the Gospel we read that the Jews, the most faithful rivals of our faith, at the instigation of the devil, the enemy of the human race, said many injurious things against our Lord Jesus Christ the Savior: they called Him a Samaritan, and said He possessed a demon, and that He cast out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of demons; for they even dared to call Him a deceiver. A Yet our pious Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator of heaven, earth, and sea, and of all things that are therein, endured all these things patiently, so that He might provide us with an example of His patience, gentleness, and humility. For if He had wished to show the power of His majesty and to avenge the insults, He would have suddenly reduced the whole world to chaos, and neither the human race nor even the world itself would have appeared, but all things would have perished in a moment. Nevertheless, the ineffable piety of the goodness of the Lord Christ did not wish to do this, He who came not to punish the world, but to save it. For that reason He patiently endured all things, so that He might show us examples of patience and humility. Hence also He said to the disciples following Him: *Learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart, and you will find rest for your souls.* But all the saints from the beginning of time, the prophets as well as the apostles, afflicted by reproaches, insults, and various tortures, always held fast to the immovable virtue of patience and humility, and were in no way deceived by human praises. B For, rejecting the vain rumors of vain glory in this present life, they desired only that heavenly and eternal glory, which comes from God and remains forever; the splendor of its brightness no human tongue is able to explain. Considering these examples of patience and humility, therefore, my little son, if insults should ever be heaped upon you, guard most strongly the virtue of patience and humility, imitating the Prophet who said: *But I, as a deaf man, did not hear, and as a mute not opening his mouth, and I became as a man not hearing, and not having in his mouth reproofs.* This is certainly sung daily in the synaxis to remind our minds. Beware also, lest you take delight in vain glory and the praise of men, and lose everything that you have acquired by laboring in good works, and fail to obtain from the Lord the reward of your fasting, abstinence, vigils, and prayers in eternal life, because He Himself said in the Gospel concerning those who seek the praises of men: *Amen I say to you, they have received their reward.* C And there are many other things that holy Scripture does not cease to admonish us about, concerning the avoidance of vain glory. Beware, therefore, O son, and do not let your spirit be kindled with anger at insults heaped upon you; and even if your heart should be stirred, still strictly restrain your spirit from anger in the fear of the Lord, so that you may be able to guard the virtue of humility and patience. And then you truly show what you promised when you said that you pass through this world as if dead, if you answer nothing turbulent to those who heap insults upon you, just as those dead men do not, concerning whom you spoke many insults and revilings, and they answered you absolutely nothing. Therefore, it is fitting that we guard the virtue of humility and patience strongly, so far as we are able, to arrive at the heavenly prizes and the glory of eternal life, as the Lord says in the Apocalypse: D *Hold fast what you have, lest another receive your crown.*
This long admonition to the brother so remarkably harmonizes with the genius and character of the homilies of Macarius the Egyptian, that one would not easily believe it was compiled from the homilies and added to that story about the brother approaching the tombs by order of Macarius. Which story, omitting this exhortation and the doctrines, exists in the *Apophthegmata* in almost these words: "A brother met the Abbot Macarius the Egyptian, to whom he said: Abba, tell me a word, how I may be saved. The old man said: Go to the tomb and assault the dead with curses. The brother, therefore, went and attacked them with insults and stones, and having returned, reported to the old man. Who asked him: Did they answer you nothing? He said: Nothing. Then the old man: Go again tomorrow, and praise them. The brother therefore went and praised them, calling them: Apostles, saints, just ones. Then he went to the old man and said: I have praised them. Who said: Did they answer you nothing? The brother: Nothing. Then the old man says: You know with what insults you assailed them, and they answered you nothing; and with what praises you adorned them, and they said nothing to you. So you too, if you wish to be saved, become dead, and do not consider the insults of men nor their praises, like the dead: for thus you will be able to be saved." I have found this same story nowhere else.
Furthermore, an ancient version adds this other doctrine of Macarius the Egyptian: "Holy Abbot Macarius used to admonish his disciples often..."
A and taught them, saying: ‘Remember always that you live before the sight of the omnipotent Lord, who looks upon the thoughts of all men and searches the hearts of each. Which the holy Scriptures also testify, and the Apostle teaches and says: *For the word of God is living and effectual, and more piercing than any two-edged sword, and reaching unto the division of the soul and the spirit, and of the joints and the marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart; neither is there any creature invisible in his sight; but all things are naked and open to his eyes* (Heb. IV, 12-13). Therefore if, brothers, the pleasure of the flesh and the lust of fornication should knock, let us hasten to repel and cast out from our heart that most filthy and worst thought, invoking most intently the help of our Lord Jesus Christ in prayers and fasts, that by the virtue of His power He may deliver us and protect us and grind Satan under our feet. It is appropriate, therefore, that we also correct ourselves by repenting and abstaining from sins, and say to our soul: ‘Since the pleasure of the body, which delights you evilly, is for a short time; for the torments and B 65 punishments of soul and body in the eternal fire of Gehenna remain into perpetual pains.’ Also admonishing our soul, let us say this: ‘If you are ashamed that men, sinners like yourself, should see you sinning, why do you not rather respect and fear the majesty of the omnipotent God, who considers the secrets of all hearts, as the Apostle also says: *All things are naked and open to his eyes*?’ If by such thoughts we rebuke ourselves, the fear of the Lord immediately comes into our heart, and our soul is confirmed in the love of chastity, and we are moved to perform all the precepts of the Lord, with the help of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has promised to those serving Him in holiness and chastity to bestow heavenly and eternal gifts in that glorious life of the world to come, to rejoice forever with the holy angels in the splendor of perpetual light.’”
And this ancient version concerning Macarius the Egyptian, beyond those things which the Vienna codices and other editions of the *Lausiac History* and all versions possess, exhibits this alone. The later exhortation which we have brought is wholly conceived from the mind of Macarius the Egyptian, which is known from his homilies. Moreover, humility of heart, fear of the Lord, and a zeal for chastity were the principal precepts of those monks. And Ephraem the Syrian taught in a notable way that those who sin ought to be more ashamed on account of the omnipresent God than on account of men.
It remains that we should add this pronouncement of Macarius, which is read in the last chapter of the ancient version: “Abbot Macarius said: If you should rebuke someone moved by anger, you fulfill your own passion. For you ought not, in order to save another, to lose yourself. Deliver your neighbor from sins without reproach, as much as you are able, because God does not cast away those who convert to Himself. But a word of malice should not linger in your heart against him, so that you may be able to say: *Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors* (Matt. VI, 12). But it is God’s to forgive and establish our 66 petition.” The first part of which pronouncement is read in the third and fifth book of the collection of Rosweyd and in the *Apophthegmata* published by Cotelier, and it is evident from the fifth book of the collection that it is a pronouncement of Macarius the Egyptian.
But now, having known those things which individual copies of the *Lausiac History* present concerning Macarius the Egyptian, we must pass on to those things which are narrated by Palladius concerning Macarius the Alexandrian.
CHAPTER III. PALLADIUS ON SAINT MACARIUS THE ALEXANDRIAN.
§ 18. The *Lausiac History*, which is read in the Vienna codices, after it has reported those things concerning Macarius the Egyptian, continues to narrate thus: “I met the holy Macarius the Alexandrian, who was a presbyter of the Cells, as they are called. Into which I withdrew for nine years, during three of which that Macarius lived with me, living in quiet. And indeed, I myself saw other works and signs of his excellent manner of living, and I learned some from those who lived with him, and finally I heard others from very many people. The exercise, therefore, of Macarius the Great, as I and many learned in his presence, was this. If
he had ever heard that someone had performed some work of discipline, he would burn with the desire to do the same. This holy man, therefore, when he heard that the Tabennesiotes ate nothing cooked by fire throughout the whole of Lent, determined himself for seven years to eat nothing that had passed through fire, and for seven years he tasted nothing else but raw greens, and if by chance he found any moist pulse. He had heard of another who ate a pound of bread; wherefore he broke the toasted bread he had, and put it into a flask, determining to eat only as much as his hand could bring up. This too was a great temperance. For he would tell us festively: "I would indeed grasp several pieces, but I could not draw them out because of the narrowness of the opening. For the publican," he said, "did not allow me to eat nothing at all." Thus, therefore, he spent three years, eating four or five ounces of bread and drinking a little water. For an entire year he consumed a sextarium of oil for his sustenance. Sometimes he determined to overcome sleep, as he himself told us: "For twenty full days and nights I did not enter under a roof; by day I was burnt by the heat, and by night I was chilled by fever. Had I not entered a roof more quickly," he said, "and used sleep, my brain would have been so dried up that I would have been little short of being driven into an ecstasy." And as much as lay in me, he said, I conquered sleep, granting to nature only what was necessary.
"When this holy man was sitting in his cell in the morning, a gnat stung him on the foot, which, sated with blood, he crushed with his hand, moved by the pain. Afterwards, however, he reproached himself for having taken revenge on his own behalf, and condemned himself to sit naked for six months in the marshes of Scetis, which is in the vast wilderness. There, gnats can wound even the hides of wild boars, being as large as wasps. By these, therefore, he was so wounded all over that the stings were visible on his whole body, and some believed he was suffering from elephantiasis. But when he returned to his cell, they recognized him as Macarius by his voice alone.
