<論説>コンスタンティノープル陥落後の総主教ゲナディオスニ世のヘレニズム

Abstract

ギリシア古典の高度な教養を身に付けたビザンツ帝国の知識人層においては、概ね十二世紀以降ギリシア古典文化に対して肯定的な評価を行い、自らの起源を古代のギリシア人に見出す傾向が次第に生まれたが、この現象は研究上「ヘレニズム」と呼ばれている。本稿では、ビザンツ帝国末期からオスマン帝国支配への移行期におけるビザンティン・ヘレニズムを、オスマン帝国に留まった知識人の観点から分析するという目的のもと、コンスタンティノープル陥落後に初めてコンスタンティノープル総主教に就任したゲナディオスニ世のヘレニズムを、彼の著作を分析することで検討した。彼はスルタン・メフメトニ世との関係においては古代ギリシアの知識が神に由来し、キリスト教の普及という一神教の展開史に肯定的に寄与したことを主張した。またオスマン支配下のギリシア系正教徒に対しては、ギリシア文化の卓越性を拠り所にして、神と特別な関係で結ばれた国なき民として支配を受容することを促したのである。

From the twelfth century on, Byzantine intellectuals who were deeply imbued in the Greek classics began to positively evaluate classical culture by applying to it the epithet "Greek" which had had negative nuance of paganism. Although the Byzantines had generally referred to themselves as "Romans, " this re-evaluation gradually led to the tendency for identification of their origin with the ancient Greeks. In Byzantine studies these phenomena are called "Byzantine Hellenism". The main problem of this Byzantine Hellenism is how it was related to the modes of collective identity (e. g. Roman, Orthodox, or Greek) that the intellectuals projected onto themselves and other Byzantines. In this regard, until the middle of the 20th century there had been a conflict between the teleological interpretation of Hellenism that sought to see it as the origin of the modern Greek nation and the tendency to completely negate its influence on the identity of the Byzantines. Recently, this dichotomy has been overcome by reconsidering the Byzantine Hellenism from the perspective of diachronic changes in the range of what was regarded as "Greek" as well as its significance and function in Byzantine society. This reexamination, however, has not yet proceeded to the fifteenth century when the Byzantine Empire met its demise. Although it is well known that the late Byzantine Empire (Palaeologan Dynasty) saw the florescence of cultural activity centering on the Greek classics, only its contribution to the Italian Renaissance has often mattered for those scholars who valued its role. Therefore, it has not been yet sufficiently illustrated how Byzantine Hellenism related to the development of collective identity of the Byzantines living in the transient period from the Byzantine rule to that of the Ottomans. This article is an initial attempt to understand the relation between Byzantine Hellenism and the collective identity adopted by intellectuals in the middle of the fifteenth century from the viewpoint of those who remained within the within the Ottoman Empire after the collapse of the Byzantine Empire. Specifically, this paper investigates the discourses of Hellenism expressed in the works of Gennadios II (1400 ca.-72 ca.), the first Patriarch (1454-6) after the fall of Constantinople. By analyzing how his Hellenism was related to Byzantine traditional modes of thinking such as the soteriological view of history and religious interpretations of historical events, and then by associating this analysis with the circumstances which he faced (these circumstances specifically took the form of two tasks he took on: accommodation between the Ottoman government and the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the revelation of the historical position and destiny of the Greek Orthodox Christians), I aim to elucidate in particular the intended result of these Hellenism discourses. As the result of the investigation of these texts closely connected to his perceived tasks, the following conclusions were obtained. Firstly, in the dialogue with Mehmed 2, Gennadios 2 tried to position Greek antiquity as an era contributing to the renewal of divine law in the Christian soteriological view of history by marginalizing the pagan nuance of ancient Greece and stressing its excellence in philosophy, which he also regarded as deriving from the law of God. This attempt was intended to show that the Greek Orthodox people formerly had a privileged relationship with God in the framework of the soteriological history developed by alternations of divine law that would be easily understandable to Muslims without causing suspicion of paganism. Secondly, Gennadios 2 told the Greek Orthodox people under the rule of the Ottoman Empire that the fall of Constantinople was caused by their sins and God's admonitory punishment and persuaded them to accept the new regime. This mode of explanation, in reaction to the extinction of the Byzantine Empire, transformed the idea of the imperial subjects of the City blessed by God as their common homeland to be the one of a people without their own polity who were bound to God by the relationship of "sin and punishment" in analogy with the fate of the Jews. Accordingly, the concept of the "chosen people" could theoretically include all Orthodox people. However, when the ancient idea of the excellence of the Greek culture was combined with the collective identity of the Greek Orthodox people via terms such as Polis (Constantinople), genos (nation) and patris (homeland), the "chosen people" was transformed into the "Greeks, " which provided them with a certain degree of ethnic cohesion.