek language was “word”. As for Poetics of Aristotle, the basic connotation of “word” (i.e., μῦθος) is “the story as organized into the plot [by poet]” [2, p. 53]. With the same meaning of “story”, or “fabula”, and “plot”, or “syuzhet”, one more ancient Greek term or concept is repeatedly used in Poetics – “logos” (λόγος), that is, again “word” (e.g. Poetics, 1449b8-9; for commentary [2, p. 91]).

“Is told briefly” (12.4a): “a long word”, or monumental story and long fabula, “is told” “briefly”, i.e., clearly, that is, to be easily understandable to listeners / readers; in my view, this might mean “the organization” of an epic plot , that is, the epic plot “organized” in terms of composition and not that of style. The issue is that, according to Aristotle’s conception of “Homeric unity”, in terms of “the organization” of epic plot the Iliad and the Odyssey are much superior to any epic poem due to representing a single action; still, Homeric poems possess quite large constituent parts causing their monumental size. Thus, in comparison with the tragedy, the epic composition has less unity (cf. Poetics, 1462b8-15). As is well known, the Poetics is one of the main methodological sources for Rustaveli’s aesthetic thought. Accordingly, as it seems to me, the author of The Man in the Panther Skin is taking into consideration Aristotle’s above-said conception that the brief (i.e., clear and in orderly arranged form) depiction of a monumental story, or large fabula (“long word”); this is a decisive factor for the unity of epic plot from the point of view of composition [9, pp. 60-2].

Thus, according to Rustaveli, “briefly told” means “clearly told”, or “the organized depiction of a plot” (i.e., in orderly arranged form) from the compositional point of view; however, not vice versa, in other words, “clearly told” does not mean always “briefly told”: under certain circumstances, in particular, “when utterance grows hard for poet” (i.e., while composing the poem a poet begins to create the part, which is "hard to say"), then “clear” might be the result of “telling at length”, rather than “telling briefly” (stanzas 13th and 14th). As it turns out, Rustaveli is referring to the same circumstance throughout the 17th stanza and in particular, in its 4th line; although in comparison with the 13th and 14th stanzas, in the 17th stanza the reasoning goes in the other direction (for details see below).

The first two peculiarities of the 17th stanza - the mixing of the two different poetic metres and, unlike the previous stanzas, “a detailed thematic listing”, or “itemization”, found only here (for details see above) – in my view, they are linked together. The issue is, that in line 17.1 the so-called high and low shairi metres are mixed at the exact same point, where a caesura occurs, as well; thus, the pronunciation of such caesura is impossible without unusually prolonged, that is, rhetorical pause: “the third type of poems is good …” (5-3) [Pause: however, not generally, but particularly] “…for the feast, declamation” (4-4). Accordingly, the 17th stanza differs, indeed, from the previous stanzas, since, according to it, the so-called third type of poems is “good” only for having fun and not generally, as a specimen of true poetry. As it seems to me, unlike the case of other stanzas this above circumstance might be the cause of listing in details the various forms of entertaining and humorous poetry, as well as, for somewhat rhetorical pause caused by the deliberate mixing of metres; the latter, as an additional artistic device for attracting attention of listeners / readers.

Thus, taking into account the above said, still one more peculiarity of the 17th stanza should not be considered as a case of inconsistency: at first, lyric poets are praised (their poetry is “good”, “causing pleasure”, and “clearly told”), finally, however, they are severely criticized (like the so-called non-professional poets discussed in the 15th stanza, these authors, as well, do not deserve to be called poets at all). The issue is that at the outset of the reasoning depicted in the 17th stanza, Rustaveli emphasizes the strengths of the type of poetry, which is “third” among those he criticized; afterwards, however, Rustaveli declares that these virtues are still insufficient and, thus, the authors of “the third type of poems”, again, “cannot be called a poet” . The following circumstance, nevertheless, still remains unclear: is such a sharp criticism of lyric poetry - and, furthermore, condemnation actually of the best type of the lyric poetry (“the third type of poems is good” – 17.1a) - argued sufficiently within the 17th stanza? To answer the above question it must be found out first the context, within which Rustaveli uses the keywords of the lines under question (17.3-4), that is, the words – "only" („ოდენ“ - 17.3b) and “anything” („ვერას“ - 17.4b).

