Talk:Hypatia

Tidied up

When I came across this article I thought it needed tidying up, and so I went ahead. Then it struck me that it had some weak or misleading phrasing, so I altered some of that. Then I removed some of the force from various allegations, particularly those that seemed to cast "rigid" Christians as the villains to the lovable, laughing heroes of paganism. Having saved the changes, I then came across this discussion page and quailed in fear at the reaction I should expect. Much more emphasis ought to be given to Hypatia's (and Alexandria's) exposure to the ideas that ended up in Augustine's The City of God - that's where the end of paganism gets interesting.--shtove 22:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Misreadings

One should explain somewhere that Hypatia's neoplatonism at that time (late 4th and early 5th century) falls well away of nowadays accepted science and/or philosophy, using very often magic, divination and, as neoplatonists are since Plotinus, very linked to mystic. Actually, some scholars (Vasilis Tatakis and Etiènne Gilson) even consider Christian thinkers of the time, like Augustine or Gregory of Nissa, more philosophical than decadent neoplatonism. So all this Sagan and Science vs. Superstition episody is rather misleading.

Only in modern context. Hypatia, in her time, came to symbolise learning and science which the early Christians identified with paganism. However, among the pupils who she taught in Alexandria there were many prominent Christians. One of the most famous is Synesius of Cyrene who was later to become the Bishop of Ptolemais. Many of the letters that Synesius wrote to Hypatia have been preserved and we see someone who was filled with admiration and reverence for Hypatia's learning and scientific abilities. What certainly seems indisputable is that she was murdered by Christians who felt threatened by her scholarship, learning, and depth of scientific knowledge. Giovanni33 05:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sagan

I think it's important to at least mention Sagan, since his muddled view of Hypatia and the burning of the library of Alexandria has influenced a lot of people. --Anonymous

I'd say not. Sagan is not relevant to a Hypatia entry - the story of how he misunderstood her story belongs on his entry. Perhaps one could justify a paragraph about misreadings of Hypatia that used Sagan as an example, but he should not occupy more space than her. For instance, the current entry leaves her as a female neo-Platonist -- that needs expanding long before misinterpretations! --MichaelTinkler

Oh - and may I ask why you think he's still influential? I'd say that approximately none of my students would recognize his name. Popular science history fame is fleeting. --MichaelTinkler

That says far more about your students than about Carl Sagan. --Eloquence 21:30 Nov 9, 2002 (UTC)

Ineed. Carl Sagan was a very succussful popularizer of science and has become part of our popular culture. This is seen with his catch phrase, "billions and billions." His distinctive delivery and frequent use of billions made this a favorite phrase of Johnny Carson and others, doing the many affectionate impressions of him. Sagan took this in good humor, and his final book was entitled Billions and Billions. Infact the humorous unit of the Sagan has now been coined to stand for any count of at least 4,000,000,000.Giovanni33 05:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't that muddled. Please read the text in more detail. -Jon H.

Possible Image

Hypatia -an image we might want to include, but what's the primary source? --Aonymouse

Hypatia and witchery?

Citation for the connection between Hypatia and witchcraft?

"And in those days there appeared in Alexandria a female philosopher, a pagan named Hypatia, and she was devoted at all times to magic, astrolabes and instruments of music, and she beguiled many people through (her) Satanic wiles. And the governor of the city honored her exceedingly; for she had beguiled him through her magic. And he ceased attending church as had been his custom."

The punishment of witchraft had been determined decades earlier by Emperor Constantius, as noted in Soldan's and Heppe's Geschichte der Hexenprozesse (p.82):

"Things changed with Constantius, who thoroughly tried to get rid of magic and therefore of paganism. In one of the laws he passed for that reason he complains that there were many magicians who caused storms with the help of demons and who harmed others' lives. The magicians caught in Rome were supposed to be thrown to wild animals, the ones picked up in provinces were to be tortured and, if they persistently denied, the flesh should be torn off their bones with iron hooks."

With no iron hooks available, Hypatia's death seems to match the prescribed punishment for witchraft precisely. She may have been the first famous "witch". In spite of Cyril's involvement in her murder, he was later declared a saint.

Power politics

Based on Dzielska, this is a gross simplification of the power stuggles that were existent in Alexandria:

"Hypatia clearly lived during a power struggle between the more pagan elements in Alexandria (who supported free inquiry), and the fundamentalist Christians, who condemned everything not supported by scripture."

