Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 11-12-2005, 02:33 PM

(I've started a new thread for this because the previous thread is primarily about what MF did or did not believe, which although related is a separate issue.)

A central issue here is whether or not MF is using Tertullian or vice versa but I'll start with more general evidence.

The most obvious information bearing on date is that MF refers to a speech by Fronto containing attacks on Christians. Hence it is written after that speech.

Now Fronto was active in public life from the early 120's to his death in c 168 CE. However there is general agreement among scholars that his speech shows a more elaborate form of the libels against Christians than that in Justin Martyr's Apologt (c 152) but has influenced the allegations made against Christian's in the 170's. (As witnesed by Athenagoras and the letter about the Christian martyrs at Lyons.) The speech is probably to be dated anywhere from 153 to 167.

Some scholars have wished to date the Octavius while Fronto was still alive and his speech recent and notorious ie in the early years of Marcus Aurelius or even the last years of Antoninus Pius.

One less obvious piece of evidence is a passage in the Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius (online in Latin at http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/gellius.html no complete English translation apparently free online.) Book 18 has

Quote:

There were two friends of Favorinus, philosophers of no little note in the city of Rome; one of them was a follower of the Peripatetic school, the other of the Stoic. I was once present when these men argued ably and vigorously, each for his own beliefs, when we were all with Favorinus at Ostia. And we were walking along the shore in springtime, just as evening was falling.

And on that occasion the Stoic maintained that man could enjoy a happy life only through virtue, and that the greatest wretchedness was due to wickedness only, even though all the other blessings, which are called external, should be lacking to the virtuous man and present with the wicked. The Peripatetic, on the other hand, admitted that a wretched life was due solely to vicious thoughts and wickedness, but he believed that virtue alone was by no means sufficient to round out all the parts of a happy life, since the complete use of one’s limbs, good health, a reasonably attractive person, property, good repute, and all other advantages of body and fortune seemed necessary to make a perfectly happy life

Here the Stoic made outcry against him, and maintaining that his opponent was advancing two contrary propositions, expressed his surprise that, since wickedness and virtue were two opposites, and a wretched and a happy life were also opposites, he did not preserve in each the force and nature of an opposite, but believed that wickedness alone was sufficient to cause an unhappy life, at the same time declaring that virtue alone was not sufficient to guarantee a happy life. And he said that it was especially inconsistent and contradictory for one who maintained that a life could in no way be made happy if virtue alone were lacking, to deny on the other hand that a life could be happy when virtue alone was present, and thus to take away from virtue when present and demanding it, that honor which he gave and bestowed upon virtue when lacking

Thereupon the Peripatetic, in truth very wittily, said: "Pray pardon me, and tell me this, whether you think that an amphora (somewhat less than six gallons) of wine from which a congius (a little less than six pints) has been taken, is still an amphora?" "By no means," was the reply, "can that be called an amphora of wine, from which a congius is missing." When the Peripatetic heard this, he retorted: "Then it will have to be said that one congius makes an amphora of wine, since when that one is lacking, it is not an amphora, and when it is added, it becomes an amphora. But if it is absurd to say that an amphora is made from one single congius, it is equally absurd to say that a life is made happy by virtue alone by itself, because when virtue is lacking life can never be happy."

Then Favorinus, turning to the Peripatetic, said: "This clever turn which you have used about the congius of wine is indeed set forth in the books; but, as you know, it ought to be regarded rather as a neat catch than as an honest or plausible argument. For when a congius is lacking, it indeed causes the amphora not to be of full measure; but when it is added and put in, it alone does not make, but completes, an amphora. But virtue, as the Stoics say, is not an addition or a supplement, but it by itself is the equivalent of a happy life, and therefore it alone makes a happy life, when it is present."

These and some other minute and knotty arguments each advanced in support of his own opinion, before Favorinus as umpire. But when the first night-lights appeared and the darkness grew thicker, we escorted Favorinus to the house where he was putting up; and when he went in, we separated.

Many scholars hold that the common elements (friends from Rome holidaying at Ostia walking along the beach, two speakers with opposing views about ultimate questions thrashing it out with a third as umpire) between this passage from the Attic Nights and the plot of the Octavius cannot be accidental and the Octavius is in all probability to some extent modelled upon the Attic Nights.