"He once desired, as he himself told us, to enter the monument which is called the Kenotaph of the magicians Jannes and Jambres, who lived in the time of Pharaoh, for the sake of seeing it or meeting the demons who are there. For it was said that many and ferocious demons were stationed there by them, by the excellence of the magic art in which they also held the leading role in Pharaoh's time. Those who had thus obtained power in Egypt, during their lifetime constructed that work out of squared stones, in which they made a monument and deposited much gold; they also planted trees of every kind and had dug a most immense water well, hoping, indeed, that after their departure from here to there they would enjoy delights in this paradise. The servant of Christ, Macarius, therefore, not knowing the way that leads to this garden, followed the stars by mere conjecture, just as sailors do who cross the seas. Thus he traversed the whole wilderness. He held a bundle of reeds, from which he placed one at every mile as a sign, by the help of which he might return. Nine days he came near that garden, and worn out by the night, he slept little. But the wicked demon collected those reeds and placed them at his head, perhaps by God's permission for the greater exercise of the holy man, that he might not place his hope in the guiding reeds, but rather in the grace of God, who for forty years led the disobedient and rebellious people of Israel in that wilderness through the pillar of fire and cloud. He rose, therefore, and found the reeds tied together. The holy man said: "When I approached closer to the garden, there went out from it and met me about seventy demons endowed with various forms, some indeed crying out, others leaping, others gnashing their teeth at me with a great roar. The rest were like flying ravens, daring to insult my face, saying: 'What do you want, Macarius, you tempter of monks? Why have you come to us? Have we also plotted against some of the monks? What is ours, you have there with your likes—the wilderness, I say, from which you have driven our kin. We have nothing in common with you: why do you invade our places? Let the anchorite be content with the wilderness. Those who built this place assigned it to us. You cannot remain here. Why do you seek to enter a place which, since the time the brothers who built it were buried here by us, no human who has lived has entered?'" The holy man said: "When the demons were tossing and lamenting exceedingly, I said: 'I will only enter, I will see, and I will depart from here.' The demons said: 'Promise us this in your conscience.' And when I had said: 'I will do this,' they immediately vanished. 'Having entered, therefore,' he said, 'I saw everything. There I found a bronze bucket, hanging by an iron chain from the well, but consumed by time, and the fruits of some apple—"
trees, which were hollow inside.' The saint, therefore, having departed from there without disturbance, returned in twenty days. When his provisions were consumed, traversing the wilderness, he tasted almost nothing at all, which fact also proved his endurance. And when he was already close to collapsing, there appeared to him a maiden, standing at a distance of about one stadium, clothed in clean linen garments, who was holding a pitcher dripping with water, and she challenged him. Therefore, for three days he went toward her and saw her, but could not reach her; yet by the hope of drinking, he endured the exhaustion. After this, a multitude of buffalo appeared; for they are found in those regions. From these, he said, one having a calf stood opposite me. When I saw her womb flowing with milk, I approached and was nourished to satiety. And obeying a divine command, she followed me to the cell, and she indeed nourished me, but she did not let her calf come near.
A Again, this man endowed with virtue, while he was digging a well near some leaves and brushwood for the refreshment of the monks, was bitten by an asp. This animal possesses lethal venom. The saint, therefore, having seized the asp by the throat, tore it apart with both hands, saying: 'Since my Lord did not send you, how did you dare to approach me?'
B This great Macarius had various cells in the wilderness, in which he performed his contests of virtue: one, indeed, in Scetis, which is a region in the deep, vast wilderness; one in Libya, in what are called the Cells; and another in Mount Nitria. Some of these cell lacked a door, in which Macarius was said to sit in the darkness during the time of Lent. Another cell was much narrower than the others, in which he could not even stretch his foot. The third was more spacious, in which he also used to receive those who frequented him.
D This holy man healed such a multitude of those who were vexed by demons that you could not easily count them by numbering them. When we were present, a virgin born in Thessalonica, noble by birth and wealthy in this life, who had suffered from paralysis for many years, was brought to this holy man. And, having been brought to him, she was cast down near the cell of the saint. Moved by pity, he poured out prayers and, anointing her with holy oil with his own hands, prayed over her diligently and at length for twenty days, and sent her back to her city cured. She, having returned on her own feet, sent an abundant offering to the saints.
B This great Macarius, when he had heard that the Tabennesiotes possessed an excellent manner of life, having changed his clothes and assumed the mundane habit of a laborer, set out through the wilderness for fifteen days and arrived in the Thebaid. When he had come into the monastery of the Tabennesiotes, he asked for Pachomius, their archimandrite, a most approved man who had the gift of prophecy. Yet, it was hidden from him that this was the great Macarius. Therefore, when Macarius had met him: 'I pray you, Lord,' he said, 'receive me into your monastery, that I may become a monk.' To whom Pachomius: 'At such an advanced age, can you still practice [asceticism]? The brethren exercise themselves from their youth, and have grown up in labors, and yet do not fully bear the labor. You, however, at this age cannot sustain the temptations of such training. You will be offended; you will leave and curse us.' And he did not receive him. But he persisted and remained fasting for seven days. Then the great Macarius: 'Receive me, Abba,' he said, 'and if I do not fast as they do, and labor at what they labor at, then bid me be cast out of the monastery.' The great Pachomius, therefore, persuaded the brothers to receive him. The community of that monastery consists of one thousand four hundred men to this very day. This monastery, therefore, the great Macarius entered. But a short time later it was Lent. And the great Macarius, when he had seen that each one had taken up different disciplines of living—one indeed eating in the evening, another after two days, another after five days, and another remaining standing all night, while sitting at work during the day—he himself, having soaked many palm branches for himself, stood in one corner, and neither, until Lent was finished and D Easter had arrived, did he taste bread or water, nor did he bend his knee, nor sit, nor lie down, nor taste anything else at all, except raw cabbage leaves, which he took on the Lord's Day, so that it might appear that he ate and he might not fall into any opinion about himself. And if, when he went out for his own necessity, he quickly returning, stood at the work of his hands, nor did he open his mouth, neither speaking few things nor many, but stood silent. Nor did he perform anything else at all except prayer in his heart, and he handled the branches which he had in his hands. When all the ascetics of that monastery had seen these things, they rose up against
their superior and said: A Whence, they say, have you brought us this man, who lives as if without flesh, to our condemnation? Either cast him out from here, or know well that we shall all depart from here today. When Pachomius the Great heard this from the brothers, he inquired about him. And when he had learned the rule of his life, he prayed to God that it might be revealed to him who he was. It was revealed to him that it was Macarius the monk. Then the lord Pachomius took him by the hand and led him outside; and when he had brought him into the house of the oratory, where the altar is, and had embraced him, he said: Are you, O venerable elder, the one? Are you Macarius, and did you hide it, and not make yourself known to me? For many years I have desired to see you, when I heard of you. I give thanks to you, that you have chastened my sons, so that they may not think highly of their own exercise. I beseech you, return to your own place; for you have sufficiently edified us; and pray for us. Then, being asked [to stay] by him, and also by all the brothers who requested it, he departed.
Again, this man, who was unassailable, related to us: Every rule of the monastic life, he said, which I sought, I experienced, and at length I came to another spiritual desire. For I resolved to approach such a desire of works. I wished, he said, C to keep my mind for five days alone, undivided from God, and to think absolutely nothing else, but to adhere to Him only. When I had resolved this within myself, I closed my cell and the outer hall, that I might give no answer to anyone arriving. And I stood, beginning from the second [hour], charging my mind and saying: See that you do not descend from the heavens; there you have angels and archangels, the supernal powers, the Cherubim and Seraphim, and God, the creator of all these. Dwell there. Do not descend beneath the heaven; do not fall into worldly thoughts. Thus, he said, when I had persevered for two days and two nights, I so provoked the demon that he became a flame of fire, and burned everything I had in the cell, so that even the mat on which I was standing was consumed, and I thought that I myself was entirely being burned. Finally, affected by fear, on the third day I desisted from this intention of mine, and, because I could no longer keep my mind undivided, I descended to the contemplation of this world, D lest it be imputed to me as pride.
Once, when I had come to this saint, I found lying outside his cell a presbyter of a certain village, whose head was so eaten away by a disease which is called cancer, that his entire skull appeared at the crown. Nor would he admit him to conversation. I asked, therefore, and: I beseech you, I said, have mercy on this miserable man, and at least give him an answer. He answered me: He is unworthy of being healed. For this discipline has been sent upon him. But if you wish him to be healed, persuade him that he henceforth abstain from sacrifice. I said: Why, I beseech you? He answers: Being a fornicator, he performed the sacred ministry, for which he is now being punished. But if he desists from fear of those things which he dared to do through contempt, God will heal him. This I told him who was afflicted. He promised by an oath before God that he would no longer perform the duties of a priest. Then he welcomed him and said to him: Do you believe, he said, that there is a God, whom nothing escapes? He answers: Most certainly, I beseech you. Then: Could you, he said, have mocked God? He answers: I could not, my master. The Great one said: If you acknowledge your sin and the discipline of God, by which you have undergone these things, correct yourself in the future. He confessed his sin, and gave faith that he would no longer sin, nor minister at the altar, but would embrace the lot of a layman. Then the saint laid his hands upon him. He was healed in a few days, and the hair of his head grew, and having returned to his own house, he glorified God and gave thanks to the saint.
Again, I saw a boy brought to him who was vexed by an evil spirit. The saint laid his right hand upon his head and his left upon his heart, and prayed for so long until he had made him hang in the air. The boy, therefore, swelled up greatly in his body like an inflated wineskin, then, when he had suddenly cried out, he discharged water through all his senses; and when this had ceased, he returned to the measure in which he had been at the beginning. And when he had anointed him with holy oil and sprinkled him with blessed water, he restored him to his father, and forbade him to touch meat or wine for forty days. Thus healed, he dismissed them.
This Macarius the Great was once vexed by thoughts of vainglory, which tried to cast him out of his cell, B and suggested to him that he should go to Rome for the sake of dispensation, and they alleged as a just cause the healing of those who are there, the sick. For the grace of the Lord worked greatly in him against the spirits. But because he had been tempted by them for a long time and had not obeyed, to the end that he might depart, they agitated him more sharply. The saint, therefore, prostrated himself on the threshold of his cell and thrust his feet outside, and to the demons of vainglory said: Drag me and pull me, O demons, if you can. For I shall not leave on my own feet. But if you are able, carry me away in such a manner.
And I witnessed that I did not give the offering to Christ for the ascetic Marcus, but an angel was giving it to him from the altar. I, however, saw only the radiance of his hand who was giving him the offering. Now, this Marcus, when he was younger, had learned the Old and New Testaments by heart, and was remarkably meek and chaste, if anyone ever was.
"One day, when I had some free time, I went to him in his extreme old age. Since I, being simple, regarded him as being above a man—as indeed he was—I sat at the door of his cell and listened to what he might say or do. He was alone inside, then, though he was almost a hundred years old and had lost his teeth, and he was struggling with himself and with the devil, saying: 'What, then, do you want, you evil old man? See, you have drunk wine and touched oil. What more do you want me to do for you, you glutton in your gray hairs, you slave to your belly?' Thus he punished himself with reproaches. But to the devil he said: 'Depart from me, devil. You have grown old with me in lethargy. You have inflicted bodily weakness upon me. You have made me partake of wine and oil. You have made me pleasure-seeking. What more do I owe you? You find nothing in me that you would wish to seize. Depart, therefore, from me, enemy of mankind.' And, as if to a thief, he said to himself: 'Come now, you trifler, you glutton in your gray hairs, you old man of dissolute ways! How long shall I be with you?'
