MAXIMINUS[Maximin],GALERIUS VALERIUS,Roman emperor fromA.D.308 to 314, was originally an Illyrian shepherd named Daia. He rose to high distinction after he had joined the army, and in 305 he was raised by his uncle, Galerius, to the rank of Caesar, with the government of Syria and Egypt. In 308, after the elevation of Licinius, he insisted on receiving the title of Augustus; on the death of Galerius, in 311, he succeeded to the supreme command of the provinces of Asia, and when Licinius and Constantine began to make common cause with one another Maximinus entered into a secret alliance with Maxentius. He came to an open rupture with Licinius in 313, sustained a crushing defeat in the neighbourhood of Heraclea Pontica on the 30th of April, and fled, first to Nicomedia and afterwards to Tarsus, where he died in August following. His death was variously ascribed “to despair, to poison, and to the divine justice.†Maximinus has a bad name in Christian annals, as having renewed persecution after the publication of the toleration edict of Galerius, but it is probable that he has been judged too harshly.
SeeMaxentius; Zosimus ii. 8; Aurelius Victor,Epit. 40.
SeeMaxentius; Zosimus ii. 8; Aurelius Victor,Epit. 40.
MAXIMS, LEGAL.A maxim is an established principle or proposition. The Latin termmaximais not to be found in Roman law with any meaning exactly analogous to that of a legal maxim in the modern sense of the word, but the treatises of many of the Roman jurists onRegulae definitiones, andSententiae jurisare, in some measure, collections of maxims (see an article on “Latin Maxims in English Law†inLaw Mag. and Rev.xx. 285); Fortescue (De laudibus, c. 8) and Du Cange treatmaximaandregulaas identical. The attitude of early English commentators towards the maxims of the law was one of unmingled adulation. InDoctor and Student(p. 26) they are described as “of the same strength and effect in the law as statutes be.†Coke (Co.Litt.11 A) says that a maxim is so called “Quia maxima est ejus dignitas et certissima auctoritas, atque quod maxime omnibus probetur.†“Not only,†observes Bacon in the Preface to hisCollection of Maxims, “will the use of maxims be in deciding doubt and helping soundness of judgment, but, further, in gracing argument, in correcting unprofitable subtlety, and reducing the same to a more sound and substantial sense of law, in reclaiming vulgar errors, and, generally, in the amendment in some measure of the very nature and complexion of the whole law.†A similar note was sounded in Scotland; and it has been well observed that “a glance at the pages of Morrison’sDictionaryor at other early reports will show how frequently in the older Scots law questions respecting the rights, remedies and liabilities of individuals were determined by an immediate reference to legal maxims†(J. M. Irving,Encyclo. Scots Law, s.v. “Maximsâ€). In later times less value has been attached to the maxims of the law, as the development of civilization and the increasing complexity of business relations have shown the necessity of qualifying the propositions which they enunciate (see Stephen,Hist. Crim. Law, ii. 94n: Yarmouthv.France, 1887, 19 Q.B.D., per Lord Esher, at p. 653, and American authorities collected in Bouvier’sLaw Dict. s.v.“Maximâ€). But both historically and practically they must always possess interest and value.
A brief reference need only be made here, with examples by way of illustration, to the field which the maxims of the law cover.Commencing with rules founded on public policy, we may note the famous principle—Salus populi suprema lex(xii. Tables: Bacon,Maxims, reg. 12)—“the public welfare is the highest law.†It is on this maxim that the coercive action of the State towards individual liberty in a hundred matters is based. To the same category belong the maxims—Summa ratio est quae pro religione facit(Co.Litt.341 a)—“the best rule is that which advances religionâ€â€”a maxim which finds its application when the enforcement of foreign laws or judgments supposed to violate our own laws or the principles of natural justice is in question; andDies dominicus non est juridicus, which exempts Sunday from the lawful days for juridical acts. Among the maxims relating to the crown, the most important areRex non potest peccare(2 Rolle R. 304)—“The King can do no wrongâ€â€”which enshrines the principle of ministerial responsibility, andNullum tempus occurrit regi(2 Co. Inst. 273)—“lapse of time does not bar the crown,†a maxim qualified by various enactments in modern times. Passing to the judicial office and the administration of justice, we may refer to the rules—Audi alteram partem—a proposition too familiar to need either translation or comment;Nemo debet esse judex in propriâ suâ causâ(12 Co.Rep.114)—“no man ought to be judge in his own causeâ€â€”a maxim which French law, and the legal systems based upon or allied to it, have embodied in an elaborate network of rules for judicial challenge; and the maxim which defines the relative functions of judge and jury,Ad quaestionem facti non respondent judices, ad quaestionem legis non respondent juratores(8 Co.Rep.155). The maximBoni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem(Ch. Prec. 329) is certainly erroneous as it stands, as a judge has no right to “extend his jurisdiction.†Ifjustitiamis substituted forjurisdictionem, as Lord Mansfield said it should be (1 Burr. 304), the maxim is near the truth. A group of maxims supposed to embody certain fundamental principles of legal right and obligations may next be referred to: (a)Ubi jus ibi remedium(see Co.Litt.197 b)—a maxim to which the evolution of the flexible “action on the case,†by which wrongs unknown to the “original writs†were dealt with, was historically due, but which must be taken with the glossDamnum absque injuria—“there are forms of actual damage which do not constitute legal injury†for which the law supplies no remedy; (b)Actus Dei nemini facit injuriam(2 Blackstone, 122)—and its allied maxim,Lex non cogit ad impossibilia(Co.Litt.231 b)—on which the whole doctrine ofvis major(force majeure) and impossible conditions in the law of contract has beenbuilt up. In this category may also be classedVolenti non fit injuria(Wingate,Maxims), out of which sprang the theory—now profoundly modified by statute—of “common employment†in the law of employers’ liability; seeSmithv.Baker, 1891, A.C. 325. Other maxims deal with rights of property—Qui prior est tempore, potior est jure(Co.Litt.14 a), which consecrates the position of thebeati possidentesalike in municipal and in international law;Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas(9 Co.Rep.59), which has played its part in the determination of the rights of adjacent owners; andDomus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium(5 Co.Rep.92)—“a man’s house is his castle,†a doctrine which has imposed limitations on the rights of execution creditors (seeExecution). In the laws of family relations there are the maximsConsensus non concubitus facit matrimonium(Co.Litt.33 a)—the canon law of Europe prior to the council of Trent, and still law in Scotland, though modified by legislation in England; andPater is est quem nuptiae demonstrant(see Co.Litt.7 b), on which, in