The Two Poles of the Romantic Paradigm: A Philosophical and Poetic Journey from “Faris” to “Merani”

Abstract

Romantic poetry is known to have engendered a potent discursive space in 19th-century Europe, wherein national aspirations, personal tragedies, and mythic narratives coalesced. This study examines the recurring images of the “galloping horse” and the “self-sacrificing cavalryman” in 19th-century Romantic poetry in the context of a common poetic myth shaped around the themes of national identity, spiritual transcendence, and historical destiny. The present study focuses on Adam Mickiewicz’s “Faris” and Nikoloz Baratashvili’s “Merani”, employing a comparative literary and philosophical approach to analyze these two works. This study reveals that “Faris” presents a messianic call around the ideal of freedom of the Polish nation, while “Merani” is structured as an individual tragedy and inner journey. Both poems are positioned within a broader poetic paradigm that can be called the “Faris” Cycle, and they can be compared thematically and imaginatively with the works of Goethe, Petőfi, Sully Prudhomme, and Vazha-Pshavela. This study explores the aesthetic and intellectual dimensions of intercultural interaction by analyzing the poetic transitions between the two poles of the Romantic paradigm: collective hope and individual melancholy, action, and inner intuition. By tracing the interplay between national poetics and universal archetypes, this manuscript investigates how such interaction facilitates the symbolic transformation of historical traumas.

1. Introduction

A particularly fruitful area of research in modern humanities is the relationship between poetic narratives and collective consciousness, national memory, and historical identity. The socio-political upheavals and cultural transformations of the 19th century, in particular, allowed for the emergence of a new literary discourse that articulated the inner tragedy of the individual with respect to social destiny. In this sense, Romantic poetry evolved into a medium that not only expressed individual emotions but also conveyed the historical moods, metaphysical quests, and collective imaginations of nations.

Two remarkable examples of this poetic medium are Polish poet Adam Mickiewicz’s poem “Faris” (1828) and Georgian poet Nikoloz Baratashvili’s “Merani” (1842). A close examination of both works reveals a poetic structure shaped by shared symbols, images, and thematic intensities. Within this evolving poetic field, the resonance between these two poems—expanded by poets from diverse geographies, such as Goethe, Petőfi, Sully Prudhomme, and Vazha-Pshavela—is referred to as the “Faris” Cycle in this study. The “Faris” Cycle as conceptualized in this study does not refer to a historical school or group but rather functions as a heuristic model—a poetic–typological framework—designed to identify symbolic and archetypal recurrences across transnational Romantic literary works. The two poems stand as exemplary works, representing the zeniths of their respective national literary traditions. They also serve as pivotal illustrations of the emerging comparative Romantic poetics that were taking shape in European and Caucasian poetry. The poems’ use of imagery, such as “flying horse,” “cavalry,” “eternity,” and “freedom,” suggests an attempt to respond to an existential crisis experienced by both the individual and the collective. This study seeks to explore how archetypal motifs such as the flying horse and cavalryman operate as poetic symbols of historical memory, existential rupture, and national identity. By tracing their appearances across different Romantic traditions, this article investigates how shared imagery transforms individual tragedy into collective poetics. In these poems, the figure of a cavalryman is constructed not only as an epic hero but also as a bearer of historical memory, a subject of metaphysical inquiry, and a symbol of cultural resistance (Vardoshvili 2022, p. 27; Giorgadze 1996, p. 12).

Such parallels between Baratashvili’s “Merani” and Mickiewicz’s “Faris” extend beyond mere thematic similarity. Both works utilize poetic imagery to demonstrate how national tragedy can metamorphose into a metaphysical rupture in individual consciousness. In accordance with Goethe’s concept of “Weltliteratur” (world literature), which was articulated in 1827, these two poems can be regarded not solely as texts that exert influence on each other but also as the manifestation of shared cultural intuitions and contemporary historical sensibilities. Goethe defines world literature as “the translation of common human values from national forms into universal language” (Goethe 1988, p. 125). In more recent interpretations, world literature is viewed as a transnational field of circulation and reception that enables mutual recognition among cultures (Goethe 2021, p. 4). In this sense, “Faris” and “Merani”, as poetic projections of “Weltliteratur,” can be evaluated not only in their national contexts but also within universal poetic sensibilities.

Based on these interconnections, this study analyzes the poetic dialogue between these two masterpieces not only at the textual level but also from a comparative literary perspective in terms of historical context, literary paradigms, philosophical themes, and cultural transmission. The poems under scrutiny establish a nexus between the metaphysical ascent of the individual and the historical calamity of society. This nexus, particularly shaped by the motif of “flight” (Germ. Flugmotiv), offers a critical threshold for understanding the poetic potential of Romantic poetry. At this point, the poetry of “Faris” functions as a symbol not only of individual freedom but also of collective liberation, while “Merani” reshapes this symbolism with a deep ontological loneliness and a tragic sense of destiny (Asatiani 1982, p. 233; Chikovani 1983, p. 351). This bidirectional representation is a reflection of poetic ideals shaped at both the individual and national levels.

Accordingly, this study proposes a poetic sequence that can be called the “Faris Cycle” and examines the aesthetic continuity between this cycle and Goethe’s “An Schwager Kronos”, Sully Prudhomme’s “The Gallop”, Petőfi’s “Pegasus”, and Vazha-Pshavela’s “The Blue Horse” (Vardoshvili 2022, p. 81; Petőfi 1973, p. 52). “Merani” stands out for its philosophical depth and tragic intensity, enriching its themes and intellectual impact. These poetic constellations will be further examined through intertextual, archetypal, and comparative frameworks, particularly drawing on the works of Kristeva, Frye, and Jung. This framework is implemented with a comparative literary methodology enriched by intertextual and archetypal analysis.

2. Theoretical Framework

Having established the foundational theoretical perspectives, the next section explores how Romantic poetic codes—particularly the cavalryman motif—manifest across a transnational poetic tradition.

2.1. Foundational Theoretical Approaches

This study is grounded in two mutually reinforcing theoretical frameworks—intertextuality and archetypal criticism—which offer insight into the symbolic and structural correspondences between “Faris” and “Merani”. These frameworks are relevant to Romantic literature and reveal cultural exchanges and common poetic structures.

As briefly mentioned in the introduction, Kristeva’s concept of intertextuality—rooted in Bakhtin’s dialogism—reconceptualizes textual meaning as inherently dialogic and relational. According to Kristeva, “any text is constructed as a mosaic of quotations; any text is the absorption and transformation of another” (Kristeva 1980, p. 66). In this study, intertextuality is not treated as mere citation or influence but as a symbolic exchange across linguistic and cultural boundaries.

Complementing this semiotic perspective, this study engages Frye’s archetypal criticism, which suggests that the literature is governed by recurring mythic structures and symbolic modes. Frye classifies literary forms into mythoi—comedy, romance, tragedy, and irony—and argues that Romantic literary works frequently draw on the tragic archetype, often featuring isolated, visionary protagonists confronted by spiritual or metaphysical limits (Frye 1967, pp. 157–65). This framework helps decode shared motifs such as flight and solitude within a collective poetic vision. Additional theoretical grounding is taken from McGann’s (1983) critical examination of the ideological underpinnings of Romanticism. As previously discussed, McGann’s notion of “Romantic ideology” underscores how seemingly personal poetic expressions are deeply embedded in broader ideological and cultural frameworks. This insight is essential in analyzing how “Merani” simultaneously adopts and subverts Romantic tropes to articulate a uniquely Georgian cultural condition.

Halmi’s (2007) genealogical approach further contributes to this interpretive model by tracing the transformation of Romantic symbols from earlier allegorical traditions into complex signifiers of subjective and metaphysical experience. In the case of “Faris” and “Merani”, symbolic figures such as the flying horse or the cavalryman function as carriers of both individual transcendence and collective memory, which are embedded within a wider Romantic semiotic network.

The convergence of these perspectives enables the identification of latent intertextual structures and shared symbolic repertoires in the two poems. The recurring presence of motifs—such as the cavalryman, the flying horse, cosmic solitude, and the metaphysical journey—suggests not only shared Romantic concerns but also a transnational symbolic logic shaped by cultural encounters, adaptation, and poetic reinvention. Said’s (1994) notions of cultural displacement and imaginative geography help contextualize these poetic structures as expressions of peripheral identity formations negotiating with hegemonic literary discourses. Similarly, Bakhtin’s (1981) concept of dialogism and heteroglossia underscores the layered and polyphonic quality of these texts, where multiple cultural voices and ideological tensions intersect. This dialogic perspective illuminates how intertextuality in Romantic poetics becomes a vehicle for both cultural resistance and metaphysical inquiry.

2.2. Romantic Poetic Codes and the “Faris” Cycle

Written in 1842 and published posthumously, “Merani” emerged during a period of essential national crisis in Georgian history. Following the annexation of the Georgian kingdoms by the Russian Empire in the early 19th century, Georgian intellectuals struggled with questions of identity, sovereignty, and cultural preservation. Baratashvili, who died at the age of 27, came to embody the tragic Romantic hero—a visionary figure torn between historical determinism and metaphysical longing. His poetic voice not only captured personal anguish but also served as a metaphor for Georgia’s uncertain political fate and its quest for cultural self-definition within the imperial periphery.

