Marcus the Hermit, Marcus Diadochus, and Marcus the Deacon

SAINT MARK THE HERMIT, BLESSED MARK DIADOCHUS, AND MARK THE DEACON

NOTICE ON MARK THE HERMIT

(Galland, *Vet. Patr. Biblioth.*, VIII, Proleg. III.)

I. Among the most celebrated monks of Egypt, in the late fourth century, flourished Mark, called the *Ascetes* or 'Exerciser' by way of excellence, whom Palladius testifies to have visited when he was nearly one hundred years old (a). Sozomen (b) and Nicephorus (c) also write of him. Whether this man was the same person as Mark the Hermit, under whose name a number of ascetic treatises are circulated in the *Bibliotheca Patrum*, which we present here for the first time, is not considered sufficiently certain by learned men (d). In the *Menologium* of Basil, it appears to be clearly asserted (e) that Saint Mark was excellent both in doctrine and in the grace of miracles; among which is narrated the wonder he performed on the cub of a hyena. And yet Palladius (f), recording the same prodigy, ascribes it to Mark the monk, if one looks at the Greek; for the interpreter refers it to Macarius of Alexandria, which Tillemont (g) rightly observes. Therefore, it is thought by some that the Mark of whom Palladius and the *Menologium* speak are one and the same; and thus, that the author of the treatises in question flourished towards the end of the fourth century.

II. We were once inclined in favor of this opinion: but now, having examined the matter more closely, we believe we must move to another conclusion. For first, the ancients, namely Palladius and Sozomen, report that Mark, though a contemporary of the Macarii, had known the books of the Holy Scriptures by heart from his very youth; ^B yet they nowhere report that he left anything behind in writing. Furthermore, as a learned man (h) has aptly noted, the author names a certain Epiphanius whom he calls his "most religious son" (i); for Mark, the Palladian monk who seems to have lived in the Cells (j), would not have addressed by that name Epiphanius of Eleutheropolis, who first professed the monastic life in Palestine, used the great Hilarion as his master, and subsequently in the year 368 obtained the bishopric of Salamis in Cyprus (k). Therefore, the Epiphanius mentioned by the author in that place was a very different person from the bishop of Constantia; he is the one whom a certain Nicolaus, as is narrated there, had approached when he visited Ancyra, and who, upon returning from the holy places to Constantinople, was received by him into training and led onto the way of salvation. Indeed, a certain monk named Epiphanius lived around the middle of the fifth century, to whom we have a letter of Saint Nilus inscribed (l); yet I would not dare to affirm that he is the same person as the one our author mentions. However that may be, I have believed, along with the aforementioned learned man, that the writer of whom we are speaking was famous at the beginning of the fifth century, if credit is to be given to Nicephorus (m); who hands down that he was a disciple of Saint John Chrysostom and flourished in the same age as Isidore of Pelusium, Nilus, and Theodoret.

III. Furthermore, our holy Father [wrote] many—

eight ascetic books, which Photius testifies to having read ^A; to these had been added a ninth, against the Melchisedecians. Nicephorus mentions more, most of which, however, have not survived the passage of time. The first eight ascetic works, although arranged in a different order than in the printed editions, have long been available to the public through the translation of Giovanni Pico [Mirandola] in Paris; they later appeared in the same place in both Greek and Latin in the *Auctarium Ducæanum*. But not so long ago, those pieces which were previously missing from the editions were published: namely, the latter part of the sixth work, where the author treats *Of Fasting*; although a translation of this had already been issued in 1574 at Venice by Pietro Francesco Zino, together with other writings of the holy ascetics Ephrem, Nilus, and Isaiah, as Fabricius ^B attests, as well as the discourse *On Melchisedech*, commended by Photius. These, however, from a Greek papyrus manuscript that contains all the works of the holy monk Marcus that were reviewed by Photius, were finally brought to light and illustrated with notes in 1748 at Rome by the illustrious Balthasar Maria Remondini, bishop of Zante and Cephalonia; we have taken care to append all these to the ascetic works already published long ago, though distinguished into various sections according to our usual custom. Besides the writings of our holy Father mentioned thus far, there still circulates in the Libraries of the Fathers a fragment of an Epistle inscribed with his same name.

