Maximus

(ὁ Αἰγιεύς), of Aegae in Cilicia, a writer contemporary with Apollonius of Tyana [Apollonius Tyanaeus], of some of whose transactions he wrote an account, lostratus [Philostratus] in his biography of that philosopher. (Philostr. Apollon. Vit. 1.3; Euseb. In Hieroclem, 100.2, 3; Tzetzes, Chilias. II. Hist. 60, vs. 974, Chilias. IX. Hist. 291, vs. 865; Voss. De Hist. Graec. 2.10.) [J.C.M]

known also as the cynic philosopher (Κυνικὸς φιλόσοφος), was of rank, who had suffered on account of their religion; but whether from Pagan or Arian violence is not clear. Maximus united the faith of an orthodox believer with the garb and deportment of a cynic philosopher, and was held in great respect by the leading theologians of the orthodox party. Athanasius, in a letter written about A. D. 371 (Epist. ad Maxim. Philosoph. Opp. vol. i. p. 917, &c. ed. Benedict.) pays him several compliments on a work written in defence of the orthodox faith. Tillemont and the Benedictine editor of the works of Gregory Nazianzen (Monitum ad Orat. xxv.), misled by the virulent invectives of that father, attempt to distinguish between our Maximus and the one to whom Athanasius wrote, on the ground that Athanasius could never have spoken so well of so worthless a character. They also distinguish him from the Maximus to whom Basil the Great addressed a letter (Ep. 41, editt. vett. 9, ed. Benedict. vol. iii. p. 90, ejusd. edit. p. 127, ed. Benedict. alterae, Paris, 1839) in terms of the highest respect, discussing some doctrinal questions, and soliciting a visit from him; but they are not successful in either case. However, the Maximus Scholasticus, to whom Basil also wrote (Ep. 42, editt. vett. 277, ed. Benedict.), was a different person. In A. D. 374, during the reign of the emperor Valens, in the persecution carried on by Lucius, Arian patriarch of Alexandria [Lucius No. 2], Maximus was cruelly scourged, and banished to the Oasis, on account of his zeal for orthodoxy and the promptitude with which he succoured those who suffered in the same cause (Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. 25.100.13, 14). He obtained his release in about four years (Ib.,) probably on the death of Valens; and it was perhaps soon after his release that he presented to the emperor Gratian at Mediolanum (Milan), his work Περὶ τῆς πίστεως, De Fidie, written against the Arians (comp. Hieron. De Viris Illustr. c. 127). Tillemont, however, thinks that the work was presented to the emperor when Maximus was in Italy, A. D. 382, after the council of Constantinople. He wrote also against other heretics, but whether in the same work or in another is not clear (Greg. Naz. ib.);J and disputed ably against the heathens (Ib.). Apparently on his return from Milan he visited Constantinople, where Gregory Nazianzen had just been appointed to the patriarchate (A. D. 379). Gregory received him with the highest honour; and pronounced an oration in his praise (Orat. xxv.), compared with which the sober commendations of Athanasius and Basil are cold treated him w ith the greatest confidence and regard. He was, however, grievously disappointed in him. Whether the events which followed were the results solely of the ambition of Maximus, or whether Maximus was himself the tool of others, is not clear. Taking advantage of the sickncss of Gregory, and supported by some Egyptian ecclesiastics, sent by Peter, patriarch of Alexandria, under whose directions they professed to act, Maximus was ordained, during the night, patriarch of Constantinople, in the place of Gregory, whose election had not been perfectly canonical. This audacious proceeding excited the greatest indignation among the people, with whom Gregory was popular. Nor did the emperor Theodosius, then at Thessalonica, to whom the usurper applied, show them any favour. Maximus therefore withdrew to Alexa native of Alexandria, from which he was in a short time expelled by his patron, Peter. (Gregor. Nazian. Carmen de Vita sua, vss. 750-1029.)

The resignation of Gregory, who was succeeded in the patriarchate of Constantinople by Nectarius, did not benefit MIaximus. His election was declared null by the second general (first Constantinopolitan) council, and the presbyters whom he had ordained were declared not to be presbyters. (Concil. CPolt. can. 3. sec. Dionys. Exiguum; Capital. 6. sec. Isidor. Mercat.; apud Concil. vol. i. col. 809, 810, ed. Hardouin.) He attempted even after this to assert his claims to the patriarchate; but though the Italian bishops for a while seemed disposed to support him, he met with no success. The invectives of Gregory Nazianzen against Maximus (Carmina, sc. De Vita sua, 1. c.; In Invidos, vs. 16, &c.; In Maximum) were written after their struggle for the patriarchate, and contrast singularly with the praises of his twenty-fifth Oration, to which some of Gregory's admirers, to conceal the inconsistency, prefixed the name of Heron or Hero, Εις Ἡρῶνα, In Laudem Heronis (Hieron. De Viris Illustr. 1. c.), which it still bears. The work of Maximus, De Fide, which is well spoken of by Jerome, is lost. (Athanas., Basil., Gregor. Nazianz., Hieronym. ll. cc.; Sozomen, H. E. 7.9. cum not. Vales.; Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. ix. p. 443, &c.; Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 380, vol. i. p. 276, ed. Oxford, 1740-42 Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iii. p. 520.) [J.C.M]

[Maximus Epirota.]

whose full name was C. Julus Veus Maximus, was the son of Maximinus I., upon whose accession he became Caesar and Princeps Juventutis; and having accompanied the emperor in the campaigns against the barbarians, he was subsequently styled Germanicus, Sarmaticuas, and Dacicus. It does not appear probable, however, that he was invested with the tribunician power or with the consulship, or that he was ever formally associated in the imperial dignity with the title of Augustus, although such legends as Victoria Augustorum and MAXIMINUS ET Maximus. Augusti. Germanici, are found upon medals. He was murdered, along with his father, by the troops while besieging Aquileia, A. D. 238, at the age of eighteen, or, according to other authorities, twenty-one. From coins and inscriptions we are enabled to pronounce with certainty that his name was maximus, and not Maximinus, as Capitolinus would lead us to suppose.

This youth was equally celebrated for the surpassing beauty of his person, the elaborate finish of his dress, and the excessive haughtiness of his demeanour. He was, however, educated with much care, was well acquainted with Greek and Latin literature, and seems in many respects to have had a good disposition. It is said that Alexander had at one time some thoughts of bestowing his sister, Theoclia, upon Maximus in marriage; and at a later period he was betrothed to Junia Fadilla, a great-grand-daughter of Antoninus. (Capitolinus, Maximin. jun.; Eckhel, vol. vii. p. 291, 297; Maximinus 1.)

[W.R]

was banished from Italy by Nero on the detection of Piso's conspiracy in A. D. 66. (Tac. Ann. xv. 72.) From an epigram of Martial (7.44), addressed to one Q. Ovidius, a friend of Caesonius Maximus, we learn that Maximus had been consul, and also that he was one of the friends of Seneca, which was no doubt the cause of his punishment.

1. Sp. Carvilius Maximus, C. F. C. N., was curule aedile B. C. 299, and consul B. C. 293, with L. Papirius Cursor. Their consulship was distinguished by brilliant victories over the Samnites, who had made immense exertions to ensure success, and had penetrated into Campania. Carvilius first took Amiternum, and then proceeded to assault Cominium, while his colleague engaged with the great Samnite army, the soldiers of which had devoted themselves to conquest or death by the most solemn vows. After Papirius had gained a brilliant victory over this army, Carvilius took Cominium, and then proceeded to attack Palumbinum and Herculaneum, both of which fell into his hands, although he had previously suffered a defeat from the Samnites near the latter town. After this Carvilius was called away into Etruria, where the Faliscans had broken the peace. Here, too, he was successful; he took the town of Troilium and five other fortified places, defeated the enemy and granted peace to the Faliscans on the payment of a large sum of money On his return to Rome he celebrated a splendid triumph--according to Livy, over the Samnites and Etruscans, and after the triumph of Papirius; according to the Triumphal Fasti, over the Samnites alone, and a month before the triumph of his colleague. Carvilius acquired great popularity by distributing a large part of the booty among the soldiers, which his colleague had not done; but even after this distribution he paid into the treasury 380,000 pounds of bronze, and applied the remainder to the erection of a temple of Fors Fortuna. With the bronze armour taken from the Samnites he made a colossal statue of Jupiter upon the Capitol, which was of such a height that it could be seen from the temple on the Alban Mount; and with the bronze which fell off in polishing this work he had his own statue cast, which was placed at the feet of the colossus. (Liv. 10.9, 39, 43_45, 46; Zonar. 8.1; Plin. Nat. 34.7, s. 18; Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome, vol. iii. p. 392, &c.) In the year after his consulship Carvilius was appointed legate to the consul D. Junius Brutus, as the consuls of that year did not possess military experience, and had been elected in expectation of a state of peace. (Zonar. l.c.)

In B. C. 272, Carvilius was elected consul a second time with his former colleague L. Papirius Cursor, as the people, recollecting their former victories, fully hoped that they would put an end to the Samnite war before Pyrrhus could return again to Italy. They did not disappoint the expectations of the people, though of the details of the war we have no information. They conquered the Samnites, Lucanians, Bruttians, and Tarentines, and celebrated a triumph on account of their victories. (Fasti Capit.; Zonar. 8.6; Liv. Epit. 14; Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome vol. iii. p. 524.) It must be of this Sp. Carvilius that Velleius Paterculus (2.128) relates, that, though born of equestrian rank, he arrived at the highest honours of the state, and not of the consul of B. C. 234 [No. 2], as Orelli supposes (Onom. Tull. vol. ii. p. 133).

2. Sp. Carvilius, Sp. F. C. N. Maximus Ruga, son of No. 1, was consul, B. C. 234, with L. Postumius Albinus, and carried on war first against the Corsicans and then against the Sardinians: according to the Fasti Capitolini he obtained a triumph over the latter people. (Zonar. 8.18.) he was consul a second time in B. C. 228 with Q. Fabius Maximus Verrucossus, in which year, according to Cicero (Cato, 4), he did not resist, like his colleague, the agrarian law of the tribune C. Flaminius for the division of the lands in Cisalpine Gaul. Polybius (2.21), however, places the agrarian law of C. Flaminius four years earlier, in the consulship of M. Aemilius Lepidus, B. C. 232.

Carvilius is not mentioned again till the year of the fatal battle of Cannae, B. C. 216, when he proposed, in order to fill up the numbers of the senate and to unite the Latin allies more closely to the Romans in this their season of adversity, that the vacancies in the senate should be supplied by electing two senators from each one of the Latin tribes, but his proposition was rejected with the utmost indignation and contempt. He died in B. C. 212, at which time he was augur. (Liv. 23.22, 26.23.)

Carvilius is related to have been the first person who divorced his wife, which he is said to have done on the ground of barrenness, but his conduct was generally disapproved. Whether, however, this was really the first instance of divorce at Rome may be questioned. (Gel. 4.3; V. Max. 2.1.4; Dionys. A. R. 2.25; Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome, vol. iii. p. 355.)

An account of this writer is given elsewhere. [Chrysoberges Lucas.] He flourished about A. D. 1400, and was, though a Greek, a strenuous defender of the opinions of the Latin church, sending letters to various persons on this subject, especially to the people of Constantinople. Whether the Περὶ διαφόρων κεφαλαίων Quaestiones Sacrae Miscellaneee, by "Maximus the Monk," contained in a MS. of the Imperial Library at Vienna, are by Chrysoberges, is not clear. Maximus Chrysoberges had for his antagonist Nilus Damyla. [Nilus.] (Comp. Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. ix. p. 679, vol. xi. p. 397; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii. Appendix, p. 87; and Dissert. Prima, p. 14.) [J.C.M]

a stoic philosopher of the age of the Antonines. He is mentioned by Julius Capitolinus (M. Anton. Philosopl. Vita, 100.3) among the preceptors of the emperor Marcus Aurelius, who has himself made honourable mention of Maximus in his De Rebus suis, lib. 1. c.15 (seu ut alii, 100.12), in the reading of which passage Casaubon conjecturally substitutes Παρὰ κλ. Μαείμου for the received lection, Παράκλησις Μαείαμον. He speaks shortly after (100.16, seu 13, ad fin.) of a sickness of Maximus in the lifetime of Antoninus Pius; and in another place (8.25, seu ut alii, 22, sub init.) he speaks of the death of Maximus and of his widow Secunda. If the sickness mentioned in the first of these quotations was the mortal sickness, we must place the death of Maximus before that of Antoninus Pius, A. D. 16]; at any rate it occurred before that of the emperor Aurelius (A. D. 180). Some have identified Claudius Maximus with the Maximus who was consul, A. D. 144; and Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. vol. iii. p. 550) identifies him with the Claudius Maximus, " proconsul of Bithynia" (more correctly of Africa), before whom Appuleius defended himself against the charge of magic, brotuht against him by Pontianus. [Appuleius.] Whether the consul of A. D. 144 and the proconsul of Africa are the same person (as Tillemont believes), and whether the stoic philosopher is correctly identified with either, is quite uncertain.

Several learned men, including Jos. Scaliger, Jac. Cappellus, Dan. Heinsius, and Tillemont (Hist. des Empereurs, vol. ii. p. 550, note 11, sur l'Emp. The Antonin) identify Claudius Maximus with Maximus of Tyre [Maximus Tyrius], but Gatacker and Meric Casaubon (Not. ad Antonin. lib. de Rebus suis, 1.15, s. 12), and Davis (Praef. ad Ed. Maximi Tyrii, second. fragmentum), have shown that this is not correct. Claudius Maximus was a stoic, the Tyrian was a Platonist: Claudius died, at any rate, before the emperor Marcus Aurelius, while the Tyrian lived under the reign of Commodus. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. v. p. 515.) [J.C.M]

was elected emperor with Balbinus, in A. D. 238, when the senate received intelligence of the death of the two Gordians in Africa. For particulars, see Balbinus.

(ὁ ὁμολουητής), known also as the Monk (ὁ μοναχός), an eminent Greek ecclesiastic of the sixth and seventh centuries. He was born at Constantinople about A. D. 580. His parents were eminent for their lineage and station, and still more for their piety. Maximus was educated with great strictness; and his careful education, diligence, and natural abilities enabled him to attain the highest excellence in grammar, rhetoric, and philosophy. He gave his especial attention to the last, cherishing the love of truth and seeking its attainment, and rejecting all sophistical reasonings.

His own inclination would have led him to a life of privacy and study, but his merit had attracted regard; and Heraclius, who had obtained the Byzantine sceptre in A. D. 610, made him his chief secretary, and treated him with the greatest regard and confidence. How long Maximus held his important office is not clear; but long before the death of Heraclius (who died A. D. 641), probably about the middle of that emperor's reign, he resigned his post; and leaving the palace, embraced a monastic life at Chrysopolis, on the Asiatic side of the Bosporus, opposite Constantinople. Here he was distinguished by the severity of his ascetic practices, and was soon appointed hegumenus or abbot of his monastery.

Maximus did not spend his life at Chrysopolis: he withdrew into Africa (i. e. the Roman province so called, of which Carthage was the capital); but at what time and on what account is not clear. Whether Maximus returned to Chrysopolis is not known: he was still in Africa in A. D. 645, when he had his disputation with Pyrrhus, the deposed patriarch of Constantinople, in the presence of the patrician, Gregorius [Gregorius, historical, No. 4] and the bishops of the province. He had already distinguished himself by his zealous exertions to impede the spread of the Monothelite heresy, which he had induced the African bishops to anathematise in a provincial council. In this disputation, so cogent were the arguments of Maximus, that pyrrhus owned himself vanquished, and recanted his heresy, to which, however, he subsequently returned, and ultimately (A. D. 654 or 655) recovered his see. Maximus, apparently on the accession of Martin I. to the papal throne (A. D. 649), went to Rome, and so successfully stimulated the zeal of the new pope against the Monothelites, that he convoked the council of Lateran, in which the heresy and all its abettors were anathematized. This step so irritated the emperor, Constans II., who had endeavoured to extinguish the controversy by a "Typus " (Τύρος) or edict, forbidding all discussion of the subject [Constans II.], that on various pretexts he ordered (A. D. 653) the pope and Maximus, with two disciples of the latter, Anastasius Apocrisiarius and another Anastasins, and several of the Western (probably Italian) bishops to be sent as prisoners to Constantinople. The pope arrived at Constantinople A. D. 654, and was treated with great severity; and after some time was exiled to Chersonae, in the Chersonesus Taurica or Crimea, where he died A. D. 655. Maximus, the time of whose arrival is not stated, was repeatedly examined, and afterwards sentenced to banishment at Bizya, in Thrace. The two Anastasii were also banished, but to different places; Maximus was not suffered to remain at peace in his place of exile. Theodosius, bishop of the Bithynian Caesareia, and two nobles, Paulus and another Theodosius, and some others, were sent to him apparently to get him to renounce his opposition to the Monothelites. Blows, kicks, and spitting, were resorted to by the messengers and their servants, but in vain; nothing could shake his firmness. He was brought back after some time to Constantinople, and subjected to still greater severities. He was severely scourged; and the two Anastasii, who had been also brought back to the city, were similarly treated, apparently in his presence. They were then all remanded to prison, but were brought out again in a few days, when their tongues were cut out, their right hands cut off, and they were again sent into exile. Maximus, from age and the effects of his tortures, was scarcely able to bear the journey. They were confined in separate places in the Caucasus, where Maximus and one of the Anastasii soon died from the effects of their sufferings, A. D. 662. Anastasius Apocrisiarius survived, and his recital of their sufferings is one of the authorities employed for this article. Various miraculous circumstances were reported to have attended the sufferings of these unhappy men. (Εἰς τὸν Βίον, κ.τ.λ., In Vitam ac Certamen S. Patris nostri ac Confessoris Maximi, published by Combéfis in his edition of the works of Maximus. This biography is not by Anastasius Apocrisiarius, as Fabricius has erroneously stated (Bibl. Graee. vol. ix. p. 635, and vol. x. p. 291); but Combéfis has subjoined some other ancient documents, including the narrative of Anastasius Apocrisiarius, already noticed, and has added some valuable notes. Theophan. Chronog. pp. 275, 276, 288, ed. Paris, pp. 219, 229, ed. Venice, vol. i. p. 509, 510, 530, 531, ed. Bonn; Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 645, vol. i. p. 585; Fahric. Bibl. Graec. vol. ix. p. 635; Bolland. Acta Santor. August. vol. iii. p. 97, &c.)

Maximus is reverenced as a saint both by the Greek and Latin churches; by the former his memory is celebrated on the 21st of January, and the 12th and 13th August; by the latter on the 13th August. Works Major Works

The writings of this father were in the middle ages held in the highest esteem, and possessed considerable authority. The more discriminating judgment of Photius has severely criticised the style of his Ἀποήματα γραφικά, Dubia S. Scrip turae, or rather Γραφικῶν ἀπορημάτων λύσεις, Dubiorum S. Scripturae Solationes. He notices his long, spun-out sentences, his frequent transpositions and circumlocutions, and his metaphors, so carelessly and awkwardly employed as to render his meaning often very obscure, and making his works very wearisome to read. He charges him with wandering from his subject, and indulging in irrelevant and abstract speculations. Photius, however, is less severe in criticising his other works, and observes that all his writings in every part manifest the purity and earnestness of his piety. (Phot. Bibl. Cod. 192-195.) His orthodoxy on some points is questionable. Editions

Various of his pieces were published in the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, either separately or in the different collections of the writings of the fathers, sometimes in the original, sometimes in a Latin version. The only considerable collection of his works is that of Combefis, S. Maximi Confessoris, Graecorum Theologi, eximiique philosophi Opera, 2 vols. fol. Paris, 1675. An introduction contains the ancient biography of Maximus, and some other ancient pieces relating to his history; and the works are in some cases accompanied by ancient anonymous Greek scholia, as well as by the notes of the learned editor. This edition is not complete: a third volume was in preparation by Combéfis at the time of his death, A. D. 1679; but no successor undertook to complete the unfinished labour. Miscellaneous Works

The works are too numerous, and many of them too unimportant for distinct notice. The following are the most important:--

1. Πρὸς Θαλάσσιον τὸν ὁσιώτατον πρεσβύτερον καὶ ἡγούμενον περὶ διαφόρων ἀπόρων τῆς Δείας γραφῆς, Ad Sanctissimum Presbyterum ac Praepositum Thalassium, de variis Scripturae Sacrae Quaestionibus ac Dubiis. This is the work already noticed as severely criticised in respect of style by Photius: it contains the solution of sixty-five scriptural difficulties, and is accompanied by the Scholia of an anonymous commentator, apparently of the close of the eleventh or beginning of the twelfth century.

2. Εἰς τὴν προσευχὴν τοῦ Πάτερ ἡμῶν πρός τινα φιλόχριστον ἑρμενεία σύντομος, Orationis Dominicae brevis Expositio, ad quendam Christo devotum.

3. Λόγος ἀσκητικὸς κατὰ πεῦσιν καὶ ἀπόκρισιν, Liber ad Pietatem exercens per Interrogationem et Responsionem. This piece had been published by Fl. Nobilius, with some small pieces of Chrysostom and Basil, Rome, 1578.

4. Κεφάλαια περὶ ἀγάπης, Capita de Charitate. This work, to which an ancient Greek writer has added Scholia, was published by Vicentius Opsopoeus (who ascribed the work to Maximus of Turin), with a Latin version, 8vo. Haguenau, 1531, and was repeatedly reprinted in the course of the same century; and a Latin version was given in most of the editions of the Bibliotheca Patrum.

5. Περὶ Θεολοψίας καὶ τῆς ἐνσάρκου οἰκονομίας τοῦ υἱοῦ Θεοῦ σ́, Ad Theologiam Deique Filii in Carne Dispensationem spectantia Capita Ducenta.

6. Κεφάλαια διάφορα Δεολοψικά τε καὶ ὀκονομικὰ, καὶ περὶ ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας, Diversa Capita ad Thelogiam et Oeconomiam spectantia, deque Virtute ac Vitio, first published by Joannes Picus. 8vo. Paris, 1560.

7. Περὶ τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος διάλογοι εʹ, Dialoyi quinque de Sancta Trinitate. These are ascribed to Maximus in several MSS., and by various ancient Greek writers who have cited them. Other writers have, however, ascribed them to Athanasius, in some editions of whose works they consequently appear. The opinion of Garnier, that they are the production of Theodoret, has been generally rejected; and the preponderance of evidence seems to be decidedly in favour of the authorship of Maximus.

8. Μυσταγωγια περὶ τοῦ τίνων σύμβολα τὰ κατὰ τὴν ἁγίαν ἐκκλησιαν ἐπὶ τῆς συνάξεως τελούμενα καφέστηκε. Mystagogia qua explicantur quorum Signa sint quae in Sacra Ecclesia peraguntur in Divina Synaxi s. Collecta. This was published by David Hoeschelius, Augsburg, 1599; and afterwards in the Auctarium of Ducaeus, vol. ii. fol. Paris, 1624.

9. Κεφάλαια Θεολογικά, ἤτοι ἐκλογαὶ ἐκ διαφόρων Βιβλίων τῶν τε καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ τῶν γύραφεν, Capita Thelogica, id est scite dicta atque electa ex Diversis tum Christianorum turn Gentilium ac Profanorum Libris; or more briefly, Sermones per Excerpta, or Loci Communes. This selection of sentences is arranged in seventy-one λόγοι, Sermones, and has been repeatedly published. It first appeared, with the similar compilation of Antonins Mlissa [Antonius No. 2], under the care of Conrad Gesner, fol Zurich, 1546; and a Latin version was given in the first edition of De la Bigne's Bibliotheca Patrum, fol. Paris, 1579.

10. Παρασημείωσις τῆς γενομένης ζητήσεως, κ. τ. λ., Acta Disputationis, &c.; a record of the discussion between Pyrrhus and Maximus in the presence of the patrician Gregory in Africa, already referred to. It was published by Baronius, with a Latin version by Turrianus, as an appendix to the 8th vol. of his Annales Ecclesiastici; and reprinted from thence in the Concilia.

11. Epistolae, partim communes, partim dogmaticae et polemicae. The other works given in the edition of Combéfis are shorter and of little value, except as materials for a history of the Monothelite controversy, to which several of them refer. Works not in Combéfis but published elsewhere

The following works of Maximus, not included in the collection of Combéfis, have been published elsewhere:--

12. Fragments, incorporated in the Catenae of the Fathers on the Sacred Books, and especially on the expository paraphrase of Solomon's Song (Expositio Cantici Canticorum per Paraphrasin collecta ex Gregorii Nysseni, Nili, et Maximi Commentariis), contained in the Auctarium of Ducaeus, vol. ii. fol. Paris, 1624.

13. Scholia on the works of the pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, first published with the works of Dionysius, 8vo. Paris, 1562, and repeatedly reprinted. Maximus earnestly contends that these are the genuine works of the Areopagite converted by St. Paul.

14. Ἐξήγησια κεφαλαιώδης περὶ τοῦ κατὰ Χρεστὸν τὸν Θεὸν ἡμῶν σωτηρίου πάσχα, τὸ διαψραφὲν κανόνιον ἑρμηνεύουσα, Brenis Enarration Christiani Paschatis, qua descripti Laterculi ratio declaratur, or Computus Ecclesiasticus. This calculation of Easter was drawn up by Maximus, according to his own declaration (pars iii. cap. 9), in the fourteenth indiction, in the thirty-first year of Heraclius (i. e. A. D. 640). Scaliger, in his Emendatio Temporum, lib. vii. p. 736, gave considerable extracts from the work, and it was first published entire in the Uranologion of Petavius, p. 313, fol. Paris, 1630.

15. Ἄπορα, Ambigua sive Difficilia Loca in Orationibus quibusdam Gregorii Nazianzeni explanata, ad Joannem Cyzici Episcopum. These Ἄπορα were translated into Latin by Joannes Scotus Erigena about the middle of the ninth century; and the work itself, with the version, or perhaps only a part of them, was edited by Thomas Gale, with some of the works of Erigena, folio, Oxford, 1681. It is preceded by a letter of Maximus to Joannes of Cyzicus. Gale also added the following work of Maximus,

16. Περὶ διαφόρων ἀπόρων τῶν ἁψίων Διονυσίου καὶ Γρηγορίου, De variis Difficilibus Locis Dionysii Areopagitae et Gregorii Nazianzeni, with a Latin version by the editor himself.

