Ana Letodiani

Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University
Associate Professor
PhD in Philology
Tbilisi, Georgia
ana.letodiani@tsu.ge

The military conflicts depicted in Shota Rustaveli’s The Knight in the Panther’s Skin provide a particularly fruitful basis for interpretation through the political and theological paradigm of Saint Augustine. Augustine addresses the themes of war and peace in several fundamental works in which he lays the foundations of what later came to be known as the theory of the “Just War.”

In The City of God (De Civitate Dei), his most important work in this regard, particularly in Book XIX, Augustine defines peace as the “tranquillity of order” (tranquillitas ordinis). He argues that peace is the natural aspiration of every human being and that the only legitimate purpose of war is the establishment of peace. In Against Faustus the Manichaean (Contra Faustum Manichaeum), especially Book XXII, Augustine responds to Manichaean criticism concerning the wars of the Old Testament. He explains that war is not evil in itself; rather, evil lies in the motives that inspire it—hatred, the desire for violence, and unrestrained ambition.

Several of Augustine’s letters also contain practical advice for military commanders and state officials. In Epistle 138 to Marcellinus, he argues that the Christian teaching not to repay evil with evil does not contradict the state’s right to wage war in defense of peace. In Epistle 189 to Boniface, he urges the commander to remain a peacemaker in his heart even during warfare and to resort to war only when necessary. According to Augustine, the principal criteria of a just war are legitimate authority, a just cause—such as self-defense or the rectification of injury—and right intention, namely the restoration of peace.

In Rustaveli’s poem, every act of force is subordinated to the principle of “true justice,” which resonates with Augustine’s conception of the relationship between the “City of God” (Civitas Dei) and the “Earthly City” (Civitas Terrena). The paper analyzes specific episodes in which war appears as an instrument for restoring a disrupted ontological order.

The killings of Chashnagiri and the son of the Khwarazmshah are interpreted not as acts of personal revenge, but as the execution of “true justice” against usurpation. Likewise, the subjugation of Pridon’s cousins and the defeat of the devs are examined within the Augustinian framework of “legitimate authority” (legitima auctoritas), according to which the ruler’s duty is to overcome chaos and establish peace as tranquillitas ordinis.

Particular attention is devoted to the episodes involving the merchants and the defeat of the Khataians. Here, war emerges as a just response to injustice and corresponds to Augustine’s criterion of a “just cause” (justa causa). The culminating episode—the conquest of Kajeti—is interpreted as a metaphysical victory over absolute evil, symbolically analogous to hell. This act unites Rustaveli’s concept of “true justice” with Augustine’s “right intention” (recta intentio), since the ultimate teleological aim of the war is not destruction, but the liberation of the spiritual light held in captivity—Nestan-Darejan—and the restoration of harmony in the world.

In conclusion, Rustaveli presents war as a necessary “just evil” directed toward the attainment of peace. Within Augustine’s model of the “two cities,” India, representing the earthly city, is purified through such “just wars” and gradually approaches the ideal represented by Arabia as the heavenly city. This interpretation ultimately reinforces Rustaveli’s well-known thesis: “Good has overcome evil; its essence is enduring.”