The meaning of old Georgian word – „ოდენ“ (17.3b), according to The Man in the Panther Skin, is “only” [17, p. 377]. Nevertheless, within line 17.3 the word under question, that is, “only” might not have any syntactic meaning itself, since it occurs in stereotyped expression – “what only” (old Georgian - „რაცა ოდენ“): “we derive pleasure from theirs [their poetry], as well, what only clearly they say” (17.3). In most cases the old Georgian stereotyped expression – “what only” is used in The Man in the Panther Skin with its figurative meaning, or “that what” (modern Georgian „რაც კი“ [17, p. 377]), and only in some rare cases it has its literal or direct meaning, that is, “what only” (modern Georgian „რაც მხოლოდ“). In particular, the stereotyped expression – “what only” („რაცა ოდენ“) is found in The Man in the Panther Skin seven times [16, p. 256].

In five cases - out of the above seven – it is evident, that the stereotyped expression under question, according to the context of each place, is used with its figurative meaning - “that what” (and not with its literal meaning - “what only”). In order to illustrate the figurative meaning - “that what” of the stereotyped expression – “what only”; in his Dictionary for The Man in the Panther Skin, A. Shanidze quotes exactly these five places from the text of the poem. The issue is that within the two remaining places the stereotyped expression – “what only” - might be understood in both ways: with the figurative meaning - “that what”, as well as with its literal meaning, that is, “what only”. Just one of these two cases is the “what only” of line 17.3 [17, p. 377] . Thus, A. Shanidze presumably preferred to understand literally the expression - “what only” at this point of the poem or, in his view, both interpretations were, theoretically, feasible. As it seems to me, the figurative understanding of “what only” at 17.3 (as “that what” - [15, p. 18] ) makes the line under question (17.3) ambiguous, since it is possible to interpret it in two different ways:

1.We derive pleasure from theirs [their poetry], as well, [from] that what, i.e., [from] that part what they say clearly; in other words, we derive pleasure from clearly told parts of their poems, as well, or we derive pleasure from their clearly told poems (it is implied that either they do not or cannot say clearly the other parts of the poem or the remaining poems);

2.We derive pleasure from theirs [their poetry], as well, [from] that what, i.e., [from] whatever, or [from] everything what , they clearly say; in other words, we derive pleasure from their poems told entirely clearly.

In my view, it is the second interpretation, which must be regarded as correct; the issue is that “the good” (17.1a) lyric poem, it is impossible to be clearly told only partially and not entirely: otherwise it will not be good anymore! I mean the following: Rustaveli designates the third type of poems as “good” and “causing pleasure” presumably for being clearly told entirely and not partially. In particular, the strengths of “the third and good type of poems” are caused by circumstance that – like the “shairi”, or the type of poem, praised by Rustaveli in the stanzas 12th - 14th - it is also told entirely clearly and therefore, it is also causing pleasure. This is exactly the reason, that, according to Rustaveli, not only “our briefly told a long word causes pleasure” (12.3-4), but “theirs only clearly told causes pleasure, as well“(17.3).

Thus, as it seems to me, it is extremely unlikely that Rustaveli is hinting as if the so-called third type of poems were causing pleasure due to being clearly told only partially. On the contrary, Rustaveli declares distinctly: although “their” third type of poems is causing pleasure in the same way as “our” “briefly told long word”, since it is told only clearly, as well, all the same, its author cannot be regarded as a poet. Consequently, the literal understanding of the collocation - “what only” (as “what only” and not figuratively - “that what”), in my view, makes the sense of the disputed line (17.3) more clear and obvious: “we derive pleasure from theirs [their poetry], as well, what [in Georgian - „რასაცა“, i.e., „რომელსაც“, or “which” ] only [i.e., entirely] clearly they say”.