most civilized countries, the presumption of legitimacy depends. In the interpretation of written instruments, the maximNoscitur a sociis(3Term Reports, 87), which proclaims the importance of the context, still applies. So do the rulesExpressio unius est exclusio alterius(Co.Litt.210 a), andContemporanea expositio est optima et fortissima in lege(2 Co.Inst.11), which lets in evidence of contemporaneous user as an aid to the interpretation of statutes or documents; seeVan Diemen’s Land Co.v.Table Cape Marine Board, 1906, A.C. 92, 98. We may conclude this sketch with a miscellaneous summary:Caveat emptor(Hob. 99)—“let the purchaser bewareâ€;Qui facit per alium facile per se, which affirms the principal’s liability for the acts of his agent;Ignorantia juris neminem excusat, on which rests the ordinary citizen’s obligation to know the law; andVigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt(2 Co.Inst.690), one of the maxims in accordance with which courts of equity administer relief. Among other “maxims of equity†come the rules that “he that seeks equity must do equity,â€i.e.must act fairly, and that “equity looks upon that as done which ought to be doneâ€â€”a principle from which the “conversion†into money of land directed to be sold, and of money directed to be invested in the purchase of land, is derived.The principal collections of legal maxims are:English Law: Bacon,Collection of Some Principal Rules and Maxims of the Common Law(1630); Noy,Treatise of the principal Grounds and Maxims of the Law of England(1641, 8th ed., 1824); Wingate,Maxims of Reason(1728); Francis,Grounds and Rudiments of Law and Equity(2nd ed. 1751); Lofft (annexed to his Reports, 1776); Broom,Legal Maxims(7th ed. London, 1900).Scots Law: Lord Trayner,Latin Maxims and Phrases(2nd ed., 1876); Stair,Institutions of the Law of Scotland, with Index by More (Edinburgh, 1832).American Treatises: A. I. Morgan,English Version of Legal Maxims(Cincinnati, 1878); S. S. Peloubet,Legal Maxims in Law and Equity(New York, 1880).
A brief reference need only be made here, with examples by way of illustration, to the field which the maxims of the law cover.
Commencing with rules founded on public policy, we may note the famous principle—Salus populi suprema lex(xii. Tables: Bacon,Maxims, reg. 12)—“the public welfare is the highest law.†It is on this maxim that the coercive action of the State towards individual liberty in a hundred matters is based. To the same category belong the maxims—Summa ratio est quae pro religione facit(Co.Litt.341 a)—“the best rule is that which advances religionâ€â€”a maxim which finds its application when the enforcement of foreign laws or judgments supposed to violate our own laws or the principles of natural justice is in question; andDies dominicus non est juridicus, which exempts Sunday from the lawful days for juridical acts. Among the maxims relating to the crown, the most important areRex non potest peccare(2 Rolle R. 304)—“The King can do no wrongâ€â€”which enshrines the principle of ministerial responsibility, andNullum tempus occurrit regi(2 Co. Inst. 273)—“lapse of time does not bar the crown,†a maxim qualified by various enactments in modern times. Passing to the judicial office and the administration of justice, we may refer to the rules—Audi alteram partem—a proposition too familiar to need either translation or comment;Nemo debet esse judex in propriâ suâ causâ(12 Co.Rep.114)—“no man ought to be judge in his own causeâ€â€”a maxim which French law, and the legal systems based upon or allied to it, have embodied in an elaborate network of rules for judicial challenge; and the maxim which defines the relative functions of judge and jury,Ad quaestionem facti non respondent judices, ad quaestionem legis non respondent juratores(8 Co.Rep.155). The maximBoni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem(Ch. Prec. 329) is certainly erroneous as it stands, as a judge has no right to “extend his jurisdiction.†Ifjustitiamis substituted forjurisdictionem, as Lord Mansfield said it should be (1 Burr. 304), the maxim is near the truth. A group of maxims supposed to embody certain fundamental principles of legal right and obligations may next be referred to: (a)Ubi jus ibi remedium(see Co.Litt.197 b)—a maxim to which the evolution of the flexible “action on the case,†by which wrongs unknown to the “original writs†were dealt with, was historically due, but which must be taken with the glossDamnum absque injuria—“there are forms of actual damage which do not constitute legal injury†for which the law supplies no remedy; (b)Actus Dei nemini facit injuriam(2 Blackstone, 122)—and its allied maxim,Lex non cogit ad impossibilia(Co.Litt.231 b)—on which the whole doctrine ofvis major(force majeure) and impossible conditions in the law of contract has beenbuilt up. In this category may also be classedVolenti non fit injuria(Wingate,Maxims), out of which sprang the theory—now profoundly modified by statute—of “common employment†in the law of employers’ liability; seeSmithv.Baker, 1891, A.C. 325. Other maxims deal with rights of property—Qui prior est tempore, potior est jure(Co.Litt.14 a), which consecrates the position of thebeati possidentesalike in municipal and in international law;Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas(9 Co.Rep.59), which has played its part in the determination of the rights of adjacent owners; andDomus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium(5 Co.Rep.92)—“a man’s house is his castle,†a doctrine which has imposed limitations on the rights of execution creditors (seeExecution). In the laws of family relations there are the maximsConsensus non concubitus facit matrimonium(Co.Litt.33 a)—the canon law of Europe prior to the council of Trent, and still law in Scotland, though modified by legislation in England; andPater is est quem nuptiae demonstrant(see Co.Litt.7 b), on which, in most civilized countries, the presumption of legitimacy depends. In the interpretation of written instruments, the maximNoscitur a sociis(3Term Reports, 87), which proclaims the importance of the context, still applies. So do the rulesExpressio unius est exclusio alterius(Co.Litt.210 a), andContemporanea expositio est optima et fortissima in lege(2 Co.Inst.11), which lets in evidence of contemporaneous user as an aid to the interpretation of statutes or documents; seeVan Diemen’s Land Co.v.Table Cape Marine Board, 1906, A.C. 92, 98. We may conclude this sketch with a miscellaneous summary:Caveat emptor(Hob. 99)—“let the purchaser bewareâ€;Qui facit per alium facile per se, which affirms the principal’s liability for the acts of his agent;Ignorantia juris neminem excusat, on which rests the ordinary citizen’s obligation to know the law; andVigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt(2 Co.Inst.690), one of the maxims in accordance with which courts of equity administer relief. Among other “maxims of equity†come the rules that “he that seeks equity must do equity,â€i.e.must act fairly, and that “equity looks upon that as done which ought to be doneâ€â€”a principle from which the “conversion†into money of land directed to be sold, and of money directed to be invested in the purchase of land, is derived.
