Beyond the Rhetoric of the Octavius: Minucius Felix’s Exhortatio ad Christianitatem

Matteo J. Stettler
{"title":"Beyond the Rhetoric of the Octavius: Minucius Felix’s Exhortatio ad Christianitatem","authors":"Matteo J. Stettler","doi":"10.1515/zac-2023-0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Studies of the sources and structure of the Octavius have for long concluded that there lays no authorial intention that is not merely rhetorical behind the “mosaistic” mode of composition of Minucius Felix’s apologetic dialogue, its borrowings from Cicero (especially his De natura deorum) being a mere tribute to the dialogic tradition and its bipartite framework mindlessly reproducing the rhetorical exercise of the controversia (thesis-antithesis). The present investigation aims to surpass this “reductionistic approach” by studying not only the structure of the dialogue but also the contents of its exordium (Chapters 2–4) and its epilogus (Chapters 39–40)—all of which betray Minucius Felix’s intentions to present his work as an exhortatio (ad Christianitatem) on the model of Cicero’s Hortensius. Moreover, we contend that by assuming for the Octavius the form of a protreptic discourse—with its essentially undogmatic character and curricular dependency upon further dogmatic instruction—, we might open up novel horizons from which making sense of two of the most ingrained interpretative problems hitherto emerged in Minucian studies: the Octavius’ dogmatic silence, and the apocryphal character of Minucius’ De fato.","PeriodicalId":202431,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum / Journal of Ancient Christianity","volume":"184 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum / Journal of Ancient Christianity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zac-2023-0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Studies of the sources and structure of the Octavius have for long concluded that there lays no authorial intention that is not merely rhetorical behind the “mosaistic” mode of composition of Minucius Felix’s apologetic dialogue, its borrowings from Cicero (especially his De natura deorum) being a mere tribute to the dialogic tradition and its bipartite framework mindlessly reproducing the rhetorical exercise of the controversia (thesis-antithesis). The present investigation aims to surpass this “reductionistic approach” by studying not only the structure of the dialogue but also the contents of its exordium (Chapters 2–4) and its epilogus (Chapters 39–40)—all of which betray Minucius Felix’s intentions to present his work as an exhortatio (ad Christianitatem) on the model of Cicero’s Hortensius. Moreover, we contend that by assuming for the Octavius the form of a protreptic discourse—with its essentially undogmatic character and curricular dependency upon further dogmatic instruction—, we might open up novel horizons from which making sense of two of the most ingrained interpretative problems hitherto emerged in Minucian studies: the Octavius’ dogmatic silence, and the apocryphal character of Minucius’ De fato.
超越屋大维的修辞学:米纽乌斯·菲利克斯的劝诫和基督教教义
对屋大维作品来源和结构的研究长期以来得出结论,在米努修斯·菲利克斯的辩白对话的“马赛克”构成模式背后,没有作者的意图不仅仅是修辞,它借用了西塞罗(尤其是他的《自然之道》),仅仅是对对话传统的致敬,它的两部分框架无意识地复制了辩论(正题-反题)的修辞练习。本研究旨在超越这种“简化的方法”,不仅研究对话的结构,而且研究其前言(第2-4章)和后记(第39-40章)的内容——所有这些都背叛了米纽乌斯·费利克斯的意图,即以西塞罗的《霍顿修斯》为模型,将他的作品呈现为劝诫(和基督教)。此外,我们认为,通过假设屋大维是一种保护主义的话语形式——其本质上是非教条主义的特征,课程依赖于进一步的教条主义指导——我们可能会开辟新的视野,从这个角度来理解迄今为止在米努西亚研究中出现的两个最根深蒂固的解释问题:屋大维的教条主义的沉默,以及米努乌斯的“事实”的虚构特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信