In conclusion, the reason for which Rustaveli criticizes the authors of the so-called third type of poems obviously is not that they cannot create good poems within the lyric genre, that is, they do not use duly the possibilities of the lyric poetry (i.e., they compose clearly only partially); Rustaveli condemns completely a good lyric poem, or he rejects the lyric poetry in general. The reason for such a sharp criticism is depicted in the immediately following, that is, 4th line, which not only summarizes the 17th stanza itself, but brings together the whole Rustavelian theory of poetry.

According to the traditional (for Rustaveli studies) scholarly interpretation of the line under question (“He cannot be called a poet, who is unable to say anything at length” – 17.4), it must be understood as follows: he who is unable to create even one epic poem is not a poet. This above interpretation, as already mentioned, explains, at first glance, successfully the apparent consequential inconsistency that seems to exist between 17.4b (“unable to say anything at length”) and 12.4a (“a long word is told briefly”; for details see above). However, it remains outside the field of the researchers’ view (who support the above mentioned traditional interpretation) that line 12.4, at first glance, is incompatible with another two statements, as well, found within the stanzas depicting the Rustavelian theory of poetry: a true poet must be capable “of composing long verses” (13.3b) and “he must not reduce Georgian [speech], and must not allow shortness of a word” (14.3).

Thus, in order to explain the above identified circumstances, in my view, the only possible conclusion should be drawn: “long verses” and “Georgian [speech]” of the stanzas 13th and 14th – unlike “a long word” of the half-line 12.4a – are used by Rustaveli in connection with the individual constituent parts of an epic composition and thus, they do not indicate the entire poem itself, in other words, its whole story, or fabula [8, pp. 145-6]. Therefore, Rustavelian aesthetic principles declared within the stanzas 12th, 13th, and 14th should be construed as follows: on the whole “a long word” (i.e., an epic story, or a fabula; as well as a plot) must be “told briefly” (i.e., clearly and in orderly arranged form; in respect of the composition of a poem); however, the individual constituent parts (or separate places of “a long word”), which are hard to say (“when utterance grows hard for him [i.e., for a poet]” – 13.4a; “when due to Georgian [i.e., due to the subject of talk] he [i.e., a poet] is at a loss” – 14.2a), must be depicted at length (“a poet [must] compose long verses” – 13.3; “he [i.e., a poet] must not reduce Georgian [speech], and must not allow shortness of word” - 14.3).

Consequently, it transpires that, taking into consideration the above revealed circumstances, it is necessary to clarify or even revise the traditional scholarly interpretation of line 17.4b and the word “anything”, in particular. I mean the following: the Rustavelian statement – “he cannot be called a poet, who is unable to say anything at length” (17.4), in my view, it is impossible to be understood as “he who is unable to create even one epic poem cannot be called a poet”; the issue is that, according to the above - traditional scholarly - interpretation, Rustaveli condemns the lyric poetry without any reason and, again, without providing any argument, he prefers epic to lyric poetry.

Such tendency, however, is not observed in any of the previous five stanzas depicting the Rustavelian theory of poetry. In particular, throughout these five stanzas (12-16), Rustaveli’s statements are based on a detailed reasoning, by means of which he argues: 1) what makes poetry useful (12.1-2); 2) why is poetry “good”, that is, both goodness (i.e. it makes people happy already “here”, or during this earthly life) and beauty (12.2b-4); 3) which special ability makes a gifted – but, still, ordinary - writer of poetry an outstanding poet (13-14); 4) why it happens, that some authors of (lyric) poems “cannot be called a poet at all” (15); 5) why are the poems of inexperienced or ungifted epic poets imperfect(16) . Consequently, in respect of the above circumstances, it seems to me hardly conceivable, Rustaveli declaring within the 17th stanza (which summarizes his theory of poetry) that the author of “a good” lyric poem - which is clearly told completely and thus, causing in us pleasure – still, cannot be called a poet at all, due to … not being an epic poet, in other words, because he is unable to compose even one epic poem (“unable to say anything at length” – 17.4b).

