MINUCIUS, FELIX. - Apologist of the 3rd century.
I. Life
The scant information about M. F. comes, besides from his only 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 drawn 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 from Africa, probably from 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 known whether this occurred in his homeland or in Rome.
As to his age, a *terminus ante quem* is provided by the aforementioned references in Lactantius, who, writing between 305 and 310, supposes him to have been already somewhat remote in time. If one accepts that the pamphlet *Quod idola di non sint* belongs to Cyprian, it is that it extensively plagiarizes the Octavius. M. cannot therefore be later than Cyprian. A *terminus post quem*, which may already be the reign of Hadrian (Cassius Dio, LXIX, 18, 3), is provided 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 Within these limits, setting aside certain historical references that do not seem probative, the only element for dating the work of M. F. is the comparison with the *Ad nationes* and especially with the *Apologeticum* of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 places cited, of Lactantius and Jerome seem rather to suggest the priority of Tertullian, which is confirmed by the analytical comparison of similar passages, and above all by the customs and character of the two writers, since M. F. habitually works in mosaic fashion, drawing abundantly on concepts and expressions especially from Cicero and Seneca, while Tertullian is distinguished by vigorous originality. The Octavius would therefore 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 promised work *De fato* or *Contra mathematicos* (36, 2), attested by St. Jerome, who nevertheless doubted its authenticity for stylistic reasons, and in any case lost, only the Octavius is known of our author. While the author is with two friends, Octavius and Caecilius, on the shore at Ostia during the judicial holidays of the grape harvest, a kiss sent by Caecilius to a statue of Serapis provokes a reproach from Octavius, a Christian, to M. for not having been able to convert his friend to the true religion, and a proposal from Caecilius to enter into a discussion of their respective religious beliefs. Caecilius defends the cult 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 fellow believers, and the reasonableness of their worship and doctrines. In the end, Caecilius confesses himself 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 composes, following rhetorical precepts, two speeches skillfully introduced and then linked together, so that the result is only improperly a dialogue. Though lacking in originality, he nonetheless shows a sure mastery of expressive means, which he knows how to bend to effectively render dialectical developments, alternating tones of calm reasoning and impassioned invention, of descriptive grace and sincere feeling.