Humor, laughter, jest, and irony are seldom found in religious literature because hagiography follows strict canons, and the author’s attitude toward laughter is also different.

The Middle Ages believed that the highest earthly happiness for a person was recognizing and repenting of one’s own shortcomings and sins. A person’s goal was to resemble the Creator as much as possible and to become sanctified; therefore, laughter, humor, and jest were rarely considered appropriate in medieval Christian thinking.

In Christianity, laughter is often regarded as a sin because true believers who recognize their fallen nature are not expected to find joy in laughter, while sorrow and mourning for one's own sins are encouraged. For example, in The Life of Ephrem the Syrian, where we learn about the holy monk as an example, it states: “And he was young, and his face was full of sorrow, and he never smiled” (Georgian Language National Corpus, Hag. Trl. Vita_Ephr.Syr. 23 97 11). Here, it is clear that the trait “never smiled” is presented positively, highlighting the monk’s virtue. Elsewhere, in Cyril of Scythopolis’s The Life of Euthymius, there is an interesting episode where a monk accidentally laughs and is reprimanded: “Brother, the devil has deceived you, for you laughed foolishly. Are you not aware that the Lord reproaches those who laugh and blesses those who weep” (Georgian Language National Corpus, Euthym. 156: 9). In The Teachings of the Fathers, it states: “Laughter and merriment are inappropriate for a monk" (Teachings of the Fathers, 1955, pp. 167), etc.

Laughter and festivity were also banned in monasteries, including the Iviron Monastery on Mount Athos. According to The Lives of John and Euthymius: “When they see any of the young brothers talking with one another or laughing or gesturing with hands, they quickly reproach them. And if they do it a second time, they report it to the abbot, and he punishes them severely" (Monuments of Georgian Hagiographic Literature, 1967, p. 75). The hagiographer notes that the refectory supervisor had been instructed by the father superior: "If you see anyone talking or laughing or being frivolous at the table, stop them, saying: 'Do not do this anymore, unless the abbot has permitted it, or he will expel you” (Monuments of Georgian Hagiographic Literature, 1967, p. 75). It is not even surprising that medieval Christian culture was long considered a culture devoid of laughter. “Laughter was banished from the church culture, from the feudal-state order, from social etiquette, and from all genres of higher ideology. The one-sided seriousness of tone characteristic of official medieval culture was established as the only form of expressing truth, goodness, and generally everything essential and significant” (Bakhtin, 1965, p. 82).

The aim of this research is to demonstrate the purpose and function of humor, laughter, and other comedic elements in Georgian hagiographical literature. The study primarily relies on hermeneutical and historical-comparative methods. Its conclusions are drawn from scholarly research, articles, and textual analysis of these monuments.

Although cases of humor, jest, irony, and laughter are less common in hagiographical texts, especially from the hagiographical hero’s perspective, they still appear in texts with various degrees and purposes.

1. The saint employs irony and satire against ideological opponents.

2. Laughter is used as a literary device to highlight the absurdity of a situation or the saint's character.

3. Humor, jokes, and laughter are used to diffuse tension or simply serve as expressions of human emotion.

4. In early medieval Georgian hagiographical writings, laughter mostly appears in negative contexts, unlike in later medieval texts.

For a long time, no one discussed instances of satire, irony, laughter, and humor in hagiography, including Byzantine hagiography. The main reason for this was the Church's stance on laughter. Church authorities especially criticized laughter and humor, but alongside strict reproaches, there was also a recognition of a positive attitude toward joy and smiling.

In Byzantine hagiography, instances of laughter and smiling are rare, but they do occur. Although, laughter is mostly used in negative contexts and is primarily aimed at belittling others for insult and mockery (Bernard, 2020, p.  42). Satirical tone is a key feature of Byzantine hagiography. As religious didactic and critical literature, it includes many characters who use satire to attack others. On one hand, the main heroes of hagiography, the saints, often grotesquely address and mock non-Christians, pagans, heretical co-believers, and so on. On the other hand, their opponents mock and insult the saints, and in some cases, even the devil (Constantinou, 2021, pp. 81-103).