Consequently, in the line under question (17.4) Rustaveli, apparently, indicates the reason for which he prefers epic poetry rather than lyric poems; in addition, it should be noted that the above mentioned criticism is expressed by Rustaveli so categorically, that the good lyric poets - similar to non-professional (lyric) poets - are not regarded as poets at all (“He cannot be called a poet”: 15.1 and 17.4). The reason for such a harsh criticism of the good lyric poets will become clear if the words he “ […] who is unable to say anything at length” (17.4b) will be understood as he “ […] who is unable to say any part [or any place] of a poem at length”, and not as he “ […] who is unable to compose even one epic poem”.
Thus, as it turns out, the reason due to which Rustaveli criticizes the lyric poems is as follows: the entire poems of their authors, that is, of the lyric poets are composed clearly in such a way that within them nothing is “told at length”, or in detail. Taking into consideration the statements within stanzas 13th and 14th (“when utterance grows hard for him [i.e., for a poet]” – 13.4a; “when due to Georgian [i.e., due to subject of a specific part of a talk] he [i.e., a poet] is at a loss” – 14.2a), it becomes clear how, according to Rustaveli, it happens that in the lyric poetry everything is “told” clearly, without anything having been “told” at length (he “ […] who is unable to say anything at length – 17.4b”); the issue is that the authors of such poems say nothing at all, which is “hard to say” (20.2a and 13.4a) and thus, the need does not arise at all, for anything to be “told at length”. In other words, Rustaveli criticizes the lyric poetry for the reason that it does not contain anything considerable, and, consequentially, “an utterance” will never “grow hard” (cf. 13.4a) and “verse” will never “begin to falter” (cf. 14.2b) for such a poet, because such a poem “is good [only] for the feast, declamation” (17.1b), etc.

And indeed, it is evident (due to the small size generally characteristic of lyric poems), that it is impossible for their individual constituent parts to be “told at length”; this circumstance, on the other hand, causes the specificity of the lyric themes, their lack of depth, in particular, unlike in epic poetry. This is exactly why it happens, that though within “the third”, or “good”, lyric poems, as it seems at first glance, everything is “told briefly” - as it must be in truly worthy poetry (“ […] is told briefly, poetry is, therefore, good” – 12.4) – within them, in fact, it is “briefly told”, only “one or two” thoughts (15.1b) and not “a long word” (that is, the subject of a talk or a story), which is “greatly useful and heart-piercing for the listeners” (12; 16.2). Though these “one or two” thoughts “are told” in the so-called third poems clearly and pleasantly and not “dissonantly and inconsistently” (as in the poems of non-professional lyric poets; cf. 15.1-3), according to Rustaveli, their authors, nevertheless, cannot be regarded as poets.

Thus, according to the Rustavelian theory of poetry, only a pleasure caused by even “entirely clearly told” poems, but, still, of a less size in comparison to the epic plot, is insufficient for regarding them as a truly worthy poetry. The truly worthy is such poetry, which is, “first of all greatly useful for the listeners” (12.1-2), i.e., it is “a branch [or product] of wisdom, divine and divinely intelligible long word” (12.1-2, 4). This type of poem “pleases” (12.3a) “the worthy listeners” (12.3b), or persons appropriate for the perception of the poetry, due to being told concisely, on the whole (“a long word is told briefly” – 12.4a). However, in certain cases - when necessary, that is, when “utterance grows hard” for a poet (13.4a) - the key parts of such poems are depicted at length (“a poet [must] compose long verses […]” – 13.3); though, still, without over lengthening, i.e., on the whole, all the same, in accordance with the principle of “briefly telling”, or that of compositional unity (“a poet [must] compose long verses and tear them off [in Georgian „ხევა“ ]” – 13.3). Due to this exact circumstance, or “telling long verses”, “a briefly told long word” is not shortened to the size of only “briefly told one or two” ideas (“he [i.e., a poet] must not reduce Georgian [speech], and must not allow shortness of word” - 14.3; if the poem is “told” only briefly – that is, wholly briefly alone and not, simultaneously, briefly on the whole, as well - then it becomes less meaningful, that such a poem is only, or entirely, clearly “told” and thus, evokes pleasure, as well). Consequently, Rustavelian “shairi” (or verse) – unlike entirely briefly “told” (and, entirely - due to this - clearly “told” poem) the so-called third “good poem” – is not just the specimen of poetry, evoking aesthetic pleasure through its “clear” and “orderly arranged” form, but, simultaneously, it is “useful and long word”, as well. Only such type of poetry is “good” (12.4b), that is, both beauty and goodness, i.e., it makes people happy already “here” (12.3a), or during this earthly life.