The principal collections of legal maxims are:English Law: Bacon,Collection of Some Principal Rules and Maxims of the Common Law(1630); Noy,Treatise of the principal Grounds and Maxims of the Law of England(1641, 8th ed., 1824); Wingate,Maxims of Reason(1728); Francis,Grounds and Rudiments of Law and Equity(2nd ed. 1751); Lofft (annexed to his Reports, 1776); Broom,Legal Maxims(7th ed. London, 1900).Scots Law: Lord Trayner,Latin Maxims and Phrases(2nd ed., 1876); Stair,Institutions of the Law of Scotland, with Index by More (Edinburgh, 1832).American Treatises: A. I. Morgan,English Version of Legal Maxims(Cincinnati, 1878); S. S. Peloubet,Legal Maxims in Law and Equity(New York, 1880).
(A. W. R.)
MAXIMUS,the name of four Roman emperors.
I. M. Clodius Pupienus Maximus, joint emperor with D. Caelius Calvinus Balbinus during a few months of the yearA.D.238. Pupienus was a distinguished soldier, who had been proconsul of Bithynia, Achaea, and Gallia Narbonensis. At the advanced age of seventy-four, he was chosen by the senate with Balbinus to resist the barbarian Maximinus. Their complete equality is shown by the fact that each assumed the titles of pontifex maximus and princeps senatus. It was arranged that Pupienus should take the field against Maximinus, while Balbinus remained at Rome to maintain order, a task in which he signally failed. A revolt of the praetorians was not repressed till much blood had been shed and a considerable part of the city reduced to ashes. On his march, Pupienus, having received the news that Maximinus had been assassinated by his own troops, returned in triumph to Rome. Shortly afterwards, when both emperors were on the point of leaving the city on an expedition—Pupienus against the Persians and Balbinus against the Goths—the praetorians, who had always resented the appointment of the senatorial emperors and cherished the memory of the soldier-emperor Maximinus, seized the opportunity of revenge. When most of the people were at the Capitoline games, they forced their way into the palace, dragged Balbinus and Pupienus through the streets, and put them to death.
See Capitolinus,Life of Maximus and Balbinus; Herodian vii. 10, viii. 6; Zonaras xii. 16; Orosius vii. 19; Eutropius ix. 2; Zosimus i. 14; Aurelius Victor,Caesares, 26,epit.26; H. Schiller,Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, i. 2; Gibbon,Decline and Fall, ch. 7 and (for the chronology) appendix 12 (Bury’s edition).
See Capitolinus,Life of Maximus and Balbinus; Herodian vii. 10, viii. 6; Zonaras xii. 16; Orosius vii. 19; Eutropius ix. 2; Zosimus i. 14; Aurelius Victor,Caesares, 26,epit.26; H. Schiller,Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, i. 2; Gibbon,Decline and Fall, ch. 7 and (for the chronology) appendix 12 (Bury’s edition).
II. Magnus Maximus, a native of Spain, who had accompanied Theodosius on several expeditions and from 368 held high military rank in Britain. The disaffected troops having proclaimed Maximus emperor, he crossed over to Gaul, attacked Gratian (q.v.), and drove him from Paris to Lyons, where he was murdered by a partisan of Maximus. Theodosius being unable to avenge the death of his colleague, an agreement was made (384 or 385) by which Maximus was recognized as Augustus and sole emperor in Gaul, Spain and Britain, while Valentinian II. was to remain unmolested in Italy and Illyricum, Theodosius retaining his sovereignty in the East. In 387 Maximus crossed the Alps, Valentinian was speedily put to flight, while the invader established himself in Milan and for the time became master of Italy. Theodosius now took vigorous measures. Advancing with a powerful army, he twice defeated the troops of Maximus—at Siscia on the Save, and at Poetovio on the Danube. He then hurried on to Aquileia, where Maximus had shut himself up, and had him beheaded. Under the name of Maxen Wledig, Maximus appears in the list of Welsh royal heroes (see R. Williams,Biog. Dict. of Eminent Welshmen, 1852; “The Dream of Maxen Wledig,†in theMabinogion).
Full account with classical references in H. Richter,Das weströmische Reich, besonders unter den Kaisern Gratian, Valentinian II. und Maximus(1865); see also H. Schiller,Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, ii. (1887); Gibbon,Decline and Fall, ch. 27; Tillemont,Hist. des empereurs, v.
Full account with classical references in H. Richter,Das weströmische Reich, besonders unter den Kaisern Gratian, Valentinian II. und Maximus(1865); see also H. Schiller,Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, ii. (1887); Gibbon,Decline and Fall, ch. 27; Tillemont,Hist. des empereurs, v.
III. Maximus Tyrannus, made emperor in Spain by the Roman general, Gerontius, who had rebelled against the usurper Constantine in 408. After the defeat of Gerontius at Arelate (Arles) and his death in 411 Maximus renounced the imperial title and was permitted by Constantine to retire into private life. About 418 he rebelled again, but, failing in his attempt, was seized, carried into Italy, and put to death at Ravenna in 422.