Early 19th-century Romantic poetics comprised more than individual sentiment—it was a cultural response to modernity’s existential crisis. This form of poetics established a profound and dynamic connection between the individual’s inner realm and the historical and social context, thereby redefining poetry as a platform for philosophical and existential inquiry. As Gusdorf (1976) asserts in his seminal work on Romanticism, the movement should be understood not merely as an aesthetic of individualism but also as a philosophical response to the epistemological and historical ruptures of modernity. Romantic poetry thus embodies a search for meaning amid the dissolution of classical harmony and the emergence of historical consciousness.

The Romantic poet breaks from classical restraint and rationalism. Instead, the Romantic poet becomes the bearer of inner conflicts, metaphysical quests, and confrontations with collective memory. Within this poetic paradigm, the images of “flight,” “cavalry,” “infinity,” and “journey” emerge as the core codes of Romantic poetry (Asatiani 1982; Vardoshvili 2022, p. 81). These fundamental codes function not only as aesthetic images but also as key metaphors that establish the intellectual framework of the poem. The “galloping cavalryman” metaphor is uniquely intense in both European and Georgian Romantic poetry. The cavalryman is constructed not only as a physical being but also as a historical representative, an aesthetic subject, and an ontological mediator. This figure symbolizes both personal transcendence and collective responsibility for the nation’s destiny. Mickiewicz’s poem “Faris” is a messianic call to the Polish nation’s struggle for freedom, while Baratashvili’s poem “Merani” is a personal tragedy representing the Georgian nation’s inner transformation and metaphysical quest (Chikovani 1985, p. 358; Giorgadze 1996, p. 12). For a deeper understanding of the poetic meaning of this figure, it would be appropriate to refer to the main approaches that shed light on the theoretical background of Romantic poetics.

One of the primary methodologies employed to evaluate the poetic significance of this figure in a theoretical context is Goethe’s concept of “World Literature” (Weltliteratur). In his conversations with Johann Peter Eckermann in 1827, Goethe advanced the notion that literature should no longer be confined to national boundaries but rather considered on an international level. According to Goethe (1988, p. 213), a literary text attains universal value through its interaction with the aesthetic and intellectual representations of other cultures. Goethe’s approach constitutes the foundational intellectual framework for intercultural poetic communication, thereby establishing the basis for comparative literary studies. While Goethe’s concept of “Weltliteratur” provides a valuable framework for intercultural literary communication, critics such as Said have emphasized that such universalist models may risk overlooking the asymmetrical power dynamics involved in literary circulation and canon formation (Said 1994, pp. 66–67). Said cautions that such universalist frameworks risk marginalizing peripheral literary voices by privileging canonical centers of power. In his view, the notion of world literature must be critically examined for the hierarchies it reinforces, especially when literary value is measured through Eurocentric paradigms. This study thus applies “Weltliteratur” as a heuristic lens while remaining attentive to its limitations.

Against this intercultural backdrop, a comparative study of the poetry of “Faris” and “Merani” allows for the tracing of not only the influences between individual poets but also the common thematic structures that develop within the psychic fluctuations and historical tensions of the age. As Chikovani emphasizes, the great works of world literature often resonate with each other through contemporary psychic resonances rather than through direct influences. When evaluated within the framework of poetic structures, metaphorical depth, and ideological background, these echoes contribute to the reconstruction of universal Romantic poetics (Chikovani 1983, p. 351). In this framework, the concept of the “Faris” Cycle can be defined as a poetic structure based not only on poetic similarities but also on cultural and historical resonances.

In this manuscript, the term “Faris” Cycle is introduced to describe a recurring transnational poetic structure centered around the motif of the heroic cavalryman in Romantic literary works. The cycle includes works such as Goethe’s “An Schwager Kronos”, Sully Prudhomme’s “Le Galop”, Sándor Petőfi’s “Pegasus”, and Vazha-Pshavela’s “The Blue Horse”—all of which feature the archetypal rider embarking on a metaphysical journey guided by inner devotion and sacrifice. Despite their distinct existential orientations, these poems are unified by a shared Romantic intuition and metaphysical longing.

Among these, “Merani” distinguishes itself not only through thematic resonance but also through its philosophical depth and poetic intensity. The cavalryman in “Merani” transcends the classical epic hero, emerging as a tragic, existential figure that anticipates the modern fragmentation of the poetic subject.

While the term “Faris” Cycle is coined in this study as an original conceptual framework, it builds upon long-observed intertextual patterns and archetypal recurrences in comparative Romanticism. Rather than tracing the direct lines of influence, this model identifies a transnational poetic constellation grounded in symbolic archetypes.

The poetic dialogue between “Faris” and “Merani” reflects not only the poets’ creative visions but also the broader 19th-century cultural and political context, wherein poetry functions as a mode of existence rather than a mere narrative medium, with the cavalryman serving not as a character but as a metaphorical embodiment of this poetic ontology. Building on Goethe’s “Weltliteratur”, the framework incorporates insights from Said’s theory of cultural representation and hybrid identity, Bakhtin’s notions of dialogism and polyphony, Frye’s archetypal criticism, and Wellek’s comparative literary methodology—all of which help illuminate the intercultural and symbolic layers of poetic resonance between the two poems.

Grounded in these theoretical and poetic foundations, the following section presents a detailed comparative analysis of “Faris” and “Merani”, which is supported by concrete textual examples. To further support the analysis, a brief poetic and historical overview of the two poems is provided below.

Poetic and Historical Overview of “Faris” and “Merani”

Adam Mickiewicz’s “Faris”.

Written in the early 1820s, Adam Mickiewicz’s “Faris” (“The Knight”) is a brief yet symbolically dense narrative poem that centers on a lone cavalryman galloping through a desolate steppe. The poem’s repetitive rhythm echoes the galloping of horse and rider. Thematically, “Faris” embodies a messianic ethos, portraying the knight as a spiritual leader who sacrifices himself for the national cause—reflecting the political exile and patriotic struggle of Poland under partition. Mickiewicz combines Romantic individualism with historical longing, portraying the rider as a symbol of both personal transcendence and national liberation. The poem’s stark landscape and mythic tone locate it within a broader Romantic tradition of sublime desolation and heroic solitude.

Nikoloz Baratashvili’s “Merani”.

Composed in 1842, “Merani” (often rendered as “Pegasus” in symbolic readings) stands as one of the most philosophically profound works in Georgian Romanticism. The poem presents a visionary rider, the lyrical “I,” who mounts a mystical steed to gallop toward an unknown, possibly fatal destiny. Unlike “Faris”, where the hero’s sacrifice is nation-oriented, “Merani” internalizes the hero’s journey, transforming it into a metaphysical act of individual negation and poetic transfiguration. The poem is structured as a monologue with elevated diction and rhetorical intensification, combining Romantic melancholy with a prophetic voice. Historically, “Merani” was composed during a period of intense political stagnation and cultural fragmentation in Georgia under Russian imperial rule. Baratashvili expresses a distinct type of Romanticism shaped by European literary forms and local existential crises, culminating in an archetypal image of spiritual flight and poetic martyrdom. Together, “Faris” and “Merani” offer contrasting yet converging visions of the metaphysical rider—one that forms the symbolic and conceptual core of what this study defines as the “Faris” Cycle.

2.3. From Weltliteratur to the “Faris” Cycle: Towards a Poetic–Archetypal Framework

Rather than tracing direct influences, this model recognizes symbolic synchronizations and thematic analogies as poetic responses to shared metaphysical and historical crises. In this sense, the “Faris” Cycle operates as a typological lens rather than a linear genealogical model. As a conceptual model, the “Faris” Cycle draws upon both the archetypal structure of Romantic poetics and the intertextual formation of transnational literary identities. This notion refers to a symbolic narrative pattern—most notably epitomized by the galloping horse and the transcendent rider—which recurs in various European Romantic traditions, including Mickiewicz’s “Faris”, Baratashvili’s “Merani”, Goethe’s “An Schwager Kronos” (Goethe 1952), and Petőfi’s “The Gallop”. Building upon Goethe’s notion of “Weltliteratur” (world literature)—which envisions a transcultural literary dialogue beyond national boundaries (Goethe 2021, pp. 17–25)—the “Faris” Cycle provides a framework for examining how Romantic poetics evolve across languages and cultures. In this paradigm, the metaphor of the rider on a galloping horse functions as a shared semiotic device that symbolically encodes both personal transcendence and collective historical longing.

In line with Frye’s theory of archetypal criticism, such recurring poetic structures represent not isolated images but narrative patterns rooted in the collective poetic unconscious (Frye 2021, p. 53). Through this lens, the galloping horse becomes a Romantic archetype of metaphysical aspiration and heroic defiance. Its recurrence in various Romantic traditions reflects a shared symbolic logic. As previously outlined, Halmi’s genealogical reading frames Romantic symbols not as static motifs but as evolving cultural signifiers shaped by philosophical and aesthetic shifts across literary history. As McGann (1983) argues, Romanticism must be seen not only as a literary movement but also as an ideological system that shapes the production and circulation of poetic forms. The “Faris” Cycle is both a metaphor and a cultural structure aligned with Goethe’s idea of world-literary consciousness—a poetic imagination that gallops across borders, languages, and centuries.

3. Conceptual Framework and Methodology

This study adopts a comparative literary approach that integrates hermeneutic interpretation with historical–critical analysis, enabling a multilayered reading of poetic structures, themes, and symbolic repertoires across cultural contexts. The core objective is to uncover the poetic dialogue between Georgian and European Romanticism, with particular emphasis on the poetic and symbolic resonance between Mickiewicz’s “Faris” and Baratashvili’s “Merani”. The primary analytical focus of this study centers on the “Faris”–“Merani” axis.

The methodological design is guided by four interrelated axes.

3.1. Intertextuality and Dialogism

Drawing on Kristeva’s theory of intertextuality and Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept of dialogism, this study identifies symbolic echoes, shared imagery, and structural parallels that point to a transnational poetic exchange. Kristeva’s concept reframes textual meaning as inherently relational, emphasizing that every text is a mosaic of quotations. Moreover, every text also comprises the absorption and transformation of another (Kristeva 1980, p. 66). Her notion of intertextuality underscores the ideological and cultural forces that shape textual production—making it particularly relevant to cross-cultural Romantic poetics. This perspective allows the analysis to uncover deeper symbolic connections that extend beyond simple textual borrowing. Intertextuality thus serves not only as a reading strategy but also as a means of unveiling the symbolic and ideological layers embedded in Romantic poetic subjectivity across cultural boundaries.

3.2. Archetypal Structures in Romantic Poetics

Drawing on Frye’s archetypal criticism (Frye 1967, pp. 131–45) and Jung’s theory of the collective unconscious (Jung and de Laszlo 2021, pp. 299–338), this study traces mythic archetypes such as the “tragic visionary” and the “cavalryman as metaphysical subject” as key symbolic figures. These recurring patterns across Romantic poetry reveal deep transnational resonances, particularly within the “Faris” Cycle.

The analysis decodes metaphors, such as exile, cosmic longing, and silent femininity, as expressions of culturally embedded archetypes. The notion of “silent femininity” aligns with Cixous’s and Irigaray’s conceptualizations of female subjectivity as both marginalized and symbolically potent within patriarchal discourse (Cixous 1976, p. 881; Irigaray 1985, p. 103). This dynamic also resonates with Butler’s theory of gender performativity, in which silence embodies both absence and resistance (Butler 2007, p. 147). While these archetypes appear across the Romantic literature, their function in this study remains focused on the symbolic axis linking “Faris” and “Merani”.

3.3. Romanticism as Ideology and Symbolic System

As Mellor (1993) and McGann (2023) argue, Romanticism in Europe was not a homogenous movement but a complex network of national literary works that shared symbolic vocabularies, such as the solitary wanderer, the demonic sublime, and the transcendental quest. While these symbolic structures resonate across many Romantic texts, this study primarily focuses on their manifestations in “Faris” and “Merani”, which uniquely integrate Romantic codes into national poetic frameworks. Beyond symbolic structures, these poems are also inscribed with ideological tensions that reflect their socio-historical conditions. From this perspective, McGann’s (2023) notion of “Romantic Ideology” proves especially relevant, as it highlights how Romantic poetry constructs a poetic subjectivity that simultaneously masks and aestheticizes the socio-historical conditions of its emergence. Halmi (2010, pp. 590–91) likewise emphasizes the evolution of Romantic symbolism in his Genealogy of the Romantic Symbol, offering tools for decoding the symbolic repertoire that underlies both poems. This ideological reading thus illuminates how symbolic structures in Romantic poetry function not merely as aesthetic devices but as vehicles of cultural identity, resistance, and historical reflection.

3.4. Synchronization and Circulation of Motifs

The recurring images in “Faris” and “Merani”—especially the “flying horseman” and metaphors of exile—demonstrate a literary synchronization that reflects broader patterns of Romantic imagery across Europe and the Caucasus. Rather than mere imitation, these parallels point to the circulation of motifs shaped by shared historical ruptures and transnational aesthetic sensibilities (Halmi 2007, pp. 56–58). In other words, shared Romantic imagery—such as the flying horse or heroic exile—is reinterpreted through the specific historical experiences and cultural frameworks of each tradition.

This fourfold methodological structure ensures that the analysis is not confined to formal similarities but engages with the broader philosophical and ideological undercurrents of Romantic poetics. The subsequent sections operationalize this methodology through a comparative reading of “Faris” and “Merani”, illuminating how shared symbols and poetic logics articulate a broader transnational Romantic imaginary. Through this perspective, motif circulation is interpreted not as passive transmission but as an active re-inscription of Romantic codes within the symbolic economies of national literary works.

4. Analysis/Discussion

4.1. From “Faris” to “Merani”: The Anatomy of a Poetic Dialog

The poetic relationship between Mickiewicz’s “Faris” and Baratashvili’s “Merani” represents a transnational Romantic dialogue that transcends linguistic and national borders. Rather than being rooted in direct influence, the affinities between the two poems emerge from typological convergence and shared cultural anxieties, particularly in the face of historical trauma and the metaphysical search for meaning. Through a shared repertoire of symbolic elements—such as the “galloping horse,” “eternity,” and “metaphysical journey”—both poems create a poetic landscape in which personal transcendence is intimately linked to collective destiny.

In the following analysis, these two poems will be examined comparatively, focusing on their symbolic structures, aesthetic strategies, and ideological implications within the broader Romantic paradigm.

4.2. The Cavalryman Archetype: Between Mystical Longing and Existential Defiance

One of the most striking symbolic figures in Romantic poetry is the cavalryman—an archetype that transcends martial connotations to embody spiritual longing and existential crisis. In “Faris” by Mickiewicz and “Merani” by Baratashvili, this figure becomes the focal point of a metaphysical journey. While diverging in tone and philosophical emphasis, both poems transform the cavalryman into an existential narrative channel through which inner turmoil, cosmic aspiration, and cultural memory are expressed.

Unlike the warrior–hero of classical epic narratives, the cavalryman in “Faris” represents the soul’s yearning to merge with the infinite. This mystical ascent reaches its peak in the following lines:

“How sweet it is to stretch mine arms thus, thus! that they embrace

The world in friendship…

And as the bee sends deep her sting and with it sinks her heart,

So I in heaven have sunk my thought, and feel my soul depart” (Mickiewicz 1986, p. 170).

Here, “thought” becomes a transcendent force, dissolving the boundaries between the self and cosmos. The speaker ascends to a divine unity—akin to the Sufi concept of fena fillah or the annihilation of the individual self in the presence of the Divine—suggesting a state of metaphysical rapture.

Baratashvili, by contrast, stages a different form of ascension, one rooted in tragic consciousness and historical defiance. His cavalryman, though similarly reaching toward the eternal, does so through existential rupture, emphasizing the tension between personal suffering and collective fate.

“The yearnings of my restless soul will not in vain have glowed,

For, dashing on, my steed has paved a new untrodden road…

Daring all, his fateful steed shall leave dark fate behind.” (Baratashvili 1972, p. 52).1

The imagery evokes struggle, resistance, and a prophetic role rather than mystical fulfillment. This is further reinforced by the poem’s closing leitmotif:

“Speed thee on and onward fly with a gallop that no bound,

Fling to the winds my stormy thoughts in raging darkness found.” (Baratashvili 1972, p. 52).

A parallel leitmotif in “Faris” highlights the shared poetic gesture toward transcendence through motion and dissolution:

“Along these paths the wind doth stray

And its own footprints bears away!” (Mickiewicz 1986, p. 25)

Yet, while Mickiewicz’s poetic universe gravitates toward cosmic harmony, Baratashvili’s vision is steeped in existential solitude. The “blackening raven” in “Merani” symbolizes not only fatalism but also inner loneliness and a metaphysical curse. The result is a bifurcated vision of Romantic ascent: one of ecstatic unity and the other of tragic defiance.

As Jibladze (1968) observes in his seminal study of Romantic symbolism and revolutionary aesthetics, Romantic poetics frequently encoded revolutionary anxieties and utopian aspirations within metaphysical imagery, providing a means for symbolic transformation. In both “Faris” and “’Merani”, the cavalryman becomes a symbolic bridge between metaphysical yearning and historical trauma. These resonances are not limited to Polish and Georgian traditions. As Jibladze (1968, p. 407) notes, Sully Prudhomme’s “Le Galop”, written decades later, bears a striking resemblance to “Merani”, suggesting a broader European poetic sensibility:

“Sully Prudhomme’s poem appears to address a similar subject matter as Baratashvili’s.”

Such resonances point toward an archetypal narrative trajectory that this study conceptualizes as the “Faris” Cycle—Romantic poetics comprising transcendence, symbolic galloping, and existential rupture. In both “Faris” and “Merani”, the cavalryman gallops not toward conquest but toward symbolic transformation. This movement encapsulates a narrative logic where the horse is not just an image of action but of poetic becoming—what Frye (2021) terms a “mythopoetic agent of vertical motion.” The galloping rider thus becomes a semiotic vehicle of existential urgency, propelled through metaphysical terrain shaped by national trauma and spiritual longing.

Through this archetype, “Merani” does not merely echo “Faris” but expands its metaphysical grammar, adding a tragic dimension that reconfigures the Romantic ascent. This poetic alignment—rooted in shared archetypes rather than literary inheritance—demonstrates how the “Faris” Cycle operates as a typological structure of poetic consciousness. Whether arising from direct influence or typological resonance, such parallels underscore the existence of a shared symbolic grammar in 19th-century Romanticism. This convergence, conceptualized in this study as the “Faris” Cycle, reflects a transnational poetic archetype marked by heroic transcendence, metaphysical urgency, and cultural trauma. Rather than signaling imitation, such poetic synchronicity expresses a collective symbolic consciousness shaped by the spiritual and historical ruptures of the Romantic age. Thus, the cavalryman archetype emerges not merely as a figure of Romantic self-expression but as a transnational emblem of historical fracture and poetic transformation.