--Roadrunner

Roadrunner, you clearly do not understand the subject you are writing about. Have you read Dzielska? She actually supports this claim with many details from the time. Please do not unilaterally remove large parts from the article without a good reason. I have cited Soldan, and can provide Soldan's own citation of the primary source as well -I don't know if others have made the connection between Constantius and Hypatia's death, but that's irrelevant, because the conclusion is fairly obvious. I will revert the changes you made, but now I'll have to go to bed. Let's work on these issues on the Talk page, this makes it much easier to avoid reverting useful changes.

Here's what Deschner has to say and what will be translated and incorporated into the article:

Nachdem der Patriarch jedoch das Volk aufgepeitscht, Hypatia in seinen Predigten als Zauberin diffamiert und erschwindelte Berichte ueber sie verbreitet hatte, wurde sie von den Moenchen des Heiligen, unter Anfuehrung des Klerikers Petrus, hinterruecks Ueberfallen, in die Kirche Kaisarion geschleppt, nackt ausgezogen, mit Glasscherben buchstaeblich zerfetzt und der zerstueckelte Leichnam oeffentlich verbrannt - «die erste Hexenverfolgung in der Geschichte» (Thiess).

That is, "the first witchhunt in history". --Eloquence

Deschner is no acceptable source. Str1977 07:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Pagan vs Christian

The page is a lot better. The problem I have with the original paragraph was that it implied a pagan/Christian split which was not the case.

I added the fact that Hypatia was killed at around age 60. Also I removed the term "fundamentalist" since to describe any Christian movement of the fourth century as "fundamentalist" is grossly anachronistic.

Also changed the term from "liberal" to "tolerant" since "liberal Christian theology" has a specific late 20th/early 21st century meaning that may not be applicable to the fourth century. --Roadrunner.

There was of course a pagan/Christian split, after all, Christians had murdered hundreds of pagans and destroyed the pagan temples 20 years earlier. Christians were not, however, a uniform group, and diversity was only slowly weeded out. Again, note what Synesius, a Christian, wrote. The original paragraph did not take into account that Hypatia had Christian supporters.

That Hypatia was killed at around age 60 is not a fact, it is Dzielska's hypothesis. She primarily relies on John of Malalas, a 6th century historian whom "Dzielska alone takes seriously" (Deakin). I will add a more detailed discussion of her age and the controversy surrounding it, just be patient.

The term "fundamentalist" is no more anachronistic than "tolerant", these are modern terms with modern connotations. These modern connotations are not actually distracting, they are helpful to understand the mindset of the persons in question. --Eloquence

The term "fundamentalist" is very anachronistic in this context. Christian fundamentalism is a specific movement which started in the late 19th/early 20th century United States with specific beliefs. It's unlikely that Cyril believed as most Christian fundamentalists do that Biblical literalism and inerrancy allows one to dispense with a church hierarchy.

It's also unlikely that Cyril also believed as most Christian fundamentalists do that aposolitic succession is nonsense (and rendered unnecessary by Biblical literalism) as is infant baptism is silly or that faith is the key quality of one's relationship of God. Christian fundamentalists do not believe in bishops or saints.

There is a point of view which attempts to link the fundamentalist viewpoint with all examples of intolerance. There are two separate theories here. Dzielska believes it was military arm of a religious casic idea here boils down to Cyril was intolerant, Christian fundamentalists are intolerant therefore Cyril was a fundamentalist. This is not only wildly NPOV but it is also historically absurd. The Spanish inquisition and the Crusades were wildly intolerant but they were not fundamentalist.

I would not object if it was clear that there is no intent to link Cyril to current Christian fundamentalists, but I think that that is exactly the intent of the paragraph which renders it NPOV. --Roadrunner

Thanks!!!!! No problem with the term dogmatic.