IV. Finally, we consider it our duty to note some things at this point that relate to the incontestable writings of the holy Father. In the first place, in the published manuscripts, there is placed before the works of our author a homily inscribed with his name, *On Paradise and the Spiritual Law*, which is acknowledged to be attributed to Saint Macarius of Egypt, and is among the Macarian [homilies], number thirty-seven, as we have advised, following learned men, in the *Prolegomena* to volume VII of the *Bibliotheca Patrum*, chapter 1, § 5. Furthermore, we have received word from our excellent and learned colleague Giovanni Battista Galliciolli that various portions from the aforementioned Macarian homilies have been woven into the small works of our holy Father; for it would not be right to imagine that those homilies of Macarius were stitched together from scraps of the monk Marcus's works. But, however that may be, there resulted this benefit, that by instituting a collation, certain lacunae that appear in the previously published editions were filled, and mutilated passages restored to health. That this is indeed confirmed from the sixth homily of Saint Macarius, §§ 2 and 6, is clear, for the words appearing in §§ 26 and 27 of the sixth work of Saint Marcus, *On Temperance*, were taken *ad verbum*, where two places were supplied: the one in the *Interrogation*, thus: *Tell us, in what measures?*; the other in the *Response*, in which these had been omitted: *at another hour the son of a king, so trusts in the Son of God as to a father*, for the sake of the words, indeed, *as to a father* repeated ^C at § 21 from these words: *Res autem sic se habet* (The matter, however, is this), which are found in the sixth work of Saint Macarius, *On Charity*, § 12. Compare also, if you wish, what is read in § 28 of the lauded sixth work of Saint Marcus, with those things which Saint Macarius teaches in the same sixth work, § 30. The rest we omit.

V. But before we take our hand from the tablet, it remains that we must advise, along with learned men—Giovanni Maria Brasichellano in the Roman Index of the year 1607, Bellarmine, Labbe, and Combesis in their lists of reviewed Authors ^D—that the works of the monk Marcus contain many opinions deviating from the straight rule of faith, perhaps corrupted by a heretical hand; and so they are always to be read with caution and sharp judgment, because of the thorns and briars of error into which one might sometimes stumble, as we have ensured to signify in some places. For Photius indeed notes certain obscure things in our author, which is a fault that generally afflicts those who write such ascetic works, [failing to see that] they are to be understood more by deeds than by words. Moreover, regarding the work recently edited, *On Melchisedech*, he has this to say: "The ninth discourse, struggling against the Melchisedecians, rebukes no less severely him who begat it [the heresy], the author himself, for the heresy." These words, indeed, Mathurin Veyssière la Croze judges should be rendered thus in the work of Fabricius: "The ninth book, contending against the Melchisedecians, convicts no less the VERY AUTHOR OF THE BOOK himself of a not lighter heresy." However, it seemed otherwise to learned men, who have taken the Photian words just cited in the sense that the monk Marcus, in that discourse struggling against the Melchisedecians, is held to have inveighed against his own father, who had been contaminated by the stain of this heresy. Thus, surely, Labbe, Tillemont, and Cave, to omit Schott, the interpreter of Photius, and others. To them it is pleasing to add the most learned editor of the same work, who, weighing such words in § 11, *O wretched man* (ὦ ἄνθρωπε), holds this: "I have no doubt that this holy Father is attempting to address his own begetter, and that Saint Marcus has left it to memory that he was sharpening his pen against him, as one who favored the Melchisedecians, no less than against them." Assuredly that *O man* (ὦ ἄνθρωπε) seems to be of one calling out to a known person, and almost shouting [him out] by name. Thus far the illustrious man. Who also, in his Preface, delivered judgment on this same discourse: "The discourse *On Melchisedech*," he says, "while it clearly explains that most ample prophecy concerning the kingdom of justice and peace and the priesthood of Christ, set forth in the person of Melchisedech, is, as the divine Paul says, of difficult interpretation; yet it can indeed be useful for refuting the arguments of the Melchisedecians, if any still exist today."