Thus, the fourth and last line, in my view, brings to a final point and, at the same time, summarizes not only the 17th stanza, but the whole Rustavelian theory of poetry, that is, Rustaveli's aesthetic thought (reflected in the form of a detailed reasoning, or “long verses”): “he cannot be called a poet, who is unable to say anything at length!”.

As it turns out, Rustaveli considers Aristotle in detail and thus, is in general agreement not only with Aristotle's ethical conception [7, pp. 384-473, 497-581], but with his aesthetic thought, as well, depicted in the Poetics.

Lastly, the interpretation long established in Rustaveli studies, according to which, within the 17th stanza and its fourth line, in particular, Rustaveli prefers epic to lyric poetry, as it turns out, is correct. Once again, however, Rustaveli sets out his vision of poetry, as usual, through careful reasoning, not only in the form of a brief aphorism.

In conclusion, the above provided novel interpretation of the 17th stanza revealed that:

1) The stanza analyzed above not only cannot be regarded as an inorganic component of the Rustavelian theory of poetry, but it brings to a final point and summarizes Rustaveli's whole aesthetic conception, since within it various poetic principles of Rustaveli – depicted in the previous stanzas - are brought together; moreover, these principles are mutually coordinated. Within the 17th stanza, in particular, it is specified and explained, that:

a) the Rustavelian “shairi”, or the specimen of true poetry, is such an epic poem, which is “told” entirely “briefly”, in other words, it is wholly “told” in orderly arranged form and clearly and not just on the whole (12.4a): its individual constituent parts, depicted in detail (13-14), are also “told” clearly, i.e., they are represented without over lengthening and consequently, in orderly arranged form, as well. Thus, the first compositional principle – “a long word is told briefly” (12.4a), which means that an epic poem must be “told” in orderly arranged form and clearly on the whole, it does not contradict the second compositional principle (“telling” the “long word”, or an epic poem, wholly clearly): the key parts of the same poem must be “told at length”, or in detail, but, still, without over lengthening (“tear off” – 13.3b) and in orderly arranged form (“accomplish” – 16.2a). This circumstance becomes ultimately clear only from the reasoning within the remaining stanzas (13-17), especially, the 17th stanza; therefore,

b) “told briefly”, or in orderly arranged form, means “told clearly”; however, not vice versa, in other words, “clearly told” does not mean only “briefly told”, since a true poet (i.e., “moshaire”, or the author of “shairi”, that is, true poetry) is able to “tell” clearly, when he composes “at length”, as well; in other words, while composing individual key parts or episodes of a poem. (The above Rustavelian compositional principle differs noticeably from that of Aristotle’s, depicted within the framework of Poetics [cf. esp. 1451a10-11, 1455b15-16, 1462a18-1462b10 და 1462b14-15]. However, the former should be considered as a result of innovative interpretation of the latter);

c) the entire subject of the Rustavelian theory of poetry is that of composition, i.e., organization of the epic story and plot (rather than style, or even a variety of rhetorical principles), since all six stanzas (12-17) depicting this theory are linked together through a unified discourse of aesthetic character concerning the various, but still interrelated, principles organizing the epic plot in terms of composition and not that of style or rhetorical devices;