§ 19. Thus far the *Lausiac History* which is read in the Vienna codices, under the index 'Concerning Macarius of Alexandria.' There follows in the parchment codex under the index 'Concerning Marcus,' and in the paper codex under the index 'Concerning Marcus the Ascetic,' a certain chapter, the greatest part of which, in the published copies of the B *Lausiac History*, deals with Macarius of Alexandria. Nor is the parchment codex itself consistent, referring to the old man about whom it tells sometimes as Marcus, and sometimes as Macarius. The paper codex, however, always names him Marcus, whom it nevertheless often calls 'the blessed Marcus.' Since this is so, it will be fitting to append this chapter also, which in the Vienna codices is inscribed 'Concerning Marcus,' and to consider whether in it the narrative is about Marcus or about Macarius. This we shall perform by appending the Latin translation of the text of the parchment codex, while we note under the text the variant readings of that old man's name which are contained in the paper codex. For the *Lausiac History* of the parchment codex continues to narrate thus:
"Concerning this same holy Marcus the great ascetic, this admirable Macarius related to us this incredible thing: 'When I was fulfilling my sacred duty, at the time of the distribution of the mysteries,' he said, 'I observed that I did not give the oblation to the ascetic Marcus, but an angel was giving it to him from the altar. I, however, saw only the radiance of his hand who was giving him the offering. Now this Marcus, when he was younger, had learned the Old and New Testaments by heart, and was remarkably meek and chaste, if anyone ever was.'
"Paphnutius, also a servant of Christ and a disciple of this illustrious man, related these things to us: 'One day,' he said, 'when Macarius was sitting at home in the courtyard and had his mind intent on God, a hyena brought her blind cub, and having tapped the door of the courtyard with her head, she entered while he was sitting there. She threw the cub down before his feet. The holy Macarius, therefore, when he had taken the cub and spat into its eyes, prayed, and immediately the cub saw. When he had petted it, the hyena went away. On the following day, however, she brought a skin of a great sheep to the holy Marcus, which skin he left to the holy Bishop Athanasius; but the blessed Melania to me..."
[As the text provided by the scan continues from the previous page's ending:] A ...obtained that skin, offered to her by the hyena—as the prologue itself bears witness—and left it to St. Macarius, from whom St. Melania received it.
Therefore, in the codex from which the prologue was compiled, those matters seem to be narrated no less concerning Marcus. But what if there is an error in that chapter in the Vindobonensis codices? What if that index, “De Marco,” inscribed in the margin, in reality pertains only to the wondrous tale of Macarius of Alexandria regarding Marcus, to whom an angel gave an offering, and the scribes were led by this very index either to change the name *makarios* into *markos*, or to add another *markos* to the word *makarios*?
B This, indeed, is not in itself far from the realm of likelihood, and it seems to be confirmed by the text of the editions and versions of the *Lausiac History*. For in the text of Meursius, Cotelerius, and Fronto-Ducaeus, and the version of Hervetus, in the accounts where the history of Macarius of Alexandria ends in the Vindobonensis codices, first the narrative of Paphnutius concerning the cub and the skin offered to Macarius of Alexandria by the hyena, and then the rest which is held in the codices until the end of the chapter, are added. Then, after the words, “I have signified these things concerning the C glorious Macarius, adorned with virtue, from many and great signs and contests,” the narrative of the same Macarius concerning Marcus, to whom an angel gave an offering, is read; and only then under the index “De Marco” [it is stated that] this old man had learned the Sacred Scriptures by heart, had been honest and chaste, and the rest, which we have brought forth concerning the contests of Marcus with himself and with the devil, follow until the words, “How long I shall be with you.”
Therefore, in the Greek editions of the *Lausiac History* and in the version of Hervetus, the greatest part of the chapter, which in the codices is inscribed “De Marco,” is referred to Macarius of Alexandria; but the remaining parts, which deal with Marcus, are comprised in a new chapter. D However, it stands differently in the *Paradise* and in the ancient version of the *Lausiac History*, in which the narratives of that chapter proceed in the exact same order and are followed in the codices...
A of Vienna. Nor indeed is the *Paradise* consistent with itself, as it, like the Vienna parchment codex, indicates the name of the elder sometimes as Mark, sometimes as Macarius. For when it has first narrated about Mark, it afterwards writes: "When I had come to this [Mark] and said: 'Abba Macarius...,'" and then at the end of the chapter: "I have indicated these few things out of many from the deeds or sayings of our holy father Macarius." Conversely, in the ancient version of the *Lausiac History*, the whole chapter is referred to Macarius, who, with Palladius sitting before his cell and listening, conversed with him and with the devil, and to whom everything contained in that chapter clearly corresponds. Nor is mention made of Mark in it, except insofar as the things which Macarius reported about him are narrated; to which it is added that Mark, when he was a youth, had studied the Holy Scriptures and was remarkably gentle and chaste.
78 What, then? Shall we determine that copyists, led by the mention of Mark, were induced to attribute to Mark what is fitting for Macarius, or that, because in the preceding passages it was narrated about Macarius, they attributed to Macarius those things which pertain to Mark?
This question at first glance seems sufficiently complex, but if we distinguish accurately, it will be easily solved. For in the Continuation of Eusebius’ *Ecclesiastical History* by Rufinus, which was written long before the *Lausiac History*, we are taught that the eyes of the hyena cub were restored by Macarius of Alexandria. For you read: "The same Macarius had a lioness’s cave near his cell. And on a certain day the beast brought her blind cubs to him and set them before his feet. And when he understood that the beast was beseeching for the blindness of the eyes, he asked the Lord that He might restore their sight. This having been received, they returned following their mother to the cave. B And shortly after, she herself returning with her cubs, brings to the elder many fleecy sheepskins as a gift for the grace received, carried in her mouth, and having deposited them before his door, she departs." It can hardly be doubted, surely, that Palladius indicates this same healing of the lioness’s cubs above. And if this is certain, it cannot further be doubted that the rest C of the things which are in that chapter, from the narrative of Palladius about the hyena cub to the end, follow in order and, in the Vienna codices, point to Macarius of Alexandria. Nor is Mark named at all in the chapter, except in order that what Macarius said about him might be narrated, to which narrative Palladius indeed added that Mark, when he was a youth, had studied the Holy Scriptures and was distinguished in holiness and chastity.
Furthermore, the connection of Palladius's narrative about the Macarii also seems to persuade us to interpret that chapter thus. For it is reasonable that Palladius, who records how long Macarius the Egyptian lived, should have likewise indicated how many years Macarius of Alexandria attained. Added to this is that the narrative of Palladius about Macarius of Alexandria, if that chapter is referred to Mark, completely lacks a proper ending; on the contrary, if it pertains to Macarius, both of Palladius's narratives about the Macarii respond to each other excellently.
Finally, we repeat the third and most firm argument from Sozomen, who openly teaches that the elder about whom the story in that chapter is told is Macarius. For Sozomen says: "The other [Macarius of Alexandria], however," he says, "became a presbyter somewhat late. But he performed almost all the exercises of a more strict discipline, some of which he had devised himself, others of which he had cultivated with such zeal, having received them from others, that from the excessive aridity of the skin, the hairs of his beard did not grow." D Where it is manifest that Sozomen compiled the *Lausiac History* from that chapter. But if those things which are read in the *Lausiac* chapter concerning the beard of the elder pertain to
as regards Macarius, who, having regard for the rest that is contained in that chapter, would doubt further that it also pertains to the same person?
Therefore, it is evident that in the Vienna codices, "Marcus" was falsely written instead of "Macarius." This error, which arose from the similarity of the words and also from the index—"Concerning Marcus"—was inserted when a scribe or reader, thinking the long chapter on Macarius had finished upon mention of Marcus, wrote it in the margin, from where the corruption subsequently very easily crept into the text. A This corruption, which one sees in the parchment codex as now *Macarius*, now *Marcus*, you would believe to be ancient, but one that only gradually squeezed the genuine word *Macarius* out of the text, as is the case in the paper codex. However, the authority of the Vienna *Lausiac* codices is hardly diminished by this error, for their virtue is discerned especially in the fact that they narrate events in their proper order and in full, which, as very often happens, is desired both in the Greek editions and in the Hervet version.
But these points, which Palladius recorded concerning Macarius of Alexandria, I shall leave for now. It remains to offer a few observations to illustrate them.
§ 20. And first of all, a certain chronological difficulty arises from the fact that Palladius narrates that he lived for nine years in the *Cellia* or *Cellulae*. For Palladius, who himself testifies that he came to Alexandria in the year 388, also reports that before he went to the *Cellulae*, he lived for three years around Alexandria and for one whole year on Mount Nitria. Therefore, if the years are counted, it seems he did not leave the *Cellulae* before the year 401. I confess, indeed, that the words *ἐπ’ ἔτη τρία*, by which he signifies the period of his habitation around Alexandria, B may not indicate three full years. But even if we assume this, Palladius certainly did not depart from the *Cellulae* before the year 400.
And with this description of the times, Palladius's words—that he himself had been a monk for thirteen years before he became a bishop—agree perfectly. For he narrates that, on account of failing health, he left the *Cellulae* for Alexandria and later, on the advice of physicians, sought Jerusalem, whence, when he had come into Bithynia, he was ordained bishop. Wherefore, it seems reasonable that he left Egypt in the thirteenth year after his arrival and was made bishop in the year 401. Furthermore, it is made probable by the things he himself recorded concerning the death of Evagrius that Palladius was at Alexandria in the year 400.
B But we seem to be prevented from positing this by a passage from the dialogue on the life of St. Chrysostom, which, as George of Alexandria and Photius testify, Bishop Palladius wrote. For in this dialogue it is read that Palladius, Bishop of Helenopolis—which is a city of Bithynia—was present at the Synod of Constantinople held in the thirteenth indiction. Learned men, therefore, especially Baronius and Tillemont, did not hesitate to identify this Bishop of Helenopolis with the writer of the *Lausiac History*. But since the thirteenth indiction began on the 8th of the Kalends of October, i.e., the 24th of September, in the year 399, Tillemont, Montfaucon, and Neander concluded that the synod was held in the month of May of the year 400. But the writer of the life of St. Chrysostom, which is found in the *Acta Sanctorum* of the Bollandists, opined that it was held in the month of March or April of the year 399, due to difficulties that do not allow for the synod having been held in the year 400.
82 Baronius, Tillemont, and others were led to make the author of the Lausiac History the same person as the Bishop of Helenopolis, principally by certain passages in the Lausiac History, though it is scarcely certain that these are genuine. Among their number is the passage regarding Paradise, where, after the prophecy of John of Lycopolis that Palladius would be a bishop is recounted, these words are read: "In which [episcopacy] I was present at the evils of that storm which was stirred up under Saint John" (1). The same is indeed found in the Greek text of Meursius (2); but Hervetus sets forth these words: "I was considered worthy of an ordination that exceeds my powers, falling into that situation which John [of Lycopolis] had predicted" (3). Indeed, since the whole chapter is narrated concerning John of Lycopolis, this reading seems more probable. (I have not examined how the Vienna codices present the passage.) Again, both Baronius and Tillemont relate (4) that the author of the Lausiac History, while tarrying in Rome for the cause of St. John [Chrysostom], was received by Pinianus, the husband of Melania the Younger. This is indeed read in the edition of Meursius (5) and in the Paradise (6), but it is wanting in the Vienna codices (7) and in the ancient version. Finally, Tillemont shows that the Lausiac History is attributed to Palladius, Bishop of Helenopolis, in the codices (8), which is not entirely true; for the Vienna codices inscribe it to Palladius the bishop (9).