If so this has implications for the date. The Attic Nights used to be dated in the early 160's but currently it is dated in the late 170's. (One piece of evidence is what amounts to an obituary of the famous sophist Herodes Atticus in Book 19 'Herodem Atticum, consularem virum, Athenis disserentem audivi Graeca oratione, in qua fere omnes memoriae nostrae universos gravitate atque copia et elegantia vocum longe praestitit'. Herodes Atticus died shortly after 175.)

This would not in itself establish a date for the Octavius after Tertullian but it would require a date after the death of Marcus Aurelius. (180)

Another argument originally due to De Jong in Apologetiek en Christendom in den Octavius van Minucius Felix 1935, is that the absence of any Logos doctrine in MF is best explained as influence from the Modalist Monarchians who attacked such ideas as undermining the unity of God. This would include heretical figures like Noetus and Sabellius as well as Pope Callistus. De Jong used this to argue for a 3rd century date for MF after Tertullian but IMO this is taking the argument too far Modalist ideas were around in Rome in the very late 2nd century. However again this supports a date for MF after 180.

If the above arguments are valid then MF whether later than Tertullian or not is a number of years after the death of Fronto and the arguments for dating the Octavius during or shortly after Fronto's life are mistaken. Also a date after 180 probably prevents the absence of NT citations in Octavius being used as an argument for an early date. Writing this late the absence of references to the NT must be a deliberate choice by MF of little relevance to dating.

Another argument is from the style of MF particularly the use of Clausulae or prose rhythms. The argument her is that from the third century CE on writers composing Ciceronian prose used almost exclusively a very limited set of clausulae. Taking Cyprian as an example of this 3rd century Ciceronian style he uses 6 clausulae 93-99% of the time (out of 17-18 possibilities). Compared to 60-69% for Cicero himself 88-89% for MF and 72% for Tertullian. IE MF appears to be closer to Cyprian than to any writer before the 3rd century, showing an early version of the 3rd century Ciceronian style. This argument has been around for a long time, (Later studies seem to have shown that this result is not just an artefact of carefully choosing the authors one compares MF with), but has not been found convincing by scholars who for other reasons prefer an earlier date. However it seems generally accepted that the argument from style points to a 3rd century date after Tertullian and before Cyprian for MF the question is about how strong this type of evidence is.

There has been a great deal of argument about the relation between Tertullian and MF. (The Apology of Tertullian the main parallel was written c 197) Arguments about priority based on content have proved notoriously inconclusive with different scholars interpreting differently the same parallels. One more recent argument that many scholars have found both more objective and more convincing is that of Becker in Der Octavius des Minucius Felix 1967 (In Bayerische Akademie Der Wissenschaften Philosophisch-Historische Klasse) Warning my Academic German is poor and what follows should be treated with some caution.End Warning

Becker compares passages in Octavius parallel to Cicero Seneca etc with parallels between MF and Tertullian and finds important similarities.

In Tertullian's Apology chapter 9 we have

Quote:

.....how blood taken from the arms, and tasted by both parties, has been the treaty bond among some nations. I am not sure what it was that was tasted in the time of Catiline. They say, too, that among some Scythian tribes the dead are eaten by their friends. But I am going far from home. At this day, among ourselves, blood consecrated to Bellona, blood drawn from a punctured thigh and then partaken of, seals initiation into the rites of that goddess. Those, too, who at the gladiator shows, for the cure of epilepsy, quaff with greedy thirst the blood of criminals slain in the arena, as it flows fresh from the wound, and then rush off-to whom do they belong? those, also, who make meals on the flesh of wild beasts at the place of combat-who have keen appetites for bear and stag? That bear in the struggle was bedewed with the blood of the man whom it lacerated: that stag rolled itself in the gladiator's gore. The entrails of the very bears, loaded with as yet undigested human viscera, are in great request. And you have men rifting up man-fed flesh? If you partake of food like this, how do your repasts differ from those you accuse us Christians of? And do those, who, with savage lust, seize on human bodies, do less because they devour the living? Have they less the pollution of human blood on them because they only lick up what is to turn into blood? They make meals, it is plain, not so much of infants, as of grown-up men. Blush for your vile ways before the Christians, who have not even the blood of animals at their meals of simple and natural food; who abstain from things strangled and that die a natural death, for no other reason than that they may not contract pollution, so much as from blood secreted in the viscera.