2) according to the correct interpretation long established in Rustaveli studies, within the 17th stanza Rustaveli prefers epic to lyric poetry; however, not unconsciously, or without awareness, but, as usual, through reasoning his point of view. In particular, in accordance with the conception of Rustaveli, a poem of any type “told” only, or entirely, clearly causes pleasure; however, the main assessment criteria for such a poem is whether or not the key parts (from the point of view of composition and/or plot) of this poem are “told at length”, or in detail: such an approach undoubtedly means that preference is given to epic poetry, rather than to lyric poetry, since the latter lacks this feature. In the case of an epic composition, the aesthetic pleasure (cf. “heart-piercing words” – 16.2; cf. also 4.4b and 7.1b/3b) is delivered not only due to the fact that the poem "is clearly told, on the whole," but through the other circumstance, as well; in particular, that the individual parts of the poem "are told" at length (i.e., in detail), though, still, in orderly arranged form, without an over lengthening and thus, again, "clearly", what (i.e., "telling" key parts, that is, “heart-piercing words”, simultaneously, in both ways at length, or in detail, and in orderly arranged form, or clearly) is impossible to be achieved by inexperienced and ungifted epic poets (16.1-2). Consequently, in the summarizing line (17.4) of the Rustavelian theory of poetry by means of epic formula (17.4a and 15.1a), that is, through purposive reiteration of the words – “he cannot be called a poet”, the authors of good lyric poems (17) are equated with non-professional poets, the ungifted lyric poets (15), in particular; thus, with this is declared actually, that poems of a less size in comparison to the epic – both unsuccessful, as well as successful – cannot be equal to the true poetry – “shairi”.

