-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Graham Gould, The Macarian Legacy: The Place of Macarius–Symeon in the Eastern Christian Tradition. By Marcus Plested. Pp. xviii + 286. (Oxford Theological Monographs.) Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. isbn 0 19 926779 0. £55, The Journal of Theological Studies, Volume 57, Issue 1, April 2006, Pages 316–317, https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/flj033
Close - Share Icon Share
Extract
The authors whose indebtedness to Pseudo-Macarius are examined in this book are Mark the Monk, Diadochus of Photike, Abba Isaiah, and Maximus the Confessor. Chapters devoted to these are preceded by a brief critical introduction to the Macarian problem, an outline of Macarius’ theology, and assessments of its relationship to the Cappadocian Fathers and Evagrius. Although some of the evidence for dependence is of uncertain significance, overall a convincing case is made not only that the four later writers knew and borrowed from the Macarian homilies, but that Macarius’ theology profoundly influenced and modified their interpretations of the monastic tradition of spiritual ascesis. In the case of Diadochus and Maximus, features of Macarius’ affective spirituality were combined with elements drawn from the more intellectual mysticism of Evagrius to create new syntheses of strength and originality (not, of course, that Plested resorts to such a simplistic characterization of the two traditions as is implied by the unqualified use of the terms ‘affective’ and ‘intellectual’). Mark, less influenced by Evagrius, was also less creative in his use of the Macarian inheritance, but his revision of Macarius’ critique of Messalianism (particularly of the Messalians’ minimizing interpretation of baptismal grace) shows that he was far from a mere imitator of the earlier author. In the case of Isaiah Draguet's thesis that Macarian influence is evident only in the latest redactional layers of the Isaian Asketikon—which is otherwise imbued with the tradition of the Desert Fathers and largely free of Evagrian elements—is argued to be broadly correct.
