<研究ノート>ガレシオンの修道士アタナシオスとは何者か : パリ・ギリシア語写本八五七番とビザンツの修道院文化

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to identify the copyist of one thirteenth-century Byzantine manuscript, Codex Parisinus Graecus 857 (hereafter abbreviated as P), This manuscript, which contains the fourth part of Paul Evergetinos' monastic florilegium, known as Synagoge or Evergetinon, has neither illustrations nor descriptions of contemporary events and thus has remained virtually unknown to historians and art historians alike. It has, however, attracted the attention of some philologists and paleographers since the eighteenth century. The reason for this is the specific information provided by the copyist about himself in the colophon. He revealed therein that he was a monk named Athanasios, and moreover that he copied P in the monastery of Mt. Galesion in 1261. The two proper nouns and one specified date reminded some scholars of the Patriarch Athanasios I of Constantinople (1289-93, 1303-9), a radical, ascetic reformer of the late Byzantine church and society. This Patriarch Athanasios is generally considered to have lived between c.a. 1230 and 1320 and is reported by his two hagiographers to have stayed at Galesion for many years during his early life. From these pieces of evidence, they have assumed or asserted that the copyist Athanasios should be identified with Patriarch Athanasios. If their assumption is correct, it not only challenges the prevailing view that no holographic manuscript with the signature of Patriarch Athanasios survives, but also supports the hagiographical reports of his stay at Galesion. What is more, it enables us to estimate the influence of reading and copying Paul Evergetinos' Synagoge upon the later Patriarch Athanasios. In this paper the scholarly debate on Athanasios, the copyist of P, is first surveyed. After careful examination of the points made by B. de Montfaucon, F. Halkin, N. Wilson, J. Declerck and E. Patedakis, it becomes clear that the theory of the identity of the two Athanasioi, supported by Declerck cautiously and Patedakis boldly, lacks crucial evidence and still remains a hypothesis. For instance, Declerck, whose study is undoubtedly the best and most detailed, raised five points which he considered as supportive evidence, but his argument does not necessarily exclude the possibility that another Athanasios, not the later Patriarch, was engaged in copying P at Galesion. Secondly, an additional four pieces of supportive evidence are proposed and discussed. Three of them are related to the P text itself, while the other is related to the script style. As for the former, there appear to be three traces of the Synagoge that are reflected in the life and thought of Paeriarch Athanasios. One is the Hypotyposis (monastic rules or so-called monastic typikon) composed by Patriarch Athanasios in 1305 and applied to all the monasteries in the empire. It has been noted that his Hypotyposis has many similarities with the Hypotyposis made by the disciple Timothy for the monastery of Theotokos Evergetis founded by Paul Evergetinos, and Timothy certainly referred to Paul's Synagoge in writing his Hypotyposds. Second is the emphasis put by Patriarch Athanasios upon the significance of the priesthood for monks. At several stages of his life, Athanasios accepted priestly offices, though reluctantly, and became deacon, priest and patriarch. In the Synagoge, the final theses (the second half of part IV) were exclusively assigned to questions and answers about the significance of the priesthood for monks. Third is the ambivalent stance of Patriarch Athanasios in Byzantine hesychasm. Gregory Palamas mentioned this Athanasios as one of its forerunners, but otherwise there is no clear evidence for his involvement with hesychasm. By the same token, the Synagoge itself is an ambivalent text in terms of hesychasm. The fourth point concerning the script style is the possibility that P's copyist, Athanasios, was familiar with and influenced by a unique script style that had been developed at Galesion during the thirteenth century. This seems to agree with the hagiographical reports that Patriarch Athanasios stayed at Galesion for eighteen years. Strictly speaking, there is no proving the theory of the identity of P's copyist, Athanasios, and Patriarch Athanasios as Declerck suggested, but it is important that in addition to the points made by Declerck four further points can be posed in its support and that no counter-evidence has been found thus far. It is almost certain that a young monk named Athanasios, who later became patriarch and a reformist, copied P during his long stay at Galesion.