The study of cases of satire, humor, and laughter in hagiography has led to disagreement in Georgian scholarship. G. Kiknadze, in his For the Development of Satire and Humor in Georgian Prose (Kiknadze, 1972), indicates that signs of satire and humor are not found at all in Georgian hagiography. Siradze also points to this phenomenon: “...hagiographical literature does not know laughter. Sometimes it seems the entire epoch lost its sense of humor. Here joy causes tears. The wisdom of laughter is denied, so is the art of smiling" (Siradze, 1987, p. 697). Rodonaia also writes about this: “In early religious literature, we cannot find examples of laughter and frivolity. From a Christian perspective, tears of compassion make us resemble God. At the same time, laughter is alien and unacceptable (probably this is why it is hinted in one apocryphal tradition: the Savior wept and never laughed)" (Rodonaia, 1988, p. 453). J. Aptsiauri, in the article “Elements of the Comic in Ancient Georgian Prose” voices the opinion that Georgian hagiography contains comic-humorous passages that are not organic to it, which contradict neither Christian worldview nor the basic idea of hagiography (Aptsiauri, 1980, p. 147), though this opinion was immediately met with great controversy. In response to this, I. Chavchavadze wrote an article with the title “What Makes us Laugh?!" in which Chavchavadze (1993) criticizes this view. In Georgian hagiography, as in Byzantine, very rarely but still we encounter cases of laughter and other elements of comedy.

The Martyrdom of Shushanik is an outstanding work from this perspective as well as for it’s other values. In this hagiographical work there are several episodes where characters use sarcasm and irony when speaking with each other, which sometimes grows into satirical tone. According to the theorist and critic Northrop Frye, satire is “militant irony”. He identifies two essential components on which satire is based: the first is wit or humor, which is based on fantasy or a sense of the absurd and grotesque. The second is the object of attack (Frye 1990, p. 223).

Shushanik's satirical tone is felt in the episode when Varsken sends his milk kinsman to her in prison and tells her to return to the palace. The saint responds: “Tell the ungodly one: 'You killed me and told me you shall not come out of this prison alive.’ Therefore, if you think you have the power to resurrect the dead, first resurrect your mother, who is buried in the ground" (Monuments of Ancient Georgian Hagiographic Literature, 1963, p. 24). In my opinion, the response can be said to be the first example of satire recorded in Georgian literature, which is based on irony and is directed against the opponent, Varsken, who is precisely the object of attack, which is further confirmed by the inclusion of Varsken's mother in this phrase. In the quoted passage, it is difficult to see Shushanik as a saint; here she appears as an ordinary woman who, angered at Varsken, does not even spare mentioning his mother and does this partly to annoy her former husband.

Irony also appears in Varsken’s words when he tells his former wife, who is shackled and agrees to suffer in this world so that she may find eternal rest in the next: “Oh yes, rest in peace!" (Monuments of Ancient Georgian Hagiographic Literature, 1963, p. 21) and orders the guards to starve her to death. However, this still differs from the previous episode, because Shushanik is a saint, a hagiographical hero, and her sarcasm is more specific than that of Varsken’s. At the same time, in the first episode, Shushanik also emphasizes family discord. From her words, it is clear that she is addressing her husband and not simply an opponent who forces her to change her faith. In this specific phrase, Shushanik stands out more as a woman, a former wife, than as a saint; this moment is specific from this very angle.

The actual laughter in the case of a hagiographical hero is found in the sixth-century writing The Martyrdom of Eustathius of Mtskheta. In it, as in The Martyrdom of Shushanik, typical signs are confirmed that connect it with early Byzantine hagiography, though we also encounter a specific artistic image that departs from the pure hagiographical narrative model.

This concerns the episode when Eustathius of Mtskheta refuses his fellow countrymen's invitation to participate in their main festival. In the text we read: “And they sent people to the blessed Eustathius and said: 'Come and join our celebration...’” But the blessed Eustathius laughed and said to them: “Your festivals are dark, and those who participate in them are also dark-minded" (Monuments of Ancient Georgian Hagiographic Literature, 1963, p. 30).

In scholarly literature, Kh. Zaridze highlights the fact of Eustathius’s laughter and notes that laughter is a rare trait for a martyrdom character. According to the researcher, Eustathius’s laughter reveals his internal attitude toward the Zoroastrian faith, the mention of which even brings him shame. Eustathius's laughter erupts in response to the foolish request of his compatriots, and here, a different aspect of his artistic image appears (Zaridze, 1985).

Laughter is very characteristic of a hagiographical hero, regardless of what he laughs at or what the character mocks. It should be noted that while rare, there are still instances of laughter coming from hagiographical heroes in Byzantine hagiography. Instances of laughter and smiling also appear in works of the Vita genre.