SECOND NOTICE. On St. Mark the Hermit and Mark Diadochus.

Mark the Hermit, a disciple of St. Chrysostom, otherwise unknown, flourished at the beginning of the fifth century (a). His ascetic works surviving today (b) are as follows:

1. *Treatise on the Spiritual Law* (consisting of 201 sentences), explaining in what sense the spiritual Law is so called, ^A as well as what the knowledge and the action are of those who wish to observe the spiritual law.

2. *Treatise on those who think they are justified by works* (consisting of 211 sentences), demonstrating the necessity of divine grace and the excellence of faith (c), and refuting an excessive trust in one’s own powers and the elation of the mind regarding good works.

3. *Treatise on repentence* (μετάνοια), which he demonstrates is always necessary for all Christians and ^B never to be laid aside, and asserts that it is comprised chiefly of three things: rooting out evil thoughts, praying without ceasing, and enduring the afflictions that come upon us.

4. *Response to those who doubt concerning divine baptism*, sets forth the necessity and efficacy of baptism, the relationship of the Christian struggle to the grace of perfect baptism, and also of original sin (which he himself calls death, namely of the soul) to baptism, and to the spiritual struggle and personal sin.

5. *Salutary precepts to the soul* instruct the monk excellently and prudently, by what means he might exist as a victor in the spiritual struggle and be able to overcome pernicious affections, warning most especially against ^C ignoring, forgetting, and sluggishness, no. 142 cf. op. 7, no. 21 (d).

6. *Chapters on temperance* (κεφάλαια νηπτικά) generally describe, with allegories taken from Holy Scripture, the various states of those who begin to walk on the path of perfection and progress more; they set the highest scope of perfection and, as it were, the summit (e) before the eyes, while at the same time inciting and informing the pursuit of perfection.

7. *Disputation with a certain Lawyer* refutes a twofold accusation: both that monks, saying that those who inflict injury should not be brought to trial, represent justice beyond the laws, ^D and that those who abstain from works of the body seem to pursue leisure against nature; from this digression he highly commends true prayer to God and humility, skillfully explains the distinction between monks and secular people, and finally exhibits the advantages accruing to men from adverse circumstances.

8. *Consultation of the intellect with its own soul* is an address of reason to the soul, in which he proposes to it the true sources of sin, the pursuit of vain glory and human praise, and the pleasure of the body, and urges most gravely that these, should be obstructed, having rejected any other pretexts for the causes of sin.

* Rom. vii, 14.

9. A Treatise on Fasting, in which he extols not only the spiritual utility of fasting, but also humility in articulate terms.

10. A Treatise on Melchizedek, in which he clearly explains that most expansive prophecy—difficult to interpret—concerning the kingdom of justice and peace and the priesthood of Christ, spoken in the person of Melchizedek, and furthermore applies himself to refuting the arguments of the Melchizedekians (concerning whom see St. Epiphanius, *Haer.* xxv).

Learned men have observed that in the homilies of St. Macarius of Egypt and in the minor works of Marcus, many passages are found conceived in the same words, so that they seem to have been transferred from one author to the other. Nor should it be overlooked that the minor works of this Marcus, because of the nature of their subject matter, which requires either a keener intellect or the continuous execution of commandments, are sometimes a little obscure; indeed, they must always be read most cautiously and with keen judgment on account of errors into which, to those attending to the Latin interpretation at the time the Greek text had not yet been edited, it seemed that some harsher expressions had slipped.

