THE GROWTH OF THE MANUSCRIPT LIBRARY OF PHILOTHEOU MONASTERY IN THE BYZANTINE PERIOD

International Congress of Byzantine Studies Moscow, August, 1991

ENDNOTES

Note 1
The wall painting is described in Ioannis Komnenos, Proskunhtarion tou Agiou Orouw tou Ayvnvw, ed. B. Montfaucon, 1708, p. 497. Komnenos identifies the three founders as Philotheos, Dionysios o 'Oun,w, and Arsenios. About Arsenios he knows only his name, which he undoubtedly derived from the wall painting. The painting was lost when the catholicon was razed to make way for the present one, shortly prior to 1746.

Note 2
D. Bogdanovic, Zitije Svetog Save, Belgrade, 1984, p. 245. Vasiliki Kravari ("Nouveaux documents du Monastère de Philotheou, Travaux et Mémoires 10, 1987, pp. 279-90 and n. 69), skeptical about a second period of abandonment, leaves the question open in light of the statement that St. Savas, at the beginning of the thirteenth century, provided for reconstruction of the monastery (Theodosije Hilandarac, Zivot Svetoga Save, ed. Dj. Danieie Belgrade, 1860, pp. 66-67).

Note 3
Robert W. Allison, "The Fourteenth-Century Panegyrikon of Philotheou and Albert Ehrhard's Assessment of the Post-Metaphrastic Tradition," paper presented at the 17th International Byzantine Congress, Washington, D.C., August 3-8, 1986. Also, "The Fourteenth-Century Scriptorium at the Athonite Monastery of Philotheou, paper presented at the American Byzantine Studies Conference, Chicago, October, 1982.

Note 4
Robert W. Allison, "The Sixteenth-Century Scriptorium of Philotheou," paper delivered at the American Byzantine Studies Conference, Durham, North Carolina, 1983, and "The Sixteenth-Century Scriptorium of Philotheou and the Athonite Resistance to Islamization," American Byzantine Studies Conference, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1984.

NOTE 5
Vasiliki Kravari, "Nouveaux documents du Monastère de Philotheou," Travaux et Mémoires 10 (1987) pp. 261-356 and plates I-XIII.

Note 6The datings are my own, extensively changed from Lambros' catalog (Spyridon P. Lambros, Katalogow tvn en taiw biblioyhkaiw tou Agiou Orouw ellhnikvn kvdikvn, 2 vols., Cambridge, 1895, 1900, repr. Chicago, Argonaut Publishers, 1967).

Note 7
Also, 30 codices have modern bindings, most of them original bindings on modern manuscripts, and 43 codices have no bindings. There has been no modern program of rebinding manuscripts at Philotheou. Related bindings occur mostly on unrelated codices, which bear related bindings because they were either bound at the monastery, or bound by a craftsman who worked for the monastery on more than one occasion. These bindings of each type can be given post quem dates from the most recent of the codices in the group. They can be dated in some cases from papers used as flyleaves, and in others from a dated codex for which the binding is original.

Note 8
For example, Phil. cod. 47 (Lambros 88), fol. 267v, note by the restorer, Nektarios the Hierodeacon: Nektariow ierodiakow ekhrose thn delton eiw dojan tou Yeou hmvn

Note 9

For example, note by the Philotheite scribe, Gabriel of Gallipoli, Phil. cod. 195 (Lambros 174), fol. 407r:

Tvi suntelesthi tvn kalvn Yevi xariw: egrafh to paron tupikon en thi sebasmiai kai ierai monhi thw uperagiaw despoinhw hmvn Yeotokou, thi epikeklhmenhi tou Filoyeou; xeiri men tou eutelouw kai alithmonow, Gabrihl tou ek kallioupolevw; prostajei de kai sunergeiai tou osivtatou en ieromonaxoiw kai pneumatikoiw patrasi Kur Kallinikou prohgoumenou thw authw monhw kai prvhn prvtou tou agivnumou orouw; o de tolmhsaw apojenvsai touto ek thw toiauthw monhw, exetv thn despoinan hmvn Yeotokon antidikon epi zvhw kai yanatou autou, kai en thi frikthi kai foberai hmerai thw krisevw. eilhfe de peraw epi etouw zpd indiktivnow d

Note 10
It is conceivable that such notes were also written in codices on other occasions. A few such notes were written, for example, prior to loaning codices outside of the monastery. These cases are rare, however, and the notes in question specify this purpose, and occur later in the history of the monastery, when the library had grown in size and scope.

Note 11
Thirteen more are included among the Suchanov manuscripts in Moscow at the State Historical Library.

Note 12
Actes de Lavra, 1970, no. 61 = 1937, no. 54.

Note 13
The tradition that the monastery was renewed by the emperor Nicephoros III Botaneiates is attested only in modern sources. It seems to be derived somehow from accounts of his donation of the precious nail to the Philotheite metochion of the Prodromos on Thassos, which itself is attested only since the 18th century (Phil. cod. 89 = Lambros 144, written by the hieromonk Ignatios Philotheitis in 1796; cod. Panteleimonos 281, l9th c., pp. 95-96). Cf. Smyrnakis, p. 584-85.

Note 14
Vasiliki Kravari ("Nouveaux documents," p. 278 and n. 67) concludes that the monastery probably continued to function, but did not maintain a high profile on Mount Athos during this period. She argues that we should not assume from the lack of documentary attestation that the monastery in question was abandoned, citing the two cases mentioned by Lefort (Actes d'Esphigménou, p. 20) of Esphigmenou (only 2 documents from 1095 - 1300) and Xeropotamou (no 12th-c. documents), and that of Xenophontos. While this principle is valid later for the period of the Latin occupation and for the reign of Michael VIII Palaiologos, whose policies were opposed by the Hagiorites, there is no general lack of Athonite documents during the eleventh century to justify her applying the principle to this period. The case of Xenophontos is not analogous to that of Philotheou because, although that archive at Philotheou lacks any documents from 1090-1299, signatures of abbots of the monastery are attested throughout this period (except for the era of the Latin occupation) in documents from other monasteries. (See D. Papachryssanthou, Actes de Xénophon, p. 47.

Note 15
In light of the proximity of the two monasteries, and the ongoing connections with Georgia which they shared, future catalogers of the Library at Iviron should be watchful for older Philotheite codices there.

Note 16
Thirteen more manuscripts of this period are preserved among the manuscripts brought to Russia by Suchanov.

Note 17
Additional volumes in this set may be preserved among the manuscripts taken by Suchanov. See the catalogs of Archimandrite Vladimir, Sistematiceskoe opisanie rukopisej Moskovskoj Sinodal'noj (Patriarsej) Biblioteki I. Rukopisi greceskija (Systematic Catalog of the Manuscripts of the Synodal Library I: the Greek Manuscripts), Moscow, 1894, and Iakovos Vatopedinos, H en Mosxai Sunodikh Biblioyhkh tvn xeirografvn epitomh, Moscow, 1896, pp. 34f, and Boris L. Fonkich's study of the Athonite manuscripts: Grechesko-Russkie Kul'turnye Suizi v XV - XVII . . . (Greco-Russian Cultural Relations from the 15th to the 17th Centuries), Moscow, Akademia Nauk, 1977, pp. 96-97 (Philotheou Monastery). I have not seen any of the Moscow codices.

Note 18
Jean Irigoin, "Une écriture du Xe siècle: la minuscule bouletée," La paléographie grecque et byzantine, Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 559, Paris, CNRS, 1977, pp. 191-199. Note 19
Herbert Hunger, "Epigraphische Auzzeichnungsmajuskel," Jaharbuch der Östreichischer Byzantinistik 26, 1977, pp. 193-210, and "Minuskel und Auszeichnungsschriften im 10.-12. Jahrhundert," La paléographie grecque et byzantine, Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 559, Paris, CNRS, 1977, pp. 201-220.. Note 20
Additional volumes in this set may be preserved among the manuscripts taken by Suchanov, in particular Moscow, State Historical Museum, Vladimir codices 297 (June, "12th c."), 298 (August, "12th c."). Iakovos Vatopedinos, H en Mosxai Sunodikh Biblioyhkh tvn xeirografvn epitomh, Moscow, 1896, pp. 34f. (cf. note 17, above.)

Note 21
The subsequent texts in the codex, (nos. 69-71) have individual titles and are separated by vignettes which serve to indicate major divisions of the codex.

Note 22
"Les textes hagiographiques du codex Athos Philotheou 52," Analecta Bollandiana 93 (1975) pp. 147-15-6.

Note 23
Excluding manuscripts acquired later, and counting only one of the Moscow, State Historical Museum manuscripts (Vladimir 50), none of which I have studied, we are left with 1 evangelion, 6 tetraevangela, 1 praxapostolos, 4 psalters, 4 volumes of hagiographical and encomiastic readings, 8 menaia, 1 gerontikon, 1 volume of canonical law, and 1 copy each of Gregory Nazianzenos' 16 logoi, John Scholastikos' Ladder, and Theodoret's commentary on the Psalms, any or all of which may have been acquired new in the 12th-13th centuries. In addition to these manuscripts of the 12th-13th centuries we should assume some older manuscripts. We have noted one llth-century Metaphrast and 1 copy of writings of Anastasios the Sinaite which have some increased probability of having been acquired used during the same period (Table 3, categories la and 2), and may also reckon in this category at least some of the 11 manuscripts listed in categories 3 and 5 of Table 3. In this latter group are 1 tetraevangelon, 1 evangelion, 5 codicologically unrelated volumes of the Metaphrast, 2 copies of John Scholastikos' Ladder, and 2 codicologically unrelated volumes of writings of Ephrem Syros, one with writings also of Anastasios the Sinaite.

Note 24
This figure includes 20 which Lambros misdated to other centuries, and excludes three which he misdated to the 14th century. There were no manuscripts from this era among those taken to Russia by Suchanov.

Note 25
While I have not yet studied in such detail the fifteenth century codices at Philotheou, a quick survey of their contents suggests that the collection of books other than liturgical and Biblical ones did not begin until the 16th century. 0f the 36 codices which presently appear to me to be datable to the 15th century, only four are not liturgical books: Phil. codd. 160 (Lambros 225) a Thikara; 198,2 (208) Chrysostom and Symeon of Thessaloniki, bound in the 17th or 18th century into a 16th-century copy of the three liturgies; 212 (148) Antony, Melissa; and 217 (120) a nomocanon. 0f these, Phil. cod. 160 was not acquired until the seventeenth century or later, as indicated by seventeenth-century ex libris notes of two private owners.