St. George the Lesser shares an aspect of Giorgi of Mt. Athos—he always walked with his head down, and “except for necessary matters, no one would look into his eyes" (Monuments of Georgian Hagiographic Literature, 1967, p. 125). King Bagrat heard this and decided to test the saint. So, he invited him and told his nobles about Giorgi’s remarkable trait: “When our Giorgi of Mt. Athos comes to us, let all of you test him until his departure, so that we can ensure that he does not look at us or see our faces” (Monuments of Georgian Hagiographic Literature, 1967, p. 126). Giorgi of Mt. Athos arrived as expected. After a lengthy conversation, when the day ended, the monk was ready to leave “before the sixth hour.” The king, unable to contain himself, said to him: “Father, show love and look at me, see what I look like.” The monk slightly smiled, looked briefly at him, and said: “Oh king, behold, I see your face as if it were the face of Christ...” (Monuments of Georgian Hagiographic Literature, 1967, p. 126). Despite knowing the saint’s habit of avoiding eye contact, the king couldn’t resist and begged the Athonite monk to look at him just once and see what he was like. Presumably, Giorgi of Mt. Athos saw through the king’s plan from the start, and his desperate words, which exposed his true intentions, made the monk smile, fulfilling the request. Therefore, The Life of Giorgi the Hieromonk (Khutsesmonazoni) is one of the rare accounts showing a saintly smile—where, unlike Eustathius of Mtskheta, the saint does not mock anything or anyone but humanly smiles at a particular situation.

There is another instance in the mentioned hagiographic work where Giorgi of Mt. Athos laughs. The episode describes how the holy father destroyed an idol in Livizdya. Giorgi of Mt. Athos, traveling to the royal city, arrives in the region, where they advise him: if you want to return victorious, pray to our god to help you before the king. The monk shows wisdom and approaches the “misguided people” diplomatically, even thanking them for the good advice, and asks them to show him the idol. When he sees the “soulless god,” he goes back and says: “Let it be for a time, tomorrow I will come on my own and worship it” (Monuments of Georgian Hagiographic Literature, 1967, p. 140). At dawn, the saint took a blacksmith's hammer and went with several men toward the idol. There he began reading John’s Gospel, while the frightened locals cried out saying: “Behold, he will kill you!” - and the monk laughed, and like a young man armed with Christ’s cross, he approached the idol boldly. “He took the hammer and struck it and thus smashed it to pieces” (Monuments of Georgian Hagiographic Literature, 1967, p. 140). The most interesting part here is the laughter caused by the people’s ignorance, naivety, and belief that the idol would harm the monk. Through this specific artistic image, we get a picture of a hermit who, alongside deep Christian inspiration, lives with ordinary human experiences and emotions.

Hagiographic heroes sometimes also stand out with a sense of humor. We are talking about the lives of the Athonite monks, which Bregadze (2002) has highlighted in this regard. The scholar, in his article “A Little Jokingly, or Additional Arguments for William Baskerville,” examined two episodes where humor is evident.

The first is an episode from The Lives of John and Euthymius by Giorgi of Mt. Athos. During a strong and prolonged drought in summer, John of Mt. Athos orders his son, Euthymius, to lead the monks to the church of Prophet Elijah and pray all night for rain, then – “he ordered somewhat jokingly, saying: 'Children, take umbrellas back with you, for I trust in God that we shall not come back disappointed" (Monuments of Georgian Hagiographic Literature, 1967: 68). In modern Georgian, we would say that the holy monk said all this jokingly (somewhat merrily) to the brothers. According to the scholar, after such a prolonged drought, taking precautions so that the monks would not get wet seems like unfounded optimism or excessive pedantry. Besides this, the cheerful mood is strengthened by the fact that it has been so long since it rained, as long as the drought stops, who would care about getting wet (Bregadze, 2002).

The second example Bregadze (2002) takes from The Life of Giorgi of Mt. Athos. Giorgi the Lesser describes a dispute between Giorgi of Mt. Athos and Patriarch Theodoros. The issue of the autocephaly of the Georgian Church was at stake. Giorgi of Mt. Athos documented that Apostle Andrew preached in Georgia, also pointed to the fact of Simon the Canaanite's burial in Georgia, and noted that Georgians had never deviated from the true faith. Beyond solid argumentation, Giorgi of Mt. Athos also used the human factor and allowed himself to joke.