But other things that are read in the dialogue about Palladius, Bishop of Helenopolis—namely, that he attended that Constantinopolitan synod—cannot be applied to the author of the Lausiac History. For, in the first place, the description of the times which he himself uses here in the Lausiac History openly contradicts it. Secondly, the author of the Lausiac History was suffering from dropsy when he set out from Alexandria (14), so that it is scarcely credible that, after he had been recently ordained bishop, he was chosen by the synod to settle the case of Antoninus, Bishop of Ephesus, as the dialogue describes.
83 I acknowledge those things which Palladius, Bishop of Helenopolis, thought were held in the year 401; this, however, agrees neither with the words of the dialogue (l. 1), in which it is related that there was a tumult at that time because of Gainas the barbarian, nor with the entire chronology of that period.
A
It is little likely that at the approach of summer he should have undertaken so long a journey to Ephesus. But there remains this way of resolving such difficulties. Socrates reports B that Palladius, bishop of Helenopolis, was transferred to Aspuna. What if this pertains to the Palladius who was the author of the dialogue, and it occurred shortly after the Council of Ephesus, held in the year 401, while Palladius, the author of the *Lausiac History*, was actually appointed to his place in that very year?
However that may be, it is clear from the points we have discussed that there is no just cause for us to abandon the chronology read in the *Lausiac History* in favor of Tillemont, or to maintain that Palladius, the writer of the *Lausiac*, set out from Alexandria in the year 399, was ordained bishop at the beginning of the year 400, and came to Nitria in the year 390. On the contrary, this chronology is rather to be held: that Palladius arrived in Alexandria during the second consulship of Theodosius the Great, which began on the Kalends of January in the year 388, came to Nitria in the year 391, and subsequently to the *Cellulae*, and was ordained bishop in Bithynia in the year 401, from which it is also concluded from the words of Palladius, as we have already taught above, that the *Lausiac History* was written in the year 421.
And the dialogue itself shows in a way that this is the case. Its author, as Photius and George of Alexandria testify, is Palladius the bishop, in the manuscripts Palladius, bishop of Helenopolis, and by others even called bishop of Aspona. He, therefore, in the dialogue says that he came to Rome first some time after Palladius, bishop of Helenopolis, whom he writes was there under Pope Innocentius because of the cause of St. Chrysostom, and that at the time when the dialogue is instituted, he was being detained among the Blemmyes in Egypt. Furthermore, the author of the dialogue is often implored by Deacon Theodore, with whom he conducts that conversation, to tell the truth "by his gray hairs," which, without doubt, cannot apply to Palladius, the author of the *Lausiac History*, who at that time was scarcely forty years old. Whence it is probable that a distinction must be made between the two Palladii, bishops of Helenopolis of that time. C And if this is established, that difficulty which rests upon the testimony of Socrates is, as you see, best resolved by conjecture.
§ 21. But if it is established, it appears that Macarius of Alexandria survived at least until the year 395. For he lived in quiet for three years with Palladius in the *Cellulae*. And you will not easily doubt that the first three years which Palladius spent in the *Cellulae* are the ones signified. Nor will the journey to Jerusalem, which Palladius undertook around the year 394, hinder you from saying that they were the first three years. For Palladius, who narrates that he spent nine years in the *Cellulae*, although he was very frequently traveling about in the meantime, D passed his time there.
To say that Macarius lived in quiet hardly signifies anything other than that, on account of his old age, he no longer performed the office of the priesthood for the benefit of the brethren. Tillemont concluded from the words of Palladius that Macarius had died after those three years had elapsed, whence his death would fall in the year 395, and indeed, as the Martyrology testifies, on the fourth day before the Nones of January, and as the Greek Menaea testify, on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of February. But whether that can be rightly gathered from the words of Palladius is justly called into question. For Palladius does not say that Macarius surrendered his soul immediately after those three years; he says only this: that the Egyptian Macarius died in the year before his own arrival in the solitude; but that he lived with Macarius the Alexandrian, the priest of the *Cellulae*, for three years. What if Macarius the Alexandrian, who, as Palladius testifies, had cells in Nitria and in the vast interior solitude, moved to another cell after those three years? What if he withdrew himself from the assembly of the brethren entirely? I confess that while Tillemont’s opinion is indeed plausible, I would by no means call it certain.
If, however, following Tillemont’s opinion, we maintain that Macarius the Alexandrian departed this life in the month of January of the year 395, we must necessarily maintain that he was born before the year 295, and was baptized before the year 335. For Palladius is our authority that he received baptism at the age of forty, from which time he lived for at least sixty years. By Macarius’s journey to the Tabennesiotes, we are taught that before the year 348, in which Pachomius met his end, he flourished with great praise for his monastic life; for Pachomius says to him: “For many A years I have desired to see you, when I heard of you.” Wherefore it is hard to believe that he was baptized after the year 335. Fabricius, Cave, Oudin, de Nessel, and Pritius, supported by reasons I know not, report that Macarius the Alexandrian departed from life in the year 404. But there is little doubt that they were led into this error because it is read in the Greek text of Meursius, in the version of Hervetus, and in the *Paradise*, that Macarius the Alexandrian was younger than Macarius the Egyptian. Yet if this had been the case, he would have had to be born after the year 300, baptized after the year 340, and to have held such a reputation for virtue “many years ago” before the year 348, which is completely contrary to likelihood. Indeed, that Macarius the Alexandrian was younger than the Egyptian is found neither in the Vienna codices nor in the ancient version. Tillemont thought that Macarius the Alexandrian was younger in age because writers always commemorated him after Macarius the Egyptian. Sozomen explains this matter, who, B after he has discussed Macarius the Egyptian, says: “Macarius the Alexandrian was indeed made a priest later.” And it is also likely that C Macarius the Alexandrian became a monk after Macarius the Egyptian. But that Macarius the Alexandrian was younger in birth than the Egyptian is something you already read in Makrizi. Nor can one say with certainty from where the error crept into those copies of the *Lausiac History*. But because it is manifestly clear that Sozomen compiled what he has on the Macarii from the *Lausiac History* of Palladius, it is probable that the addition, that Macarius the Alexandrian was made a priest later, already existed in the *Lausiac* at the time of Sozomen.
§ 22. But to the narratives themselves concerning Macarius D the Alexandrian, handed down from the *Lausiac History*…
let us come to them. None of A these is found in any other writer, except alone the story of the tomb of the magi seen by Macarius the Alexandrian, which in the second book is found in nearly this manner: that Macarius, more than the other elders, was a lover of the desert and explored its inaccessible wastes. Once he found a place situated in the deepest parts of the desert and filled with all good things. There lived two brothers who, because of the multitude of demons dwelling there, warned him not to bring other monks to it. When he returned and told the brothers of the convenience of the place, the spirits of many were inflamed, but the others said: "If this place is truly, as is boasted, planted by Jannes and Jambres, nothing else is to be believed about it unless it was prepared by the work of the devil for our deception. For if it is truly, as they claim, delightful and abundant, what shall we hope for in the future age if we enjoy such delights here?" By these words at last the fervent spirits of the young men were repressed. The writer of the second book had received this matter by report; for he wrote: "They said he was a lover of the desert... "; then: "Where also it was said B he found two brothers." Perhaps also the report about the two monks whom Macarius the Egyptian found naked in the most remote parts of the wilderness influenced the character of the narrative of the second book.
Regarding then the order in which the narratives follow one another in the published copies, the *Paradise* and the ancient version tell things in the same order as the Vienna codices; the latter differs only in this, that it omitted that Macarius had proposed to himself to fix his mind on God alone for five days. But the Greek editions and Hervet's translation differ more from the codices. In them, from the beginning of the chapter, four narratives are found which are missing from the codices, and the enumeration of the cells of Macarius and the healing of the virgin from Thessalonica are read after the story of the unfortunate priest who had died committing fornication.
Finally, as regards the reasons why Macarius C sat naked in the marsh of Scetis for six months, in Hervet and in the ancient version it is not the crushing of mosquitoes, but the spirit of fornication that is indicated. In which you read these things: "At one time the spirit of fornication caused him trouble, and then he condemned himself to sit naked for six months in the marsh of Scetis..." I consider this cause to be false and thereupon fabricated, because such a punishment did not seem appropriate solely for the retribution of a stinging mosquito. Hervet's version attributes four cells to Macarius in Scete, Libya, the Cells, and the Nitrian mountain. But the Cells belonged to Libya, and neither codices nor editions nor other versions know of more than three cells of Macarius. The ancient version does not contain the story that Macarius, when he was vexed by thoughts of vainglory, walked across the desert with sand carried on his shoulders, but: "So then," it says, "he lay until evening; afterwards he arose to the customary work of the Lord." Finally, in Hervet and in the ancient version, after it has been narrated that the demons of the magi "Jannes and Jambres" were driven away from the monument by D Macarius, these things are added: "But as he [Macarius] was entering paradise the devil met him, holding a drawn sword and threatening him. To whom the holy Macarius replied this: 'You come to me with a drawn sword, and I shall enter against you in the name of the Lord Sabaoth, in the army of the God of Israel.'"
And these, indeed, are the things by which the editions and versions of the *Lausiac History* differ from the codices. This alone is added, that in the Greek editions and in Hervet's version it is handed down that Macarius the Alexandrian sold sweetmeats. Where in the *Paradise* it is held: "He was a trader," a gloss added in the margin reads: "The MS. adds: who sold fruits or vegetables or nuts." Which gloss words are also found in the very old codex which I consulted at Rome in the library of the monastery of Yerusalemme in Croce; and the Rosweyd collection presents the same thing as the Greek text and Hervet's version: "Selling vegetables." But neither in the Vienna codices nor in the other ancient sources which we shall examine is anything of this kind contained.
A § 23. But regarding the individual narratives that we have put forward from the Lausiac History of Palladius concerning Macarius Alexandrinus, these things must be noted for illustration.
