Minucius, Felix

MINUCIUS, FELIX. - Apologist of the 2nd-3rd century.

I. LIFE

The scanty information about M. F. comes, besides from his only writing, the Octavius, from Lactantius (Inst., I, 11, 55; V, 1, 21-22) and from St. Jerome (Vir. ill., 58; Epist., 49, 13; 60, 10; 70, 5; In Is., 8 praef.), who in turn seem to derive it almost solely from the Octavius.

Of a pagan family, he was a lawyer or magistrate (Oct., 2, 3; 3, 1); various indications show him to be a native of Africa, probably of Cirta, whence he came to Rome. Following the example of his friend Octavius he converted to Christianity (1, 4; 5, 1); it cannot be determined whether this was still in his homeland or in Rome.

As for his date, a terminus ante quem is given by the aforementioned mentions of Lactantius, who, writing between 305 and 310, supposes him already rather distant in time. If one admits that the pamphlet Quod idola dii non sint belongs to Cyprian, and that the Octavius is largely plagiarized therein, M. will not be later than Cyprian. A terminus post quem, which may already be the reign of Hadrian (Cassius Dio, LXIX, 18, 3), is furnished by the mention of Fronto (9, 6; 31, 2). Within these limits, setting aside certain historical references that do not seem probative, the only element for dating the work of M. F. is the comparison with the Ad nationes and especially with the Apologeticum of Tertullian, composed in 197. The testimonies, in the passages cited, of Lactantius and Jerome seem rather to suggest the priority of Tertullian, which is confirmed by the analytical comparison of the similar passages, and above all by the habits and the character of the two writers, since M. F. habitually works as a mosaicist, drawing abundantly on concepts and expressions especially from Cicero and Seneca, whereas Tertullian is distinguished by vigorous originality. The Octavius would therefore be to be placed in the first half of the 3rd century. Not a few scholars, however, see in M. F. the source of Tertullian.

II. THE WORK

Apart from a writing De fato or Contra mathematicos, promised by M. F. (36, 2) and attested by St. Jerome, who nevertheless doubted its authenticity on stylistic grounds, and in any case lost, only the Octavius is known of our author. While the author was with two friends,

Octavius and Caecilius, on the shore at Ostia during the judicial vacation of the grape harvest, a kiss blown by Caecilius to a statue of Serapis provokes a reproach from Octavius, a Christian, toward M., for not having known how to convert his friend to the true religion, and Caecilius's proposal to open a discussion on their respective religious beliefs. Caecilius defends the worship of the gods, appealing to tradition, and attacks the customs and doctrines of the Christians. Octavius takes up their defense, demonstrating the existence and unity of God, the absurdity of polytheism, the uprightness of his brethren in the faith, the reasonableness of their worship and their doctrines. In the end Caecilius confesses himself vanquished, and M., who had been chosen as arbiter, declares his joy, which is the joy of all.

M. F. is a consummate stylist, who composes, following rhetorical precepts, two speeches skillfully introduced and then linked to one another, so that only improperly does a dialogue result from them. Scarcely original, he nonetheless shows a sure mastery of expressive means, which he knows how to bend to rendering dialectical developments effectively, alternating tones of calm reasoning and passionate invective, of descriptive grace and of genuine feeling.

III. THOUGHT

There is nothing original in the thought of M. F. The substance of the Octavius lies in certain elements of theodicy and natural ethics, which hinge on the existence and unity of God and on the spirituality of religious worship. This is not due to ignorance of Christian doctrine, which M. F. shows he knows in certain significant allusions, nor still less to heretical influences, as some have supposed, but rather to the purpose, common to the apologists, of fighting the adversary with his own weapons and removing the essential obstacle to the acceptance of the Christian faith, namely idolatrous polytheism.

Michele Pellegrino