See Orosius vii. 42; Zosimus vi. 5; Sozomen ix. 3; E. A. Freeman, “The Tyrants of Britain, Gaul and Spain,A.D.406-411,†inEnglish Historical Review, i. (1886).
See Orosius vii. 42; Zosimus vi. 5; Sozomen ix. 3; E. A. Freeman, “The Tyrants of Britain, Gaul and Spain,A.D.406-411,†inEnglish Historical Review, i. (1886).
IV. Petronius Maximus, a member of the higher Roman nobility, had held several court and public offices, including those ofpraefectus Romae(420) andItaliae(439-441 and 445), and consul (433, 443). He was one of the intimate associates of Valentinian III., whom he assisted in the palace intrigues which led to the death of Aëtius in 454; but an outrage committed on the wife of Maximus by the emperor turned his friendship into hatred. Maximus was proclaimed emperor immediately after Valentinian’s murder (March 16, 455), but after reigning less than three months, he was murdered by some Burgundian mercenaries as he was fleeing before the troops of Genseric, who, invited by Eudoxia, the widow of Valentinian, had landed at the mouth of the Tiber (May or June 455).
See Procopius,Vand.i. 4; Sidonius Apollinaris,Panegyr. Aviti, ep. ii. 13; the variousChronicles; Gibbon,Decline and Fall, chs. 35, 36; Tillemont,Hist. des empereurs, vi.
See Procopius,Vand.i. 4; Sidonius Apollinaris,Panegyr. Aviti, ep. ii. 13; the variousChronicles; Gibbon,Decline and Fall, chs. 35, 36; Tillemont,Hist. des empereurs, vi.
MAXIMUS, ST(c.580-662), abbot of Chrysopolis, known as “the Confessor†from his orthodox zeal in the Monothelite (q.v.) controversy, or as “the monk,†was born of noble parentage at Constantinople about the year 580. Educated with great care, he early became distinguished by his talents and acquirements, and some time after the accession of the emperor Heraclius in 610 was made his private secretary. In 630 he abandoned the secular life and entered the monastery of Chrysopolis (Scutari), actuated, it was believed, less by any longing for the life of a recluse than by the dissatisfaction he felt with the Monothelite leanings of his master. The date of his promotion to the abbacy is uncertain. In 633 he was one of the party of Sophronius of Jerusalem (the chief original opponent of the Monothelites) at the council of Alexandria; and in 645 he was again in Africa, when he held in presence of the governor and a number of bishops the disputation with Pyrrhus, the deposed and banished patriarch of Constantinople, which resulted in the (temporary) conversion of his interlocutor to the Dyothelite view. In the following year several African synods, held under the influence of Maximus, declared for orthodoxy. In 649, after the accession of Martin I., he went to Rome, and did much to fan the zeal of the new pope, who inOctober of that year held the (first) Lateran synod, by which not only the Monothelite doctrine but also the moderatingecthesisof Heraclius andtypusof Constans II. were anathematized. About 653 Maximus, for the part he had taken against the latter document especially, was apprehended (together with the pope) by order of Constans and carried a prisoner to Constantinople. In 655, after repeated examinations, in which he maintained his theological opinions with memorable constancy, he was banished to Byzia in Thrace, and afterwards to Perberis. In 662 he was again brought to Constantinople and was condemned by a synod to be scourged, to have his tongue cut out by the root, and to have his right hand chopped off. After this sentence had been carried out he was again banished to Lazica, where he died on the 13th of August 662. He is venerated as a saint both in the Greek and in the Latin Churches. Maximus was not only a leader in the Monothelite struggle but a mystic who zealously followed and advocated the system of Pseudo-Dionysius, while adding to it an ethical element in the conception of the freedom of the will. His works had considerable influence in shaping the system of John Scotus Erigena.
The most important of the works of Maximus will be found in Migne,Patrologia graeca, xc. xci., together with an anonymous life; an exhaustive list in Wagenmann’s article in vol. xii. (1903) of Hauck-Herzog’sRealencyklopädiewhere the following classification is adopted: (a) exegetical, (b) scholia on the Fathers, (c) dogmatic and controversial, (d) ethical and ascetic, (e) miscellaneous. The details of the disputation with Pyrrhus and of the martyrdom are given very fully and clearly in Hefele’sConciliengeschichte, iii. For further literature see H. Gelzer in C. Krumbacher’sGeschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur(1897).
The most important of the works of Maximus will be found in Migne,Patrologia graeca, xc. xci., together with an anonymous life; an exhaustive list in Wagenmann’s article in vol. xii. (1903) of Hauck-Herzog’sRealencyklopädiewhere the following classification is adopted: (a) exegetical, (b) scholia on the Fathers, (c) dogmatic and controversial, (d) ethical and ascetic, (e) miscellaneous. The details of the disputation with Pyrrhus and of the martyrdom are given very fully and clearly in Hefele’sConciliengeschichte, iii. For further literature see H. Gelzer in C. Krumbacher’sGeschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur(1897).
MAXIMUS OF SMYRNA,a Greek philosopher of the Neo-platonist school, who lived towards the end of the 4th centuryA.D.He was perhaps the most important of the followers of Iamblichus. He is said to have been of a rich and noble family, and exercised great influence over the emperor Julian, who was commended to him by Aedesius. He pandered to the emperor’s love of magic and theurgy, and by judicious administration of the omens won a high position at court. His overbearing manner made him numerous enemies, and, after being imprisoned on the death of Julian, he was put to death by Valens. He is a representative of the least attractive side of Neoplatonism. Attaching no value to logical proof and argument, he enlarged on the wonders and mysteries of nature, and maintained his position by the working of miracles. In logic he is reported to have agreed with Eusebius, Iamblichus and Porphyry in asserting the validity of the second and third figures of the syllogism.