4.3. Transcendental Motion: The Flying Horse in the “Faris” Cycle

The motif of the “flying horse,” prominently featured in “Faris” and “Merani”, functions as more than a mere means of transportation; it emerges as a profound poetic metaphor for the individual’s aspiration to transcend internal conflicts and external limitations. Within Romantic poetics, this figure assumes a dual symbolic role—simultaneously a corporeal presence and a metaphysical agent—that allows the poetic subject to traverse spiritual dimensions, existential boundaries, and imaginary landscapes. As such, the motif encapsulates Romanticism’s archetypal tension between movement and meaning, corporeality, and transcendence.

This archetype finds varied yet resonant expressions across Romantic literary works. In Petőfi’s poem “Pegasus”, the horse is positioned not only as a swift mode of physical travel but also as a carrier of visionary force, symbolizing freedom, poetic imagination, and revolutionary drive. Pegasus gallops across the Hungarian steppes, propelled toward the mythic homeland of Pushta, a space that is both literal and symbolic. This metaphysical transition is captured vividly in the following lines:

“Go, hurry, hurry up

Fly me over the gorge,

Do not let anyone

Be as fast as you are!

When seeing an enemy

Do not shy, attack him!” (Petőfi 1973, p. 52).

Here, Pegasus is not only the bearer of the poet’s vision but also an agent of resistance. The urgency in motion signals a dual trajectory—personal emancipation and collective uprising. As such, Petőfi’s “Pegasus” becomes a critical node in what this manuscript defines as the “Faris” Cycle, a transnational poetic structure linking the Romantic expressions of the flying horse across different cultural and ideological terrains.

This thematic pattern is echoed in other Romantic works:

“Speed, courser of the silver feet” (Mickiewicz 1986, p. 167).

“Go onward! Onward! My Merani!” (Baratashvili 1972, p. 51).2

“Go, onward! Onward! And fly me over the gap” (Petőfi 1973, p. 52).

In these lines, the horse’s motion becomes metaphysical, dissolving the boundary between rider and time. Goethe’s “An Schwager Khronos” adds a darker dimension to this motif, where the coachman’s journey across time’s horizon becomes a meditation on mortality, embodying descent into finitude rather than transcendence. The “Faris” Cycle thus encompasses a poetic infrastructure in which the flying horse emerges as a transcultural symbol of visionary estrangement. It is not the movement alone that defines the trope, but the direction—into the unknown, into silence, or into ecstatic extinction. Petőfi’s “Pegasus”, Goethe’s “An Schawager Chronos”, and Baratashvili’s “Merani” are each yoked to a metaphysical propulsion that defines Romantic longing through motion itself. In each instance, the horse and rider are fused in motion—galloping not just through space but also through poetic, existential, and ideological transformation. The flight thus becomes a ritual of symbolic transgression, where the horse functions as both a medium and metaphor for self-transcendence.

This structure is particularly vivid in Baratashvili’s “Merani”, where spiritual agitation is expressed through images of motion and dissolution:

“Run and fly forever, a gallop that knows no bounds!

Leave my stormy thoughts to the winds, tossed in the gloomy darkness!” (Baratashvili 1972, p. 52).

The horse here serves as a vessel of emotional storms and metaphysical fracture, emblematic of Romantic introspection rather than ecstatic unity. In contrast, Mickiewicz’s “Faris” offers a more harmonious vision:

“Along these paths the wind doth stray

And its own footprints bears away!” (Mickiewicz 1986, p. 170).

The movement in “Faris” evokes a mystical state of erasure and cosmic merging. Thus, while the metaphor of the horse remains constant, its ideological orientation diverges: “Faris” moves toward cosmic reconciliation, whereas “Merani” gallops into spiritual rupture and tragic individuation. These contrasting treatments underscore the metaphysical valence of the flying horse across the “Faris” Cycle. The motif transcends its narrative role and becomes a mythopoetic archetype, echoing Frye’s notion of romance as a literary mode privileging ascent, visionary insight, and symbolic transformation. Within this approach, the horse is not simply a literary device but a metaphysical engine, generating meaning across transnational Romantic poetics.

4.4. Negative Sublimation in Romantic Poetics: Collapse as Ascent

This section explores what may be termed negative sublimation—a paradoxical Romantic mode in which symbolic self-destruction leads not to despair but to visionary transcendence and cultural regeneration. Such a process marks a significant departure from the classical Romantic narrative of heroic elevation, where triumph or transcendence is often achieved through harmony or integration. In “Merani”, however, poetic subjectivity is constituted through fracture and collapse, rendering the cavalryman not merely a heroic figure but a metaphysical subject engaged in historical sacrifice.

Rather than embodying victory in the conventional sense, Baratashvili’s cavalryman opens a symbolic route toward a collective future. His death is not portrayed as an individual tragedy but as an aestheticized act of purification, signifying both historical transformation and national rebirth. This reinterpretation is evident in the following lines:

“The longings of my restless soul have not burned in vain,

For my cavalryman rode his horse and opened a new, untrodden path.

The one who comes after us will find an easier path;

Risking everything, he will ride the horse of destiny and leave the dark fate behind.” (Baratashvili 1972, p. 52)

This poetic moment does not aim for closure but generates continuous resonance, one that transcends temporal boundaries and echoes across the cultural imagination. As Meunargia aptly observes, “Merani” “carries such an inner power that no age can fully comprehend it,” indicating the poem’s ontological and temporal surplus (Meunargia 1945, pp. 60–61). This structure of negative sublimation is not unique to Baratashvili’s work; it reverberates in other literary pieces that fall under the broader framework of the “Faris” Cycle. For instance, in Sully Prudhomme’s “Le Galop” and Vazha-Pshavela’s “The Blue Horse”, we observe a similar convergence of inner disquiet and metaphysical transformation.

In “The Blue Horse”, Vazha-Pshavela’s imagery encapsulates a poetic fusion of psychic fragmentation and existential longing:

“You fly well on the rocks, too,

You pave an untrodden road,

You keep me the grief away with your heart,

Grief with a thousand wings

You give the eagle’s wings

To my thoughts, with many wings.

You make me love a deserted place.

A sunless and moonless place,

That we call it the sunny.” (Vazha-Pshavela 1960, p. 56).

These verses reflect how poetic imagination transfigures suffering and solitude into a transcendental journey. The horse becomes not only a vehicle of motion but a metaphysical catalyst, elevating thought, pain, and desire into the realm of symbolic abstraction. Such imagery engages not merely with personal grief but also with a broader dialogue on fate, existence, and collective consciousness. Thus, the “Faris” Cycle can be understood not as a group of poems linked by narrative similarity but as a poetic constellation orbiting around shared archetypes and metaphysical themes—fracture, transcendence, historical memory, and visionary isolation. This symbolic synchronization reveals a metaphysical parallelism rather than a causal link, aligning more with narrative archetypes than with Jungian temporality.

Whether these resonances emerge from direct intertextual influence or from a shared Romantic zeitgeist is a matter for further inquiry. Nonetheless, what remains clear is that through the trope of collapse, Romantic poetics finds an alternative pathway to ascent—one that privileges suffering, silence, and symbolic renewal. These symbolic resonances—between collapse, transformation, and visionary ascent—lay the groundwork for the typological affinities explored in the following section. As such, negative sublimation functions as a structural strategy through which Romantic poets encode metaphysical ascent within cultural trauma.

4.5. On Influence and Typological Affinity

In examining the intertextual relationship between Baratashvili’s “Merani” and Mickiewicz’s “Faris”, it is fundamental to move beyond the simplistic notions of literary influence. While surface-level similarities between the two poems have prompted speculation about direct contact or borrowing, this study argues that a broader framework of typological affinity offers a more comprehensive explanation. Typological affinity, as used here, refers to the emergence of structurally and symbolically analogous poetic forms in different national literary works, and it is shaped not by direct interaction but by shared historical conditions, archetypal patterns, and collective cultural memory. Indeed, debates concerning whether Baratashvili read “Faris” directly are insufficient for explaining the multilayered resonance between the two texts. Scholars such as Meunargia and Abashidze argue that “Merani” was directly inspired by “Faris”, whereas critics such as Chikovani maintain that such parallels arise not from influence but from what he calls “the intersection of the spiritual turmoil of the age.” According to Chikovani, “Every great literary work finds its equivalent in world literature... Merani echoes Mickiewicz’s “Faris”. However, all these similarities are merely the intersection of the spiritual turmoil of the century, not an influence.” (Chikovani 1985, p. 358).

This approach aligns with Kristeva’s theory of intertextuality, which posits that texts exist in constant dialogue not only with prior works but also with the cultural and historical conditions of their production. Thus, the relationship between “Merani” and “Faris” should not be reduced to a question of direct borrowing but rather understood as poetic resonance emerging from a shared Romantic consciousness.

Archetypal Synchronization and Literary Resonance

This study defines counter-textuality as poetic resistance that reconfigures inherited motifs through localized philosophical and historical lenses, generating new poetic meanings grounded in cultural specificity.