First, the abstinence of Macarius Alexandrinus is greatly praised. Following the custom of the Tabennesiotes, who abstain from cooked foods throughout the whole of Lent, he ate nothing for seven years that had been brought near a fire, but tasted only raw herbs and legumes, if he happened to find any, moistened. And having heard that a certain brother ate a pound of bread, he ate only as much as he could carry in his hand, having put the rusks he had into a flask, and for three years he used as food only four or five ounces. He consumed a sextarius of oil in a year for nourishment. Now, twelve ounces go to a pound. And the *xestes* or sextarius of oil contained nearly eighteen ounces. Whence it appears that the abstinence of Macarius was very great. Nor were the elders accustomed to use oil only for food, but also for anointing and softening hands weary from work; from which usage St. Anthony had already abstained. And many elders are said not to have used cooked foods. Among these, Ammonius, from his youth until his death, fed only on raw foods and never ate anything that had been brought near a fire, except bread. Abbot Moses, having become a monk from being a brigand, when he worked much and performed fifty prayers daily, consumed nothing but dry bread of twelve ounces. Abbot Apollo ate no more than B herbs that grow of their own accord on the earth, nor bread, nor legumes, nor anything from the fruits of trees, nor at all those things which men eat when they have been brought to the fire. Serapion the Sindonite took nothing except bread and water. Evagrius, from the time he came into the desert, touched neither lettuce, nor small herbs, nor anything green, nor fruit, nor grape, nor bath, nor meat, nor bread, nor wine, nor anything at all that passes through the fire, except for certain raw herbs and a little water. In the sixteenth year of this way of life, since he had touched bread on account of the weakness of his body and stomach, he nevertheless did not taste cooked herbs until his death. Finally, the presbyter Philoromus abstained from cooked foods for eighteen years.
Macarius Alexandrinus, as he desired not to eat at all—which human nature, however, would not admit—so he also determined to test what he could achieve in conquering sleep, and for twenty whole days living under the sky he did not sleep at all; but at last, it was necessary for him to yield to nature. Many elders are reported to have kept vigil C very often at night. Among whom was Dorotheus, with whom Palladius, the author of the Lausiac History, lived near Alexandria, and who from his youth until old age never slept voluntarily, but only closed his eyes a little in sleep while working or eating. Furthermore, Arsenius declared that one hour of sleep was sufficient for a strenuous exercitant, and he himself would sleep in the morning, sitting a little, after having kept vigil the whole night. Finally, St. Anthony very often spent the whole night without sleep. Although I have not found any elder who abstained from sleep exactly as Macarius Alexandrinus did.
Finally, the third point of the sum of Macarius Alexandrinus's D
A exercise was the fact that, for the sake of only punishing a biting gnat, he sat naked for six months in the Scetis marsh. When he returned from there, he was so wounded all over his body by the gnats that he could be recognized only by his voice, and he appeared to be suffering from elephantiasis. Truly, Evagrius also, who was once vexed by a spirit of blasphemy for forty days, not having entered a roofed shelter, is reported to have swarmed with flies over his whole body. And the same Evagrius, once vexed by a demon of fornication, stood all night in a well during the winter. But Palladius is by no means to be understood as having said that Macarius sat in the water of the marsh for six months: but, as it is self-evident, near the marshes or on the bank of the marshes. Minutoli indicates that these regions abound with gnats and other insects to this day. However, the librarian who feigned that Macarius had sat in the marshes because of a spirit of fornication seems to have falsely understood Palladius in that way. And it is read in the Apophthegmata that Macarius Alexandrinus had withdrawn to the marshes in Scetis for a different reason, from whence Macarius the Egyptian brought him back to the brothers, riddled with gnats.
B But now let us dispute about that "cepotaphium" (garden-tomb) of the magicians Jannes and Mambres, which Macarius himself reported to Palladius that he had seen. For they were called by that name by the Jews, those magicians with whom Moses and Aaron contended before Pharaoh with prodigies. From this tradition, as Theodoret rightly teaches, the Apostle Paul took those names in his epistle to Timothy, rebuking all those who, just as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, C thus resist the truth. Origen asserted that the Apostle’s words look to the apocryphal book inscribed "Jamnes and Mambres." Whence it is manifest that the tradition, by which the magicians Jannes and Mambres who opposed Moses were named, had been sufficiently ancient. And these magicians are called by the same name by Jonathan the Targumist, as well as in the Babylonian Talmud. Nor only among the Jews, but also among the Greeks and among the Romans, Jannes and Mambres flourished with the praise of the magical art. For Numenius the Pythagorean, in a fragment which is among Eusebius, wrote that Jannes and Mambres excelled as magicians in magical arts, and were set against Musaeus (Moses) by the Egyptian people. And Pliny: "There is," he says, "also another faction of Magic depending on Moses and Jannes and Jotapes, Jews." Abulpharagius in his *Dynasties* praises a certain Artemonius, who taught that Moses, at ten years old, was handed over by the daughter of Pharaoh to Jannes and Mambres to be trained in the wisdom of the sages. And in the old Midrash to Exod. XV, 10, it is narrated that the magicians "Joannes and Mamres" were submerged in the Red Sea, which agrees with an Arabic manuscript codex on the Pentateuch, in which these things are held: "These are the names of the magicians who stood against Moses: Deiannes, Jambaras, and Sarudas. But God destroyed them in the Red Sea." Whence it seemed to Hammound that in Palladius, for *knepotaphion* (garden-tomb) one should read *kenotaphion*, i.e., an empty sepulcher. Against this is the narrative of Palladius, that the demons said that the magicians were buried there by them. But the sepulcher was in a garden planted with trees, D such as even 95 now are planted, very beautiful, in the Oases.
A It was built, situated with square stone, such as are typically seen in Egyptian monuments [(1)]. It was also adorned with a well—which is almost never lacking in any such Egyptian sepulcher [(2)]—and rumor held that much gold was deposited within the monument. As Macarius approached, however, about seventy demons emerged from the monument and met him, displaying themselves in various forms; some were shouting, others leaping, others gnashing their teeth at him with a great roar; others, flying like crows, insulted his face. In a similar manner, to St. Anthony spending the night in a sepulcher, demons appeared in the form of lions, bears, leopards, bulls, serpents, asps, scorpions, and wolves, and gnashed their teeth at him [(3)]. To that same Anthony, while he was living in a certain fortress, the demons shouted: "Depart from our dwellings! What have you to do with the wilderness? You will never endure our snares" [(4)]. In almost these same words did those demons greet Macarius of Alexandria. And indeed, Macarius compares those who were flying to the crows, in which that wilderness abounds even today [(5)]. And the form of crows is not rarely attributed to demons [(6)]. Finally, the inhabitants of the Siwa Oasis even now believe that the sepulchers and monuments of the desert are inhabited by demons and held in their power [(7)]. It is strange that Macarius, having known the monument, promised the demons to withdraw, having given his word; for St. Anthony taught that demons should not be listened to at all [(8)]. In an ancient version, it is said that Macarius replied only these words: "I must enter and see," and without caring for the demons, he entered [(9)]. This, however, is repugnant to the text of the manuscripts, editions, and other versions. Nor did Macarius truly B enter into a pact with the demons, but rather he promised of his own accord that he would withdraw, as they [the demons] had requested. That devil, who is falsely alleged in certain Lausiac versions—as we have noted—to have met Macarius with a drawn sword as he entered the monument, seems to be the prince of demons, who, as St. Anthony testifies, after the other demons were overcome, himself "arrives in a horrible form, that he might strike terror, and he boasts of many things, but he lies, and is not to be feared, because through the grace of Christ the machinations of all demons are vain" [(10)]. The things, however, which Macarius found upon entering the monument—a bronze bucket hanging from a well by an iron chain, and jars empty inside, called *poa* by Palladius, and other things of this kind still found today in Egyptian sepulchers—there is no reason for me to say more about. And that fraud of the devil, who had gathered reeds placed on the way for the sake of a sign, and the maiden dressed in clean clothes, who, carrying an urn dripping with water on her head, provoked the weary old man for three days, and finally the herd of buffalo that fed him when he was oppressed by thirst, demonstrate the virtue and constancy of Macarius and the magnitude of the divine grace bestowed upon him. Buffalo, moreover, are still very numerous today around the Nitrian marshes [(11)]. The narration of the second book C about the same monument seen by Macarius, as we have taught, is a rumor, greatly depraved, and must be set after the narration of Palladius. And that this garden of the magicians was adorned by the hands of the Egyptians and by the order, as it seems, of Pharaoh, is indicated not obscurely by Palladius; wherefore it seems that it ought to be distinguished from the magic gardens, which are not rarely read about [(12)]. But let us come to other things.
Macarius tore from its throat the asp, by which he was bitten in the well while digging to refresh the brothers, and utterly tore it apart. And this custom has obtained even today among the Mamelukes, who from a scorpion... D
point, in order to heal the wound, rub the scorpion itself over the fresh wound. That desert, moreover, abounds in scorpions. A Of the three cells which Macarius the Alexandrian had in the inner vast solitude, in the Cells, and on the mount of Nitria, one, in which he sat in darkness during the quadragesima, lacked a door. For the cells of the monasteries of that region lack windows even today, so that light only enters through the doorway. And it is likely that this cell of Macarius was situated in the inner vast solitude. Another, however, in the Cells, appears to have been situated in a very narrow place, in which he could not even stretch out his foot. Other elders are said to have used cells of this kind. Finally, in the third cell, more spacious than those two, Macarius received those arriving, which worked out very well for a cell on the mount of Nitria, which many monks and pilgrims were accustomed to visit. Regarding them, if they approached him, Socrates, I know not from where, received the idea that Macarius the Alexandrian was more cheerful than the Egyptian Macarius, and that he enticed the younger monastics to monastic discipline with a certain urbanity.
Of the virgin originating from Thessalonica, whom Macarius the Alexandrian anointed with holy oil and healed through the prayers of twenty days, there is no reason for us to dispute. Wherefore let us pass to the monastery of Pachomius, visited B by Macarius. That he [Macarius] arrived with a great number of monks is constantly handed down. Pachomius, however, would not admit Macarius for seven days because he was dressed in the garment of a laborer. Where you should note that by the rule of Pachomius, as one about to renounce the world, he was to remain before the gate of the monastery for a few days and show himself to be worthy, just as Pachomius had himself once repelled Palaemon, and St. Anthony had repelled Paul the Simple. Pachomius is said to have possessed the spirit of prophecy in that narrative, which is also handed down in a certain manner in his life. And the monks of that monastery handle palm branches, which was customary to be done in the monasteries of St. Anthony and other elders. And in Terraneh, which is a city situated near Nitria, very beautiful mats are even now woven from the reed which is very common in its marshes.
The purpose of Macarius, to spend five days conversing with God alone and to fix his whole mind on Him alone, the devil, on the third day, having turned into a flame of fire, made void. He burned the mat on which the elder was standing, and appeared to scorch him himself. Whence you might believe that this fire was not a phantom of the devil, but had the power of burning. But you will not easily read elsewhere that demons, C who take on various forms altogether, have appeared in the form of fire and incited a conflagration.