MAXIMUS OF TYRE(Cassius Maximus Tyrius), a Greek rhetorician and philosopher who flourished in the time of the Antonines and Commodus (2nd centuryA.D.). After the manner of the sophists of his age, he travelled extensively, delivering lectures on the way. His writings contain many allusions to the history of Greece, while there is little reference to Rome; hence it is inferred that he lived longer in Greece, perhaps as a professor at Athens. Although nominally a Platonist, he is really an Eclectic and one of the precursors of Neoplatonism. There are still extant by him forty-one essays or discourses (διαλÎξεις) on theological, ethical, and other philosophical commonplaces. With him God is the supreme being, one and indivisible though called by many names, accessible to reason alone; but as animals form the intermediate stage between plants and human beings, so there exist intermediaries between God and man, viz. daemons, who dwell on the confines of heaven and earth. The soul in many ways bears a great resemblance to the divinity; it is partly mortal, partly immortal, and, when freed from the fetters of the body, becomes a daemon. Life is the sleep of the soul, from which it awakes at death. The style of Maximus is superior to that of the ordinary sophistical rhetorician, but scholars differ widely as to the merits of the essays themselves.
Maximus of Tyre must be distinguished from the Stoic Maximus, tutor of Marcus Aurelius.
Editions by J. Davies, revised with valuable notes by J. Markland (1740); J. J. Reiske (1774); F. Dübner (1840, with Theophrastus, &c., in the Didot series). Monographs by R. Rohdich (Beuthen, 1879); H. Hobein,De Maximo Tyrio quaestiones philol.(Jena, 1895). There is an English translation (1804) by Thomas Taylor, the Platonist.
Editions by J. Davies, revised with valuable notes by J. Markland (1740); J. J. Reiske (1774); F. Dübner (1840, with Theophrastus, &c., in the Didot series). Monographs by R. Rohdich (Beuthen, 1879); H. Hobein,De Maximo Tyrio quaestiones philol.(Jena, 1895). There is an English translation (1804) by Thomas Taylor, the Platonist.
MAX MÜLLER, FRIEDRICH(1823-1900), Anglo-German orientalist and comparative philologist, was born at Dessau on the 6th of December 1823, being the son of Wilhelm Müller (1794-1827), the German poet, celebrated for his phil-Hellenic lyrics, who was ducal librarian at Dessau. The elder Müller had endeared himself to the most intellectual circles in Germany by his amiable character and his genuine poetic gift; his songs had been utilized by musical composers, notably Schubert; and it was his son’s good fortune to meet in his youth with a succession of eminent friends, who, already interested in him for his father’s sake, and charmed by the qualities which they discovered in the young man himself, powerfully aided him by advice and patronage. Mendelssohn, who was his godfather, dissuaded him from indulging his natural bent to the study of music; Professor Brockhaus of the University of Leipzig, where Max Müller matriculated in 1841, induced him to take up Sanskrit; Bopp, at the University of Berlin (1844), made the Sanskrit student a scientific comparative philologist; Schelling at the same university, inspired him with a love for metaphysical speculation, though failing to attract him to his own philosophy; Burnouf, at Paris in the following year, by teaching him Zend, started him on the track of inquiry into the science of comparative religion, and impelled him to edit theRig Veda; and when, in 1846, Max Müller came to England upon this errand, Bunsen, in conjunction with Professor H. H. Wilson, prevailed upon the East India Company to undertake the expense of publication. Up to this time Max Müller had lived the life of a poor student, supporting himself partly by copying manuscripts, but Bunsen’s introductions to Queen Victoria and the prince consort, and to Oxford University, laid the foundation for him of fame and fortune. In 1848 the printing of hisRig Vedaat the University Press obliged him to settle in Oxford, a step which decided his future career. He arrived at a favourable conjuncture: the Tractarian strife, which had so long thrust learning into the background, was just over, and Oxford was becoming accessible to modern ideas. The young German excited curiosity and interest, and it was soon discovered that, although a genuine scholar, he was no mere bookworm. Part of his social success was due to his readiness to exert his musical talents at private parties. Max Müller was speedily subjugated by thegenius loci. He was appointed deputy Taylorian professor of modern languages in 1850, and the German government failed to tempt him back to Strassburg. In the following year he was made M.A. and honorary fellow of Christ Church, and in 1858 he was elected a fellow of All Souls. In 1854 the Crimean War gave him the opportunity of utilizing his oriental learning in vocabularies and schemes of transliteration. In 1857 he successfully essayed another kind of literature in his beautiful storyDeutsche Liebe, written both in German and English. He had by this time become an extensive contributor to English periodical literature, and had written several of the essays subsequently collected asChips from a German Workshop. The most important of them was the fascinating essay on “Comparative Mythology†in theOxford Essaysfor 1856. His valuableHistory of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the primitive religion of the Brahmans (and hence the Vedic period only), was published in 1850.
Though Max Müller’s reputation was that of a comparative philologist and orientalist, his professional duties at Oxford were long confined to lecturing on modern languages, or at least their medieval forms. In 1860 the death of Horace Hayman Wilson, professor of Sanskrit, seemed to open a more congenial sphere to him. His claims to the succession seemed incontestable, for his opponent, Monier Williams, though well qualified as a Sanskritist, lacked Max Müller’s brilliant versatility, and although educated at Oxford, had held no Universityoffice. But Max Müller was a Liberal, and the friend of Liberals in university matters, in politics, and in theology, and this consideration united with his foreign birth to bring the country clergy in such hosts to the poll that the voice of resident Oxford was overborne, and Monier Williams was elected by a large majority. It was the one great disappointment of Max Müller’s life, and made a lasting impression upon him. It was, nevertheless, serviceable to his influence and reputation by permitting him to enter upon a wider field of subjects than would have been possible otherwise. Directly, Sanskrit philology received little more from him, except in connexion with his later undertaking ofThe Sacred Books of the East; but indirectly he exalted it more than any predecessor by proclaiming its commanding position in the history of the human intellect by hisScience of Language, two courses of lectures delivered at the Royal Institution in 1861 and 1863. Max Müller ought not to be described as “the introducer of comparative philology into England.†Prichard had proved the Aryan affinities of the Celtic languages by the methods of comparative philology so long before as 1831; Winning’sManual of Comparative Philologyhad been published in 1838; the discoveries of Bopp and Pott and Pictet had been recognized in brilliant articles in theQuarterly Review, and had guided the researches of Rawlinson. But Max Müller undoubtedly did far more to popularize the subject than had been done, or could have been done, by any predecessor. He was on less sure ground in another department of the study of language—the problem of its origin. He wrote upon it as a disciple of Kant, whoseCritique of Pure Reasonhe translated. His essays on mythology are among the most delightful of his writings, but their value is somewhat impaired by a too uncompromising adherence to the seductive generalization of the solar myth.