Shared motifs between “Faris” and “Merani” do not suggest direct influence but exemplify what Frye (1967, pp. 85–90) calls “archetypal recurrence”—deep mythic symbols manifesting across literary works due to typological affinity. These archetypes create a transnational poetic circuit wherein Romantic heroes gallop through the liminal states of consciousness, becoming metaphysical vectors rather than historical figures. This “Faris” Cycle pattern reflects ideological symbolism shaped by empire, trauma, and resistance.

Halmi’s (2007) concept of literary synchronization better explains how culturally distinct traditions develop analogous symbolic structures in response to shared historical ruptures. The flying horseman motif, for example, resonates as a messianic figure in “Faris” and as a bearer of existential solitude in “Merani”. Jung’s “synchronicity,” implying psychological simultaneity, is less appropriate here than the “circulation of motifs” model, which describes how tropes travel, adapt, and localize within literary ecosystems (Tötösy de Zepetnek 1998, pp. 236–37). McGann’s (1983) “Romantic Ideology” further frames these poems’ aestheticization of national trauma—Mickiewicz as the apocalyptic messiah and Baratashvili as a metaphysical martyr—highlighting a typology of resistance and self-sacrifice. Thus, “influence” is misleading; typological models better account for structurally similar symbolic grammars arising under analogous cultural pressures.

This study introduces the “Faris” Cycle as a theoretical construct identifying a constellation of transnational poetic texts—such as Goethe’s “An Schwager Kronos” and Vazha-Pshavela’s “The Blue Horse”—sharing the heroic cavalryman archetype in metaphysical journeys. “Merani” occupies a distinct place, critically reconfiguring “Faris”’s tropes through a uniquely Georgian philosophical lens marked by tragic symbolism and existential depth. Said’s theory of cultural hybridity and Bakhtin’s dialogism illuminate the multidimensional poetic dialogue between “Faris” and “Merani”, transcending national borders while rooted in specific cultural imaginaries. Ultimately, these poems exemplify how Romanticism, shaped by national contexts, produces shared symbolic grammars that render historical trauma, spiritual aspiration, and existential inquiry intelligible.

5. Spiritual Depth and Philosophical Dimension: “Merani”’s Differentiated Response to “Faris”

This final analytical section builds on the previous comparative discussion to explore how “Merani” not only parallels but also reconfigures the Romantic poetic tradition exemplified in “Faris”. It highlights “Merani”’s differentiated philosophical and historical response within the framework of the “Faris” Cycle—most notably in its reimagining of metaphysical solitude not as integration but as a mode of cultural rupture and existential resistance.

The literary relationship between Mickiewicz’s poem “Faris” and Baratashvili’s “Merani” is not merely a parallelism based on superficial thematic similarities but rather a multilayered poetic dialogue involving the philosophical, existential, and historical orientations of 19th-century Romantic poetics. Despite the presence of analogous imagery, such as the “flying horse,” “cavalryman,” “infinity,” “sacrifice,” and “metaphysical journey,” a close examination reveals significant disparities in their poetic functions, philosophical implications, and historical contexts. With this theoretical lens, “Merani” not only offers an aesthetic echo of “Faris” but also critically intervenes in his poetic universe and undertakes a philosophical and poetic rewriting of it (Jinoria 1966, p. 400; Vardoshvili 2022, p. 81).

5.1. Ascension or Depletion of the Soul?

In Mickiewicz’s “Faris”, the cavalryman is portrayed as the agent of mystical ascension—a metaphysical subject whose journey symbolizes the union of the individual soul with the cosmos. This ascent unfolds as a poetic embodiment of spiritual completion, where the ecstasy of transcendence dissolves the boundary between the self and the universe:

“And just as a bee sting and leaves its sting and with it its heart, So I stabbed my thoughts into the sky, and I felt my soul leaving.” (Mickiewicz 1986, p. 170).

This image encapsulates the Romantic ideal of transcendence, where the poet’s imagination turns heavenward and the soul transcends material limits. The horseman in “Faris” becomes a vessel of spiritual integration—one that transcends the individual ego and achieves sublime unity with the infinite.

By contrast, in Baratashvili’s “Merani”, a similarly metaphysical trajectory leads not to cosmic unity but to fragmentation, isolation, and existential rupture. The poetic subject is not uplifted; rather, he collapses under the weight of metaphysical intensity:

“The explosion of this doomed soul will not pass in vain, And this impassable path that you trod, Merani, will remain.” (Baratashvili 1972, p. 52).

Here, dissolution functions not only as a personal breakdown but also as an aestheticized act of transcendence—one in which spiritual collapse is transformed into a cultural inscription. As Vardoshvili (2018, p. 65) observes, this is not a mystical union but a “spiritual explosion” that signifies both a national crisis and metaphysical rupture. Yet, in a later interpretation, Vardoshvili (2022, p. 309) acknowledges a paradoxical synthesis: “The rider is united with eternity and dissolved in it; the thought learned the essence, and finally, he found his happiness.”

This dual movement—between spiritual wholeness and tragic disintegration—constitutes the ontological core of “Merani”’s philosophical tension. With regard to this, the poem transcends individual lyricism and becomes a meditation on collective fate. Abasheli (1960, p. 109) and Jinoria (1966, p. 389) emphasize “Merani” as a philosophical–poetic manifesto emerging at the climax of Georgian Romanticism. Ingorokva (1975, p. 130) describes it as “a prologue of a new life,” while Asatiani (1983, p. 28) regards it as “a great generalization of the historical path.”

Such readings reinforce “Merani”’s position not as an isolated text but as a cornerstone of Georgian national consciousness—a poetic expression of spiritual resistance and cultural renewal. According to Jinoria (1966, p. 54), the poem functions as a “timeless echo” within the collective memory, synthesizing the existential solitude of the poetic voice with the historical urgency of a people in transition. Thus, while “Merani” may share surface-level themes with “Faris”, it exceeds the limits of resemblance. It operates within a distinct aesthetic and historical paradigm, offering not an imitation but a profound reinterpretation. Within the framework of the “Faris” Cycle, “Merani” emerges not only as a counterpart but also as a philosophical counterpoint—an original articulation of Romantic fragmentation anchored in Caucasian cultural memory and historical rupture.

5.2. Historical Consciousness: A Call for Awakening or Desperate Resistance?

Mickiewicz’s “Faris” is often interpreted as a poetic embodiment of both personal spiritual elevation and the collective resistance of the Polish people. Composed in the aftermath of national defeat and exile, the poem transforms existential despair into a visionary journey in which the cavalryman becomes the symbolic agent of historical renewal. His metaphysical progress is suffused with hope, suggesting a possible national awakening rooted in the continuity of historical consciousness (Hidashi 1961, p. 278).

In stark contrast, Baratashvili’s “Merani” emerges from a darker historical juncture—the failure of the Georgian noble revolt of 1832 and the subsequent political disillusionment. The poem resonates with a mood of fracture and defeat, both individually and collectively. The following line encapsulates this collapse:

“Leave my dark thoughts to the wind!” (Baratashvili 1972, p. 52).

Here, the personal and national registers converge. The “dark thoughts” reflect not only a tormented inner state but also the disorientation of a society caught in historical paralysis. As Asatiani (1974, p. 103) notes, “Merani”’s lyrical voice becomes a vessel for collective trauma; individuality merges with the historical destiny of a people. Unlike “Faris”, which envisions rebirth, “Merani” articulates a melancholic resistance—a form of historical consciousness shaped not by hope for political regeneration but by the internalization of defeat and poetics of spiritual endurance. This thematic and structural divergence positions “Merani” as a complex cultural artifact—one that functions not only as a lyrical confession but also as a national palimpsest, encoding collective trauma and philosophical vision. The poem embeds national memory and philosophical anxiety within a metaphysical structure. Ingorokva (1975, p. 130) famously described it as “a prologue to a new life,” suggesting that even in despair, the poem gestures toward futurity. Similarly, Glonti (1968, pp. 60–61) identifies the work as “a great generalization of the historical path,” emphasizing its role in defining a cultural mission rather than merely recounting personal sorrow.

Further interpretations deepen this reading. Siradze (1987) regards “Merani” as “a poetic representation of the national character formed in the Georgian people,” thus positioning the poem as an expression of historically sedimented collective codes rather than spontaneous individual intuition. Echoing this, Asatiani (1983, p. 28) frames “Merani” as “one of the symbolic centers of Georgian cultural memory”—a literary locus where cultural identity is both preserved and reimagined. To clarify this convergence of poetic vision, historical memory, and metaphysical reflection, the following synthesis is offered.

Ultimately, “Merani”’s historical consciousness is not mobilized through triumphalist rhetoric but through poetics of tragic insight and philosophical endurance. The poem’s multilayered narrative operates at the intersection of metaphysical solitude and historical collapse, rendering it not as a derivative national version of “Faris” but as an autonomous philosophical counterpoint shaped by its own cultural–historical conditions. As McGann reminds us, Romantic ideology often conceals ideological and historical contradictions beneath visionary poetics. From this perspective, “Merani”’s metaphysical ascent may be understood not as escapism but as a culturally coded response to imperial trauma. Similarly, Halmi’s genealogy of Romantic symbolism allows us to interpret Baratashvili’s imagery not as abstract transcendentalism but as a historically embedded symbolic act grounded in European intertextual traditions. As Kharanauli (1991, p. 269) argues, “Merani” must be seen as a textual articulation of a unique intellectual stance that emerged within Caucasian Romanticism—a stance defined by spiritual fragmentation, cultural introspection, and resistance without illusion. Through this lens, “Merani” appears not as a lament for the past but as a symbolic reorientation of Romanticism toward cultural introspection and survival.