99 That priest, who had committed fornication and performed sacred rites, is healed by Macarius only after he gave his word that he would no longer perform the duties of a priest. For it was the discipline of the ancient church that a priest who had committed a sin of the flesh or another grave crime should be prohibited from the ministry of the altar and reduced to the communion of the laity. Examples of this are in the Decree of Gratian and in the penitential books. Macarius, to the unfortunate man, upon whom a most deadly cancer disease had been inflicted on account of that sin, asked whether he believed there is a God, whom nothing escapes and whom no one can deceive, and whether he recognized that...
his sin could be forgiven by Him. When she nodded and had confessed her sins, she was freed from the disease. Indeed, I would believe that the order for assigning penance, which was in use at that time, is contained in these interrogations of Macarius; for in the penitential book of the Venerable Bede, the priest is commanded to interrogate the penitent in a similar way, first as to whether he believes in God, and finally whether he wishes his sins to be forgiven. It is read that Stephanus, a Libyan by birth, was ill with another cancerous disease, which was called *phagedaena*. B
Regarding that young man vexed by a demon, whom Macarius healed by laying his hands on his head and heart, there is no need for us to discuss it. Yet what follows might appear strange to anyone: why it could have entered the mind of Macarius the Alexandrian to go to Rome *oikonomias gratia* [for the sake of stewardship], as it is read in the Greek text. But we learn from St. Jerome that at the time when the whole East abounded in monks, the monastic life at Rome and in the West generally was still in its earliest infancy. It took its first beginnings in the West from there, through the Alexandrian priests, Pope Athanasius, and later Peter his successor, who, while exiled in Rome, spread the life of St. Anthony. For at Rome, because of the novelty of the thing, no one had dared to assume that ignominious or shameful name until then. C Since these things are so, where else could Macarius have found a richer harvest of people to heal and reconcile to God than at Rome, from whence Rufinus, St. Jerome, Melania, Marcella, Paula, and others were traveling to Egypt to learn about and imitate the life of the elders? I would interpret the words *oikonomias gratia* not as the administration of earthly affairs, in which sense that expression is used in the chapter of Palladius concerning Serapion, an elder of the Arsenoite region, but as the administration of the virtues which Macarius had received from Christ. And just as Macarius fought against the temptations of hospitality by placing sand on his shoulders, so it is written that Pachomius, at the exhortation of Palaemon, banished sleep by carrying sand. Who was this *Theosebius* the *cosmetor*... D I could not find. To him who asked Macarius what he was carrying, the answer was given: "I am tormenting him who torments me." Palladius received a similar answer from Isidorus, whom he had asked why, despite his very advanced age, he was mortifying his small body: "It kills me, and I shall kill it."
And these, indeed, were things to be noted concerning those matters which are read in the Viennese codices inscribed "On Macarius the Alexandrian." Regarding other things that we have brought forth from the same codices under the false index "On Mark," and which we have shown to pertain to the same Macarius the Alexandrian, these points must be noted.
First, it is read that Eulogius the priest possessed a similar grace of discerning the mind of any monk approaching the sacraments. Ammon also, when he was offering sacrifice, saw an angel standing to the right of the altar, noting in a book the brothers who were approaching for holy communion. Another elder is also reported to have seen angels standing to his right and left while he was sacrificing. And we read in the second book that Macarius recognized the worthiness or unworthiness of those who approached the altar. Sozomen followed Palladius in reporting the same thing about the elder Mark.
Moreover, regarding those words *poliophege, lēre, phagōgere*, with which Macarius, when he sat in his cell in extreme old age, rebuked himself, you read that a certain demon cursed St. Anthony and Paul the Simple. Nor should you see it as incongruous that these insults, by which extreme incontinence is signified, were spoken to them.
Sulpicius Severus also recorded that the blind cubs of a hyena or lioness were healed by the elder of the desert, who did not name the elder himself as he restored their sight, yet he said that he had once been dear and familiar to two Nitrian monks in the monastic life, and that for twelve years he had lived as an anchorite in that extreme desert adjacent to the Blemmyes. Where, in the collection of Rosweyd, in place of the Blemmyes, it is, in my opinion, falsely...
Memphis; for one could hardly call the desert adjacent to Memphis the "extreme" desert. And that the desert in which the anchorite lived was far distant from Nitria, as Sulpitius Severus himself narrates, is also evident from the fact that the monks of Nitria did not find it until the seventh month. Sulpitius Severus seems to call the Blemmyes "Blembos," whom Strabo attests to be subjects of the Ethiopians, neighbors to the Egyptians. For shortly afterwards Sulpitius Severus narrates that a certain youth, while he was a tribune in Egypt, had reached certain desert places during frequent expeditions against the Blemmyes. There is hardly any doubt that these expeditions were made against the nomadic Blemmyes, who dwell on the borders of Egypt. But that Macarius of Alexandria lived as an anchorite for twelve years in that desert of the Blemmyes—a fact not recorded elsewhere—I would not believe on the testimony of Sulpitius alone; for he heard the matter by hearsay, which Paphnutius, a disciple of Macarius, had reported to Palladius, who said that Macarius, when he was restoring sight to some cubs, was sitting at home in the courtyard of his own cell. Many examples of the familiarity of the elders with wild beasts are found. A Ludolf also, when he visited Palestine in the 14th century, handed down these things concerning the lands adjacent to the Jordan: "Above the flow of the Jordan there are very many monasteries of Greeks and Schismatics and pleasant hermitages. Near the same flow, countless wild animals, both small and large, are seen watering every evening, especially lions, foxes, deer, stags, and hares, wild goats, and animals of this kind, which move alongside men like domestic animals. In the same place in my time, a lion was accustomed to be on the other side of the Jordan; it watched men passing by and, fawning with its tail in the manner of a dog, it did not flee, nor did it inflict any harm on anyone during the day. Finally, a certain archer of ours, wishing to scare and provoke it, shot an arrow. The lion did not move, but adored the arrow, and when he shot the arrow again, the lion erected itself directly against the arrow, as if to catch it with its mouth and feet, though afterwards it did not stay in this place—nor did it inflict as many injuries upon men and beasts."
Furthermore, I find no other reason why Macarius, from the time he was baptized, did not spit upon the ground for seventy years, except to show his continence. But the hairs of his beard are also said not to have grown, due to excessive asceticism, even for John at Lycopolis. Finally, that last narrative regarding the thoughts which prompted Palladius to depart, as he was accomplishing nothing in the solitude, variously embellished, occurs elsewhere also.
§ 24. And these things indeed had to be said for the purpose of illustrating the chapter of Palladius concerning Macarius of Alexandria. It remains that we examine four narratives by which we have shown the text edited by Meursius and the version of Hervetus to be more complete in that chapter than in the Viennese manuscripts and other versions. Indeed, at the beginning of that chapter, after the words of Palladius, other things are read which Macarius of Alexandria says he witnessed himself regarding works and signs, and others which he learned from those who lived together with him:
"When he saw, near Father Anthony the Great, some chosen palm branches which he was handling, he asked him for one handful of the branches. To whom Anthony said: 'It is written, Thou shalt not covet the things of thy neighbor.' When he had said this alone, all the branches immediately were scorched as if by fire. When Anthony saw this, he said to Macarius: 'Behold, the Spirit has rested upon you, and henceforth you shall be the heir of my virtues.'
"The devil found the same man greatly exhausted in body in the solitude, and said to him: 'Behold, you have received the grace of Anthony; why then do you not use your dignity, and ask God for food and strength for the journey you must undertake?' But he replied: 'My strength and my praise is the Lord. But you, do not tempt the servant of God!' The devil therefore caused a phantom to appear to him, a camel carrying burdens and wandering through the solitude, having everything necessary for use."
He surmised, as was the case, that it was a phantom, and stopped to pray, and immediately the camel was swallowed by the earth.
« The same Macarius the *politikos* once came to Macarius the Great. When both were about to cross the Nile, it happened that they boarded a large ferry, onto which had entered some tribunes with great pomp, having a carriage made entirely of bronze, horses equipped with golden bridles, and certain soldiers, attendants, and boys adorned with collars and golden belts. The tribunes, therefore, seeing the monks clothed in old rags sitting in a corner, praised their blessed simplicity; and one of the tribunes said, 'Blessed are you who have mocked the world.' To whom Macarius the *politikos* replied, saying: 'We indeed have mocked the world, but the world has mocked you. Know, however, that you have not said this of your own accord, but prophetically; for we are both called Macarius.' Stung by this remark, the tribune, as soon as he reached home, stripped off his robes, chose the monastic life, and performed many almsdeeds. »
« A certain fresh grape A which he had wished to eat, showing his own continence, he sent to a certain sickly brother who also desired grapes. And this one, having accepted the grape with the greatest joy, offered the same food to another brother who was longing for it. But this one, too, having obtained the grape, did the same, even though he himself very much desired to eat it. When, in turn, the grapes had reached many brothers, and no one had wished to eat them, the last one who had received them sent them back to Macarius, as if presenting him with a great gift. He, having recognized the grapes and having inquired into the matter curiously, wondered and gave thanks to God for such continence of theirs, and he himself did not eat them. »
You see, from these four narratives, that the two former B pertain to Macarius, the disciple of Saint Antony—whose dignity he had received almost as an inheritance—while the other two pertain to Macarius the *politikos*, that is, the one originating from the city, by which name, according to Sozomen C, Macarius Alexandrinus is called, who is described as being born from the city of Alexandria. Now, those two former narratives are not repeated elsewhere; but the remaining ones are read twice—one indeed about the tribunes in the second and sixth book, the other about the grape in the second and third book of the Rosweydian collection—in such a way that it is probable they flowed from the same Greek source. The name *Urbicus* (City-dweller) was not indeed placed upon Macarius in the second book, but in the sixth; in the *Lausiac History*, however, as we shall soon see, the name *politikos* is attributed to him once. Wherefore, D there can be little doubt that the two latter narratives pertain to Macarius Alexandrinus, and the only question is whether the two former refer to the same person. This depends on whether Macarius, the disciple of Saint Antony and the heir of his virtues, was one of our Macariuses. But we will clearly prove below that this was not the case. Therefore, it is self-evident that the two former narratives do not pertain to our Macariuses.
105 § 25. These things, therefore, which are read in the manuscripts and individual editions and versions of the *Lausiac History* in the chapter "On Macarius Alexandrinus" having been brought to the fore, the order of the discussion seems to demand that we now turn our attention to the other places in the *Lausiac History* where mention is made of the Macariuses. In which, indeed, it is not Macarius the Egyptian, but Macarius Alexandrinus or other Macariuses who are mentioned.
