Minucius Felix

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

Christianapologist, flourished between 160 and 300; the exactdate is not known. His "Octavius" has numerous points of agreement with the "Apologeticum" ofTertullian, similarities that have been explained by the theory of a common source — an apology written in Latin, and which is supposed to have disappeared without leaving any trace, not even in the name of its author. This hypothesis is now generally abandoned. It seems improbable that such a work, from which Minucius andTertullian might have drawn, would have so thoroughly disappeared. Lactantius (Div. Inst., V, i, 21) enumerates the apologists who preceded him and does not even suspect the existence of such a writer. The most natural supposition is that one of the two writers, Minucius orTertullian, is directly dependent on the other. Formerly, Minucius was regarded as posterior toTertullian. The firstdoubts in this respect were expressed inFrance by Blondel in 1641, by Dallaeus in 1660, and inEngland by Dodwell. The theory of the priority of Minucius was defended by van Hoven in the second edition of Lindner in 1773. In modern times it was most ably defended by Ebert. The priority ofTertullian has been chiefly defended by Ad. Harnack, who has been refuted by A. Krueger. M. Waltzing, the scholar best acquainted with Minucius Felix and what has been written about him, is inclined to think him anterior toTertullian. The arguments in favour of one or the other of these theories are not decisive. However, it may be said that in the passages taken from the ancient authors, such as Seneca, Varro, and especially Cicero, Minucius seems to be more exact and closer to the original; consequently he seems to be intermediary between them andTertullian. Theecclesiastical authors were probably not better informed than we are with regard to Minucius. Lactantius puts him beforeTertullian (Div. Inst., I, xi, 55; V, i, 21), andSt. Jerome after; but,St. Jerome contradicts himself by putting him afterSt. Cyprian (Ep. lxx, (lxxxiii); v; lx; xlviii; "In Isaiam", VIII, praef.), and elsewhere putting him betweenTertullian andSt. Cyprian (De Viris, lviii). Fronto (d. about 170) is mentioned by Minucius. If the treatise, "Quod idola non dii sint" is bySt. Cyprian (d. about 258) there is no need of going beyond thatdate, for this treatise is based on the "Octavius". It istrue that the attribution of the aforesaid treatise toSt. Cyprian has been contested, but without serious reason. If this be rejected there is no periodante quem before Lactantius.

The birthplace of the author is believed to be Africa. This is notproved by Minucius's imitation ofAfrican authors, any more than it is by the resemblance between Minucius andTertullian. At this period the principal writers were Africans, and it was natural that a Latin, of whatever province he might be, would read and imitate them. The allusions to the customs andbelief of Africa are numerous, but this may be explained by the African origin of the champion ofpaganism. The "Octavius" is a dialogue of whichOstia is the scene. Caecilius Natalis upholds the cause ofpaganism, Octavius Januarius that ofChristianity; the author himself is the judge of the debate. Caecilius Natalis was a native ofCirta; he lived atRome and attentively followed Minucius in his activity as an advocate. Octavius had just arrived from a foreign country where he had left hisfamily. Minucius lived atRome. All three were advocates. The name Minucius Felix has been found on inscriptions atTebessa and Carthage (Cor. Inscrip. Lat. VIII, 1964 and 12499); that of Octavius Januarius at Saldae (Bougie; ib., 8962); that of Caecilius atCirta itself (ib., 7097-7098, 6996). The M. Caecilius Natalis of the inscriptions discharged important municipalduties and gavepagan festivals with memorable prodigality. He may have belonged to the samefamily as the interlocutor of the dialogue. Attempts have been made to make them identical or to establishfamily relationship between them. These are pure hypotheses subordinate to the opinion entertained regarding thedate of the dialogue.