Max Müller’s studies in mythology led him to another field of activity in which his influence was more durable and extensive, that of the comparative science of religions. Here, so far as Great Britain is concerned, he does deserve the fame of an originator, and hisIntroduction to the Science of Religion(1873: the same year in which he lectured on the subject, at Dean Stanley’s invitation, in Westminster Abbey, this being the only occasion on which a layman had given an address there) marks an epoch. It was followed by other works of importance, especially the four volumes of Gifford lectures, delivered between 1888 and 1892; but the most tangible result of the impulse he had given was the publication under his editorship, from 1875 onwards, ofThe Sacred Books of the East, in fifty-one volumes, including indexes, all but three of which appeared under his superintendence during his lifetime. These comprise translations by the most competent scholars of all the really important non-Christian scriptures of Oriental nations, which can now be appreciated without a knowledge of the original languages. Max Müller also wrote on Indian philosophy in his latter years, and his exertions to stimulate search for Oriental manuscripts and inscriptions were rewarded with important discoveries of early Buddhist scriptures, in their Indian form, made in Japan. He was on particularly friendly terms with native Japanese scholars, and after his death his library was purchased by the university of Tôkyô.
In 1868 Max Müller had been indemnified for his disappointment over the Sanskrit professorship by the establishment of a chair of Comparative Philology to be filled by him. He retired, however, from the actual duties of the post in 1875, when entering upon the editorship ofThe Sacred Books of the East. The most remarkable external events of his latter years were his delivery of lectures at the restored university of Strassburg in 1872, when he devoted his honorarium to the endowment of a Sanskrit lectureship, and his presidency over the International Congress of Orientalists in 1892. But his days, if uneventful, were busy. He participated in every movement at Oxford of which he could approve, and was intimate with nearly all its men of light and leading; he was a curator of the Bodleian Library, and a delegate of the University Press. He was acquainted with most of the crowned heads
of Europe, and was an especial favourite with the English royal family. His hospitality was ample, especially to visitors from India, where he was far better known than any other European Orientalist. His distinctions, conferred by foreign governments and learned societies, were innumerable, and, having been naturalized shortly after his arrival in England, he received the high honour of being made a privy councillor. In 1898 and 1899 he published autobiographical reminiscences under the title ofAuld Lang Syne. He was writing a more detailed autobiography when overtaken by death on the 28th of October 1900. Max Müller married in 1859 Georgiana Adelaide Grenfell, sister of the wives of Charles Kingsley and J. A. Froude. One of his daughters, Mrs Conybeare, distinguished herself by a translation of Scherer’sHistory of German Literature.
Though undoubtedly a great scholar, Max Müller did not so much represent scholarship pure and simple as her hybrid types—the scholar-author and the scholar-courtier. In the former capacity, though manifesting little of the originality of genius, he rendered vast service by popularizing high truths among high minds. In his public and social character he represented Oriental studies with a brilliancy, and conferred upon them a distinction, which they had not previously enjoyed in Great Britain. There were drawbacks in both respects: the author was too prone to build upon insecure foundations, and the man of the world incurred censure for failings which may perhaps be best indicated by the remark that he seemed too much of a diplomatist. But the sum of foibles seems insignificant in comparison with the life of intense labour dedicated to the service of culture and humanity.
Max Müller’sCollected Workswere published in 1903.
Max Müller’sCollected Workswere published in 1903.
(R. G.)
MAXWELL,the name of a Scottish family, members of which have held the titles of earl of Morton, earl of Nithsdale, Lord Maxwell, and Lord Herries. The name is taken probably from Maccuswell, or Maxwell, near Kelso, whither the family migrated from England about 1100. Sir Herbert Maxwell won great fame by defending his castle of Carlaverock against Edward I. in 1300; another Sir Herbert was made a lord of the Scottish parliament before 1445; and his great-grandson John, 3rd Lord Maxwell, was killed at Flodden in 1513. John’s son Robert, the 4th lord (d. 1546), was a member of the royal council under James V.; he was also an extraordinary lord of session, high admiral, and warden of the west marches, and was taken prisoner by the English at the rout of Solway Moss in 1542. Robert’s grandson John, 7th Lord Maxwell (1553-1593), was the second son of Robert, the 5th lord (d. 1552), and his wife Beatrix, daughter of James Douglas, 3rd earl of Morton. After the execution of the regent Morton, the 4th earl, in 1581 this earldom was bestowed upon Maxwell, but in 1586 the attainder of the late earl was reversed and he was deprived of his new title. He had helped in 1585 to drive the royal favourite James Stewart, earl of Arran, from power, and he made active preparations to assist the invading Spaniards in 1588. His son John, the 8th lord (c.1586-1613), was at feud with the Johnstones, who had killed his father in a skirmish, and with the Douglases over the earldom of Morton, which he regarded as his inheritance. After a life of exceptional and continuous lawlessness he escaped from Scotland and in his absence was sentenced to death; having returned to his native country he was seized and was beheaded in Edinburgh. In 1618 John’s brother and heir Robert (d. 1646) was restored to the lordship of Maxwell, and in 1620 was created earl of Nithsdale, surrendering at this time his claim to the earldom of Morton. He and his son Robert, afterwards the 2nd earl, fought under Montrose for Charles I. during the Civil War. Robert died without sons in October 1667, when a cousin John Maxwell, 7th Lord Herries (d. 1677), became third earl.