17. A Fragment, thought to be from the Ἄπορα just mentioned (No. 15), is given in the Appendix to the fourteenth volume of Galland's Bibliotheca Patrum, fol. Venice, 1781. The fragment is entitled Θεωρία σύντομος πρὸς τοὺς λέγοντας προϋπάρχειν καὶ μεφυπάρχειν τῶν σωμάτων τὰς ψυχάς, Animaduersio breuis ad eos qui dicunt Animas ante vel post Corpora existere. Other Lost or Unpublished Works

There are some other works of Maximus either lost, or at least unpublished, which are enumerated by Fabricius. Further Information

Combefis, S. Maximi Opera; Phot. l.c.; Cave, l.c.; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. viii. p. 430, vol. ix. pp. 599, &c., 635, &c., vol. x. pp. 238, 736, vol. xii. p. 707; Concilia, vol. v. ed. Labbe, vol. iii. ed. Hardouin, vol. x. ed. Mansi; Oudin, De Scriptor. et Script. Eccles. vol. i. col. 1635, &c.; Ceillier, Auteurs Sacrés, vol. xvii. p. 689, &c.; Galland, Biblioth. Patrum. Proleg. ad Append. Vol. XIV. c. 10. [J.C.M]

a Roman jurist, a contemporary of Servius Sulpicius, and the teacher of C. Trebatius Testa, who was the friend of Cicero. (Dig. 1. tit. 2. s. 2.45; Cic. Fam. 7.8 and 17.) He is once quoted in the Digest and by Alfenus (33. tit. 7. s. 16), as having given an opinion on the meaning of the word "instrumentum," in a legacy of "a vineyard and the instruinentum thereof." Servius considered that the word instrumentum had here no meaning. Maximus said that the term included the stakes, poles, rakes, and spades; which Alfenus considers to be the better opinion, and so in fact it seems to be. [G.L]

[Dolabella, NO. 2.]

[Calvinus, No. 2.]

is mentioned by Cicero in B. C. 45 (ad Att. 13.34), and the same person is probably intended in one or two other passages of Cicero, where the name of Egnatius occurs without any surname (ad Att. 13.45, &c). The acquaintance of Cicero may perhaps be the same as the C. Egnatius Cn. F. CN. N. Maximus, whose name occurs on several interesting coins which seem to have been struck in the time of Julius Caesar, and of which three specimens are given below. The head of Venus which appears on the obverse of the first, and that of Cupid on the obverse of the second, probably have reference to the descent of Julius Caesar from Venus.

An Egnatia Maximilla belonging to the family of the Egnatii Maximi is mentioned in the time of Nero. [Egnatia.]

one of the teachers of the emperor Julian, who is not to be confounded with Maximus Epirota, whose name is likewise conspicuous among the learned friends of that emperor. Maximus, the subject of this notice, was a native of either Ephesus or Smyrna, and belonged to a rich and distinguished family. He early embraced the doctrine of the Pythagorean Platonists, and obtained great reputation by his lectures on philosophy and Pagan divinity. Ammilectures Marcellinus, quoted below, calls him " Maximus ille philosophus, vir ingenti nomine doctrinarum." The philosopher Aedesius, whose disciple he was, recommended him to prince Julian, afterwards emperor, who came to Ephesus for the sole purpose of hearing Maximus. Julian held him in high esteem, and it is said as well as believed that chiefly through him he was induced to abjure Christianity. Besides philosophy, Maximus excelled in magic, and there is a story that he foretold Julian his subsequent elevation to the throne, which, after all, did not require a very considerable degree of supernatural knowledge. In 361, Maximus and the philosopher Chrysanthus were invited by Julian to repair to his court at Constantinople. They consulted the stars before they set out, and the signs having been found unfavourable, Chrysanthus refused to go, but Maximus thought, probably, that the favour of an emperor was a better augury than the constellation of the stars, and hastened to make his court to Julian. This time the philosophy of Maximus proved sound, for he rose to great eminence at court; but he nevertheless injured his reputation, among the heathens no less than among the Christians, by listening too much to flattery. It was this, perhaps, which Chrysanthus had read in the stars. When Julian set out on his campaign against the Persians, Maximus prophesied a fortunate issue, and accompanied him on the expedition, from which we might infer that Maximus believed in the truth of his prophecies. As it happened, however, that the issue was most lamentable, he, on his safe return, was sadly ridiculed by the inhabitants of Antioch, who were by no means a dull people, as Julian found to his cost. For some time Maximus was honoured by the emperors Valens and Valentinian, till the public voice accused him and Priscus of having caused by their sorceries the illness which befell the two emperors in the month of April, 364. They were consequently summoned to Constantinople, where Priscus cleared himself, but Maximus less fortunate was condemned to pay a heavy fine, and, being unable to raise the money, was sent to Ephesus, where he was kept in prison till the end of 365. During all the time he was exposed to such cruel tortures that he requested his wife to bring him poison, which she did; but instead of giving it to her husband she swallowed it and died instantly. He owed his delivery to the philosopher Thenmistius, who spoke on his behalf in Constantinople, and to Clearchus, who held the supreme command in Asia, and he even recovered a portion of his property which had been confiscated. In 371 Maximus was accused of being an accomplice in a conspiracy against the life of Valens, and it seems that he was guilty, inasmuch as he knew of the plot but did not reveal it. He was also accused of sorcery and sentenced to death, and his head was accordingly struck off, philosophy dving with him, as Libanius says. Julian wrote different letters to Maximus which are extant (15, 16, 38, 39). Maximus had two brothers,Claudianus, who taught philosophy at Alexandria, and Nymphidianus, who lectured at Smyrna; both of them gained fame. Works Περὶ καταρχῶν

Maximus of Ephesus is believed by some to be the author of Περὶ καταρχῶν alias ἀπαρχῶν, De Electionum Auspiciis, an astrological poem in hexameter verse. The beginning of it is lost; 610 verses are extant. This poem, however, is ascribed with more justice, as it seems, to Maximus Epirota; but Ruhnken thinks that it was composed by Callimachus, a contemporary of Apollonius Rhodius. Editions

This poem was first published by Fabricius, quoted below, with a Latin version by Joh. Rentdorf. Further Information

Maximus of Ephesus is frequently mentioned by the historians of the time: Maximus, in Eunapius, Βίοι φιλοσόφων καὶ σοφιστῶν; Liban. Orat. v. xii; Amm. Marc. 29.1; Fabric. Bill. Graec. vol. iii. pp. 499, 527, vol. iv. p. 158, vol. ix. p. 322, &c.; Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. vol. vi. pp. 490, &c., 512, 560, 568, gives a critical review of the life of Maximus. [W.P]

(Μάξιμος Ἠπειρώτης), a native of Epeirus, or perhaps Byzantium, whence he is also called Byzantius, was one of the instructors of the emperor Julian in philosophy and heathen theology. He must not be confounded with Maximus of Ephesus, who was likewise one of the teachers of Julian. Of his life we know little. Works

Maximus wrote, 1. Περὶ ἀλύτων ἀντιθέσεων, De insolubilibus Oppositionibus Editions

Published Graec. et Lat. by H. Stephanus, Paris, 1554, 8vo. ad calcem Operum Minor. Critic. Dionysii Halicarn. 2. Ὑπομνήματα πρὸς Ἀριστοτέλην, Commentarii in Aristotelem

3. Περὶ ἀριφμᾶν, De Numeris

4. Other works

Some epistles and essays addressed to the emperor Julian. 5. Περὶ καταρχῶν vel ἀπαρχῶν

This is also ascribed to Maximus Ephesius, in whose life the reader will find a further account of this work. Further Information

Suidas, s. v. Μάξιμος; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iii. p. 499. [W.P]

In the Fabia gens the surname of Maximus was first borne by Q. Fabius Rullianus, consul in B. C. 322, and supplanted the previous cognomen Ambustus. [FABIA GENS.]

1. Q. Fabius Maximus, M. F. N. N., with the agnomen Rullianus or Rullus, was the son of M. Fabius Ambustus, consul B. C. 360. (Liv. 8.33.) He was curule aedile in B. C. 331, when, through the information of a female slave, he discovered that the mortality prevailing at Rome arose from poison administered by women to their husbands. (Liv. 8.18; V. Max. 2.5.3; Oros. 3.10.) Fabius was master of the equites to L. Papirius Cursor in B. C. 325, whose anger he incurred by giving battle to the Samnites near the Imbrivian or Simbrivian hills during the dictator's absence, and contrary to his orders. Victory availed Fabius nothing in exculpation. The rods and axes were ready for his execution, and a hasty flight to Rome, where the senate, the people, and his aged father interceded for him with Papirius, barely rescued his life, but could not avert his degradation from office. (Liv. 8.29-35; Dio Cass. Fr. Mai; V. Max. 2.7.8; Frontin. Strat. 4.1.39; Aurel. Vict. Vir. Ill. 31, 32; Eutrop. 2.8.) In B. C. 322 Fabius obtained his first consulate, probably at an early age. (Cic. Phil. v. 17; comp. V. Max. 8.15.5.) It was the second year of the second Samnite war, and Fabius was the most eminent of the Roman generals in that long and arduous struggle for the empire of Italy. He was, as Dr. Arnold remarks, "the Talbot of the fifth century of Rome, and his personal prowess, even in age, was no less celebrated than his skill as a general." Yet nearly all authentic traces are lost of the seat and circumstances of his numerous campaigns. His defeats have been suppressed or extenuated; the achievements of others ascribed to him alone; and a moderation in seeking and refusing honours imputed to him equally foreign to his age, his nation, and character. Where so much has been studiously falsified (Liv. 8.40), probably in the first instance by chroniclers of the Fabian house--a house unusually rich in annalists--and where our only guides, the Fasti, Livy, and Diodorus, are not only irreconcileable with one another, but often inconsistent with themselves, a bare outline of his military and political life is alone desirable. In his first consulate, B. C. 322, Fabius was stationed in Apulia, where he defeated the Samnites, and triumphed de Samnitibus et Apuleis. (Liv. 8.38, 40; comp. Zonar. 7.26; Aurel. Vict. Vir. Ill. 32 ; Appian, Samn. Fr. 4.) In the following year, after the disaster at the Caudine Forks, he was interrex (Liv. 9.17), and in 315 dictator, and was completely defeated by the Samnites at Lautulae, a narrow pass between the sea and the mountains east of Terracina. (Diod. 19.72; Liv. 9.22, 23.) To this or the next year belongs probably an anecdote preserved by Valerius Maximus (8.1.9). A. Atilius Calatinus [Atilius Calatinus, No. 3], son-in-law of Fabius, was accused of betraying Sora to the enemy. His condemnation was arrested by Fabius declaring that had lie believed Calatinus guilty, he would have exercised his paternal power, and taken his daughter from him. In B. C. 310 Fabius was consul for the second time. (Liv. 9.33; Diod. 20.27; Fasti.) Of this, as of his former consulate, the accounts are conflicting. Unable to relieve Sutrium, which the Etruscans were besieging, Fabius struck through the Ciminian wood till he reached the western frontier of Umbria. He there formed an alliance with the people of Camerinum or Camerta, and by his ravages in northern Etruria effected a diversion favourable to Rome, and compelled Arretium, Cortona, and Perusia, to conclude a truce for thirty years with the republic. His victories at Perusia, the Lake Vadimon, and Sutrium, may be placed in the same catalogue with the apocryphal perils of the Ciminian forest. The senate meanwhile, alarmed at the withdrawal of the army from Sutrium, sent to prohibit Fabius marching into Etruria. He met the deputation on his return when his success had justified his disobedience. The war south of the Tiber, however, required a dictator, and Fabius was directed to appoint his old enemy, Papirius Cursor. He heard the mandate of the senate in moody silence, obeyed it in the solitude of midnight, and when, next morning, the envoys thanked him for preferring the public good to his private enmity, he dismissed them without reply. A triumph de Etrusceis recompensed this campaign. (Liv. 9.33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40; Dio Cass. Fr. 35; Fasti.) According to the Fasti a year intervened between the second and third consulates of Fabius; but Livy (9.41 ) and Diodorus (20.37) make them immediately succeed one another. Fabius, as consul in B. C. 308, had Samnium for his province. He quelled a revolt of the Marsians, the Pelignians, and Hernicans; recovered Nuceria Alfaterna in Campania, which seven years before had joined the Samnite league; and was able, before the expiration of his office, to leave his province and hasten into Umbria. He is said to have defeated the Umbrians at Mevania, but no triumph followed either this Samnite or Umbrian campaign. llis command in Samnium, with the title of proconsul, was continued during B. C. 307, and he defeated the Samnites near Allifae. This campaign also is liable to suspicion, since Fabius obtained no triumph. (Liv. 9.42; Diod. 20.44.) Ill B. C. 304 Fabius was censor. Upon Livy's brief and uninstructive words (9.46) a pile of hypothesis has been raised by modern and recent scholars. We can only refer to Niebuhr Hist. of Rome, vol. iii. pp. 320-350), Zumpt (Die Centurien, Berlin, 1836), Huschke (Staatsverfass. Serv. Tull. Breslau. 1838), and Walther (Geschicht. Röm. Recht, vol. i. p. 136). Fabius seems to have cancelled the changes introduced by Appius the Blind in his censorship, B. C. 312 [APP. CLAUDIUS, No. 10], by confining the libertini to the four city tribes: he also probably increased the political importance of the equites. (Liv. 9.46; V. Max. 2.2.9; Aurel. Vict. Vir. Ill. 32; Plin. Nat. 15.4; comp. Dionys. A. R. 6.13, 15.) Fabius does not appear again till B. C. 297, when he was consul for the fifth time, according to Livy (10.13), against his own wishes; but the annalist of the Fabian house whom Livy copied probably veiled or suppressed in this year a strong opposition to his re-election by the Appian party. (Liv. 10.15.) Samnium was again his province, but the result of his campaign is doubtful. In the following year Fabius was consul for the sixth time, and conmmanded at the great battle of Sentinum, when the combined armies of the Samnites, Gauls, Etruscans, and Umbrians, attacked the Romans and their allies. At the beginning of the year a dispute with P. Decius Mus, who had been thrice before Fabius' colleague in the consulship, and once in the censorship, and the withdrawal of Appius Claudius from the seat of war, and his appointment to the city praetorship, are probably tokens of strong party-struggles at Rome. (Liv. 10.21, 22, 24.) For his victory at Sentinum Fabius triumphed on the 4th of September in the same year. (Fast.; Liv. ib. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30.) For the remainder of the year he was employed in Etruria. In 292 he acted as legatus to his son [Maximus Fabius, No. 2], and rode beside his triumphal chariot, delighting in the honours of his son, whom lie had rescued from disgrace and degradation and crowned with victory. (Liv. Epit. xi.; Dio Cass. Fr. Peirese. xxxvi.; Oros. 3.22; Plut. Fab. Max. 24; V. Max. 2.2.4, 5.7.1; Zonar. 8.1.) Fabius succeeded his father, Ambustus, in the honourable post of Princeps Senatus. ( Plin. Nat. 7.41.) On his death, which happened soon after, the people subscribed largely for the expences of his funeral; but as the Fabian house was wealthy, his son Fabius Gurges employed the money in giving a public entertainment (epulum), and in a distribution of provisions (visceratio) to the citizens of Rome. (Aurel. Vict. Vir. Ill. 32.) The cause of his obtaining the cognomen Maximus is uncertain. Livy (9.46) says that his political services in the censorship of B. C. 304 were the cause. But he makes a doubt (30.26) whether the cognomen were not originally conferred on his great grand son, Q. Fabius, the dictator in the second Punic war [No. 4]; and Polybius (3.87) says that the latter Fabius was the first of the Fabian house who was denominated Maximus.