Thepersons are real. The dialogue may likewise be so, despite the fact that Minucius has transformed into an almost judicial debate what must have been a mere conversation or series of conversations. Owing to the adjournment of the courts during the vintage time, the three friends went for rest toOstia. Here they walked on the sea-shore, and when they passed before astatue of Serapis, Caecilius saluted it with the customarykiss. Octavius thereupon expressed his indignation that Minucius should allow his daily companion to fall intoidolatry. They resume their walk while Octavius gives an account of his voyage; they go to and fro on the shore and the quay; they watch children jumping about in the sea. This beginning is charming; it is the most perfect portion of the work. During the walk Caecilius, silenced by the words of Octavius, has not spoken. He now explains himself and it is agreed to settle the debate. They seat themselves on a lonely pier; Minucius seated in the centre is to be the arbitrator. Thereupon Caecilius begins by attackingChristianity; Minucius says a few words, and then Octavius replies. At the end Minucius and Caecilius express their admiration and the latter declares that he surrenders. Fuller explanations of the new religion are postponed until the next day. The dialogue therefore consists of two discourses, the attack of Caecilius and the refutation of Octavius.

The discussion bears on a small number of points: the possibility of man arriving at thetruth, creation,Providence, the unity ofGod, the necessity of keeping the religion of one's ancestors and especially the advantage to the Romans of the worship of the gods, the low character ofChristians, their tendency to conceal themselves, their crimes (incest, worship of an ass's head, the adoration of the generative organs of thepriest,prayers addressed to a criminal, sacrifice of children) their impious and absurd conception of the Divinity, theirdoctrine of the end of the world and theresurrection of the dead, the hardships of their life, threatened, and exposed without remedy to all sorts of dangers, cut off from the joys of life. In this debate the conception ofChristianity is very limited, and is reduced almost solely to the unity ofGod,Providence, theresurrection, and reward after death. The name of Christ does not appear; among the apologists of the second century Aristides,St. Justin, andTertullian are the only ones who pronounced it. But Minucius omits the characteristic points ofChristianity indogma and worship; this is not because he is bound to silence by thediscipline of the secret, forSt. Justin andTertullian do not fear to enter into these details. Moreover in the discussion itself Octavius ends abruptly. To the accusation of adoring a criminal he contents himself with replying that the Crucified One was neither a man nor guilty (xxix, 2) and he is silent with regard to the mysteries of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Redemption which would have made clear his reply. He merely repels the accusation of incest andinfanticide without describing the agape or the Eucharist (xxx and xxxi). He does not quote Scripture, or at least very little; and he does not mention the fulfilment of the prophecies. On the other hand he makes only a brief allusion to the manner of proceeding against theChristians (xxiii, 8). He does not speak of the loyalty of theChristians towards the state and the emperors. Political and judicial considerations, which are given so much space inTertullian, are almost entirely absent here. These omissions are explained by avoluntary limitation of the subject. Minucius wished only to remove the prejudices of thepagans, to prepossess his readers by a pleasant discussion, and to show them the possibility ofChristianity. He himself indicated this intention by putting off until the next day a more profound discussion (xl, 2). He addressed himself chiefly to the learned, tosceptics, and to the cultured; and wished to prove to them that there was nothing in the new religion that was incompatible with the resources of dialectics and the ornaments of rhetoric. In a word his work is an introduction toChristianity, aProtrepticon.

It is amosaic of imitations, especially of Cicero, Seneca, and Virgil. The plan itself is that of the "De natura deorum" of Cicero, and Caecilius here plays the role of Cotta. However the personages have their peculiar characteristics: Caecilius is a young man, presumptuous, somewhat vain, sensitive, yielding to his first impression. Octavius is more sedate, but provincial life seems to have made him more intolerant; his pleading is hot and emotional. Minucius is more indulgent and calm. These learned men are charming friends. The dialogue itself is a monument of friendship. Minucius wrote it in memory of his dear Octavius, recently deceased. In reading it one thinks of Pliny the Younger and his friends. These minds exhibited the same delicacy and culture. The style is composite, being a harmonious combination of the Ciceronian period with the brilliant and short sentences of the newschool. It sometimes assumes poetic tints, but the dominating colour is that of Cicero. By the choice of subjects treated, his ease in reconciling very differentideas and styles, the art of combinations inideas as well as in language, Minucius Felix belongs to the first rank of Latin writers whose talent consisted in blending heterogeneous elements and in proving themselves individual and original in imitation.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT