Tea Zaridze

The University of Georgia
Invited Lecturer
Source Studies
PhD
Tbilisi, Georgia
t.zaridze@ug.edu.ge

The scholarly and creative legacy of Archpriest Polievktos Karbelashvili, who was active at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, is diverse. One of the principal areas of his research was the study and collection of historical and ecclesiastical materials relating to Eastern Georgia. His archival documents, preserved in the Georgian State Historical Archive, contain extensive information concerning the difficult and unfavorable condition of the Georgian Church after the country came under the rule of the Russian Empire. Particularly informative in this regard are documents preserved in Fund 1461, Inventory 1, Files No. 37 and No. 51.

As a clergyman, Polievktos Karbelashvili was deeply concerned by the loss of the autocephaly of the Georgian Church and its subordination to the Russian Synod. He associated the broader problem with Russian rule and with the resulting decline in the role and functions of the Church and clergy, as well as with the growing influence of atheism and unbelief. Accordingly, he was highly critical of the ecclesiastical policy of the Russian authorities and the reforms they introduced within the Church.

Karbelashvili’s archival materials contain numerous references to the confiscation of church property and the dispersal of the treasures of the Georgian Church. He also describes the extremely difficult circumstances in which members of the clergy found themselves as a result of Russian imperial policy. Karbelashvili regarded the inadequate education of Georgian clergy in theological seminaries as one of the principal causes of the weakened position of the Church in his own time and of the spread of anti-religious attitudes in society.

He therefore sharply criticized contemporary ecclesiastical life and the clergy, arguing that they had lost sight of their historical mission and no longer devoted sufficient attention either to strengthening the Church or to the spiritual education of the population. Nevertheless, he continued to identify the inadequate upbringing and education of the clergy as the fundamental problem.

In his writings, Karbelashvili also emphasizes the efforts of the Russian authorities to restrict the teaching of the Georgian language even within ecclesiastical education. He explicitly notes that Greek and Latin enjoyed greater privileges in the educational process and that teachers of these languages received higher salaries. Teachers of Georgian church liturgy and chant, by contrast, did not enjoy comparable conditions.

Karbelashvili’s views are an important source for studying the condition of the Georgian Church and its clergy in the nineteenth century, since he relied on numerous documentary sources. Moreover, as a direct witness to and participant in the events he described, he provides first-hand information, which further enhances the historical value and reliability of his accounts.