5.3. The Poet’s Position: Recognized Authority Versus Unrecognized Genius

During his lifetime, Mickiewicz occupied a prominent position not only as a literary figure but also as a political and cultural authority. His works, transcending mere aesthetic appreciation, were instrumental in shaping the national consciousness of Poland and were often interpreted as symbolic acts of political resistance (Kveselava 1956, pp. 59–60). This dual role as both poet and public intellectual elevated Mickiewicz to a status of international renown, transforming his poetic voice into a medium of national affirmation and transnational resonance.

In stark contrast, Baratashvili remained largely unrecognized during his brief lifetime; his poetic legacy was only acknowledged posthumously. His poems, unpublished in his lifetime, were discovered and appreciated only by future generations. This posthumous reception situates Baratashvili not merely as a “forgotten poet” but as an unrecognized genius whose voice was directed toward a time yet to come. As Asatiani (1982, p. 233) insightfully notes, “Merani” embodies “the tragic rise of an unrecognized genius,” making the poem not only a lyrical confession but also a prophetic gesture.

The following lines from “Merani” underscore this temporal disjunction between the poet and his audience:

“To my brother who will come after me, To make this thorny path easier...” (Baratashvili 1972, p. 52).

Here, the poet articulates a conscious address to the future, positioning himself as a precursor of a poetic lineage rather than a representative of his contemporaries. In the words of Iona Meunargia, Baratashvili’s voice generated echoes that transcended the temporal confines of his age and attained a universality that anticipated the literary sensibilities of the future (Meunargia 1945, p. 12). In this framework, Baratashvili’s position may be understood not as a passive victim of historical neglect but as a visionary whose work resisted immediate comprehension, instead contributing to the formation of a deferred cultural memory—that is, a memory constructed retrospectively through future generations’ recognition of his poetic vision.

5.4. The Soul’s Contact with Infinity: Completeness or Fracture?

In Adam Mickiewicz’s “Faris”, the cavalryman’s encounter with infinity is rendered as a metaphysical consummation—a moment of sublime integration with the cosmos. Through ecstatic language and cosmic imagery, the poet frames this transcendental union as the pinnacle of spiritual harmony:

“I stretched out my arms to the universe with love, It’s like I’ve embraced the whole world!” (Mickiewicz 1986, p. 170).

These lines exemplify the Romantic ideal of union between the self and the universe, wherein the subject achieves ontological completeness through universal love. In relation to this, infinity becomes the space of spiritual plenitude, a boundless realm into which the poetic voice dissolves, symbolizing the transcendence of individuality.

In stark contrast, Baratashvili’s “Merani” constructs contact with infinity not as fulfillment but as rupture. The protagonist’s metaphysical journey, though similarly aimed at transcendence, results in existential fragmentation and ontological disintegration:

“Running, dragging me into the unknown is my Merani, The dark raven of fate follows me from behind.” (Baratashvili 1972, p. 52).

The image of the “dark raven” evokes more than just fatalism—it embodies a deep metaphysical solitude. This shift in symbolism encapsulates the divergence in metaphysical vision at the heart of the two poems. In this framework, infinity is not an embrace but an abyss: an opaque and unknowable realm that erodes identity rather than elevates it. The poetic subject is consumed not by cosmic union, but by radical detachment. The Romantic quest collapses into isolation. This existential tone produces a lyricism shaped by inner conflict and historical sorrow. As Chikovani (1983, p. 351) observes, this condition becomes “the poetic codification of the metaphysical loneliness of an entire nation.” Similarly, Siradze (1987, p. 227) defines it as “a metaphysical sigh that echoes through all time.” The solitary poetic subject becomes, in effect, a vessel for collective trauma and cultural memory. The result is not merely personal lamentation but a symbolic articulation of national spiritual experience.

Regarding this existential collapse, Vardoshvili (2018, p. 65) characterizes this transformation as a “spiritual explosion” that converts individual metaphysical tension into a historically resonant force. “Merani” thus transcends the bounds of individual lyricism, functioning instead as a cultural palimpsest—a layered expression encoding both national memory and metaphysical struggle.

Such readings align with broader interpretations of “Merani” as a foundational text in Georgian cultural history. According to Giorgi Merchule, “Merani” constitutes “the poetic form of the Georgian people’s reckoning with their metaphysical destiny” (Chikovani 1985, p. 358). Meunargia (1945, p. 77) echoes this by describing the poem as a “poetic constitution,” suggesting that it inaugurates a new aesthetic paradigm distinct from the classical epic tradition and rooted in the philosophical modernity of the Georgian Romantic consciousness. Taken together, these perspectives affirm that “Merani” articulates a uniquely Georgian engagement with metaphysical infinity—not as a Romantic ideal of salvation but as a condition of fracture. Seen in this manner, the poem breaks with Romantic tradition and offers an existential vision rooted in Caucasian culture.

5.5. The Difference in Poetics: Reversal of the Archetype

Adam Mickiewicz’s “Faris” exemplifies the Romantic “journey archetype,” a poetic structure in which the protagonist’s metaphysical quest culminates in spiritual harmony and national affirmation. This model is clearly exemplified in Goethe’s “An Schwager Kronos”. In both poems, the figure of the horseman embarks on a metaphysical journey toward sublimity, purification, and spiritual salvation (Goethe 1975, p. 92). This archetypal narrative embodies the Romantic ideals of transcendence, national purpose, and harmony with divine order. The horseman in “Faris” is not merely an individual hero; he symbolizes the collective will and spiritual destiny of the Polish people. In sharp contrast, Nikoloz Baratashvili’s “Merani” subverts and reconfigures this archetype. The cavalryman in “Merani” is not guided toward spiritual clarity but drawn into darkness, uncertainty, and metaphysical solitude. His journey represents not heroic elevation but tragic fragmentation. Instead of achieving existential resolution, “Merani” suspends its subject within unresolved liminality—where transcendence is fragmented and meaning deferred. This shift presents Georgian poetics, portraying the Romantic hero as fragmented and uncertain rather than harmonious.

This counter-Romantic tendency is echoed in other Georgian Romantic texts, such as Vazha-Pshavela’s “The Blue Horse”, where spiritual endurance is imagined without the conventional imagery of light:

“To the sunless, moonless place,

We call it ‘sunny’.” (Vazha-Pshavela 1960, p. 56).

Instead of using light as a metaphor, this imagery expresses a counter-Romantic vision where spiritual light arises from resistance and not cosmic unity. Under Pasternak’s reading, “Merani” becomes not only a personal lament but also “a manifesto of the creative spirit rising to the surface out of suffering” (Pasternak 1958, p. 6). This reframing transforms the Romantic journey from one of salvation to one of open-ended questioning, where the search for meaning remains unresolved.

Formally, the divergence between the two poems is equally telling. “Faris” is structured relative to a classical balance, fusing epic and lyrical elements within a harmonious metric framework. In contrast, “Merani” is marked by rhythmic fragility and internal dissonance. The hesitations and tonal fluctuations in Baratashvili’s composition mirror the poem’s philosophical orientation—one of resistance, doubt, and spiritual volatility. The melodramatic and almost performative intensity of “Merani” signals a break from the stable symmetry of classical Romanticism. These aesthetic and structural differences reveal that “Merani” is not simply a response to “Faris” but a radical rearticulation of the Romantic poetic tradition. It is within this context that the concept of the “Faris” Cycle gains its explanatory power—not as a model of influence but as a field of transnational poetic consciousness. Both “Faris” and “Merani” participate within this larger imaginative space, though they do so with markedly different philosophical commitments.

6. The “Faris” Cycle and Collective Poetic Consciousness: The Flying Horse in European and Georgian Poetry

The “Faris” Cycle, in the framework proposed in this manuscript, identifies a transnational poetic structure anchored in metaphysical archetypes such as the flying horseman. To illuminate the comparative foundations of this study, this section explores the historical, cultural, and conceptual underpinnings of the thematic and poetic structure known as the “Faris” Cycle. It examines the manner in which prevalent images are shaped by a selection of poems incorporated within this structure. This phenomenon, particularly evident in European and Georgian poetry, signifies a collective poetic memory founded on shared symbols and historical sensibilities. Seen through this conceptual lens, Mickiewicz’s “Faris” and Baratashvili’s “Merani” demonstrate how the metaphors of “flying horse” and “cavalryman” are functionalized within a multilayered universe of meaning ranging from individual consciousness to collective spiritual experience. These figures are transformed into a collective consciousness code that integrates elements such as the metaphysical journey of the individual, national consciousness, historical responsibility, and the search for existence.

Literary and cultural analyses in the post-Soviet period demonstrate that “Merani” exemplifies not only Romantic poetry but also functions as a multilayered identity narrative embedded in the historical memory of the Georgian people. From this standpoint, Baratashvili’s cavalryman transcends the conventional boundaries of the literary hero, emerging as a symbolic figure that witnesses the processes of social transformation and proposes a metaphorical path towards the future. This figure is interpreted not only as a representation of individual loneliness or inner collapse but also as a carrier of collective poetic consciousness.

Indeed, as Baratashvili emphasizes, the figure of the cavalryman in “Merani” is defined as a being “trapped not between death and victory, but between solitude and metaphysical surrender” (Baratashvili 1976, p. 53). The result of this process is not the destruction of the individual for the sake of a historical or political goal but ontological dissolution—that is, the disintegration of being on the metaphysical plane. Baratashvili’s line “groans of the self-sacrificed soul”3 expresses ontological dissolution (Baratashvili 1945, p. 78). At this point, “Merani” subverts the heroic structure of Romantic poetry and adopts a multilayered poetic structure that centers on individual inner conflict and reckoning with fate.

Another facet of this poetic depth is “Merani”’s distinctive exposition of the intersection of individual poetic intuitions with national traumas. In the post-Soviet period, “Merani” has frequently been interpreted as a testament to the future, a tragic warning, and poetic guidance (Baratashvili 1945, pp. 77–82). In this framework, Siradze interprets the poem as an example of a “tragic poetic dissolution” rather than a narrative of epic triumph (Siradze 1987, p. 90), in which “the destruction of the corporeal subject” and “mystical surrender” become central themes of the poem. Conversely, Siradze interprets this dissolution as “the internal collapse of the poetic self” and considers this internal collapse to be a decisive threshold point of the search for metaphysical meaning in Georgian poetry (Siradze 1987, p. 229).

These interpretations situate “Merani” not only within a historical context but also within a spiritual and intellectual universe. The poem addresses the individual’s spiritual loneliness not only as a dramatic theme but also as an aesthetic building block that resonates in the collective unconscious. Baratashvili’s cavalryman embodies a poetic journey that blends metaphysical longing, historical memory, and cultural identity. In this respect, “Merani” can be regarded as a poetic form that derives its significance from the interplay between individual intuition and historical memory.

“Merani”’s positioning is not only an extension of the classical Romantic paradigm but also an example of poetic guidance that questions its limits, transforms it, and continues to influence the post-Soviet literature. Baratashvili’s following line clearly reflects this transformation: “I set out on this path knowing that everything is in vain” (Baratashvili 1945, p. 78). This line is the essence of a poetic structure in which Romantic heroism ends not in triumph but in conscious annihilation.

Ultimately, the “Faris” Cycle emerges not merely as a thematic network but as a transhistorical mode of symbolic resonance—one in which Romantic archetypes become vehicles for cultural survival and poetic memory. As conceptualized in this study, the “Faris” Cycle functions not only as a thematic structure but as a transnational poetic paradigm that articulates shared symbolic grammars across Romantic traditions. It serves as a critical framework for understanding how historical trauma, national identity, and metaphysical longing converge through recurring archetypes, such as the flying horse and the metaphysical horseman.

6.1. Goethe and the Myth of the “Journey”: From Kronos the Charioteer to “Faris”

The theoretical foundation of the “Faris” Cycle rests on the Romantic myth of the metaphysical journey, a recurring poetic structure that finds one of its earliest and most influential expressions in Goethe’s 1774 poem “An Schwager Kronos”. In this work, Goethe invokes Kronos—the allegorical embodiment of time—not merely as a mythic figure but as a poetic medium through which the existential conflict between time and transcendence is staged. The poem dramatizes the tension between the individual’s temporal limitations and the longing for spiritual transcendence, encapsulated within the aesthetic codes of Romantic poetics.

The following lines illustrate this metaphysical orientation through poetic abstraction:

“Wide, lofty and glorious is the view around into life; from mountain range to mountain range the eternal spirit glides, bringing the promise of eternal life.”

(Goethe 1975, p. 92)

The eternal spirit that glides across the mountains and brings the promise of immortality serves as a symbolic embodiment of the Romantic subject’s yearning for spiritual ascent and ontological wholeness. The “eternal life” envisioned here is not theological in nature but represents an aesthetic ideal of timeless being—a central motif of Romantic transcendentalism. Here, the poetic persona seeks not only to escape the linear constraints of time but to align with a timeless metaphysical order.

Goethe’s “An Schwager Kronos” thus emerges as both a poetic prototype for individual transcendence and a foundational text for the Romantic “myth of ascension,” which echoes throughout 19th-century European poetry. This thematic and symbolic schema—centered on the journey, the heroic rider, and spiritual elevation—lays the conceptual groundwork for subsequent reinterpretations; this is most notable in Mickiewicz’s “Faris” and Baratashvili’s “Merani”—each of which reshapes the journey archetype within culturally distinct frameworks. While each adapts this mythic structure to distinct cultural and historical contexts, they preserve the core metaphor of the metaphysical journey, which is now enriched with philosophical, national, and psychological dimensions. For instance, in Mickiewicz’s “Faris”, the metaphysical journey acquires a nationalist dimension as the rider becomes a symbolic agent of Polish historical endurance.

6.2. Mickiewicz’s “Faris”: Poetry of the Messianic Will

Mickiewicz’s “Faris” is not merely a lyrical work of Romantic individualism but a symbolic articulation of Poland’s collective memory and national aspiration. The central figure of the cavalryman transcends individual subjectivity and becomes a metaphor for messianic sacrifice within the broader struggle for national liberation. The imperative “Run, my silver-footed horse!”, as written by Mickiewicz (1986, p. 167), reflects not only poetic enthusiasm but also a call to spiritual and political awakening.

Rather than heroic triumph, the poem dramatizes a metaphysical narrative of rebirth rooted in national identity. As Hidashi (1961, p. 278) notes, the poem reconstructs the Polish people’s desire for freedom as a sacred poetic mission. In this manner, “Faris” exemplifies the Romantic synthesis of metaphysical yearning and historical responsibility.

6.3. Baratashvili’s “Merani”: Silent Heroism and Spiritual Resistance

“Merani” redefines the Romantic cavalry figure not as a triumphant hero but as a solitary seeker confronting an unknowable metaphysical fate. The refrain, “Run, Merani! Run forward!” (Baratashvili 1972, p. 51), signals not victory but existential surrender. The cavalryman advances not toward conquest but into spiritual dissolution.

Baratashvili’s poetic world is marked by introversion and historical trauma, which transforms the rider into a symbol of inner reckoning and national mourning. As Vardoshvili (2018, p. 63) observes, the poem weaves individual metaphysical struggle with collective disillusionment. Its power lies in its portrayal of solitude not as weakness but as silent resistance. “Merani” thus stands as a poetic expression of tragic transcendence rooted in Georgian cultural memory.

6.4. Petőfi’s “Pegasus”: From National Epic to Individual Myth

Petőfi’s “Pegasus” reflects a shift from national epic to personal mythmaking. Pegasus is not just a mythological motif but a symbol of poetic inspiration and political urgency. The cry “Go, go, hurry! / Fly me into the abyss…” (Petőfi 1973, p. 52) expresses the poet’s longing for liberation through transcendence.

In Petőfi’s vision, Pegasus’s flight does not correspond to a spatial escape but functions as a metaphysical leap into the unknown—an embodiment of the poet’s inner turmoil and imaginative emancipation. This act of soaring expresses a dual force: the fervor of creative inspiration and the spiritual impulse of political resistance. Pegasus thus becomes a vehicle not only for aesthetic ecstasy but also for articulating the poetic will toward liberation, binding the personal with the national. Crucially, “Pegasus” positions itself at the intersection of lyrical individualism and collective mythmaking. Petőfi’s reworking of the traditional heroic paradigm results in a Romantic refiguration, where national identity and historical memory are refracted through personal vision and symbolic transformation. In this reconfiguration, “Pegasus” enters into the intertextual dialogue with other works in the “Faris” Cycle—especially Baratashvili’s “Merani” and Mickiewicz’s “Faris”—through recurring motifs of flight, rupture, and metaphysical yearning. Consequently, “Pegasus” may be read as a poetic archetype of the Romantic subject who simultaneously dreams of political emancipation and spiritual transcendence. In this sense, “Pegasus” reimagines the national epic not as a static collective form but as a dynamic field where introspective lyricism and mythopoetic transformation forge an individualized cultural mythology.

6.5. Sully Prudhomme’s “Le Galop”: The Rhythm and Transgression of Desire

Prudhomme’s poem “Le Galop” (“The Gallop”) revisits the motif of the cavalryman within the broader Romantic paradigm of unbounded movement and spiritual yearning. The poem’s central image of galloping is not merely a symbol of physical movement but rather a metaphorical vehicle for desire, imagination, and intuitive flight. As Jibladze (1968, p. 407) aptly notes, “the rider is ready to exceed even the speed of his horse in order to realize his dream.” This observation underscores a vital Romantic principle: the journey is not teleologically driven toward an endpoint but is itself a poetic valorization of the act of movement.

Within this framework, “Le Galop” resonates with Baratashvili’s “Merani”, where the emphasis is not on reaching a destination but on ceaseless propulsion toward the unknown. Both poems explore the existential and metaphysical condition of being in motion as a core poetic experience. In Prudhomme’s vision, the subject’s gallop becomes a lyrical expression of a desire that refuses finality—a poetics of pursuit that remains open, unbounded, and self-generating. Thus, “Le Galop” can be considered a Romantic meditation on the nature of poetic subjectivity, wherein dynamism, rather than destination, defines the essence of being. This dynamic impulse—echoed across the “Faris” Cycle, especially in “Merani”—reveals a shared poetic logic: to transform the very act of movement into a metaphysical declaration of longing, uncertainty, and the fragmented identity of modernity. Through this symbolic gallop, Sully Prudhomme situates “Le Galop” within the “Faris” Cycle as a lyrical meditation on desire, temporality, and the ungraspable horizon of Romantic selfhood.

