loitering about in the streets, like a shameless dog, foul and greedy (κύων, κυνίσκος, ἀμφόδων ὑπηρέτης). More than once he earned a flogging for his misdeeds and was finally banished to the Oasis. We hear of him next at Corinth, with a high reputation for religion, leading about a band of females—"the swan of the flock"—under colour of devotion (Carm. cxlviii. p. 450). Soon after Gregory Nazianzen had begun to reside there, Maximus shifted to Constantinople. Gregory devotes a considerable number of the biting iambics of his poem, de Vita Sua, to this man, who, however, before long completely gained his ear and heart. Maximus professed the most unbounded admiration for Gregory's discourses, praising them in private and in public. His zeal against heretics was most fierce and his denunciations of them uncompromising. The simple-hearted Gregory was completely duped by Maximus, even delivering a panegyrical oration, in the man's own presence in full church, before the celebration of the Eucharist, inviting him to stand by his side and receive the crown of victory. Meanwhile, Maximus was secretly maturing a plot for ousting his unsuspicious patron from his throne. He imposed upon Peter of Alexandria, who lent himself to Maximus's projects. Maximus found a ready tool in a presbyter of Constantinople envious of Gregory's talents and popularity (de Vit. p. 13). Others were gained by bribes. Seven unscrupulous sailors were dispatched from Alexandria to mix with the people and watch for a favourable opportunity for carrying out the plot. When all was ripe they were followed by a bevy of bishops, with secret instructions from the patriarch to consecrate Maximus. The conspirators chose a night when Gregory was confined by illness, burst into the cathedral, and commenced the consecration. They had set the Cynic on the archiepiscopal throne and had just begun shearing away his long curls when the day dawned. The news quickly spread and everybody rushed to the church. The magistrates appeared with their officers; Maximus and his consecrators were driven from the cathedral, and in the tenement of a flute-player the tonsure was completed. Maximus repaired to Thessalonica to lay his cause before Theodosius. He met with a cold reception from the emperor, who committed the matter to Ascholius, the much respected bp. of that city, charging him to refer it to pope Damasus. We have two letters from Damasus asking for special care that a Catholic bishop maybe ordained (Migne, Patr. Lat. xiii. pp. 366–369; Epp. 5, 5, 6). Maximus returned to Alexandria, and demanded that Peter should assist him in re-establishing himself at Constantinople. Peter appealed to the prefect, by whom Maximus was driven out of Egypt. As the death of Peter and the accession of Timotheus are placed Feb. 14, 380, these events must have occurred in 379. When the second oecumenical council met at Constantinople in 381, Maximus's claim to the see of Constantinople was unanimously rejected, the last of its original four canons decreeing "that he neither was nor is a bishop, nor are they who have been ordained by him in any rank of the clergy" (Labbe, Concil. ii. 947, 954, 959).
Maximus appealed from the Eastern to the Western church. In the autumn of 381 a synod held either at Aquileia or at Milan under Ambrose's presidency considered Maximus's claims. Having only his own representations to guide them, and there being no question that Gregory's translation was uncanonical, while the election of Nectarius was open to grave censure as that of an unbaptized layman, Maximus also exhibiting letters from Peter the late venerable patriarch, to confirm his asserted communion with the church of Alexandria, it is not surprising that the Italian bishops pronounced decidedly in favour of Maximus and refused to recognize either Gregory or Nectarius. A letter of Ambrose and his brother-prelates to Theodosius (Ep. xiii. c. i. § 3) remonstrates against the acts of Nectarius as no rightful bishop, since the chair of Constantinople belonged to Maximus, whose restoration they demanded, as well as that a general council of Easterns and Westerns, to settle the disputed episcopate and that of Antioch, should be held at Rome. In 382 a provincial synod held at Rome, having received more accurate information, finally rejected Maximus's claims (Hefele, Hist. of Councils, i. pp. 359, 378, 381, Eng. trans.). Jerome tells us that Maximus sought to strengthen his cause by writing against the Arians, and presented the work to Gratian at Milan. He appears also to have written against Gregory, the latter replying in a set of caustic iambics (Carm. clxviii. p. 250) expressing astonishment at one so ignorant venturing on a literary composition. Theod. H. E. v. 8; cf. Soz. H. E. vii. 9; Greg. Naz. Orat. xxii. xxviii.; Carm. 1 de Vita sua; Carm. cxlviii.; Tillem. Mém. eccl. ix. 444–456, 501–503.
[E.V.]
Maximus (15), patriarch of Antioch. After the deposition of Domnus II., patriarch of Antioch, by the "Latrocinium" of Ephesus, a.d. 449, Dioscorus persuaded the weak Theodosius to fill the vacancy with one of the clergy of Constantinople. Maximus was selected and ordained, in violation of all canonical orders, by Anatolius bp. of Constantinople, without the official sanction of the clergy or people of Antioch. Maximus, though owing his elevation to an heretical synod, gained a reputation for orthodoxy in the conduct of his diocese and province. He dispatched "epistolae tractoriae" through the churches subject to him as metropolitan, requiring the signatures of the bishops to Leo's famous "tome" and to another document condemning both Nestorius and Eutyches (Leo Magn. Ep. ad Paschas. 88 [68], June 451). Having thus discreetly assured his position, he was summoned to the council of Chalcedon in Oct. 451, and took his seat without question, and when the illegal acts of the "Latrocinium" were quashed, including the deposition of the other prelates, a special exception was made of the substitution of Maximus for Domnus on the express ground that Leo had opened communion with him and recognized his episcopate (Labbe, iv. 682). His most important controversy at Chalcedon was with Juvenal of Jerusalem regarding the limits of their respective patriarchates. It was long and bitter; at
