Magnus Maximus: a Nicene usurper.

The fourth-century usurper Magnus Maximus is typically treated as little more than a footnote in Roman history. This essay argues, however, for his importance as an exemplar of the increasingly complex relationship between Roman emperor and Christian bishops in the period between Constantine and Theodosius. From the beginning of his reign, Maximus sought to present himself as a Christian emperor according to a radically different model than that employed by previous rulers. This essay argues that this self-presentation is best understood in the context of the Arian Controversy, and in particular the victory of a Nicene faction that had made the assertion of episcopal independence a central theological plank, and buttressed it with many means for delegitimizing Emperors. This essay makes its case through close readings of Maximus' own surviving letters, of texts from Ambrose of Milan, and of the works of Sulpicius Severus. Even before his defeat and execution by Theodosius, Maximus found himself embroiled in conflicts with bishops; including the decision of Ambrose to support the "heretical" Valentinian II against him and the decision of the bishop of Rome and others to condemn Maximus' execution of the heretic Priscillian of Avila for heresy. Maximus' ecclesial entanglements thus paradoxically opened him up to Christian moral critique and ecclesial-judicial rejection in a manner frequently destructive of the assumptions of Late Roman Imperial rule. At the same time, through his close relationships with Nicene ascetics and bishops, Maximus accessed alternate means of gaining and maintaining power, shaping his public image, and competing with rival emperors, means that served him well while alive and preserved after his death a more extensive and positive written record of his reign than of any other Late Antique usurper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]