In Octavius chapter 30 we have

Quote:

I believe that he himself [Jupiter] taught Catiline to conspire under a compact of blood, and Bellona to steep her sacred rites with a draught of human gore, and taught men to heal epilepsy with the blood of a man, that is, with a worse disease. They also are not unlike to him who devour the wild beasts from the arena, besmeared and stained with blood, or fattened with the limbs or the entrails of men. To us it is not lawful either to see or to hear of homicide; and so much do we shrink from human blood, that we do not use the blood even of eatable animals in our food.

The passage in Octavius is quieter less stridently rhetorical than in Tertullian (eg compare Blush for your vile ways before the Christians, who have not even the blood of animals at their meals of simple and natural food; who abstain from things strangled and that die a natural death, for no other reason than that they may not contract pollution, so much as from blood secreted in the viscera in Tertullian with To us it is not lawful either to see or to hear of homicide; and so much do we shrink from human blood, that we do not use the blood even of eatable animals in our food in MF)

Similarly in Cicero 'On the Nature of the Gods' we have

Quote:

Just as a man going into a house, or gymnasium, or market-place, would find it impossible, when he saw the plan, and scale, and arrangement of everything, to suppose that these things came into being uncaused, but would understand that there was some one who superintended and was obeyed, so in the case of such vast movements and alternations, in the orderly succession of phenomena so numerous and so mighty, in which the measureless and infinite extent of past time has never deceived expectation, it is much more inevitable that he should conclude that such great operations of nature are directed by some intelligence.

while in Octavius chapter 18 we have

Quote:

Now if, on entering any house, you should behold everything refined, well arranged, and adorned, assuredly you would believe that a master presided over it, and that he himself was much better than all those excellent things. So in this house of the world, when you look upon the heaven and the earth, its providence, its ordering, its law, believe that there is a Lord and Parent of the universe far more glorious than the stars themselves, and the parts of the whole world.

In which the rhetorical climax of Cicero 'it is much more inevitable' becomes in MF a simple equivalence.

Seneca's 'ignis aurus probat, miseria fortis viros' (Fire proves Gold, Adversity Strong Men) becomes in Octavius chapter 36 'ut aurum ignibus , sic nos discriminibus arguimur' (As gold by the fires, so are we declared by critical moments.) With the epigrammatic quality toned down.

Similarly Apolody chapter 48 has 'The mountains burn, and last. How will it be with the wicked and the enemies of God?' while Octavius chapter 35 has 'as the fires of Mount Aetna and of Mount Vesuvius, and of all burning earth, glow, but are not wasted; so that penal fire is not fed by the waste of those who burn', again the epigrammatic quality is lost.

Since the relation of MF to Cicero Seneca etc is similar to the relation of MF to Tertullian the simplest explanation is that just as MF rewrote Cicero Seneca etc so he rewrote Tertullian.

IMHO this type of argument is not conclusive but provides more or less objective evidence, other things being equal for preferring the priority of Tertullian to MF.

In Conclusion (finally). We have strong arguments from content for requiring a date for MF after 180. We have stylistic evidence pointing to a 3rd century date.

The arguments for an early date point if valid to a date during the reign of Marcus Aurelius or even earlier which seems excluded on other grounds.

The arguments from the relation of MF to Tertullian are either inconclusive or point to the priority of Tertullian.

Together these arguments point reasonably strongly to a date for MF after Tertullian before Cyprian maybe c 225.

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse · 11-12-2005, 02:44 PM

Thank you for these notes, which are most useful. My German is worse than yours, and the key players in the arguments all seem to write in that language (apart from Hinnsdaels, which I don't have).

I have a copy of Becker on order, but when I browsed its 100+ pages in a library, I found it hard to locate the meat of the argument. Which are the key sections? (I.e. if I have to use a scanner, which bits do I try to translate?)

Incidentally I have written to Eberhard Heck, the author of the article in the Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike, herausgegeben von Reinhart Herzog und Peter Lebrecht Schmidt. 4. Band: Die Literatur des Umbruchs von der römischen zur christlichen Literatur 117-284 n. Chr., herausgegeben von Klaus Sallmann. München: C. H. Beck 1997. (§ 485, p. 512), and asked him for some pointers on this question.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle · 11-12-2005, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Thank you for these notes, which are most useful. My German is worse than yours, and the key players in the arguments all seem to write in that language (apart from Hinnsdaels, which I don't have).

I have a copy of Becker on order, but when I browsed its 100+ pages in a library, I found it hard to locate the meat of the argument. Which are the key sections? (I.e. if I have to use a scanner, which bits do I try to translate?)