2. Q. Fabius Maximus, Q. F. M. N., son of the preceding, acquired the agnomen of Gurges, or the Glutton, from the dissoluteness of his youth. His mature manhood atoned for his early irregularties. (Macr. 2.9; comp. Juv. Sat. 6.267, 11.40.) In B. C. 295 Fabius was curule aedile, and filed certain matrons of noble birth for their disorderly life; and with the produce of the fines built a temple to Venus near the Circus Maxilnus. (Liv. 10.31; Victor. Region. xi.) He was consul in B. C. 292, and was completely defeated by the Pentrian Samnites. The adversaries of the Fabian house, the Papirian and Appian parties, took advantage of this defeat to exasperate the people against Fabius, and he escaped degradation from the consulate only through his father's offer to serve as his lieutenant for the remainder of the war. Victory returned with the elder Fabius to the Roman arms. In a second battle the consul retrieved his reputation, stormed several Samnite towns, and was rewarded with a triumph of which the most remarkable feature was old Fabius riding beside his son's chariot. (Plut. Fab. 24; Dionys. A. R. 16.15; Oros. 3.22; Eutrop. 2.9.) For his success in this campaign Fabius dedicated a shrine to Venus obsequens, because the goddess had been obsequious to his prayers. (Serv. ad Aen. 1.720.) In B. C. 291 Fabius remained as proconsul in Samnium. He was besieging Cominium when the consul, L. Postumius Megellus, arbitrarily and violently drove him from the army and (Dionys. A. R. 16.16.) The Fasti ascribe a triumph Fabius for his proconsulate. He was consul for the second time in B. C. 276, when he obtained a triunph de Samnitibus Lucancis et Bruttiis (Fasti). Shortly afterwards he went as legatus from the senate to Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt. The presents which Fabius and his colleagues received from the Egyptian monarch they deposited in the public treasury on their return to Rome. But a decree of the senate directed that the ambassadors should retain them. (V. Max. 4.3.10; comp. Dio Cass. Fr. 147; Liv. Epit. xiv.; Zonar. 8.6.) Fabius was slain in his third consulship, while engaged in quelling some disturbances at Vulsinii in Etruria. (Zonar. 8.7; Flor. 1.21; Obseq. 27; comp. Vict. Vir. 111. 36.) Like his father and grandfather, Fabius Gurges was princeps senatus. (Plin. Nat. 7.41.)

3. Q. Fabius (Q. F. Q. N. Maximus ?). From the date alone of the only recorded fact of his life (V. Max. 6.6.5), it is probable that he was a son of the preceding, and father of Fabius the Great Dictator in the second Punic war. Fabius was aedile in B. C. 265, and, for an assault on its ambassadors, was sent in custody of a quaestor to Apollonia in Epeirus to be dealt with at pleasure. The Apolloniates, however, dismissed him unpunished. (Liv. Epit. xv.; Dio Cass. Fr. 43 ; Zonar. 8.8.)

4. Q. Fabius Maximus, Q. F. Q. N., with the agnomens VERRUCOSUs, from a wart on his upper lip, Ovicula, or the Lamb, from the mildness or apathy of his temper (Plut. Fab. 1; comp. Varr. R. R. 2.11). and Cunctator, from his caution in war, grandson of Fabius Gurges, and, perhaps, son of the preceding, was consul for the first time in B. C. 233. Liguria was his province, and it afforded him a triumph (Fasti) and a pretext for de.licating a temple to Honour. (Cic. de Nat. Deor. 2.23.) He was censor in B. C. 230; consul a second time in 228; opposed the agrarian law of C. Flaminius in 227 [Flaminius, No. 1]; was dictator for holding the comitia in 221, and in 218 legatus from the senate to Carthage, to demand reparation for the attack on Saguntnm. In . 100.217, immediately after the defeat at Thrasymenus, Fabius was appointed dictator, or rather, since no consul was at hahd to nominate him, pro-dictator. From this period, so long as the war with Hanni bal was merely defensive, Fabius became the leading man at Rome. His military talents were not perhaps of the highest order, but he understood beyond all his contemporaries the nature of the struggle, the genius of Hannibal, and the disposition of his own countrymen. Cicero says truly of Fabius (Rep. 1.1), bellum Punicum secundum enervavit, a more appropriate eulogy than that of Ennius, qui cunctando restituit rem, since Marcellus and Scipio restored the republic to its military eminence, whereas Fabius made it capable of restoration. His first act as dictator was to calm and corroborate the minds of the Romans by solemn sacrifice and supplication to the gods; his next to render Latium and the neighbouring districts untenable by the enemy. On taking the field he laid down a simple and immutable plan of action. He avoided all direct encounter with the enemy; moved his camp from highland to highland, where the Numidian horse and Spanish infantry could not follow him; watched Hannibal's movments with unrelaxing vigilance, cut off his stragglers and foragers, to and compelled him to weary his allies by necessary exactions, and to dishearten his soldiers by fruitless manoeuvres. His enclosure of Hannibal in one of the upland valleys between Cales and the Vulturnus, and the Carthaginian's adroit escape by driving oxen with blazing faggots fixed to their horns up the hill-sides, are well-known facts. But at Rome and in his own camp the caution of Fabius was misinterpreted. He was even suspected of wishing to prolong the war that he might retain the command; of cowardice, of incapability, and even of treachery, although he gave up the produce of his estates to ransom Roman prisoners. Hannibal alone appreciated the conduct of Fabius. But his own master of the horse, M. Minucius Rufus, headed the clamour against him, and the senate, incensed by the ravage of their Campanian estates, joined with the impatient commonalty in condemning his dilatory policy. Minucius, during a brief absence of Fabius from the camp, obtained some slight advantage over Hannibal. A tribune of the plebs, M. Metilius, brought forward a bill for dividing the command equally between the dictator and the master of the horse, and the senate and the tribes passed it. Minucius was speedily entrapped, and would have been destroyed by Hannibal, had not Fabius generously hastened to his rescue. Hannibal, on his retreat from Fabius, is reported to have said, " I thought yon cloud would one day break from the hills in a pelting storm." Minucius, who though rash was magnanimous, resigned his command, but Fabius scrupulously laid down his office at its legal expiration in six months, bequeathing his example to the consuls who sncceeded him. Aemilius copied, Varro disregarded his injunctions, and the rout at Cannae illustrated the wisdom of Fabius' warning to Aemilius,-- "Remember, you have to dread not only Hamibal but Varro." Fabius was, however, among the first on Varro's return from Cannae to thank him for not having despaired of his country; and the defensive measures which the senate adopted in that season of dismay were dictated by him. After the winter of B. C. 216-215, the wargrad? tlly asscmed a new character, and, though still eminent, Fabius was no longer its presiding spirit. He was elected pontifex in 216, was already a member of the augural college, which office he held sixty-two years (Liv. 30.26); dedicated by public commission the temple of Venus Erycina, and opposed filling up with Latins the vacancies which the war had made in the senate. In B. C. 215 he was consul for the third time, when he ravaged Campania and began the siege of Capua. On laying down the fasces he admonished the people and the senate to drop all party feelings, and to choose such men only for consuls as were competent to the times. His advice led to his own re-election, B. C. 214. In this year he made an inroad into Samnium and took Casilinum. In 213 Fabius served as legatus to his own son, Q. Fabius [No. 5], consul in that year, and an anecdote is preserved (Liv. 24.44; Plut. Fab. 24) which exemplifies the strictness of the Roman discipline. On entering the camp at Suessula Fabius advanced on horseback to greet his son. He was passing the lictors when the consul sternly bade him dismount. "My son," exclaimed the elder Fabius alighting, " I wished to see whether you would remember that you were consul." On Hannibal's march upon Rome, in B. C. 211, Fabius was again the principal stay of the senate, and earnestly dissuaded abandoning the siege of Capua, which would have been yielding to the Carthaginian's feint on the capital. Fabius was consul for the fifth time in B. C. 209, was invested with the almost hereditary title of the Fabii Maximi-Princeps senatus,-and inflicted a deadly wound on Hannibal's tenure of Southern Italy by the recapture of Tarentum. The citadel of Tarentum had never fallen into the hands of the Carthaginians, and M. Livius Macatus, its governor, some years afterwards, claimed the merit of recovering the town. " Certainly," rejoined Fabius, " had you not lost, I had never retaken it." (Plut. Fab. 23; Cic. de Orat. 2.67.) The plunder of the town was given up to the soldiers, but. a question arising whether certain colossal statues and pictures of the tutelary deities of Tarentum should be sent to Rome, " Nay," said Fabius, "let us leave to the Tarentines their angry gods." (Liv. 27.16; Plnt. Fab. 22.) He removed thither, however, a statue of Hercules, the mythic ancestor of the Fabii, and placed it in the Capitol. M. Livius Salinator and C. Claudius Nero, consuls elect for B. C. 208, were at open enmity (Liv. 27.35, 29.37; V. Max. 4.2); and their reconciliation, of the highest moment to the commonwealth, was principally the work of Fabius. In the closing years of the second Punic war Fabius appears to less advantage. The war had become aggressive under a new race of generals. Fabius, already in mature manhood at the close of the first, was advanced in years in the later period of the second Punic war. He disapproved the new tactics; he dreaded, perhaps he envied, the political supremacy of Scipio, and was his uncompromising opponent in his scheme of invading Africa. Fabius did not live to witness the issue of the war and the triumph of his rival. He died in B. C. 2043, alout the time of Hannibal's departure from Italy. His wealth was great; yet the people defrayed by contribution the funeral charges of their " father," the "great dictator," " who singly, by his caution, saved the state."

Fabius had two sons; the younger survived him (Liv. 33.42); he pronounced the funeral omtion of the elder (Laudatio) (Cic. de Sen. 4), and though, strictly speaking, not eloquent, he was neither an unready nor all illiterate speaker. (Cic. Brut. 14, 18.) He adopted, probably on account of the tender age of his younger, and after the decease of his elder son, a son of L. Paullus Aemilius, the conqueror of Perseus. (Plut. Paull. Aem. 5.)

Besides the life, by Plutarch, which is probably a compilation from the archives of the Fabian family, the history of Fabius occupies a large space in all narratives of the second Punic war. (Plb. 3.87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 101, 103, 105, 106, 10.1.10, xviii. Fr. Hist. 18; Liv. xx. xxi. xxii. xxiii. xxiv. xxvi. xxvii. xxviii. xxix. xxx.; Florus, Eutropius, and the epitomists generally ; Cic. Brut. 18, Leg. Agrar. 2.22, Tuscul. 3.28, Nat. Deor. 3.32, In Verr. Ace. 5.10, De Sen. 4, 17, De Off. 1.30; Sal. Jug. 4; Varr. Fr. p. 241, ed. Bipont.; Dio Cass. Fr. 48, 55 ; Appian, Annib. 11-16, 31; Quint. Inst. 6.3. §§ 52, 61, 8.2.11; Plin. Nat. 22.5; Sell. de Ben. 2.7; Sil. Ital. Punic. vii.)

5. Q. Fabius Maximus, Q. F. Q. N., elder son of the preceding, was curule aedile in B. C. 215, and praetor in 214. He was stationed in Apulia (Liv. 24.9, 11, 12), in the neighbourhood of Luceria ib. 12, 20), and co-operated ably with the other commanders in the second Punic war. (Cic. pro Rab. Post. 1.) He was consul in B. C. 213, when Apulia was again his province (Liv. 24.45, 46). His father in this year served under him as legatus at Suessula. (Liv. 24.43, 44; Plut. Fab. 24.) The younger Fabius was legatus to the consul M. Livius Salinator B. C. 207. (Liv. 28.9.) He died soon after this period, and his funeral oration was pronounced by his father. (Cic. de Nat. Deor. 3.32, Tuscul. 3.28, De Sen. 4, ad Fam. 4.6.)