To this Marcus is usually added Diadochus, bishop of Photice in ancient Epirus or Illyricum, who is believed to have flourished either at the end of the fourth century or, more likely according to others, around the middle of the fifth century. He left one hundred ascetic chapters on spiritual perfection, preceded by ten definitions. In them, the principal virtues of the Christian man are expounded, various degrees on the path of perfection are described, dangers to salvation and aids of the virtues are pointed out, and finally, the supreme end towards which it is fitting to strive with all one's strength is shown. Furthermore, in his name there exists a *Homily against the Arians*, which others, however, surmise to be the offspring of an older, certain Marcus Diadochus, and a *Sermon on the Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ*, where the Catholic doctrine concerning the incarnation of the Word is also quite well expounded.

NOTICE ON MARK THE DEACON.

1. Marcus, who appears to have been a native of Asia, was first a calligrapher ^A, and was subsequently ordained deacon of the Church of Gaza by the blessed Porphyrius, bishop of the same; he is said to have been the constant companion of that holy prelate's labors and travels up to the final day of his life. Consequently, he consigned the history of the deeds performed by him to memory, attested with every mark of reliability, not long after his passing, that is, around the year of Christ 421; it was written in a simple style, indeed, but with a brilliant candor of truth, as the great Baronius says: where many things worthy of knowledge are recounted which you would seek in vain elsewhere. Towards the same opinion regarding this guileless writer, the learned Henschenius notes: He is, he says, a diligent cultivator of the truth and ^D a historian well-versed in the affairs of those times; a man, as he...

^A is seen to be from the entire series of this Life (of Saint Porphyrius), accurately deduced. Nor have men preeminent in doctrine and erudition thought otherwise of our deacon, among whom, to pass over others, stand prominent Norisius, Tillemontius, and especially Mazochius; the last of whom does not hesitate to call the work of Marcus a monument of very great value, which is not to be read without the greatest profit.

Furthermore, this Life of Saint Porphyrius, consigned to letters by Marcus the deacon, was edited by Lipomanus and Surius, and also by the Bollandist associates for the 26th of February, from the translation—and a less polished one at that—of Gentianus Hervetus. It is certainly to be regretted that the Greek text of Marcus has not yet been brought to light; Lambecius informs us that it exists among the manuscript codices of the Vienna library. ^B But, to speak with Mazochius, by which we may meanwhile bear such an inconvenience with a more equable mind, the very simplicity of the unrefined translator effects this: since he clings most faithfully word for word, wherever the need to approach the source has demanded it, I augur that it will not be difficult to restore the Greek of the writer Marcus from the Latin of Hervetus; so that, for this reason, it would be clearly unjust to doubt even a little regarding the sincerity of this monument: such is the excellence, the gravity, the simplicity, and the ἁπλότητα striking the eyes of this history. I have noted these things for this reason, that we may confront those to whom the Abbot de Longuerue and Claudius Castellanus, men otherwise most learned, have attacked the integrity of the little work of which we speak.

^C III. And he indeed thought readers should be warned that those acts of Saint Porphyrius which are circulated are not the genuine work of Marcus the Deacon, although up to now, the greatest men, whom he therefore wonders at, have made much of them. For these acts, he says, we now have only from Simeon Metaphrastes, who intruded many things—and those absurd—into the little work of Marcus. Not everything, therefore, he adds, is to be received in this metaphrasis or rather paraphrase; but individual parts must be recalled to examination. These and other things he says, led, as he claims himself, by the authority of Baronius, who testifies that Metaphrastes wrote out these acts, from whom Lipomanus and Surius drew their own. I would by no means deny that Baronius testifies this in the cited place. But he himself, who pronounced it less cautiously there, having become wiser by later studies, set forth his opinion more diligently. For, while speaking in the *Annals* about the little work of Marcus, besides what was brought up above, he holds these things again: "Marcus the Deacon committed to posterity many things worthy of knowledge and proven by all faith..." ^D rendered, it is true, in a ruder style and a translation that is scrupulous word-for-word, they may appear less refined. But the truth itself is sufficiently adorned by its own self, by whose brightness all obscure things soften. These are the words of Baronius: where you may see that mention is made of a single translation, that of Hervetus, by no means referring to the metaphrasis of Metaphrastes, but to the original text of the author, exactly and expressed in the selfsame words. Since these things are so, there was certainly no reason for the distinguished gentleman, in order to attack the sincerity of a little work of this kind, to bring forward the judgment of Baronius from his notes on the Roman Martyrology; especially after that greatest of men prescribed that if anything should occur to a reader in those same notes that differed from the *Annals*, those things were to be amended from these [the *Annals*] in the future. But what he says in his notes to the Roman Martyrology is denied to be... Lucius suffered under Volusianus, correct the error from the *Annals*: and thus, whenever you see the *Annals* disagree with those same notes, amend them from these. I regret that it has never been granted to me until now to re-examine them one by one, even though the profit-seeking printer put them on the title page as having been reviewed by the author. Thus far Baronius.