William, 5th earl of Nithsdale (1676-1744), a grandson of the third earl, was like his ancestor a Roman Catholic and was attached to the cause of the exiled house of Stuart. In 1715 he joined the Jacobite insurgents, being taken prisoner at the battle of Preston and sentenced to death. He escaped, however,from the Tower of London through the courage and devotion of his wife Winifred (d. 1749), daughter of William Herbert, 1st marquess of Powis. He was attainted in 1716 and his titles became extinct, but his estates passed to his son William (d. 1776), whose descendant, William Constable-Maxwell, regained the title of Lord Herries in 1858. The countess of Nithsdale wrote an account of her husband’s escape, which is published in vol. i. of theTransactions of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
A few words may be added about other prominent members of the Maxwell family. John Maxwell (c.1590-1647), archbishop of Tuam, was a Scottish ecclesiastic who took a leading part in helping Archbishop Laud in his futile attempt to restore the liturgy in Scotland. He was bishop of Ross from 1633 until 1638, when he was deposed by the General Assembly; then crossing over to Ireland he was bishop of Killala and Achonry from 1640 to 1645, and archbishop of Tuam from 1645 until his death. James Maxwell of Kirkconnell (c.1708-1762), the Jacobite, wrote theNarrative of Charles Prince of Wales’s Expedition to Scotland in 1745, which was printed for the Maitland Club in 1841. Robert Maxwell (1695-1765) was the author ofSelect Transactions of the Society of Improversand was a great benefactor to Scottish agriculture. Sir Murray Maxwell (1775-1831), a naval officer, gained much fame by his conduct when his ship the “Alceste†was wrecked in Gaspar Strait in 1817. William Hamilton Maxwell (1792-1850), the Irish novelist, wrote, in addition to several novels, aLife of the Duke of Wellington(1839-1841 and again 1883), and aHistory of the Irish Rebellion in 1798(1845 and 1891). Sir Herbert Maxwell, 7th bart. (b. 1845), member of parliament for Wigtownshire from 1880 to 1906, and president of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, became well known as a writer, his works includingLife and Times of the Right Hon. W. H. Smith(1893);Life of the Duke of Wellington(1899);The House of Douglas(1902);Robert the Bruce(1897) andA Duke of Britain(1895).
A few words may be added about other prominent members of the Maxwell family. John Maxwell (c.1590-1647), archbishop of Tuam, was a Scottish ecclesiastic who took a leading part in helping Archbishop Laud in his futile attempt to restore the liturgy in Scotland. He was bishop of Ross from 1633 until 1638, when he was deposed by the General Assembly; then crossing over to Ireland he was bishop of Killala and Achonry from 1640 to 1645, and archbishop of Tuam from 1645 until his death. James Maxwell of Kirkconnell (c.1708-1762), the Jacobite, wrote theNarrative of Charles Prince of Wales’s Expedition to Scotland in 1745, which was printed for the Maitland Club in 1841. Robert Maxwell (1695-1765) was the author ofSelect Transactions of the Society of Improversand was a great benefactor to Scottish agriculture. Sir Murray Maxwell (1775-1831), a naval officer, gained much fame by his conduct when his ship the “Alceste†was wrecked in Gaspar Strait in 1817. William Hamilton Maxwell (1792-1850), the Irish novelist, wrote, in addition to several novels, aLife of the Duke of Wellington(1839-1841 and again 1883), and aHistory of the Irish Rebellion in 1798(1845 and 1891). Sir Herbert Maxwell, 7th bart. (b. 1845), member of parliament for Wigtownshire from 1880 to 1906, and president of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, became well known as a writer, his works includingLife and Times of the Right Hon. W. H. Smith(1893);Life of the Duke of Wellington(1899);The House of Douglas(1902);Robert the Bruce(1897) andA Duke of Britain(1895).
MAXWELL, JAMES CLERK(1831-1879), British physicist, was the last representative of a younger branch of the well-known Scottish family of Clerk of Penicuik, and was born at Edinburgh on the 13th of November 1831. He was educated at the Edinburgh Academy (1840-1847) and the university of Edinburgh (1847-1850). Entering at Cambridge in 1850, he spent a term or two at Peterhouse, but afterwards migrated to Trinity. In 1854 he took his degree as second wrangler, and was declared equal with the senior wrangler of his year (E. J. Routh,q.v.) in the higher ordeal of the Smith’s prize examination. He held the chair of Natural Philosophy in Marischal College, Aberdeen, from 1856 till the fusion of the two colleges there in 1860. For eight years subsequently he held the chair of Physics and Astronomy in King’s College, London, but resigned in 1868 and retired to his estate of Glenlair in Kirkcudbrightshire. He was summoned from his seclusion in 1871 to become the first holder of the newly founded professorship of Experimental Physics in Cambridge; and it was under his direction that the plans of the Cavendish Laboratory were prepared. He superintended every step of the progress of the building and of the purchase of the very valuable collection of apparatus with which it was equipped at the expense of its munificent founder the seventh duke of Devonshire (chancellor of the university, and one of its most distinguished alumni). He died at Cambridge on the 5th of November 1879.