6. Q. Fabius Maximus, Q. F. Q. N., second son of No. 5, was elected augur in the room of his father, B. C. 203 (Liv. 30.26), although he was then very young, and had borne no office previously. He died in B. C. 196. (Liv. 33.42.)

7. Q. Fabius Maximus, praetor peregrinnis in B. C. 181 (Liv. 40.18), was probably the same person with Q. Fabius, quaestor of the proconsul L. Manlius in Spain, B. C. 185. (Liv. 39.29.) His relation to the preceding Maximi is uncertain.

8. Q. Fabius Maximus Aemilianus, Q. F. Q. N., was by adoption only a Fabius Maximus, being by birth the eldest son of L. Paullus Aemiliis, the conqueror of Perseus, consul in B. C. 132. Fabius served under his father (Aemilius) in the last Macedonian war, B. C. 168, and was despatched by him to Rome with the news of his victory at Pydna. (Plb. 29.6.) Fabius was praetor in Sicily B. C. 149-148, and consul in 145. Spain was his province, where he encountered, and at length defeated Viriarathus. (Liv. 44.35 ; Appian, Hispan. 65, 67, 90, Maced. 17; Plut. paull. Aem. 5; Cic. de Amic. 25.) Fabius was the pupil and patron of the historian Polybius, who has recorded some interesting and honourable traits of his filial and fraternal conduct, and of the affection entertained for him by his younger brother, Scipio Aemilianus. (Plb. 18.18.6, 32.8.4, 9.9, 10.3, 14, 33.6.3, 9.5 38.3.8; Cic. De Amic. 19, Paradox. 6.2.)

9. Q. Fabius Q. Aemiliani F. Q. N. Maxtmus, surnamed Allobrogicus, from his victory over the Aliobroges and their ally, Bituitus, king of the Arverni (Auvergne), in Gaul, son of the preceding, was consul in B. C. 121. His campaign was brilliant, and his triumph, De Allobrogibus et Rege Aruerorum Betulto (Fasti), was rendered famous by the spectacle of the Arvernian king riding in the chariot, and wearing the silver armour he had borne in battle. [Bituitus.] From the plunder of Auvergne Fabius erected the Fornix Fabianus crossing the Via Sacra, and near the temple of Vesta at Rome, and placed over the arch a statue of himself. (Pseud-Ascon. ad Cic. Verr. 1.7, p. 133, Orelli; Schol. Gron. pp. 393, 399; comp. Cic. de Orat. 2.66; Plin. Nat. 7.50.) Fabius was censor in B. C. 108. He was an orator and a man of letters. (Cic. Brut. 28, pro Font. 12.) On the death of Scipio Aemilianus, in B. C. 129, Fabius gave a banquet to the citizens of Rome, and pronounced the funeral oration of the deceased, a fragment of which is still extant. (Cic. pro Muraen. 36; Schol. Bob. in Milonian. p. 283, Orelli; Appian, App. Gall. 2; Vell. 2.10.) Plin. (H. N. 33.11) confounds this Fabius with the preceding.

10. Q. Fabius Q. F. Q. Aemiliani N. Maximus Allobrogicus, son of the preceding, was remarkable only for his vices. The city praetor interdicted him from administering to his father's estate; and the scandalous life of Fabius made the prohibition to be universally approved. (Cic. Tuscul. 1.33; V. Max. 3.5.2.)

11. Q. Fabius Maximus, Q. F. Q. N., with the agnomen Servilianus, was adopted from the gens Servilia, by Fabius Aemilianus (No. 8). He was uterine brother of Cn. Servilius Caepio, consul in B. C. 141. (Appian, Hispan. 70.) He was consul in B. C. 142. His province was Lusitania, and the war with Viriarathus. (Appian, Iber. 67; Oros. 5.4; Cic. Att. 12.5; comp. de Orat. 1.26.) Valerius Maximus (6.1.5, 8.5.1) ascribes to Fabius a censorship which the Fasti do not confirm.

12. Q. Fabius Maximus Eburnus, was city praetor in B. C. 118, when he presided at the impeachment of C. Papirius Carbo, accused of majestas by L. Crassus. (Carbo, Papirius, No. 2.; Cic. de Orat. 1.26.) Fabius was consul in B. C. 116. He condemned one of his sons to death for immorality; but being subsequently accused by Cn. Pompeius Strabo of exceeding the limits of the " patria potestas," he went into exile, and probably to Nuceria. (Cic. pro Balb. 11; V. Max. 6.1.5; Oros. 5.16.)

13. Q. Fabius Maximus, Q. F. Q. N., was joined with Q. Caelius Rufus in B. C. 59, in the prosecution of C. Antonius Hybrida [Antonius, No. 10] for extortion in his province of Macedonia. (Cic. in Vatin. 11; Schol. Bob. in Vatinian. p. 321, Orelli.) For his services as legatus to Caesar in Spain, B. C. 45 (Caes. B. H. 2, 41), he obtained a triumph and the consulship of that year on Caesar's deposition of it in September. Fabius died on the last day (December 31) of his official year. (D. C. 43.42, 46; Plin. H. N 7.53; Cic. Fam. 7.30; Liv. Epit. 116; comp. Macr. 2.3.)

To which of the Fabii Maximi the preceding coin belongs is quite uncertain. [W.B.D]

[Centumalus, No. 1.]

or of Jerusalem, of which city he was bishop, a Greek ecclesiastical writer of the latter part of the second century. Jerome (De Vitris Illust. 100.47) mentions Maximus, an ecclesiastical writer who wrote on the questions of the origin of evil and the creation of matter, as having lived under the emperors Commodus (A. D. 180-193) and Severus (A. D. 193-211), but he does not say what office he held in the church, or whether he held any; nor does he connect him with any locality. Honorius of Autun (De Scriptor. Eccles. 1.47), extracting from Jerome, reads the name Maximinus; and Rufinus, translating from Eusebius, who has a short passage relating to the same writer (H. E. 5.27), gives the name in the same form; but it is probably incorrect. There was a Maximus bishop of Jerusalem in the reign of Antoninus Pius or Marcus Aurelius, or the earlier part of that of Commodus, i.e. somewhere between A. D. 156 and A. D. 185, and probably in the early part of that interval: another Maximus occupied the same see from A. D. 185; and the successive episcopates of himself and seven successors occupy about eighty years, the length of each separate episcopate not being known. The date therefore of this latter Maximus of Jerusalem accords sufficiently with the notice in Jerome respecting the writer; but it is remarkable that though both Eusebius and Jerome mention the bishop (Eusebius, Chronic. and Hieron. Euseb. Chron. Interpretatio). they do not either of them identify the writer with him; and it is remarkable that in the list given by Eusebius of the bishops of Jerusalem in his Histor. Ecckes. (5.27), the names of the second Maximus and his successor, Antoninus, do not appear. It must be considered therefore uncertain whether the writer and the bishop are the same person, though it is most likely they were. Works Περὶ τῆς ὕλης (De Materia)

The title of the work of Maximus noticed by Jerome and Eusebius (for the two questions of the origin of evil and the creation of matter appear to have been comprehended in one treatise) was Περὶ τῆς ὕλης, De Materia. Eusebius has given a long extract from it. (Praep. Evanzg. 7.21, 22.) The same extract, or a portion of it, is incorporated, without acknowledgment, in the Dialogus Adamantii de recta in Deum Fide, or Contra Marcionitas, sect. iv. commonly ascribed to Origen, but in reality written or compiled long after his time. It is also quoted in the Philocalia, 100.24, compiled by Gregory Nazianzen and Basil the Great, almost entirely from the works of Origen. In the short inscription to the chapter they are said to be from the Praeparatio Evangelica of Eusebius; and their being contained also in the supposed work of Origen, De Recta Fide, is affirmed in a probably interpolated sentence of the concluding paragraph of the chapter. (Delarue, Opera Origenis, vol. i. p. 800, seq.) Editions

This passage, apparently the only part of Maximus' work which has come down to us. is given in the Bilbliotheca Patrum of Galland (vol. ii. p. 146), who identities the author with the bishop, and gives his reasons for so doing in the Prolegomena to the volume, 100.6; see also Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 196, vol. i. p. 95; Tillenlont, Mémoires, vol. ii. p. 760, &c., note xiii. sur Origène. A Third Bishop of Jerusalem named Maximus

Beside the two bishops of Jerusalem of this name already noticed, there was a third in the reign of Constantine the Great and his sons. He suffered in one of the later persecutions of the heathen emperors, apparently under Maximian Galerius. (Philostorg. H. E. 3.12.) He suffered the loss of his right eye, and some infliction, possibly ham-stringing, in his right leg. (Theodoret. H. E. 2.26.) His sufferings in the cause of Christianity and the general excellence of his character so endeared him to the people of Jerusalem, among whom he officiated as priest, that when he was appointed by Macarmus, bishop of that city, to the vacant bishopric of Diospolis, the multitude would not allow him to depart; and Macarius was obliged to forego the appointment, and nominate another in his place. According to some accounts, Macarius repented almost immediately of the nomination of Maximus to Diospolis, and readily consented to his remaining at Jerusalem, taking him for his assistant in the duties of the episcopal office, and his intended successor, fearing lest Eusebius of Caesaraea and Patrophilus of Scythopolis should procure the election of a favourer of Arianism. (Sozomen, H. E. 2.20.) On the decease of Macarius some time between A. D. 331 and 335, Maximus succeeded him, and was present at the council of Tyre, A. D. 335, when Athanasius was condemned. Sozomen records (H. E. 2.25) that at this council Paphnutius, a bishop of the Thebais or Upper Egypt, and himself a confessor, took Maximus by the hand, and told him to leave the place: "For," said he, "it does not become us, who have lost our eyes and been hamstrung for the sake of religion, to join the council of the wicked." This appeal was in vain, and Maximus was induced by some unfairness to subscribe the decree condemning Athanasius. However, he soon repented of this step, and at a synod of sixteen bishops of Palestine joyfully admitted Athanasius to communion when returning from the council of Sardica, through Asia, to Alexandria. Sozomen relates (H. E. 4.20) that Maximus was deposed by the influence of Acacius of Caesaraea and Patrophilus, A. D. 349 or 350, and Cyril [Cyrillus, T., of Jerusalem] appointed in his place; but if there is any truth in this statement, of which Jerome, in his Chronicle, does not speak, the death of Maximus must have very shortly succeeded his deposition. Further Information

Socrat. H. E. 2.8; Sozom. ll. cc., and 3.6; Theodoret, l.c.; Philostorg. l.c.; Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, vol. iii. col. 156, &c. [J.C.M]

one of the generals sent by Civilis against Vocula. (Tac. Hist. 4.33.) Civilis; Vocula.]

a contemporary of Status, from whom we learn that he made an epitome of the histories of Sallust and Livy. (Stat. Silv. 4.7, ult.)

[Laberius.]

Roman emperor, A. D. 383-388. in Gaul, Britain, and Spain, was a native of Spain (Zosim. iv. p. 247), but not of England, as modern authors assert. He boasted of being a relation of his contemporary. the emperor Theodosius the Great, though the fact is that he had merely lived some years in the household of that emperor in a subordinate capacity. He was of obscure parentage; an uncle of his, however, is mentioned in history, and also a brother, Marcellinus, whose name will appear again in the course of this sketch. Maximus accompanied Theodosiua on several of his expeditions, was promoted, and, perhaps as early as A. D. 368, proceeded with his master to Britain, where he remained many years in the quality of a general, as it seems, but decidedly not as governor of that province, as some modern writers of eminence pretend. It is said that he married Helena, the daughter of Eudda, a rich noble of Caersegont (Caernarvon in Wales), but the authority is more than doubtful. (Comp. Gibbon, c. xxvii. p. 7, note k. ed. 1815, 8vo.) The predilection of the emperor Gratian for foreign barbarians excited discontent among the legions in Britain, which were the most turbulent in the whole Roman army. Maximus is said to have secretly fomented their disaffection, and thus a terrible revolt broke out which led to the accession of Maximus and the ruin of Gratian. Zosimus, though by no means a detractor of Maximus, charges him with having acted thus; but Orosius and Sulpicius Severus both state that the troops had forced Maximus, who was known as a man of principle and merit, to accept the imperial dignity, which was offered him by the rebels; and Orosius says that he solemnly protested his innocence. However this may be, Maximus was proclaimed emperor in A. D. 383 (not in 381 as Prosper states in his Chronicon). A short time before his accession he had adopted the Christian religion.