The notes on Becker come entirely from pps 74-97, which seemed to me to be central. (I may of course be missing important points by concentrating on this part to the exclusion of the rest)

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse · 11-16-2005, 12:38 PM

I now have Becker, and will run bits through a scanner at the weekend. Machine translators may help here!

There did seem to be a reference to the early pages, in which he discussed MF as a mosaic of earlier authors.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 11-18-2005, 12:10 PM

I have scanned the relevant pages of Becker. An HTML version of pp.74-97 is available online here, and at the top is a link to a PDF of the page images, since the HTML is bound to have some scanner errors in it.

The reason I've done this is that freetranslation.com's German translator is quite decent, and I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to produce a translation of it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 11-19-2005, 09:15 AM

I've created a working area so anyone interested can work on a translation of some or all of this part of Becker. It's at

http://www.tertullian.org/minucius/work/start.php

(This will look familiar to anyone who worked with me on the translation of Jerome).

Anyone can edit the translation, and I encourage anyone interested to do so. You just press the 'edit' button against a paragraph, and off you go.

I've pre-populated the translations with output from Systrans German->English, but they all need much more work.

I don't know if anyone else is interested, but I'll be working on it over the next week.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Julian · 11-21-2005, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I've created a working area so anyone interested can work on a translation of some or all of this part of Becker. It's at

http://www.tertullian.org/minucius/work/start.php

(This will look familiar to anyone who worked with me on the translation of Jerome).

Anyone can edit the translation, and I encourage anyone interested to do so. You just press the 'edit' button against a paragraph, and off you go.

I've pre-populated the translations with output from Systrans German->English, but they all need much more work.

I don't know if anyone else is interested, but I'll be working on it over the next week.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

My German is pretty decent so I might take a stab at some of these if I get the time. Any section that does not have someone's initials in square brackets at the end is fair game, right?

You have any other translation projects like this? I can do a number of languages, not all equally well, however.

Julian

Roger Pearse · 11-25-2005, 11:54 AM

Pardon my delay in responding, but I can't access II during the week.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

My German is pretty decent so I might take a stab at some of these if I get the time. Any section that does not have someone's initials in square brackets at the end is fair game, right?

Absolutely. Please feel free. The stuff I've had a go at is in grey, but there is lots more. The article looks so far rather seriously intelligent.

Quote:

You have any other translation projects like this? I can do a number of languages, not all equally well, however.

Not at the moment; but give me time...

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-12-2005, 02:44 PM	#2
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	Thank you for these notes, which are most useful. My German is worse than yours, and the key players in the arguments all seem to write in that language (apart from Hinnsdaels, which I don't have). I have a copy of Becker on order, but when I browsed its 100+ pages in a library, I found it hard to locate the meat of the argument. Which are the key sections? (I.e. if I have to use a scanner, which bits do I try to translate?) Incidentally I have written to Eberhard Heck, the author of the article in the Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike, herausgegeben von Reinhart Herzog und Peter Lebrecht Schmidt. 4. Band: Die Literatur des Umbruchs von der römischen zur christlichen Literatur 117-284 n. Chr., herausgegeben von Klaus Sallmann. München: C. H. Beck 1997. (§ 485, p. 512), and asked him for some pointers on this question. All the best, Roger Pearse

11-16-2005, 12:38 PM	#4
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	I now have Becker, and will run bits through a scanner at the weekend. Machine translators may help here! There did seem to be a reference to the early pages, in which he discussed MF as a mosaic of earlier authors. All the best, Roger Pearse

11-18-2005, 12:10 PM	#5
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	I have scanned the relevant pages of Becker. An HTML version of pp.74-97 is available online here, and at the top is a link to a PDF of the page images, since the HTML is bound to have some scanner errors in it. The reason I've done this is that freetranslation.com's German translator is quite decent, and I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to produce a translation of it. All the best, Roger Pearse

11-19-2005, 09:15 AM	#6
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	I've created a working area so anyone interested can work on a translation of some or all of this part of Becker. It's at http://www.tertullian.org/minucius/work/start.php (This will look familiar to anyone who worked with me on the translation of Jerome). Anyone can edit the translation, and I encourage anyone interested to do so. You just press the 'edit' button against a paragraph, and off you go. I've pre-populated the translations with output from Systrans German->English, but they all need much more work. I don't know if anyone else is interested, but I'll be working on it over the next week. All the best, Roger Pearse

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.