“And, somewhat jokingly, he said to the patriarch: ‘O, Holy Bishop, it is fitting that the called one should obey his caller, for it is proper for Peter to obey his caller and brother Andrew, and that you should obey us!’” (Monuments of Georgian Hagiographic Literature, 1967, p. 154). Giorgi of Mt. Athos said it as a joke. He tells the patriarch that it would be better if the disciple (Peter’s apostolic church) submitted to the teacher (Georgia, Andrew's apostolic church), therefore it would be better if you submitted to us. According to Bregadze's (2002) assessment, humor here is built on placing a non-essential moment before an essential one. Aptsiauri (1980) also responds to this episode; he does not focus on the Athonite monk’s humor, but considers the fact itself comical: "The Greeks really found themselves in a comical situation, the patriarch caught in a bind tries to use humor as a way out” (p. 149).

I think Giorgi of Mt. Athos was really joking, although there was some truth in this joke, which is why the patriarch, acting in his own interests, takes it as humor, as shown by his smile. “The patriarch smiled and said to those priests-teachers and the people: ‘You see this monk, how in solitude he disputes with so many of us, lest our opponent defeat us and expose our defeat not only in words but in deeds and put us to shame’” (Monuments of Georgian Hagiographic Literature, 1967, p. 155). Here, humor acts as a way to diffuse the tension.

The work Miracles of Saint George by Abuseridze Tbeli, produced in 1233, is most interesting from the perspective of humor. In the early Middle Ages, besides Saint George's “Passion”, various readings related to the martyr were created in Byzantium. Abuseridze Tbeli's mentioned work is also a kind of continuation of this tradition. Scholars consider the levity and humor of Saint George revealed in the work as a new detail to the plot (Georgian Literature, 1988).

In one episode, Saint George calls Bolok-Basil “Bachilo,” jokingly because Basil is a stammerer, and this is precisely why the saint addresses him with a speech defect, deliberately distorting the word to resemble his speech - this is truly an unusual case for a work of this genre.

The second passage is even more interesting. Saint George instructs Basil to measure the escaped stone; when Basil enters the gap, the saint squeezes the stone parts. Basil screams, “Woe to me, why do you kill me, the poor one?” And the martyr, somewhat in the manner of laughter and levity, releases him from the stone and says: 'Look up and do not be weary of my service and complete my church” (Georgian Literature, 1988, p. 422). Here, Saint George also jokes and plays with Bolok-Basil, while also giving him a remark: Don't be reluctant about my service, don't be distressed.

V. Rodonaia (1988) was the first to notice the humorous tone in this work and pointed out that such episodes should be seen as a violation of the basic rules of the earlier genre, since the saint’s levity and humor add a new element to the plot that is not found in early religious literature. However, as it turned out, examples of humor are also present in works from earlier periods, though not in the same form.

Finally, the satirical tone and irony revealed in The Martyrdom of Shushanik, I believe, should be explained by the fact that this is the oldest hagiographic monument. At this point, the hagiographic template is not fully developed either in Byzantium or, accordingly, with us, so the author is quite free and not afraid to describe such moments that, as a rule, he should not emphasize, but through this, Iakob Khutsesi creates very vivid and highly artistic images. In The Martyrdom of Eustathius of Mtskheta, the character's laughter reveals both the saint's personality and the absurdity of the situation; he mocks the false teachings he previously followed. Laughter as a weapon of mockery is also common in Byzantine hagiography. Concerning the lives of the Athonites, I think the instances of humor, laughter, and smiles are portrayed most delicately here, which can be explained by the fact that the late Middle Ages are characterized by a strongly expressed humanism, which also manifests in aspects of laughter and humor. This might explain the different portrayal of Saint George in the work Miracles of Saint George. In the late Middle Ages, the human nature, sensitivity, and emotional depth of hagiographic heroes became much more prominent in their artistic depiction. This is probably why laughter is shown more negatively in early medieval Georgian hagiographic monuments than in later medieval texts.

It is important to recognize that humor in hagiography is not used solely for entertainment but often holds deep spiritual meaning. The jokes, laughter, and humor of saints are often shown as ways of demonstrating wisdom, humility, or spiritual lessons, though, less often, humor also reveals pure human emotion, as seen in the lives of the Athonites.