6.6. Vazha-Pshavela’s the Blue Horse: Spiritual Being at One with Nature

Vazha-Pshavela’s “The Blue Horse” unfolds a distinctive poetic cosmos, where the horse emerges not merely as a symbol of motion but as a spiritual conduit between self and nature. The following are the poem’s lyrical lines:

“You fly well on the rocks too,

You pave an untrodden road,

You keep me the grief away with your heart,

Grief with a thousand wings

You give the eagle’s wings

To my thoughts, with many wings.

You make me love a deserted place.

A sunless and moonless place,

That we call it the sunny.” (Vazha-Pshavela 1960, p. 56).

In these lines, the horse becomes not merely a physical companion but a metaphysical guide—an agent of intuitive reconciliation between the inner self and the cosmic order. Here, darkness is not negated but redefined; melancholy is transmuted into spiritual illumination through the harmony of natural rhythms and poetic vision. This aesthetic gesture shares thematic resonance with Baratashvili’s “Merani”, particularly in the poetic articulation of “stormy thoughts left to the wind.” Both poets transform the figure of the horse into a symbolic mediator between the inner world and external reality—between chaos and order, sorrow, and transcendence. “The Blue Horse” can then be seen as both an individual expression of Romantic longing and a collective mythopoetic structure in which nature, spirit, and poetic intuition are unified. Its metaphysical clarity and ecological attunement expand the conceptual horizon of the “Faris” Cycle beyond European Romanticism, embedding it within the Caucasian poetics of landscape, spirit, and existential fate.

6.7. Summary of Common Poetics: The Galloping Horse and the Image of Eternity

The recurrent figures of the “flying horse” and the “cavalryman” function not as mere poetic ornaments but as archetypal agents within a shared metaphysical and national imaginary. Across the “Faris” Cycle, these motifs evolve into vehicles of existential and philosophical reflection, mediating the tension between individual subjectivity and collective spiritual consciousness.

From this perspective, “Merani” stands out as an expression of inner resistance rather than action and of poetic echo rather than sound. Baratashvili’s poem is the poetic form of a silent metaphysical surrender and a tragic realization despite the apparent movement. Mickiewicz’s poem “Faris”, on the other hand, takes shape as a symbolic expression of a collective wake-up call and national resistance imbued with historical longing. As Jinoria (1966, p. 213) aptly suggests, “Merani” articulates “not just an individual journey, but a poetic path carved in historical memory by the collective spirit,” reaffirming the poem’s status as both personal lament and national allegory. The “Faris” Cycle, therefore, cannot be reduced to a sequence of poems with similar motifs. Rather, it constitutes a multilayered poetic field—one that intersects diverse geographies, languages, and ideological frameworks. Each poem within the cycle operates both autonomously and dialogically, participating in a larger constellation of Romantic consciousness shaped by shared archetypes and divergent poetic functions.

To capture the symbolic intersections and ideological divergences within this poetic constellation, the following typological table (

Table 1. Typological summary of common poetic elements in poems included in the “Faris” Cycle.

Poet/Work	Cavalry Figure	Horse Symbol	Spiritual Stance	Historical Context	Poetic Type
Mickiewicz/“Faris”	Messianic Savior	Flying Horse	Metaphysical Ecstasy	Polish National Resistance (1830s)	Lyric–Epic
Baratashvili/“Merani”	Tragic Seeker	Spiritual Steed	Ontological Dissolution	Post-1832 Georgian Conspiracy	Tragic–Existentialist
Petőfi/“Pegasus”	Revolutionary Bard	Imagination Vehicle	Transcendental Flight	1848 Hungarian Revolution	National–Lyrical
Sully Prudhomme/“The Gallop”	Abstract Dreamer	Unbounded Energy	Desire and Intuition	Late 19th- Century France	Psychological–Lyrical
Vazha-Pshavela/“The Blue Horse”	Poet of Unity	Harmony with Nature	Spiritual Serenity	Georgian Rural Imagination	Symbolist–Lyrical

) identifies five key parameters: (1) the narrative function of the cavalry figure, (2) the symbolic role of the horse, (3) the poem’s spiritual orientation, (4) its historical embedding, and (5) its dominant poetic mode. These parameters are derived from close textual readings of six central works, informed by recurrent metaphors, tonal structures, and thematic undercurrents that emerged across the comparative analysis.

This typological framework elucidates how recurrent metaphors—such as the galloping horse—are appropriated within diverse poetic contexts, transforming into polysemic expressions of the national ethos, metaphysical yearning, or aesthetic revolt. From Mickiewicz’s eschatological heroism to Baratashvili’s metaphysical solitude, the evolution of the cavalry motif reveals the Romantic imagination’s unique capacity to internalize historical trauma and transcend temporal constraints.

Ultimately, the “Faris” Cycle emerges not only as a transnational constellation of Romantic texts but also as a dynamic poetic field that reflects the dialectics of memory, identity, and metaphysical striving. It demonstrates how symbolic imagery—rooted in classical archetypes yet reimagined through local cultural lenses—can embody universal existential concerns, turning poetry into a vessel for both collective remembrance and individual revelation. While this study focuses primarily on Romantic poetics within European and Caucasian traditions, future comparative extensions of the “Faris” Cycle may fruitfully explore its resonances with Persian, Latin American, or South Asian Romanticisms, where analogous symbolic grammars and metaphysical trajectories intersect with distinct historical experiences.

7. Conclusions

In light of the comparative analysis presented, the “Faris” Cycle emerges not as a mere cluster of horse-themed Romantic poems but as a transnational poetic archetype through which poets across diverse literary traditions articulated spiritual crisis, historical trauma, and the metaphysics of motion. “Faris”, “Merani”, “Pegasus”, and “The Blue Horse” collectively express the archetype of the metaphysical rider—a solitary, visionary figure navigating exile, silence, and transcendence.

Baratashvili’s “Merani” constitutes a cornerstone of 19th-century Georgian Romanticism and continues to shape modern Georgian literary consciousness through its layered poetic structure and symbolic density. Especially in recent post-Soviet readings that recontextualize Romanticism as a vehicle for postcolonial identity formation (Jinoria 1966, p. 483), the poem has been reevaluated not only as a Romantic text but also as a multidimensional cultural artifact, articulating tensions between personal destiny and collective trauma. In this light, “Merani” emerges as a symbolic and constitutive work within the matrix of Georgian historical memory and cultural imagination.

This study examined the intertextual relationship between “Faris” and “Merani” through a multidimensional lens—historical, philosophical, and aesthetic—culminating in the conceptualization of the “Faris” Cycle as a transnational poetic constellation shaped by metaphysical tension and historical rupture. Coined in this study, the term refers not merely to a recurring symbolic pattern but to a dynamic poetic grammar in which existential anxiety, metaphysical yearning, and historical burden intersect. This archetype is explored across a broad literary spectrum, extending from Goethe and Mickiewicz to Petőfi, Sully Prudhomme, Vazha-Pshavela, and Lermontov. Each of these poets—within their own cultural idioms—engages with the symbolic figure of the “flying horseman” as an expression of Romantic longing, philosophical defiance, and poetic resistance.

Positioned within this poetic constellation, “Merani” does not merely echo “Faris” but performs a counter-textual intervention—reimagining the Romantic journey not as heroic transcendence but as existential fracture and metaphysical burden. The poem challenges the classical Romantic teleology of spiritual ascent by exposing the tragic underside of visionary thought—marked by solitude, sacrifice, and the weight of historical responsibility. In line with Said’s (1994) notion of cultural hybridity and symbolic reterritorialization, “Merani” can be read as a postcolonial re-inscription of Romantic archetypes within a localized philosophical context.

Contemporary Georgian literary criticism increasingly regards “Merani” not merely as a nostalgic echo of European Romanticism but as a dynamic site of poetic memory—an intertextual monument that preserves and reactivates the nation’s historical self. While engaging in an implicit dialogue with Mickiewicz’s “Faris”, “Merani” also affirms its own aesthetic and philosophical agency. The poem transcends thematic kinship and assumes a transformative position as a poetic code embedded in the Georgian collective consciousness.

Accordingly, this study contributes to the fields of comparative literature, Romantic poetics, and postcolonial aesthetics through its twin proposals of poetic typology and counter-textuality. By reading “Merani” within the broader constellation of the “Faris” Cycle, the analysis offers a methodological framework for identifying the transnational patterns of Romantic imagery while foregrounding the specificities of local cultural memory and metaphysical thought.

Future research may expand upon this typological model to explore the recurrence and reinvention of the “Faris” archetype in Slavic, Caucasian, and Central Asian literary traditions. Such inquiries could reveal how the metaphor of the “flying cavalryman” functions as a transhistorical and transcultural emblem of poetic imagination, existential struggle, and political resistance. This perspective not only broadens the scope of Romantic studies but also contributes to decolonial literary methodologies by centering non-Western symbolic imaginaries.