For more than half of his brief life he held a prominent position in the very foremost rank of natural philosophers. His contributions to scientific societies began in his fifteenth year, when Professor J. D. Forbes communicated to the Royal Society of Edinburgh a short paper of his on a mechanical method of tracing Cartesian ovals. In his eighteenth year, while still a student in Edinburgh, he contributed two valuable papers to theTransactionsof the same society—one of which, “On the Equilibrium of Elastic Solids,†is remarkable, not only on account of its intrinsic power and the youth of its author, but also because in it he laid the foundation of one of the most singular discoveries of his later life, the temporary double refraction produced in viscous liquids by shearing stress. Immediately after taking his degree, he read to the Cambridge Philosophical Society a very novel memoir, “On the Transformation of Surfaces by Bending.†This is one of the few purely mathematical papers he published, and it exhibited at once to experts the full genius of its author. About the same time appeared his elaborate memoir, “On Faraday’s Lines of Force,†in which he gave the first indication of some of those extraordinary electrical investigations which culminated in the greatest work of his life. He obtained in 1859 the Adams prize in Cambridge for a very original and powerful essay, “On the Stability of Saturn’s Rings.†From 1855 to 1872 he published at intervals a series of valuable investigations connected with the “Perception of Colour†and “Colour-Blindness,†for the earlier of which he received the Rumford medal from the Royal Society in 1860. The instruments which he devised for these investigations were simple and convenient, but could not have been thought of for the purpose except by a man whose knowledge was co-extensive with his ingenuity. One of his greatest investigations bore on the “Kinetic Theory of Gases.†Originating with D. Bernoulli, this theory was advanced by the successive labours of John Herapath, J. P. Joule, and particularly R. Clausius, to such an extent as to put its general accuracy beyond a doubt; but it received enormous developments from Maxwell, who in this field appeared as an experimenter (on the laws of gaseous friction) as well as a mathematician. He wrote an admirable textbook of theTheory of Heat(1871), and a very excellent elementary treatise onMatter and Motion(1876).
But the great work of his life was devoted to electricity. He began by reading, with the most profound admiration and attention, the whole of Faraday’s extraordinary self-revelations, and proceeded to translate the ideas of that master into the succinct and expressive notation of the mathematicians. A considerable part of this translation was accomplished during his career as an undergraduate in Cambridge. The writer had the opportunity of perusing the MS. of “On Faraday’s Lines of Force,†in a form little different from the final one, a year before Maxwell took his degree. His great object, as it was also the great object of Faraday, was to overturn the idea of action at a distance. The splendid researches of S. D. Poisson and K. F. Gauss had shown how to reduce all the phenomena of statical electricity to mere attractions and repulsions exerted at a distance by particles of an imponderable on one another. Lord Kelvin (Sir W. Thomson) had, in 1846, shown that a totally different assumption, based upon other analogies, led (by its own special mathematical methods) to precisely the same results. He treated the resultant electric force at any point as analogous to theflux of heatfrom sources distributed in the same manner as the supposed electric particles. This paper of Thomson’s, whose ideas Maxwell afterwards developed in an extraordinary manner, seems to have given the first hint that there are at least two perfectly distinct methods of arriving at the known formulae of statical electricity. The step to magnetic phenomena was comparatively simple; but it was otherwise as regards electro-magnetic phenomena, where current electricity is essentially involved. An exceedingly ingenious, but highly artificial, theory had been devised by W. E. Weber, which was found capable of explaining all the phenomena investigated by Ampère as well as the induction currents of Faraday. But this was based upon the assumption of a distance-action between electric particles, the intensity of which depended on their relative motion as well as on their position. This was, of course, even more repugnant to Maxwell’s mind than the statical distance-action developed by Poisson. The first paper of Maxwell’s in which an attempt at an admissible physical theory of electromagnetism was made was communicated to the Royal Society in 1867. But the theory, in a fully developed form, first appeared in 1873 in his great treatise onElectricity and Magnetism. This work was one of the most splendid monuments ever raised by the genius of a single individual. Availing himself of the admirable generalized co-ordinate system of Lagrange, Maxwell showed how to reduce all electric and magnetic phenomena to stresses and motions of a material medium, and, as one preliminary, but excessively severe, test of the truth of his theory, he pointed out that (if the electro-magnetic medium be that which is required for the explanation of the phenomena of light) the velocity of light in vacuo shouldbe numerically the same as the ratio of the electro-magnetic and electrostatic units. In fact, the means of the best determinations of each of these quantities separately agree with one another more closely than do the various values of either.
One of Maxwell’s last great contributions to science was the editing (with copious original notes) of theElectrical Researches of the Hon. Henry Cavendish, from which it appeared that Cavendish, already famous by many other researches (such as the mean density of the earth, the composition of water, &c.), must be looked on as, in his day, a man of Maxwell’s own stamp as a theorist and an experimenter of the very first rank.
In private life Clerk Maxwell was one of the most lovable of men, a sincere and unostentatious Christian. Though perfectly free from any trace of envy or ill-will, he yet showed on fit occasion his contempt for that pseudo-science which seeks for the applause of the ignorant by professing to reduce the whole system of the universe to a fortuitous sequence of uncaused events.
His collected works, including the series of articles on the properties of matter, such as “Atom,†“Attraction,†“Capillary Action,†“Diffusion,†“Ether,†&c., which he contributed to the 9th edition of this encyclopaedia, were issued in two volumes by the Cambridge University Press in 1890; and an extended biography, by his former schoolfellow and lifelong friend Professor Lewis Campbell, was published in 1882.
His collected works, including the series of articles on the properties of matter, such as “Atom,†“Attraction,†“Capillary Action,†“Diffusion,†“Ether,†&c., which he contributed to the 9th edition of this encyclopaedia, were issued in two volumes by the Cambridge University Press in 1890; and an extended biography, by his former schoolfellow and lifelong friend Professor Lewis Campbell, was published in 1882.
(P. G. T.)
MAXWELLTOWN,a burgh of barony and police burgh of Kirkcudbrightshire, Scotland. Pop. (1901), 5796. It lies on the Nith, opposite to Dumfries, with which it is connected by three bridges, being united with it for parliamentary purposes. It has a station on the Glasgow & South-Western line from Dumfries to Kirkcudbright. Its public buildings include a court-house, the prison for the south-west of Scotland, and an observatory and museum, housed in a disused windmill. The chief manufactures are woollens and hosiery, besides dyeworks and sawmills. It was a hamlet known as Bridgend up till 1810, in which year it was erected into a burgh of barony under its present name. To the north-west lies the parish of Terregles, said to be a corruption of Tir-eglwys (terra ecclesia, that is, “Kirk landâ€). The parish contains the beautiful ruin of Lincluden Abbey (seeDumfries), and Terregles House, once the seat of William Maxwell, last earl of Nithsdale. In the parish of Lochrutton, a few miles south-west of Maxwelltown, there is a good example of a stone circle, the “Seven Grey Sisters,†and an old peel-tower in the Mains of Hills.