And first, indeed, that Macarius the presbyter, prefect of the Alexandrian *ptochotropheion* (poorhouse) and a stonemason from his youth, about whom Palladius tells, must not be confused with our two Macariuses. Nor must that younger Macarius, who as a youth of nineteen had committed an involuntary homicide, be distinguished from them. But Macarius Alexandrinus is mentioned in the chapter inscribed *On Paul*, which we append here, translated into Latin from the Viennese codices:
« There is a mountain in Egypt leading into the vast solitude of Scetis, which is called Pherme; in which sit nearly five hundred men, who are in training. Among whom lived Paul, an excellent monk, who spent his whole time in this life. »
He never touched work nor took on business, and he never accepted anything from anyone, except what he ate on that very day. His exercise, however, consisted in constant prayer. And he had set three hundred prayers A which he counted in this way: he held gathered pebbles in his lap, and cast one away after each prayer. A man for the sake of spiritual profit and conversation approached the holy Macarius the *politikos* [Alexandrian], to whom he said: "Abba Macari, I am greatly afflicted." And he compelled him to tell the reason on account of which he was saddened. He then said: "In a certain village there lives a virgin who has now been exercising for thirty years. Many have told me that she takes food on no other day except Saturday and Sunday, but for the whole B time drags out weeks, and after five days she eats, offers seven hundred prayers. When I learned this, I reproached myself, pondering that I, a man endowed with greater bodily strength than her, was unable to perform more than three hundred prayers." The holy Macarius answered: "I am," he said, "in my sixtieth year since I made myself a rule of a hundred prayers, and what is necessary for nourishment I provide with my own hands, and I render to the brothers the due opportunity of visiting me, nor does my conscience indicate to me that I am negligent. But you, when you are judged by your conscience while doing three hundred prayers, you either betray that you are not doing them in purity, or that you are not doing as many as you could."
This Macarius the *politikos*, i.e., Alexandrian, is thus named. Which surname, on the testimony of Sozomen, was bestowed upon Macarius, as we have seen, the Alexandrian, and is read only in this place in the Lausiac History. But you should note those words of Macarius saying that it is his sixtieth year since he prescribed for himself that rule of life. Hence it is evident that Macarius—who was baptized at forty years of age—at the hundredth year of his life, i.e., at nearly the same time when C Palladius lived with him in the Cells, gave that answer to Paul the Elder. Moreover, the mount Pherme, which sloped down into the wilderness of Scetis, was not far distant from the Cells. From which it is also concluded again that this chapter, which is under the heading: *Concerning Marcus* in many codices, is to be referred to Macarius the Alexandrian.
Furthermore, in the following chapter of the Lausiac History, which is inscribed *Concerning Eulogius and the maimed man and the judgment of Saint Anthony*, Macarius is named a disciple of Saint Anthony by a certain Cronius, who reported these things to Palladius: "But [the mount of Saint Anthony] is situated between Babylon and Heracleopolis in a vast wasteland, which leads to the D Red Sea and is distant about thirty miles from the river. Therefore, when I had arrived at the monastery situated near the river and called Pispir, where his disciples Macarius and Amatas were sitting—they who also buried Saint Anthony after he had passed away—I waited for five days to meet Saint Anthony. He was said to come to this monastery sometimes after ten, sometimes after twenty, and sometimes even after fifty days, just as God moved him to give help to those who had arrived there. We various brothers had gathered on account of various needs, among whom was Eulogius the Alexandrian, and with him another man maimed in his limbs." Then the reason why Eulogius brought the mutilated man to the monastery of the Great one having been explained, Palladius continues thus: "It happened that the next day the great Anthony came, as Cronius told it, dressed in a skin mantle late in the evening. And he entered his monastery. Now he used this custom with his disciple Macarius in questioning [him] about those who had arrived, so that he called the monks 'Jerusalemitans,' but the laymen 'Egyptians.' Therefore the Great one said: 'Brother Macarius, have any brothers arrived here?' He replied: 'They are here.' He asked: 'Are they Egyptians, or Jerusalemitans?' And he had given him a signal that he should call those who had less business 'Egyptians.' And as regards the Egyptians, to Macarius he said: 'Prepare lentils, and give them [something] to eat.' Then he prayed with them and sent them away. Then Macarius replied to us regarding that mutilated man: 'They are mixed.' But if he said they are Jerusalemitans, the saint would sit through the whole night and talk to them about things pertaining to salvation. However, on that evening the Great one, sitting down, summoned everyone..."
This Macarius, therefore, was a minister of Saint Anthony, and in the Pispiritan coenobium, which is near...
Red Sea, lived [with] Macarius the Egyptian and the Alexandrian, who were dwelling in the deserts of Libya. That the latter was indeed the minister of St. Anthony is sufficiently gathered from the things which Palladius related about him. Nor is it probable that he was Macarius the Alexandrian, because, if he had been, 108 Palladius would not have failed to praise this in the chapter inscribed "On Macarius the Alexandrian." But that another Macarius of that time, a minister of St. Anthony, was indeed the person, will be clearly evident from the things we shall discuss below concerning him.
Finally, a presbyter named Macarius is mentioned in the chapter which is inscribed: *On Valens*. A portion of this, taken from the Viennese codices and rendered into Latin, may be transcribed: "A certain Valens, a Palestinian by birth, having gone into the desert, lived with us for a long time. Because he had undertaken an ascetic life of the greatest strictness in living, he was mocked by the demon through a vain opinion of himself and through pride, and he was in a short time so deceived by such a pernicious calamity of the soul that he boasted that angels conversed with him and served him in every ministration. Once, when he was sewing a basket, as his companions narrated, in the evening, when there was much darkness, he lost the needle with which he used to sew. When it was not found, the demon made a lamp for him, by which he found the needle, so that this wretch was inflated even more by vain puffery. However, by the providence of God, his calamity was quickly made manifest to the brotherhood. For it happened that certain guests brought summer fruits to the brothers. The master, Macarius the presbyter, sent a bunch to each one in his cell, and likewise to the wretched Valens. He beat the one who had brought it and, treating him with contumely, said, 'Tell Macarius: I am no worse than you, that you should send me trifles.' When, therefore, the holy Macarius learned that he had been deceived, he went to him to exhort him, and said: 'Brother Valens, you have been deluded; desist and pray to God!' But he did not heed his admonition, but disobediently spoke against him. Therefore, when the devil understood that he had reposed the greatest trust in him, he put on the form of the Savior, and at night came to him in a phantasm with a thousand demons carrying lamps, and showed him a fiery wheel, in the middle of which the Savior 109 held the appearance of a creator. He says: 'Christ has loved you for the integrity of your life and your purpose, and has come to see you; go out from your cell, and if you see him standing afar off, fall down and adore him.' Having gone out from his cell, therefore, he saw a company carrying lamps and, at the distance of almost a stadium, the Antichrist, whom he adored, falling down. But the wretch was so greatly overcome and of such a deceived mind that he came to the church on the following day and said in the presence of everyone: 'I have no need of communion; for I have seen Christ today.' Then the fathers seized him and bound him in iron for some time. By continuous prayers then made for him, and by manifold despection and a more austere life, they removed the vain opinion, so that he was healed. For contrary things are met by contrary medicines."
That Macarius the presbyter who reproved and admonished Valens is indeed the one, and that it is scarcely to be doubted that he was not Macarius the Alexandrian, the presbyter of the Cells, is clear. For we read that Valens lived for a long time in the desert in which Palladius lived, that is, in the Cells. There follows a narrative about Heron, who afflicted "the blessed Evagrius" with similar contumely. Where Hervetus wrote in the margin that in other codices "Macarius the presbyter" is read. Which corruption was undoubtedly born from the fact that in the preceding chapter it had been narrated about Macarius the presbyter, against whom Valens had been arrogant. In the locations of the editions and versions, the names "Macarius the Politikos," "Macarius the disciple of St. Anthony," and "Macarius the presbyter" are likewise found; however, the ancient version omitted the histories about Paul and Valens.
We have now, therefore, arrived at the end of the matters to be learned about Macarius the Alexandrian from the book of Palladius. Let us, therefore, pass on to the testimonies of Rufinus concerning the Macarii, the Egyptian and the Alexandrian.
CHAPTER IV.
RUFINUS CONCERNING THE HOLY MACARII, THE EGYPTIAN AND THE ALEXANDRIAN.§ 26. In the second book of the collection of Rosweyde, these things are read concerning the Macarii: "But certain of the fathers were telling us 110..."
A that in those places the two Macarii had shone forth like two heavenly luminaries, of whom one was an Egyptian by birth and a disciple of the blessed Anthony, the other an Alexandrian. To them, as the names by which they were called corresponded, so also did their virtues of soul and the magnificence of their heavenly graces. For each Macarius, each one, was equally excelling in the exercises of abstinence and in virtues of soul; the one excelling only in this, that he possessed, as it were, the inheritance of the graces and virtues of the blessed Anthony." Behold Macarius the Egyptian, disciple of St. Anthony the Great, and as it were the heir of his virtues! Before we examine this matter, let us hear the remaining things which are added concerning Macarius the Egyptian in the second book: "From this, finally, they report that once, when a homicide had been committed in neighboring places and the crime of what was done was being cast upon a certain innocent man, he who was suffering the calumny fled to his cell. Those also who were pressing the charge were present, alleging and saying that they themselves were in danger unless they delivered the apprehended homicide to the laws. But he upon whom the crime was being cast was affirming with oaths that he was not conscious of that blood. And when for a long time the struggle was held by both parties, Saint Macarius asked where he who was said to be slain was buried. And when they had designated the place, he set out to the tomb with all who had come to press the charge against the man, and there, with knees fixed B and the name of Christ invoked, he said to those who stood by: 'Now the Lord will show if truly he who is being pressed by you is the guilty one.' And with a raised voice, he calls the deceased by name. And when, having been called from the tomb, he had responded to him, he says to him: 'Through the faith of Christ, I adjure you, tell me if you were killed by this man who suffers this calumny?' Then he answered from the tomb with a clear voice, saying: 'He was not killed by him.' And when all, having been stupefied, had fallen to the ground and were rolling at his feet, they began to ask that he might inquire from him by whom he had been killed. Then he: 'This,' he said, 'I will not inquire; for it suffices me that the innocent man be freed; it is not mine, 111 however, that the guilty one be betrayed'." Then C follow three narrations concerning a girl changed into a mare, concerning a younger girl from whose body an innumerable multitude of worms was boiling out, and concerning a dead man raised up to refute a Hieracite heretic, which three miracles of Macarius the Egyptian we already know from Palladius. The narration of the second book concerning Macarius the Egyptian is finished, finally, with these words: "Many other things were also reported concerning him, which are too long to write, but from these few even his other works are known." Truly, no one will doubt that this Macarius the Egyptian is the same person concerning whom Palladius reported above. Wherefore it rightly offends that Macarius the Egyptian is called, in the second book, the disciple of St. Anthony and, as it were, the heir of his graces and virtues, of which dignity Palladius made no mention at all. For we indeed read in the Meursian edition of the *Lausiac History* of a certain Macarius whom St. Anthony himself had predicted would be the heir of his virtues; but we have deemed that passage spurious, and that the narration attributed by an interpolator to Macarius the Alexandrian fits the Pispiritan man more than our Macarii. Of Macarius the Egyptian, however, we have hitherto found absolutely nothing of this sort mentioned. You would not rashly believe that the matter is settled by Socrates, who, when he had borrowed the rest of what he reports concerning the Macarii from the books of Evagrius, seems to have assumed these things from the second book: "Moreover, among the monks who lived at that time there were two most holy men called by the same name; for each was called Macarius. Of whom one was from Upper Egypt, the other was born in the city of Alexandria. But both were illustrious beyond others, as much on account of abstinence as of character and conversation, and as much on account of the miracles which were performed through their hands. Indeed, Macarius the Egyptian D healed so many sick, and freed so many obsessed by demons, 112 that the things which he accomplished through the grace of God require a separate work." Which words of Socrates indeed consist so well with the second book that one may suspect that that which is narrated—that Macarius the Egyptian was a disciple of St. Anthony and as it were the heir of his virtues—was in the genuine Greek text of the second book, which So-
crates used, not something found, but perhaps a fabrication of the interpreter Rufinus, or later added by an interpolating hand.
