MINUCIO, FELICE. – Apologist of the 2nd–3rd century.
I. LIFE
The scant information about M. F. comes, besides his sole surviving work, the Octavius, from Lactantius (Inst., I, 11, 55; V, 1, 21–22) and St. Jerome (Vir. ill., 58; Epist., 49, 13; 60, 10; 70, 5; In Is., 8 praef.), who in turn seem to have derived it almost exclusively from the Octavius.Of pagan family, he was a lawyer or magistrate (Oct., 2, 3; 3, 1); various indications show him to have been 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), though it is not possible to know whether this took place in his homeland or in Rome.
As regards his date, an ante quem is supplied by the aforementioned references in Lactantius, who, writing between 305 and 310, presupposes that he already belonged to a fairly remote past. If it is accepted that the pamphlet Quod idola di non sint belongs to Cyprian, and that the Octavius is extensively plagiarized there, M. cannot be later than Cyprian. A post quem, which may already be the reign of Hadrian (Cassius Dio, LXIX, 18, 3), is supplied by the mention of Fronto (9, 6; 31, 2). Within these limits, setting aside certain historical references that do not seem conclusive, the sole basis for dating the work of M. F. is comparison with the Ad nationes and especially with Tertullian’s Apologeticum, composed in 197. The testimonies of Lactantius and Jerome, in the passages cited, seem rather to imply Tertullian’s priority; this is confirmed by an analytical comparison of the similar passages, and above all by the habits and character of the two writers, since M. F. habitually works by mosaic, abundantly deriving concepts and expressions especially from Cicero and Seneca, whereas Tertullian is distinguished by vigorous originality. The Octavius should therefore be placed in the first half of the third century. Many 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 which in any case is lost, the only work known from him is the Octavius. While the author was with two friends, Octavius and Caecilius, on the shore at Ostia during the judicial recess for the grape harvest, a kiss sent by Caecilius to a statue of Serapis provokes a reproach from the Christian Octavius to M., for having failed to convert his friend to the true religion, and Caecilius’s proposal to initiate a discussion of their respective religious beliefs. Caecilius defends the worship of the gods, appealing to tradition, and attacks the customs and doctrines of the Christians. Octavius undertakes their defense, demonstrating the existence and unity of God, the absurdity of polytheism, the uprightness of his fellow believers, and the reasonableness of their worship and doctrines. In the end, Caecilius admits that he has been defeated, and M., who had been chosen as arbiter, declares his joy, which is the joy of all.M. F. is a consummate stylist who, following the precepts of rhetoric, composes two speeches skilfully introduced and then connected with one another, so that the result is only improperly a dialogue. Though scarcely original, he nevertheless displays a sure mastery of expressive means, which he knows how to bend effectively to the development of his dialectical arguments, alternating tones of calm reasoning and passionate invective, descriptive grace and sincere feeling.