IV. Claudius Castellanus also, insisting on the footsteps of the most learned Abbot de Longuerue, was led to doubt the integrity of this monument and judged that it had been interpolated by Metaphrastes. But the distinguished Mazochius refutes his doubt with these words: Castellanus, he says, came upon a Greek compendium of the Life of Porphyrius written out by hand in the Royal Library, numbered 2010. But that volume did not have the name of Metaphrastes inscribed inside, but on the spine, concerning which see the same Castellanus. But is that indeed enough, so that to another more expansive Life rendered into Latin by Hervetus, which holds all the characters of truth signed to a miracle, anything from the Metaphrastic hand or alien incrustation has been added? For what, I ask, occurs anywhere in this entire Life of the Metaphrastic [style]? Whose style it will be more truthful to call anti-Metaphrastic. I omit the fact that external inscriptions of books, which not the librarians themselves, but the most inept bookbinder or anyone else from the street was accustomed to smear on the spine, usually deceive and deserve no faith. So this most learned man: who, besides those difficulties by which this Life is entangled, took upon himself the task of resolving that which is commonly held to be the greatest and clearly insurmountable: by what means, specifically, the Jerusalem epicsite of Praesidius, who ordained Saint Porphyrius as presbyter, may be composed with the times of John of Jerusalem as well.

Tillemont treated these matters at great length. ^A Regarding these, the same illustrious man, cited above, weighing the immense value of this little work and considering it incredible to relate how great a store of ancient custom is drawn from this Life, has brought forth several *Animadversions* upon it—omitting the observations of others—which are truly worthy to be read through by learned men; and which, on that account, we have thought fit to append to the Bollandist edition, and have described here for ourselves.

^B V. To what has been said thus far, it might perhaps be useful to add that Mark the Deacon used the Era of Gaza in composing this Life of Saint Porphyrius. For he makes mention of the Gazan months once and again. And first of all: "When, however," he says, "God proceeded not to give rain in the first month, which is called by them (the Gazans) Dios; then also in the second, which is called EPILLEUS [read *Apellæus*], etc." And further down: "It is, however, with them Lydenæus [read *Audynæus*], with the Romans January. Their months precede the Roman ones by five days. But on the eleventh day we celebrated the day of the Theophany of the Lord Jesus Christ: that is, on the 6th day of January, by the Roman style." Furthermore, the author adds: "We sailed to Gaza on the twenty-third of XANTICUS, which is with the Romans the eighteenth of April." Finally he says: "The most blessed Porphyrius... slept in peace with the saints on the second (day) of the month DYSTRUS, in the year, as is the computation of the Gazans, four hundred and eighty." Therefore, so that the meaning of our writer may appear more clearly, we think that the months of the Gazans, compared with the Roman ones, ought to be set down here.

I. Δίος, Dius. November. II. ᾿Απελλαῖος, Apellæus. December. III. Αὐδυναῖος, Audynæus. Januarius. IV. Περίτιος, Peritius. Februarius. V. Δύστρος, Dystrus. Martius. ^C VI. Ξανθικός, Xanthicus. Aprilis. VII. ᾿Αρτεμίσιος, Artemisius. Maius. VIII. Δαΐσιος, Dasius. Junius. IX. Πάνεμος, Panemus. Julius. X. Λῶος, Lous. Augustus. XI. Γορπιαίος, Gorpiæus. September. XII. Ὑπερβερεταῖος, Hyperberetæus. October.