Maximus immediately gave orders to all the troops stationed in Britain to assemble as soon as possible, and he lost no time in attacking Gratian in Gaul. It is related in the life of Gratian that he was defeated by the usurper near Paris, deserted by his general Merobaudes, a Frankish chief, and finally slain near Lyon, on his flight to Italy, by Andragathius, who pursued him by order of Maximus. The sudden overthrow of the power of Gratian was followed by the as sudden and complete establishment of the power of Maximus: Gaul, Spain, and Britain did homage to the fortunate usurper, who associated his son Victor with him, proclaiming him Caesar, and perhaps Augustus; and the new emperor took up his residence at Trèves, where there are still some monuments extant of his reign. No persecutions were instituted against the adherents of Gratian, except Merobaudes and Balio or Vallio, who lost their heads on account of their ambiguous conduct, and it seems that, with these exceptions, Maximus was not wrong when, in later times, he boasted that his elevation had caused no loss of Roman life except on the field of battle. Yet even Merobaudes and Vallio were not Romans but barbarians. When the news of the downfall of Gratian and the success of Maximus reached Theodosius, he resolved to wrest the crown from the usurper, but ambassadors arrived from Maximus with peaceful offers, backed by stern declarations of sacrificing every thingforthe maintenance of his power; and as Theodosius was then unable to wage war with a rebel who was popular among the experienced and bold veterans of the West, he accepted the propositions made to him. Maximus was, in consequence, recognised by Theodosius and Valentinian as Augus tus and sole emperor in Gaul, Spain, and Britain, while the new emperor in his turn promised not to molest Valentiman in the possession of Italy and Hlyricum, which he had held already in the time of his brother Gratian.

Nothing now prevented Maximus from enjoying his power, and promoting the happiness of his subjects, but two circumstances, each of which was sufficient to foretell a future commotion. The professed friendship of Theodosius was not real, and the unparalleled success of Maximus swelled his ambition so much that he stepped beyond those limits of wisdom within which he ought to have kept his future plans. Italy was governed by a feeble youth, but who might become dangerous when a man, unless he forgot that he was the brother of a murdered emperor. The possession of Italy was therefore the great object at which Maximus aimed; and the revenues of his vast dominions were exhausted to form an army, the contingents of which were raised among the most warlike barbarians oi the time. Yet less confident in armls than in intrigues, Maximus prevailed upon the ministers of young Valentinian to accept from him auxiliaries for an intended war in Pannonia; and, although his motives were seen through by St. Ambrose and the other councillors of Valentinian, the forces of Maximus were allowed to cross the passes of the Alps (387). In their rear followed Maximus with his main army, and while the inhabitants of Milan, where the imperial court of Italy then resided, expected to welcome allies, they and their master were terrified by the sudden and unaccountable appearance of a hostile army under their walls. Flight was the only means of safety for Valentinian. Without loss ot time he escaped with his mother Justina to Aquileia, and thence by sea to Thessalonica, whence he despatched messengers to Constantinople to apprise Theodosius of his fate. Maximus entered Milan in triumph, and Rome and the rest of Italy soon submitted to him almost without a struggle.

The alarm of Theodosius at hearing at once of the loss of Italy, the disgrace of a weak yet beloved colleague, and the triumph of a hated rival, may be easily imagined. Instead of inviting Valentinian to proceed to Constantinople, he hastened, without losing any time, to Salonica, accompanied by his principal ministers, and then, with the fugitive emperor and his mother Justina, concerted measures to check the threatening course of the British conqueror. His love for Valentinian's sister Galla added wings to his resolution: in the midst of his preparations for bloodshed and war he married that beautiful princess, and then set out to encounter the legions of Gaul. Maximus, meanwhile, prepared for resistance by sea and land. Andragathus covered the coast of Italy with a powerful fleet, and the emperor concentrated his troops near Aquileia, despatching his van into Noricum and Pannonia, in order to receive Theodosius in that quarter if he should choose to come by land. Theodosius did come by land, and in the first engagement at Siscia, on the Save, the Western troops were completely defeated: they suffered a second defeat, being then commanded by Marcellinus. the brother of Maximus; and now Theodosius broke through the Noric Alps into Italy. Maximus, flying before him, took refuge within the walls of Aquileia, arriving there nearly at the same time as his pursuers. The troops of Theodosius immediately stormed the city, and with such energy that they took it at once, and seized Maximus, it is said, while seated on his throne. Theodosius was waiting the issue at his head-quarters, three miles from Aquileia. Thither Maximus was carried, loaded with chains. With a stern yet calm voice Theodosius reproached him for his rebellion against Gratian and unbounded ambition, and then gave orders for his decapitation, which took place on the same day (27th or 28th of August, 388). Victor, the son of Maximus, being then engaged in Gaul against the Franks, Arbogastes marched against him with a strong force. Victor was defeated and taken prisoner, and shared the fate of his father. Andragathus, the commander of the fleet of Maximus, upon hearing of the death of his master, threw himself in a fit of despair into the sea and was drowned. Theodosius was merciful and generous towards the mother and sisters of his fallen rival; but he nullified all the laws issued by Maximus. Valentinian nominally succeeded Maximus in the possession of Italy and the country beyond the Alps, but the real emperor was Theodosius. (Zosim. iv. p. 247, &c. ed. Oxon. 1679, 8vo.; Sozomen. 7.12, &c.; Oros. 7.34, &c.; Socrates, H. E. v. H l,&c.; Rufin. 2.14-17; Greg. Turon. Hist. Franc. 1.43; Ambros. Enarratio in Psalm. LXI. (in the first vol. of his works, p. 961), Epistol. XXIV. in vol. ii. p. 888, ep. 40, p. 952. &c., De Obitu Valentin. ibid. p. 1] 82, in the Benedictine ed.; Sulpic. Sever. Vita B. Martini, 100.23, Dialog. 2.7, 3.15; Pacatus, Panegyric. Theodosii, in " Panegyr. Vet." xii.; Prosper, Chron.; Marcellin. Chron.; Theoph. p. 57, &c. ed. Paris.)

[W.P]

was consul in B. C. 105, when he carried his election against Q. Catulus [Catulus, No. 3]. Cicero represents Mallius as an utterly worthless man. (Pro Plane. 5, pro Muraen. 36.) Mallius obtained Transalpine Gaul for his province, and, principally through dissensions with his colleague, the proconsul Q. Servilius Caepio [Caepio, Servilius, No. 7], he was utterly defeated by the Boian Gauls. His two sons perished in the action, and on his return to Rome he was impeached, and defended by M. Antonius, the orator. (Sall. B. J. 114; Liv. Epit. 67; Cic. de Orat. 28.) [W.B.D]

one of the most intimate friends of the younger Pliny, seems to have been a native of Verona, and certainly possessed considerable influence in the neighbourhood of that town, to which his wife belonged. (Plin. Ep. 2.14.) Hence Pliny recommends to him Arrianus, of Altinum, a town near Venice (3.2). Maximus was subsequently sent into Achaia to arrange the affairs of the free towns in the province, on which occasion Pliny addressed him a letter, in imitation of Cicero's celebrated epistle to his brother Quintus, to teach him how he ought to discharge the duties of his new appointment (8.24). Maximus was an author, and one of his works is praised by Pliny in the most extravagant terms (4.20). Pliny appears to have frequently consulted hint respecting his own literary compositions. The following letters of Pliny are addressed to Maximus: 2.14, 3.2, 20, 4.20, 25, 5.5, 6.11, 34, 7.26, 8.19, 24, 9.1, 23.

(ANI'CIUS ?), Roman emperor, A. D. 455. His long and meritorious life as an officer of state forms a striking contrast with his short and unfortunate reign. He belonged to the high nobility of Rome, and was a descendant, or at any rate a kinsman, of Petronius Probus, who gained so much power in Rome towards the end of the fourth century of our era; it is doubtful whether he was the son of a daughter of the emperor Maximus Magnus; nor is his title to the Anician name sufficiently established, although Tillemont says that there are two inscriptions on which he is called Anicius. Maximus Petronius was born about A. D. 388, or perhaps as late as 395. At the youthful age of 19 he was admitted to the council of the emperor Honorius in his double quality of tribune and notary (407 or 414). In 415 he was comes largitionum, and in 420 he filled the important office of praefectus Romae, discharging his duty with such general satisfaction that, in 421, on the solicitation of the senate and people of Rome, the emperors Honorius and Arcadius caused a statue to be erected to him on the Campus Trajani. In 433 he was second consul, the emperor Theodosius II. being the first. During the years 439 till 441, and afterwards in 445, he was praefectus Italiae. In 443 he was again chosen consul, being the first: his colleague was Paterius. Valentinian III. held him in such esteem that he ordered a medal to be struck in honour of him, which represented on the obverse the head and name of the emperor, and on the reverse the name and image of Maximus dressed in the consular garb. Maximus was in every respect what we now understand under the French term, a "grand seigneur:" he was of noble birth, rich, generous, well educated, with a strong turn for literature, fine arts, and science, full of dignity yet affable and condescending, a professed lover and practiser of virtue, yet with a sufficient smack of fashionable follies and amiable vices to secure him an honourable rank among the gay companions of the corrupt Valentinian. Maximus found no scruple in secretly helping the emperor in his intrigues against Aetius, which ended in the murder of that great man in 454; but he was now to experience that while it is only dangerous to be disliked by men like Valentinian, it is at once dangerous and disgraceful to be liked by them, because their attachment is neither guided by principles nor ennobled by esteem. Maximus had a beautiful and virtuous wife of whom Valentinian was enamoured. One day, having lost a great deal of money to the emperor, while playing with him, he gave him his seal ring as a pledge for the debt. Valentinian sent this ring to the wife of Maximus in the name of the empress Eudoxia, with a request to join her and her husband at the palace. The unsuspicious lady proceeded thither forthwith, and was ushered into a solitary room where, instead of her husband and the empress, she found the emperor, who began by a declaration of love. Meeting with an indignant repulse he forced her person. The disgraced woman returned to her mansion, almost dying with shame, and accused Maximus of having had a hand in this infamous transaction. The feelings of her husband need no description. His wife died soon afterwards. He brooded revenge, and the numerous friends of the murdered Aitius being animated by the same feelings, he joined them joyfully. On the 16th of March 455, Valentinian was amusing himself in the Campus Martius; suddenly a band of armed men rushed upon him, and the emperor was murdered.

Maximus was now proclaimed emperor, and he accepted the crown, but never enjoyed it. On the very day of his accession he was a prey to grief and remorse, and, fully aware of the danger that surrounded the master of Rome, he compared his fate with that of Damocles. Anxious to secure himself on his bloody throne he appointed his friend Avitus commander-in-chief, and he contrived a marriage between his son Palladius and Eudoxia, the daughter of the late Valentinian. He then forced Eudoxia, the widow of Valentinian, to marry him. This proved his ruin. Eudoxia, twice empress, yet disdained her condition, and full of hatred against Maximus, entered into intrigues with Genseric, the king of the Vandals, at Carthage, the result of which was that the barbarian equipped a fleet for the conquest of Rome. Maximus was apprised of the fact, but did nothing to prevent the approaching storm: he was incompetent as an emperor. Suddenly news cane that the Vandals were disembarking at the mouth of the Tiber. Rome was in commotion and fear, and the trembling people looked up to Maximus for relief. He advised flight to those who could fly, resigniation to those who could not, and then set out to abandon his capital and his people. But he had not yet left Rome when he was overtaken by a band of Burgundian mercenaries, commanded by some old officers of Valentinian; they fell upon him, and he expired under their daggers. His body was dragged through the streets of Rome, mutilated, and then thrown into the Tiber. Three days afterwards Genseric made his entry into Rome and sacked the city. The reign of Maximus lasted between two and three months, but there are great discrepancies regarding the exact number of days. The reader will receive ample information on this point from not. xii. to page 628 of the 6th vol. of Tillemont, Hist. des Empereurs. (Procop. Bell. Vand. 1.4, 5; Sidon. Apollin. Ep. 1.9, 2.13; Panegyr. Aviti, 5.359, &c., 442, &c.; Prosper, Victor, Idatius, Marcellinus, Chronicv; Evagr. 2.7; Jornand. De Reb. Goth. p. 127, ed. Lindenbrog.) [W.P]

[Planudes.]

the brother of Quintilius Condianus, of whom an account is given under Condianus.

a Roman jurist of uncertain age. He is only known from the Florentine Index and a single excerpt in the Digest (30. s. 12.5), as the author of a treatise in a single book, Ad Leyem Falcidiam, which was enacted B. C. 40. [G.L]

is first mentioned towards the latter end of the reign of Tiberius, A. D. 32, when he is spoken of as a person of consular rank. (Tac. Ann. 6.4.) We learn from Dio Cassius (59.13) and the Fasti that he was consul A. D. 39, in the reign of Caligula, but from the passage of Tacitus quoted above, he must have been consul previously, though his first consulship does not occur in the Fasti. He also held the office of praefectus urbi in the reign of Caligula. (Dio Cass. l.c.) In the reign of Claudiushe had the command in Lower Germany, and died in the province, A. D. 47. (Tac. Ann. 11.18.) He seems to have been a different person from Sanquinius, the accuser of Arruntius. (Tac. Ann. 6.7.)

[Scaurus.]

[Galba, No. 1.]

so called because he was bishop of Turin, flourished about the middle of the fifth century.

He subscribed in A. D. 451 the synodic epistle of Eusebius, bishop of Milan, to Leo the Great; and from the circumstance that in the acts of the council of Rome, held in A. D. 465, by Hilarius, the successor of Leo, the signature of Maximus immediately follows that of the chief pontiff, taking precedence of the metropolitans of Milan and Embrun, we may conclude that he was the oldest prelate present. It has been inferred from different passages in his works that he was born about the close of the fourth century, at Vercelli, that he was educated in that city, that he there discharged the first duties of the sacred office, and that he lived to a great age; but it is impossible to speak with certainty upon these points. Works

Gennadius, who is followed by Trithemius, states that Maximus composed a great number of tracts and homilies upon various subjects, several of which he specifies. Many of these have been preserved in independent MSS., while the Lectionaria of the principal monasteries and cathedrals in Europe, investigated with assiduity from the days of Charlemagne down to our own times, have yielded so many more which may with confidence be ascribed to this bishop of Turin, that he must be regarded as the most voluminous compiler of discourses in the Latin church. Little can be said in praise of the quality of these productions, most of wh ich were probably delivered extemporaneously. They are so weak and so destitute of grace, eloquence, and learning, that we wonder that they should ever have been thought worthy of preservation at all. The only merit they possess is purely antiquarian, affording as they do incidentally con siderable insight into the ecclesiastical ceremonies and usages of the period to which they belong, and containing many curious indications of the state of manners.

