Maximus (2) Magnus, Christian emperor in
the West, 383–388.
Authorities.—Besides the regular historians, of whom
Zosimus (iv. 35–46) gives most original matter, St. Ambrose
has special notices, Epp. 24 (narrative of his embassies), 20, § 23, and 40, § 23; Symmachus, Ep. ii. 31; Sulpicius Severus, almost contemporary, Chron. ii. 49–51, Vita S. Martini, 20, Dialogus, ii. 6, iii. 11. The best modern books are De Broglie, L’Eglise et l’Empire au IVme siècle (Paris, 1866), vol. vi. and H. Richter, Weströmische Reich (Berlin, 1865), pp. 568 ff., cf. T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders (Oxf. 1880), vol. i. pp. 147–155.
History.—Magnus Maximus
was a Spaniard by birth (Zos. iv. 35) and a dependant of the family of
Theodosius, with whom he served in Britain. In 383 he was proclaimed
emperor by the soldiers in Britain, where he held some command, apparently
not a very high one. He landed in Gaul at the mouth of the Rhine, and was met by the army of Gratian somewhere near Paris. The troops came over to him, and Maximus suddenly found himself in possession of the western provinces. Gratian was killed at Lyons, Aug. 25, and, as was generally reported, by the orders of Maximus himself: The Western empire was thus in great danger, since Valentinian II. was a mere weak boy, and Theodosius was occupied in the East. It shews the position of St. Ambrose that he was chosen by the empress-mother, Justina, to treat for peace at this crisis (S. Ambr. Ep. 24, §§ 3, 5, 7). Peace was made, Maximus being acknowledged as Augustus and sovereign of the Gauls, side by side with Valentinian and Theodosius.
This state of things lasted for some years, during which Maximus, who had been baptized just before his usurpation, busied himself much with church affairs, being desirous to obtain a reputation for the strictest orthodoxy. Western writers, Sulpicius Severus and Orosius, though treating Maximus as a usurper, give him, on the whole, a good character, Sulpicius making exception on the score of his persecution of the Priscillianists and his love of money (Sulp. Dial. ii. 6; Oros. vii. 34). Thus Maximus was in general an able and popular ruler, at least in his own dominions, giving his subjects what they most wanted, some feeling of security and peace. But we must join in the censure passed upon his treatment of the Priscillianists by pope Siricius (synod of Turin, 401, can. 6, Hefele, Councils, § 113), St. Ambrose, and St. Martin of Tours. Ambrose, indeed, was a political opponent, but Maximus courted Siricius, and was very obsequious to Martin. The Priscillianist heretics, who held a mixture of Gnostic, Manichean, and Sabellian opinions, had been condemned by a synod at Saragossa in 380. Their opponents, Ithacius bp. of Ossonuba, and Idacius bp. of Emerita, found in Maximus a ready instrument of persecution. The Priscillianists were ordered to appear before a synod at Bordeaux in 384, where one of their chiefs, bp. Instantius, was condemned as unworthy of the episcopal office. Priscillian denied the competency of the synod, and appealed to the emperor. St. Martin besought him to abstain from bloodshed, and to remit the case to ecclesiastical judges. Ithacius, their most vehement accuser, did not hesitate to charge Martin himself with Priscillianism, but, for a time, better influences prevailed, and Maximus promised that no lives should be taken. After Martin's departure, however, other bishops persuaded Maximus to remit the case to a secular judge, Evodius, and finally the emperor condemned Priscillian and his companions, including a rich widow Euchrocia, to be beheaded. Instantius and same others were exiled. A second synod, held at Trèves in 385, approved