MACARIUS the Great. — Also called the Egyptian or the Old Man. He is mentioned by Palladius (Hist. Laus., 17; ed. C. Butler, I, Cambridge 1899, pp. 43, 5 ff.) and Rufinus (Hist. monach., 28). Neither of them knows anything of any literary activity on his part, yet many believe that a letter, attributed to him in Latin and Syriac and addressed “Ad filios Dei” (PG 34, 406-10), is an authentic work of his.
A critical edition of the Latin text was provided by A. Wilmart: La lettre de Macaire, in Revue d’ascétique et de mystique (I [1920], pp. 58-83). The assertion of authenticity is based on Gennadius (De vir. ill., X), who knows of a letter by a M. “ad iuniores professionis suae” (cf. L. Marriott, Isaac of Ninive and the writings of Macaire of Egypt; id., Gennadius of Marseilles on Macarius of Egypt, both in Journ. of theol. studies, 20 [1919], pp. 345-49). On the other hand, the content of the letter corresponds entirely to the ideas found in the homilies of Pseudo-Macarius.
Macarius the Great — Incipit of Oration XVIII — Vatican Library, cod. Vat. gr. 694, f. 133r (13th cent.).
Thus H. Dörries, in his book Symeon von Mesopotamien (Texte und Untersuchungen, 55, 1), Leipzig 1941, reached the conclusion (pp. 378 ff., against P. Resch, La doctrine des premiers maîtres égyptiens, Paris 1931, p. 39 ff., and M. Viller – K. Rahner, Askese und Mystik in der Väterzeit, Freiburg 1939, p. 96 ff.) that the letter is not authentic. This conclusion may perhaps be granted to Dörries; yet it remains to be explained why, out of the vast apocryphal literature of the Homilies of Pseudo-Macarius, only this letter has been preserved in Latin. The Greek Homilies of M. were included in the first edition by Johannes Picus (1559, reprinted in PG 3, 419-822; some additions by H. I. Floss are also found in Migne); G. L. Mariott added seven more homilies (51-57) from an Oxford manuscript to the 50 already known (v. Macarii Anecdota [Harvard theol. studies, 5], Cambridge 1918). A large part of the tradition of M.’s homilies in Greek (there also exists a Georgian translation: V. J. Karst, Littérature géorgienne chrétienne, Paris 1934, p. 54) was collected and studied by H. Dörries (op. cit.), while the Syriac and Arabic translations were studied by W. Strathmann, Die arabische Makariustradition (Göttingen 1934).
A critical edition of the text of the homilies of Pseudo-Macarius is being prepared by E. Klostermann for the CSEL. On the methodological principles for this difficult edition V. E. Klostermann, Symeon und Makarius (Berlin 1944). From the Arabic translation it appears that the real name of the author of these homilies is a certain Simeon, a recluse who lived in Mesopotamia. The attribution of the homilies to M. the Great may have served to facilitate the introduction of heterodox elements into an orthodox milieu. Moreover, the Messalians, among whom the origin of the homilies must be sought, boasted of following in the footsteps of Anthony and M. (Histoire Nestorienne: PO 5, 279 and Theodore bar Koni, Liber scholiorum). The origin of the homilies in a Messalian environment (q.v.) is beyond doubt (the only dissenting opinion is that of W. Völker, in Theol. Literaturzeitung, 68 [1943], pp. 129-36); the proof was given by L. Villecourt, La date et l’origine des homélies spirituelles attribuées à Macaire (in Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, Paris 1920, pp. 250-58). However, the detailed studies of H. Dörries have shown that we are dealing with an attenuated Messalianism: the author not infrequently polemicizes against the position of radical Messalians. On the other hand, the textual history shows how corrections were made to eliminate overly evident heresies (an example in E. Klostermann, loc. cit., p. 24). For this reason, the study of textual history is indispensable for evaluating individual ideas, and a unification of the collection of 64 homilies (represented by Vat. gr. 694) and the collection of 50 homilies does not seem possible (cf. the stemma of E. Klostermann, loc. cit., p. 6). Dörries’ interest lies in reconstructing from the homilies the “Asceticon” of the Messalians, which is supposed to have been the basis for their condemnation at the Council of Ephesus (431) through the action of Amphilochius of Iconium. This reconstruction, however, remains hypothetical. A study to place historically the ideas and vocabulary of M.’s homilies does not yet exist. It is certain, however, that the author knew the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, and not only the Acts of Thomas but also the Acts of Peter; he also knew extracanonical sayings of Jesus, and in his vocabulary he shows contacts with the Pseudo-Clementine literature. Perhaps he came from an Encratite milieu in Mesopotamia, which would also explain the kinship of the mysticism of light (divine) between Pseudo-Macarius and the Encratites. It may be said that the homeland of this asceticism and mysticism was Christian Mesopotamia.