Bibliography:
1. Arabuli, G., The Issues of Ascertaining the Text of The Man in the Panther Skin, “Zekari”, Tbilisi, 2004. (In Georgian) / არაბული, გ., ვეფხისტყაოსნის ტექსტის დადგენის პრობლემები, „ზეკარი“, თბ., 2004.
2. Aristotle, Poetics (Introduction, Commentary and Appendices by D. W. Lucas), Clarendon paperbacks, 1980 (“Oxford University Press”, I968).
3. Baramidze, A., Shota Rustaveli, “Tbilisi University press”, Tbilisi, 1975. (In Georgian) / ბარამიძე, ა., შოთა რუსთველი, „თბილისის უნივერსიტეტის გამომცემლობა“, თბ., 1975.
4. Gogiberidze, M. (1961) Rustaveli, Petritsi, Preludes, “Sabchota Mtserali“, Tbilisi. (In Georgian) / გოგიბერიძე მ., რუსთველი, პეტრიწი, პრელუდიები, „საბჭოთა მწერალი“, თბ., 1961.
5. Jibladze, G., Rustaveli’s Aesthetic World, “Ganatleba”, Tbilisi, 1966. (In Georgian) / ჯიბლაძე, გ., რუსთაველის ესთეტიკური სამყარო, „განათლება“, თბ., 1966.
6. Khintibidze, A., The Essays in Versification, Tbilisi, 2000. (In Georgian) / ხინთიბიძე, ა., ვერსიფიკაციული ნარკვევები, თბ., 2000.
7. Khintibidze, E., The World View of Rustaveli’s Vepkhistqaosani - The Man in the Panther Skin, “Kartvelologi”, Tbilisi, 2009 (In Georgian) / ხინთიბიძე, ე., „ვეფხისტყაოსნის” იდეურ-მსოფლმხედველობითი სამყარო, თბ., „ქართველოლოგი“, 2009.
8. Khintibidze, Z., Homer and Rustaveli – The Homeric Principles of Compositional Organization and the Epic Tradition, “Logos”, Tbilisi, 2005 (In Georgian) /ხინთიბიძე, ზ., ჰომეროსი და რუსთველი - კომპოზიციური ორგანიზაციის ჰომეროსისეული პრინციპები და ეპიკური ტრადიცია, „ლოგოსი“, თბ., 2005.
9. Khintibidze, Z., “Aristotle’s Conception of the Artistic Unity of Homer’s Epic and Rustaveli’s The Man in the Panther Skin”, “The Kartvelologist” - The Journal of Georgian Studies, vol. 15, Tbilisi, 2009, pp. 60-77.
10. Khintibidze, Z., “Towards the Relation of Rustaveli’s Poetic Theory to the Classical Tradition”, “The Kartvelologist” - The Journal of Georgian Studies, vol. 17 (2), Tbilisi, 2012, pp. 119-37 (=http://kartvelologi.tsu.ge. N 2).
11. Marr, N., The opening and final stanzas of Shota Rustaveli’s The Man in the Panther Skin, St.Petersburg, 1910. (In Russian) / მარი ნ., შოთა რუსთველის „ვეფხისტყაოსნის“ საწყისი და დასკვნითი სტროფები, სანკტ პეტერბურგი, 1910 (რუსულ ენაზე).
12. Nadiradze, G., The Aesthetics of Rustaveli, “Sabchota Sakartvelo”, Tbilisi, 1958. (In Georgian) / ნადირაძე, გ., რუსთაველის ესთეტიკა, სახელმწიფო გამომცემლობა „საბჭოთა საქართველო“, თბ., 1958.
13. Parulava, G., “The Divine branch of Wisdom, Divinely Intelligible”, “Georgian Literature” (Scientific and Methodological Journal), N 2, Tbilisi, 1998, pp. 3-29. / ფარულავა, გ., „სიბრძნის დარგი საღმრთო, საღმრთოდ გასაგონი“, “ქართული ლიტერატურა” (სამეცნიერო-მეთოდიკური ჟურნალი), N 2, თბ., 1998, გვ. 3-29.
14. Rustaveli Shota, The Man in the Panther Skin, (v. I, Text and Versions, edited by A. Shanidze and A. Baramidze), Tbilisi, 1966. (In Georgian) / შოთა რუსთველი, ვეფხის ტყაოსანი (ტ. I, ტექსტი და ვარიანტები ა. შანიძისა და ა. ბარამიძის რედაქციით), თბ., 1966.
15. Rustaveli Shota, The Man in the Panther Skin, School Edition (with Introduction, Literary Review, Dictionary and Commentary, Edited by N. Natadze), Tbilisi. (In Georgian) / შოთა რუსთველი, ვეფხისტყაოსანი, სასკოლო გამოცემა, ტექსტი გამოსაცემად მოამზადა, შესავალი, განმარტებანი, კომენტარი და ლიტერატურული გარჩევა დაურთო ნ. ნათაძემ, თბ., 2006.
16. Shanidze, A., A Concordance to The Man in the Panther Skin, “Tbilisi University press”, Tbilisi, 1956. (In Georgian) / შანიძე, ა., ვეფხის-ტყაოსნის სიმფონია, „თსუ გამომცემლობა“, თბ.,1956.
17. Shanidze, A., Dictionary for The Man in the Panther Skin, in the book: Shota Rustaveli, The Man in the Panther Skin (edited by A. Baramidze, K. Kekelidze and A. Shanidze), pp. 345-99, “Sakhelgami”, Tbilisi, 1957. (In Georgian) / შანიძე, ა., ვეფხისტყაოსნის ლექსიკონი, წიგნში: შოთა რუსთაველი, ვეფხის ტყაოსანი (სარედაქციო კოლეგია: ა. ბარამიძე, კ. კეკელიძე, ა. შანიძე), გვ. 345-99, „სახელგამი“, თბ., 1957.
18. Vakhtang VI, The First Explanation of the Book of The Man in the Panther Skin, in the book: Shota Rustaveli, The Man in the Panther Skin, Tpilisi, 1712 (restored edition by A. Shanidze), Tbilisi, 1975. (In Georgian) / ვახტანგ მეექვსე, თარგმანი პირველი ამის ვეფხისტყაოსნისა, წიგნში: შოთა რუსთაველი, ვეფხისტყაოსანი, 1712 (ა. შანიძის აღდგენილი გამოცემა), თბ., 1975.
19. Zaridze, Kh., The Composition of The Man in the Panther Skin, Tbilisi, 2002. (In Georgian) / ზარიძე, ხ., ვეფხისტყაოსნის კომპოზიცია, თბ., 2002.