That Rufinus, in his *Continuation of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius*, included Macarius of Alexandria among the two Macarii, is apparent from the context. But when he calls Isidorus, Heraclides, and Pambo the same disciples of St. Anthony, this term seems to be taken in a broader sense. Nor does Rufinus any less in his *Apology [Invectiva] II* commemorate "Macarius, disciple of Anthony" and "the other Macarius," although it is not understood which of the Macarii he meant, or if he spoke of one of our own at all. Wherefore, it is not certain that Macarius the Egyptian is properly called a disciple of St. Anthony by Rufinus.
And besides the second book, only Makrizi holds that Macarius the Egyptian was a disciple of St. Anthony. Makrizi recorded that he was clothed in the monastic habit by St. Anthony and sent to Wadi-al-Natrun, that is, into the valley of Nitria [the desert of Scetis], perhaps from the tradition of the Macarian monastery. However, the histories of the fifth book of the *Vitae Patrum* of Rosweyde and the *Apophthegmata* of Cotelier openly contradict this, in which it is handed down that Macarius the Egyptian went to Scetis of his own accord, and did not visit St. Anthony until a later time.
Therefore, nothing certain seems to be gatherable from the words of the second book, except that which is also brought out from other sources: that Macarius sometimes heard the disciplines of the monastic life from the mouth of St. Anthony, whom he had visited, and almost equaled him in the praise of his virtues.
These things set forth, it only remains that I should warn that the narrative which we have brought forward concerning the dead man [raised] to clear the man who was falsely accused of homicide, is read almost word for word in the third book where Macarius raised the dead, where, however, at the end, after the words "but it is not mine that the guilty person D should be betrayed," these words are added: "for perhaps he will yet be pricked for the crime which he committed, and he will do penance so that his soul may be saved (6)."
§ 27. Since Rufinus himself has expounded upon Macarius of Alexandria in his *Continuation of the Ecclesiastical History* of Eusebius, let us first examine that. Where, speaking of the persecutions of the Arian bishop Lucius against the hermits, after he wrote: "At the same time, the fathers of the monastic life and antiquity, by merit Macarius and Isidorus and another Macarius and Heraclides and Pambo, the disciples of Anthony, were held in honor throughout Egypt and especially in the parts of the desert of Nitria... (7)," he thereafter added this history: "But a short time before, a certain blind man was asking to be led to the cell of Macarius, which was in the desert, a three days' journey. After the blind man reached it with the great labor of those leading him, he did not find Macarius at home. Heavily saddened, he could by no means mitigate his grief, lacking the consolation of health. But then, warming with the fervor of faith, he said to those who had led him: 'I beseech you, apply me to that part of the wall where the elder is accustomed to sleep.' And when he had been moved, taking a little dry mud, from which the wall appeared to be plastered, he placed it upon his palm. He asked also that they draw water from a well from which he was accustomed to drink. By which moisture dissolving the small clod and anointing his own eyes with the same mud, and washing with the water which had been drawn, he suddenly received his sight, so that needing no support he returned to his own. But so that he would not act like those lepers whom the Lord notes in the Gospels as ungrateful for being cured by Him, he returned with all his house and, rendering thanks to God, indicated the matter as it had occurred (8)." Then, passing on the history of the lioness and her blind cubs, which Macarius cured, Rufinus concludes with these words: "But if we wish to pursue the deeds of the individual miracles, we are excluded by the brevity we proposed, especially when these deserve to have a narrative of their own work (9)." That disease of the eyes and blindness even today in
Egypt and in Libya are very common (1). But as for Macarius of Alexandria, that Rufinus relates he was there, the second book indicates, to which we now come.
§ 28. The writer of the second book of the collection of Rosweyde, after having related matters concerning Macarius of Egypt, when about to narrate concerning the Alexandrian, begins thus: "But another holy Macarius also himself accomplished magnificent virtues, concerning which others have also written a few things, which may suffice for contemplating the magnitude of his virtues, and therefore we omit them for the sake of brevity (2)." You will ask to which writers concerning the virtues of Macarius of Alexandria he refers. Without doubt, he cannot be referring to Palladius, seeing that he wrote the *Lausiac History* much later. Wherefore, there remain only Rufinus in the *Continuation*, which we have adduced, and Timothy the Bishop († 385) (3), whom Sozomen reports to have committed to writing the lives of many monks (4). To these words of the second book, the writer adds five histories, three of which we have already found in Palladius: namely, the one concerning the sight of the monument of the magi, which is first; the one concerning the grape, which is second; and the one concerning the meeting with the two tribunes, which is read in the final place. But between that first and the other narrative, he interposes this description of the place which Macarius inhabited: C
"The place, moreover, in which the holy Macarius himself lived is called Scetis. It is situated in a most vast desert, having a day and a night's journey from the monasteries of Nitria, and this 115 is reached by no path, nor is it shown or distinguished by any earthly markers, but is traveled by the signs and courses of the stars. Water is rarely found, and if it is found anywhere, it is indeed of a most foul odor, and as it were bituminous, but of harmless taste. There are, therefore, there men who are truly perfect; for so terrible a place does not suffer any but those who are of perfect resolve and highest constancy; yet they evince the greatest zeal of charity toward one another and toward all, if any should by chance have approached them (5)."
Although we learn from Palladius that, of the three cells which Macarius of Alexandria possessed, one was D situated in Scete (6), yet it offends that he is simply said to have lived in Scete, a thing which, according to the same Palladius as author, properly and strictly applies only to Macarius of Egypt. But since the writer of the second book reports nothing concerning the dwelling of Macarius of Egypt, it is not rashly gathered that the writer either confused Macarius of Egypt with the Alexandrian in this matter, or was not accurately informed concerning the dwelling of Macarius of Alexandria. For it is plainly evident that greater faith must be granted in this matter to Palladius, who lived for three years together with Macarius of Alexandria.
Moreover, that description of the Scetis desert sufficiently shows with what great difficulties the monks who lived there had to struggle. Indeed, this very same description is read in the sixth book (7). And a most austere life appears to have obtained even in the *Cellia*, since the more perfect monks of Mount Nitria retreated there, and they used individual cells so separated from one another that one could neither see nor hear another by voice (8). Finally, Palladius has set forth how excellently the monasteries of Mount Nitria, in which nearly five thousand men lived with eight local presbyters, were instituted (9).
116 It remains that we bring forward those two narratives which the second book presents to us as new concerning Macarius of Alexandria. These, therefore, we find written after the history which deals with the grape:
"For, to confirm the faith for us concerning him, it was told by those who had heard from his own mouth that at one time in the night a demon knocked at the door of his cell, saying: 'Arise, abba Macarius, and let us go to the assembly where the brothers are gathered for vigils.' But he, who being filled with the grace of God could not be deceived, understood that it was the deceit of the devil, and said: 'O liar and enemy of truth! For what fellowship or what society is yours with the assembly and congregation of the saints?' But he replied: 'Does it then escape you, O Macarius, that without us no assembly is held and no congregation of monks? Come, then, and you shall see our works.' Then he said: 'May the Lord command you, you unclean demon.' And
he turned to prayer and asked the Lord to show him if what the demon boasted was true. Therefore, he went to the *collecta*, where vigils were being celebrated by the brethren, and again prayed to the Lord in his oration that He might reveal to him the truth of this matter. And behold, he saw throughout the entire church dark little Ethiopian boys, as it were, running hither and thither, and moving as though flying. Now it is the custom there that while all are seated, a psalm is said by one, while the rest either listen or respond. Those little Ethiopian boys, therefore, ran about and played with each single person who was seated, and if they pressed their eyes with two little fingers, he would immediately fall asleep; but if they thrust a finger into one's mouth, they made him yawn. When, however, after the psalm, the brethren cast themselves down to pray, they ran none the less about each individual, and before one lying in prayer they appeared in the guise of women, before another they seemed to be building or carrying something, and doing all sorts of different things. And whatever the A demons had fashioned as if in play, those in prayer were revolving in the thought of their heart; yet from some, as soon as they began to do any of these things, they were as though repelled by a certain force and cast down headlong, so that they dared not even stand or pass near them at all. But with other infirm brethren, they even played upon their necks and backs, because they were not intent on their prayer. When the holy Macarius had seen this, he groaned heavily and, pouring forth tears, said to the Lord: "Look, Lord, and do not be silent, nor be eased, O God. Arise, so that your enemies may be scattered and may flee from your face; since our soul is filled with illusions." After the prayer, however, for the sake of examining the truth, he called the brethren aside one by one, before whose face he had seen the demons playing in different guises and various images, and inquired of them whether in prayer they had had thoughts of building, or of taking a journey, or other divers things which he had seen being imagined for each one by the demons, and each of them confessed that it had been in his heart just as he had argued. And then it was understood that all vain and superfluous thoughts, which each one conceived during the time of psalms or prayers, came from the illusion of demons; but from those who guard their heart with all diligence, the foul Ethiopians are repelled. For a mind joined to God, and especially intent in that time of prayer, receives nothing alien, nothing superfluous. B Observe that the same thing is had word for word in the third book of the Rosweydian collection. Concerning the *collecta*, in Greek