In the complete and sumptuous edition superintended by Bruno Brunus, published by the Propaganda at Rome (fol. 1784), under the especial patronage of Pope Pius the Sixth, and enriched with annotations by Victor Amadeus, king of Sardinia, the various pieces are ranked under three heads.

I. Homiliae. II. Sermones. III. Tractatus.

The Homiliae and the Sermones, the distinction between which is in the present case by no means obvious or even intelligible, amounting in all to 233, are divided each into three classes, De Tempore, De Sanctis, De Diversis; the discourses De Tempore relating to the moveable feasts, those De Sanctis to the lives, works, and miracles of saints, confessors, and martyrs; those De Diversis to miscellaneous topics.

The Tractatus, in No. 6, are I. II. III. De Baptismo. IV. Contra Paganos. V. Contra Judaeos. VI. Expositiones de Capitulis Evangeliorum.

Besides the above, we find in an appendix thirty-one Sermones, three Homiliae, and two Epistolae. all of doubtful authenticity; and it is, moreover, proved that a vast number of sermons and homilies have been lost. Editions

Sermons by Maximus were first printed at Spires, by Peter Drach, fol. 1482, in the Homilarium Doctorum, originally compiled, it is said, by Paulus Diaconus, at the command of Charlemagne. Seventy-four of his homilies were published in a separate form by Joannes Gymnicus at Cologne. 8vo. 1535. The number was gradually increased by the Benedictines in their editions of Augustin and Ambrose, by Mabillon Museum Italicum, 1687), by Muratori (Anecdot. vol. 4.1713), by Martene and Dorand (Collectio amplissima, &c., 1733-1741), and by Galland (Biblioth. Patrum, vol. ix. &c.), who, however, merely collected and arranged the contributions of preceding scholars; but all editions must give way to that of Brunus mentioned above. Further Information

Schönemann, Biblioth. Patrum Lat. vol. 2.25; Galland, Bibl. Patr. Proleg. ad vol. ix. c. ix.; and Brunlts, in the life of Maximus, prefixed to his edition. [W.R]

Roman emperor, was raised to the supreme power, in A. D. 408, by Gerontius when this general rebelled in Spain against Constantine. Olympiodorus says that Maximus was the son of Gerontius, but it seems more probable that he was only an officer in the army and his tool, and in the latter quality he behaved during the short time he bore the imperial title. When immediately after his revolt Gerontius marched: into Gaul, Maximus remained at Tarragona, )but could not prevent the Alans, Suevians, Vandals, and other barbarians from invading Spain in 409. After the defeat of Gerontius at Aries, and his death, in 411, Maximus was compelled to yield to the victorious Constantine, who forced him to renounce the imperial title, but granted him life and liberty on account of his incapacity for important affairs. Maximus retired among the barbarians and lived an obscure life in a corner of Spain. As Orosius speaks of him as a living person, he was consequently alive in 417, the year in which that writer composed his work. Prosper states that in 419 (418?) he rebelled and made himself master of the Roman portion of Spain; but this rebellion was a trifling affair, and he perhaps only got possession of some small district. Failing in his enterprise he was seized, carried to Italy, and, in 422, put to death at Ravenna together with Jovinus. [Gerontius.] (Sozom. 9.12-15; Orosius, 7.42, 43; Olympiodors apud Phot. Biblioth. cod. 80; Greg. Turon. 50.2.100.9; Prosper, Marcellinus, Idatius, Chronica.) [W.P]

a native of Tyre, a Greek writer of the age of the Antonines, was rather later, therefore, than Maximus the Rhetorician, mentioned by Plutarch (Symp. ix. probl. 4), and rather earlier than the Maximus mentioned by Porphyry (apud Euseb. Evang. Praep. 10.3) as having been present at the supper given by Longinus at Athens in honour of Plato. It is disputed whether Maximus of Tyre was one of the tutors of the emperor Aurelius. The text of the Chronicon of Eusebius, in which he is mentioned, being lost, we have to choose between the interpretation of his translator Jerome, according to whom Maximus is not mentioned as tutor to the emperor, and the reading of Georgius Syncellus [Georgius, No. 46], who appears to have transcribed Eusebius, and according to whom Maximos held that office in conjunction with Apollonius of Chalcedon [Apollonius, No. 11], and Basileides of Scythopolis [Basileides, No. 2]. Even if we accept the reading of Syncellus, as representing the genuine text of Eusebius, it is not improbable that the statement may have arisen from the latter confounding Claudius Maximus, the Stoic, with Maximus of Tyre. Tillemont contends earnestly (Hist. des Empereurs, vol. ii. p. 550, note 11, sur l'Emp. Tite Antonin.) for the identity of the two persons, following in this the judgment of Jos. Scaliger, Jac. Cappellus, Dan. Heinsius, and Barthius. According to Suidas (s. v. Μάξιμος Τύριος) Maximus resided at Rome in the time of the emperor Commodus, and the title of the MS. of the Dissertationes Maximi, in the King's Library at Paris, used by Heinsius, Μαξίμου Τυρίου πλατωνικοῦ Ἐπιδημίας τῶν ἐν Ῥώμῃ διαλέξεων τῆς πρώτης ἐπιδημίας λόγοι μά, Maximi Tyrii Platonici Philosophi Dissertationum Romae, quum ibi primo versaretur, compositarum, &c., gives reason to believe that he resided there at least twice. Davis, indeed, disputes this, and conjectures from intimations contained in the work itself that only a few of the dissertations (five or perhaps seven) were written at Rome, that others were written in Greece, in which country he thinks Maximus passed a longer period of his life than at Rome. Certainly, while his works contain abundant allusions to Grecian history, there is scarcely a single reference to that of Rome. In one passage (Dissert. 8.8), Maximus states that he had seen the sacred rivers Marsyas and Maeander at Celaenae in Phrygia. He probably also had visited Paphos, in the isle of Cyprus, Mount Olympus, in Asia Minor, and perhaps Aetna, in Sicily, with which he contrasts Olympus; and as lie had seen also the quadrangular stone which the Arabs worshipped as an image or emblem of their deity, it is most likely that he had been in Arabia. (Maxim. Dissert. ibid.) But he does not appear to have resided in these places, but only to have visited them in the course of his travels, which must have been extensive. The time of his death is not known. Works Διαλέξεις (Dissertationes)

The title of his only extant work is variously given as Διαλέξεις, Dissertationes, or Λόγοι, Sermones. It consists of forty-one dissertations on theological, ethical, and other philosophical subjects. Heinsius thinks that the author arranged them in ten Tetralogia, or sets of four each, according to the subjects; and in one of his notes he conjecturally gives what he regards as their correct order. The Dissertatio Ὅτι πρὸς πᾶσαν ὑπόθεσιν ἁρμόσεται τοῦ Φιλοσόφου λόγος, Omni subjecto philosophiam convenire, he considers to have been the pröem or introduction to the whole work. Other works

The works Περὶ Ὁμήρον κὰ τίς ἡ παῤ αὐτῷ ἀρχαία φιλοσοφία, De Homero et quae sit apud eum antiqua Philosophia, and Εἰ καλῶς Σωκράτης οὐκ ἀπελογήσατο, Rectene Socrates feceril, quod accusatus non responderit, mentioned by Suidas (l.c.), appear to be two of the Dissertationes, Nos. 16 and 39, in the editions of Heinsius and first of Davis, and Nos. 32 and 9 in Davis's second and Reiske's editions.

Some Scholia in Cratylum Platonis, by Maximus of Tyre, were formerly extant in the Palatine Library. Editions

The Dissertationes were first printed in the Latin version of Cosmus Paccius, archbishop of Florence, made from a MS. of the original which Janus Lascaris had brought from Greece into Italy to Lorenzo de' Medici. This version was published fol. Rome, 1517, by Petrus Paccius, the translator's brother: again, fol. Basil. 1519, and in a smaller form at Paris, 1554.

The Greek text was first printed by Hen. Stephanus, 8vo. Paris, 1557, accompanied, but in a separate volume, by the version of Paccius. The edition of Heinsius, from a MS. in the King's Library at Paris (with the title quoted above), with a new Latin version and notes by the editor, was printed 8vo. Leyden, 1607 and again 1614, and without the notes, A. D. 1630. It has been reprinted once or twice since then. In the first edition the Latin version and the notes formed separate volumes. Heinsius did not follow either the arrangement of his MS. or his own suggested arrangement in Tetralogia. The first edition of Davis, fellow of Queen's College, Cambridge, with the version of Heinsius, whose arrangement he adopted, and short notes, was published, 8vo. Cambridge, 1703; the second and more important edition, in which the text was carefully revised and a different arrangement of the Dissertationes was adopted, was published after the editor's death by Dr. John Ward, the Gresham professor, with valuable notes, by Jeremiah Markland, 4to. London, 1740. This second edition of Davis was reprinted with some corrections and additional notes by Jo. Jac. Reiske, 2 vols. 8vo. Lips. 1774-5. Another possible reference to Maximus

Fed. Morellus conjectured, but on insufficient grounds, that Maximus was the Tyrian sophist mentioned by Libanius (Orat. xix. pro Saltatoribits) as having written an Ἐντάφιος λόγος, Oratio Funebris, for the Trojan Paris.

The merits of Maximus of Tyre have been variously estimated. Reiske, who undertook the charge of the Leipzig edition, at the request of the bookseller, when worn down by increasing years and long literary labours, especially in editing Plutarch, speaks of Maximus as a tedious, affected writer, who degraded the most elevated and important subjects by his trivial and puerile mode of treating them. But Markland, while admitting and blaming the haste and inaccuracy of Maximus, praises his acuteness, ability, and learning. He thinks that Maximus published two editions of his Dissertationes; in the second of which by the version of Paccius, the Parisian MS. followed by Heinsius, and the Harleian MS., one of those employed by Davis for his second edition) he corrected the errors in argument of the first edition, but left uncorrected the numerous errors as to historical facts. (Fabric. Biblioth. Graec. vol. i. p. 516, vol. iii. p. 77, vol. v. p. 515, &c.; Heinsius, Davis, Markland, alii, Praefat. Notae &c. ad Opera Maximi Tyrii.) [J.C.M]

1. M'. Valerius (VOLUSI F.)Volusus Maximus, was thefirst of the Valerian house who bore the surname of Maximus. He was a brother of P. Valerius Poplicola, and was dictator in B. C. 494, when the dissensions between the burghers and commonalty of Rome de Nexis were at the highest. Valerius was popular with the plebs, and induced them to enlist for the Sabine and Aequian wars, by promising that when the enemy was repulsed, the condition of the debtors (nexi) should be alleviated. He defeated and triumphed over the Sabines; but unable to fulfil his promise to the commons, resigned his dictatorship. The plebs, seeing that Valerius at least had kept faith with them, escorted him honourably home. As he was advanced in life at the time of his dictatorship, he probably died soon after. (Dionys. A. R. 6.39-45; Liv. 2.30, 31; Cic. Brut. 14.)

2. M. Valerius VOLUSI N. Lactuca Maximus, M'. F., son of the preceding, was consul in B. C. 456. He opposed Icilius, tribune of the plebs, in his efforts to assign the Aventine hill to the conmons. 2 (Dionys. A. R. 10.31-33; Liv. 3.31.) The cognomen Lactuca, lettuce, a favourite esculent of the early Romans (Mart. 10.14) belongs to the same class of surnames as Cicer (Cicero) (Plin. Nat. 18.3; Plut. Cic. 1) and Stolo in the Licinian family. (Varr. R. R. 1.2.)

3. M. Valerius Lactucinus Maximus, M. F. M. N., was one of the military tribunes, with consular power, in B. C. 398 and 395. (Liv. 5.14, 24.)

4. M. Valerius Maximus, M. F. M. N., was four times praetor and consul in B. C. 312. His province was Samnium, and it afforded him a De Samlnitibus Soraneisque (Fasti). He was legatus to the dictator, Papirius Cursor, in B. C. 308, and censor iln B. C. 307, when he extended or improved the roads through the demesne lands. (Liv. 9.29, 40, 41, 43.)

5. M. Valerius Maximus, M. F. M. N., with the agnomen Corvinus, derived from his father, M. Valerius Corvus, who was five times consul in the Samnite wars. He was consul in B. . 289 (Fasti). From the loss of Livy's second decade, the history of his consulship is lost.

6. M. Valerius Maximus, with the agnomen Potitus, was consul in B. C. 286. The agitation attending the Hortensian laws occupied the consuls of this year. (Fast.; Plin. Nat. 16.10.)