Moreover, concerning these months of the Gazans, of which each precedes the Romans by five days, as we have just learned from Mark himself, it would be worth the effort to consult Fabricius. As for the beginning of the Gazan Era, which the author mentions in the last place we just recited, various opinions of scholars are circulated, which Cardinal Noris examines and overturns; he asserts, therefore—along with Mark the Deacon and other writers, and from the coins preserved in the collection of the most Christian King—that the Gazans began their era in the year 4653 of the Julian period, at Rome 693, in the 179th Olympiad, 4th year, before the Christian era 61, in the solar cycle 5 and lunar 17, M. Pupius Piso and M. Valerius Messalla being consuls. But since Mark writes that the holy Porphyrius died on the second day of Dystrus in the year of the Gazans 480, his episcopate having been carried out for 24 years and 11 months, the most eminent writer concludes from this that Porphyrius’s ordination occurred in the beginning of the year 455 of the Gazans; and thus that the death of the same blessed prelate fell on the 26th of February in the year of Christ 420, in the year of the city 1173, under the emperors Theodosius IV and Constantius III as consuls. Pagius and the Lord Abbot de Longuerue are of almost the same opinion; though the latter dissents from the Norisian views in certain other matters. But regarding this, it is better to consult Tillemont; who, as is his custom, diligently observes many things not to be despised concerning the year in which Saint Porphyrius was ordained, as well as his year of death.

FROM THE SECOND EPISTLE OF OUR HOLY FATHER MARK

(Fragment.)

These are the signs of those who listen to the word of God and produce good fruit: groaning, weeping, attention, silence, humility, perseverance, quiet, bowing of the head, solemn mourning, and grief of heart proceeding from a pious affection. The works, however, are: vigil, continence, fasting, gentleness, magnanimity, assiduous prayer, care for the sacred scriptures, faith, humility, fraternal love, labor, endurance of adversity, charity, subjection, integrity, fitness of character, ^D and universal light, which is the Lord. On the contrary, the signs of those who do not produce the fruit of eternal life are of this kind: acedia, pride, contempt, wandering of the mind, murmuring, and levity. The works, however, are: gluttony, prodigality, anger, fury, detraction, haughtiness, arrogance, incredulity, importunity of speech, sedition, forgetfulness, confusion, base gain, avarice, envy, strife, loathing, prating, laughter, lust for glory, and every drunkenness, which is Satan.

WORKS OF ST. MARK THE MONK AND HERMIT. WORK I.

^A Since you have often wished to know how the law is spiritual, according to the divine Apostle; and what is the knowledge and the activity of those who desire to keep it, for this reason we have spoken to the best of our ability.

I. First, we know that God is the cause of every good, and the beginning, and the middle, and the end; and it is impossible to perform or believe anything good, except in Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

II. Every good thing has been given by the Lord; and he who believes thus, shall not lose it. But firm faith is a strong tower; and Christ becomes all things to the one who believes.

III. Let the One who is the beginning of every good precede your every intention, so that whatever you decide to do may be done according to God.

^B IV. A humble man, having a spiritual work, when reading the holy Scriptures, should understand everything as being said to himself, and not to another.

V. Call upon the Lord, that He may open the eyes of your heart, and that you may see and truly understand the benefit of prayer and reading.

VI. He who possesses any gift, and suffers with those who do not possess one, preserves the gift through this very compassion. But the arrogant man will lose it, being struck down by the temptations of arrogance.

^C VII. The mouth of a humble person will speak truth; but he who contradicts it is like that servant who struck the Lord on the cheek.

VIII. Do not become a disciple of one who exalts himself, so that you may not learn pride in place of humility.

IX. Do not be exalted in your heart regarding insights into the Scriptures, lest you fall into a spirit of blasphemy.

X. Do not try to resolve a difficult matter through contention, but through those things which the spiritual law commands to be done, namely, by patience, and by prayer, and by single-minded hope.