7. MA. Valerius Maximus, was consul in A. D. 253, 256. (Fasti.) [W.B.D]

Valerius Maximus, to whom the praenomen Marcus is assigned in one of the best MSS., and that of Publius in another, is known to us as the compiler of a large collection of historical anecdotes, entitled De Factis Dictisque Memorabilibus Libri IX., arranged under different heads, the sayings and doings of Roman worthies being, moreover, kept distinct in each division from those of foreigners. No reasonable doubt can be entertained with regard to the period when he fourished. The dedication is indeed couched in such general terms, that the adulation might apply to almost any Caesar; but when we find the writer speaking of himself as removed by two generations only from M. Antonius the orator (6.8.1), when we remark the studied abhorrence everywhere expressed towards Brutus and Cassius (6.4.5, 1.8.8), and the eager flattery so lavishly heaped upon the Julian line, we at once conclude that he lived under the first emperors. The description of the reigning prince as one descended from both of the two illustrious censors, Claudius Nero and Livius Salinator (9.2.6), distinctly marks out Tiberius; and, this point being fixed, we can determine that the parricide, whose treason and destruction form the theme of a glowing invective (9.11.4), must be the notorious Sejanus. The opinion hazarded by some of the earlier scholars, that we ought to regard this Valerius Maximus as the same person with the consul of that name who held office for the first time under Volusianus in A. D. 253, and for second time under Gallienus in A. D. 256, seems to be totally devoid of any foundation, and is directly contradicted not only by the evidence recited above, but also by the fact that the Valerius Maximus whom we are now considering is referred to by the elder Pliny (H. N. i. ind. lib. vii.), by Plutarch (Marcell. sub fin.), and by Aulus Gellius (12.7), the testimony of the last especially being quite impregnable. Of his personal history we know nothing, except the solitary circumstance, recorded by himself, that he accompanied, but in what capacity we are not told, Sex. Pompeius into Asia (2.6.8), the Sextus Pompeius apparently who was consul A. D. 14, at the time when Augustus died, and who was the first to render homage to his successor. Works De Factis Dictisque Memorabilibus Libri IX.

The subjects treated of are of a character so miscellaneous, that it would be impossible, without transcribing the short notices placed at the head of each chapter, to convey a clear idea of the contents. In some books the topics selected for illustration are closely allied to each other, in others no bond of union can be traced. Thus the first book is entirley, devoted to matters connected with sacred rites, and we have a succession of narratives: De Religione Obscurata, De Religione Neglecta, De Religione Simulata, De Religione Peregrina Rejecta, De Auspiciis, De Ominibus, De Prodigiis, De Somniis, De Miraculis; the second book relates chiefly to certain remarkable civil institutions; the third, fourth, fifth and sixth, to the more prominent social virtues; but in the seventh the chapters De Strategematis, De Repulsis, are abruptly followed by those De Necessitate, De Testamentis Rescissis, De Ratis Testamentis et Insperatis. Upon observing the symmetry which prevails in some places with the disorder so perceptible in others, we feel strongly disposed to conjecture that particular sections may have been at one time circulated separately, and afterwards collected without due attention being paid to their proper collocation; while at the same time we are impressed with the conviction that a much more suitable and natural disposition of the different parts might be introduced. In this way something like a general plan would become visible; for without going so far as to assert that the whole ought to be regarded in the light of a formal treatise on morality, taught by examples, it is even now very evident that the greater number of the stories are designed to illustrate some great moral principle. In an historical point of view the work is by no means without value, since it preserves a record of many curious events not to be found elsewhere; but from the errors actually detected upon points where we possess more precise information, it is manifest that we must not repose implicit confidence in the statements unless where they are corroborated by collateral testimony. The writer is much too eager to make a strong impression, and is willing to sacrifice both simplicity and probability for the sake of astonishing and confounding his readers. The style, in like manner, although not destitute of force and point, is throughout constrained and ambitious, full of violent antitheses and harsh metaphors, cumbrous and obscure. The Latinity which was pronounced by Erasmus to bear no more resemblance to that of Cicero than a mule does to a man, is of such anl inferior stamp that many critics have been unable to persuade themselves that it could have proceeded from one who bordered closely upon the Augustan age, and hence have been driven to adopt the hypothesis that what we now possess is not really the production of Valerius Maximus, but a series of extracts from h im, collected and compressed by a later hand, according to the plan pursued by Justin towards Trogus Pompeius [Justinus]; and Vossius supposes that this task was performed by a certain Julius Paris. Without dwelling upon the à priori argument, which is, however, very convincing, that the pages now before us contain many ornaments, many diffuse descriptions, and many grandiloquent periods, which would have been omitted, curtailed, and tamed down by an epitomator, we must make stome inquiries into the extent of the original work, and these will be found to bear directly upon the origin and plausibility of the theory which we have just stated. MSS

All the most important MSS. and the earliest printed editions present us with nine books and no More. But to a few codices a short tract is found appended on the history and import of the praenomen among the Romans. To this are usually prefixed two brief introductions, first pabli.,hed from MSS. by Pighilus. One professes to be C. Titi Probi in Epitomen suam Praefatiatio, the other is anonymous; but both regard this fragments as belonging to an abridgment of a tenth book of Valerius Maximus, which is supposed to have discussed all the different names in use; and the second preface ascribes the abridgement expressly to " Julius Paris, the abbreviator of Valerius," who, it is added, entitled it Liber Decimus de Praenominibus et similibus. Now, although the " Epitome de Nominum Ratione," as it is sometimes called, does not, as it stands, bear the slightest resemblance in form or in substance to the Memorabilia, and although it is hard to understand how it could, from whatever source derived, have been in any way connected with it, we are fully entitled to infer from these little prefaces that Valerius Maximus had been abridged by a Titus Probus, and by a Julius Paris ; and, in addition to these two, a letter published by Labbe (biblioth. MSS. vol. i. p. 669) furnishes us with the name of a third epitomator, Januarius Nepotianus. the belief, however, that what now passes as the work of Valerius Maximus was, in truth, one of these abridgments, has been Completely everthrownm in so far as Parise and Nepotianus are concerned, by the researches of Angelo Mai, who detected in the library of the Vatican MSS. of these very abridgements, and printed them in his " Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio e Vaticanis Codicibus edita," 4to. Rom. 1828, vol. iii. pt. iii. p. 1-116. The abridgement of Julius Paris includes the whole of the nine books, and also the Liber Decimus de Praenominibus, which terminates, it would seem, abruptly, for the index at the beginning of the MS. promises six chapters, De Praenominsibus, De Nominibus, De Cognominibus, De Agnomninibus, De Appellationibus, De Verbis, of which the first only is extant. There is a dedication likewise to a Licinius Cyriacus, in which Paris declares "decem Valerii Maximi libros dictorum et factorum melmorabilium ad unum volumen epitomae coegi." This piece was unquestionably executed at a very early period, for the phraseology is very pure, and is by no means a close transcript of the original, from which the epitomator departs not only in words, but occasionally in facts also, as may be seen from the examples quoted in Mai (praef. xxii.). The abridgement of Nepotianus again is very inmperfect, breaking off in the second chapter of the third book : it belongs to a later epoch than the former, but is quite independent of it, it is more brief, passes over several of the examples given by Valerius, and substitutes others in their room. We are led to surmise that the same MS. may at one time have embraced the abridgement of Probus also, for subjoined to the conclusion of Julius Paris we read the title C. Titi PROBI FINIT Epitoma Historiarum Diversorum Exemplorumque Romanorum. Feliciter Emendavi Descriptum Rabennae Rusticius Helpidius Domnulus, V. C. If these words stand upon a separate leaf, which is not quite certain from the description of Mai, we should be induced to conclude that a large number of sheets had been left out in binding up the MS., and that these had comprehended the five missing sections, "De Nominum Ratione," together with the whole abridgement of Probus. Although the question with respect to the tenth book of Valerius is involved in greater obscurity than ever by the result of the above investigations, we may now feel certain that the second and third of the three propositions by which Vossius endeavoured to get rid of the difficulties by which the subject is embarrassed, cannot be maintained. These were: 1. That Julius Paris was the epitomator of the nine books of Valerius Maximus; 2. That he was the author of the essay " De Nominum Ratione ;" 3. That Probus merely drew up an epitome of the essay by Julius Paris.

Finally, we must not omit to point out that even before the discovery of Mai the abridgment by Paris was not altogether unknown. There is a blank in the MSS. of Valerius Maximus extending from 1.1.5, of the " externa exempla," down to the end of chapter IV. This hiatus Aldus filled up by an extract supplied to him by Cuspiniianus, from the epitome of Paris then existing at Vienna; and this has been retained in all subsequent editions, so that what we now read within the above limits are not the words of Maximus, but of Paris.

Besides the abridgements already specified, Mai found no less than three more among the MSS. of the Vatican, two of them anonymous; the third by " John the son of Andrew ;" and so late as the end of the fifteenth century Robert de Valla and J. Hinorius arranged similar excerpta, which were published, the former in 4to., without date and without name of place or printer, but about 1500, the latter at Leipzig, 4to. 1503. These facts prove how highly the Memorabilia was valued as a storehouse where rhetoricians could at all times find a large and varied stock of striking illustrations ready for use; and Paris informs us that his epitome was intended to render these treasures more available to debaters and declaimers. Editions

The Editio Princeps of Valerius Maximus, according to the best bibliographers, is a folio in Gothic characters, without date and without any name of place or printer, but which is known to have been the work of J. Mentelin of Strasburg, and to have appeared about 1470: this and two other very old impressions, one by Peter Schoyfer, fol. Mount. 1471, the other by Vindelin de Spira, fol. Venet. 1471, contest the honour of being the first, and in addition, upwards of fourteen distinct editions, were published before 1490, a sure indication of the high estimation in which the book was held.

The first critical edition was that of Aldus, 8vo. Venet. 1502; and the text was gradually improved by the labours of Paulus Manutius, 8vo. Venet. 1534; of Steph. Pighius, who filled up many blanks from MSS., but did not bestow sufficient time upon his task, 8vo. Antv. Plantin. 1657.; of Vorstius, 8vo. Berol. 1672; and especially of Torrenius, 4to. Leid. 1726, whose text is still the standard, although some improvements were introduced by Kappius, 8vo. Lips. 1782; and much still remains in a most unsatisfactory condition. Translations

We have an English translation, The History of the Acts and Sayiings of the Ancient Romans, written by Valerius Maximus, translated into English by W. Speed, 8vo. Lond. 1678; another by Charles Lloyd was advertised in 1814; but it seems doubtful whether it was ever published. There is a very old half translation, half commentary, in French, by Simon de Hesdin and Nicolas de Gonesse, commenced by the former as early as 1364, finished by the latter about 1405, and printed without date or name of place about 1476. See Mémoires d(e l'Académie de Belles Lettres, vol. xxxvi. p. 165. There are also several translations into French, Italian, and German, the most recent in the three languages respectively being those by Fremion, 3 vols. 8vo. Paris, 1827; by Michaele Battagia, 2 vols. 8vo. Treviro, 1821; and by Hoffmann, 5 vols. 16vo. Stuttgard, 1828. [W.R]

Fabius. See Fabius.

A Roman emperor, A.D. 383-388, in Gaul, Britain, and Spain, was a native of Spain. He was proclaimed emperor by the legions in Britain in 383, and forthwith crossed over to Gaul to oppose Gratian, who was defeated by Maximus, and was shortly afterwards put to death. Theodosius found it expedient to recognize Maximus as emperor of Gaul, Britain, and Spain, in order to secure Valentinian in the possession of Italy. Maximus, however, aspired to the undivided empire of the West, and accordingly, in 387, he invaded Italy at the head of a formidable army. Valentinian was unable to resist him, and fled to Theodosius in the East. Theodosius forthwith prepared to avenge his colleague. In 388 he forced his way through the Noric Alps, which had been guarded by the troops of Maximus, and shortly afterwards took the city of Aquileia by storm and there put Maximus to death. Victor, the son of Maximus, was defeated and slain in Gaul by Arbogastes, the general of Theodosius.

Petronius. A Roman emperor, A.D. 455, belonged to a noble Roman family, and enjoyed some of the highest offices of State under Honorius and Valentinian III. In consequence of the violence offered to his wife by Valentinian, Maximus formed a conspiracy against this emperor, who was assassinated, and Maximus proclaimed emperor in his stead. His reign, however, lasted only two or three months. Having forced Eudoxia, the widow of Valentinian, to marry him, she resolved to avenge the death of her former husband, and accordingly Genseric was invited to invade Italy. When Genseric landed at the mouth of the Tiber, Maximus prepared to fly from Rome, but was slain by a band of Burgundian mercenaries, commanded by some old officers of Valentinian.

A learned Greek monk of the Byzantine period, and distinguished as a theologian and philologist. He lived from A.D. 1260 to 1330, and took some part in public life, being sent by Andronicus II. in 1327 as ambassador to Venice. His writings comprise treatises on grammar and syntax, scholia to Theocritus and Hermogenes, a collection of excerpts from Plato, Aristotle, Strabo, Dio Cassius, etc., and translations from Latin into Greek (e. g. Caesar's De Bello Gallico, Cicero's Somnium Scipionis, the Metamorphoses and Heroides of Ovid, and Boethius, De Consolatione); but, above all, he is remembered for his famous collection known as the Anthologia Planudea, which was the only Greek anthology known to Western Europe until 1606, when Salmasius discovered the older and richer collection of Cephalas at Heidelberg. See Professor Alfred Gudeman in Calvary's Berl. Stud. viii. 3 (1888), and in the Proc. of the American Philological Assoc. xx. pp. 6 foll.; also M. Treu's commentary on the Epistulae of Planudes (Breslau, 1890); A. Palmer, Ovid's Heroides (Oxford, 1894); and the article Anthology.

Valerius, q. v.