OK. I still think there's an important distinction between historic Christian fundamentalism and the more general term "fundamentalist", which is applied to many very different religious movements, but I can see that confusion might arise from the original presentation. It was not my intention to equate Cyril et al. with specific religious movements. --Eloquence

Killers

I'm wondering how accurate it is to conclude in the opening that Hypatia was killed by Christian monks. Later the article says the exact circumstances of her death are uncertain, and there's a quote linking the death to a magistrate. I think I have heard one theory that says some monks came in from the Egyptian desert and either took a direct part in her death, or helped incite a mob who then murdered her. There's a little more uncertainty about the extent of Cyril's involvement as well, I think. --Wesley 17:03 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

It was likely the parabolans, a religious police of hundreds of men. I will add more information on this soon. As for Cyril's involvement, I think that's covered quite fair -- even Dzielska, who is fairly apologetic throughout her writing, concludes: "Men in Cyril's employment assassinated Hypatia." Nevertheless, for good measure, I will also include quotations from "The History Of Hypatia, A most Impudent School-Mistress of Alexandria: Murder'd and torn to Pieces by the Populace, In Defence of Saint Cyril and the Alexandrian Clergy." by Thomas Lewis (1721). --Eloquence

Moved

Moved from article:

A global movement promoting the freedom of knowledge and free software was founded in 2001 to honour Hypatia of Alexandria. (Read The Hipatia Manifesto)

Finished move

It's spelled with an I instead a Y. It may or may not deserve its own article, but it's not a disambiguity like the way it was (with excessive use of hyphen, for some reason). --Menchi 02:16, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

Killers (again)

The issues I have with this article as it stands:

• 1) There is no conclusive proof that Hypatia was killed by monks. Damascius (in Athanassiadi's translation) refers to them as "a crowd of bestial men, truly abominable", which Rist argues is code for monks, but that's sort of stretching it. None of the other sources I've seen have referred specifically to monks in connection with this episode, and while it's definitely possible they were involved, it's not certain at all.

• 2) There is no evidence that the destruction of the Serapeum was at all connected with any decree from Theodosius, much less that he gave specific orders to Theophilus. Any decree that Theodosius did make regarding the closing of the temples was directed at imperial officials and certainly now bishops. (see G. Fowden's Bishops and Temples in the Easter Roman Empire AD 320-435)

• 3) I think the "witch" argument is more than a little anachronistic. John of Nikiu was writing very far after the fact, and none of the more contemporary sources portray her in that light.

• 4) I think the narrative of Damascius should be considered more closely in writing this article, it doesn't seem to be mentioned. Also, Socrates is a much better source than John of Nikiu, and should be given preference in discussing her death.

• 5) The issue of Cyril's involvement is well covered in Jean Rougé's "Politique De Cyrille D'alexandrie Et Le Meutre D'hypatie." Cristianesimo nella storia 11 (1990): 487-92. He concludes that while it's quite possible that Cyril had something to do with it (and I agree), there is no evidence linking him directly to the murder. --LaurenKaplow 05:34, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Use of the word "dogma"

I am slightly worried at the use of the terms "dogma" and "dogmatic" in this article. They seem to be being used in a modern sense with negative connotations, but they are also theological terms of art with specific meanings in the Orthodox Christian tradition that I am uncertain whether their invokers here appreciate (the writers of the "dogma" article in WP don't seem to). Karen Armstrong, in particular, has strongly recommended people not to use "dogmatic" in this way - it is currently used to convey unreasoned, often literalistic, belief and rigid adherence to doctrine. Theologically, especially to Orthodox Christians, it has a subtly different meaning, more like an acknowledgement of uncertainty and "unknowability". I am not a theologian (much after that point I'm afraid she almost completely lost me!) and I really can't expound the details of this very well, but to put it simply: if a sometimes vehement critic of Christianity like Karen Amrstrong thinks that "dogma" is actually a good thing (at least in its strict theological sense) then we should be very careful in the way we use it, especially when referring to ancient Christian leaders and theologians (when we use it to describe politicians, say, then it is clear we are using it as an - imperfect - analogy for the theological sense — Armstrong argues strongly that it was the use by analogy that actually gathered the negative connotations that now affix to the term even when used in the Christian sense). If the term "dogmatic" was being used (as a term of abuse) by the tolerant party against the anti-pagan party then I withdraw my objection to it. If the anti-pagan party was using "dogmatic" as a label for itself, then again, I retract my objection. My suspicion, however, is that neither of these things are true. I certainly wouldn't advocat a return to the language of "Fundamentalist" for reasons previously discussed. --VivaEmilyDavies 17:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK. So to take a specific example from the article:

Hypatia clearly lived during a power struggle between pagans and tolerant Christians on the one side, and dogmatic Christians who demanded the final destruction of paganism on the other.

what would be a preferred way to write this? --func(talk) 21:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not sure I have a good replacement text ready yet, but here are some things wrong with it. First, it ignores the Jews entirely, who at the time of Hypatia's death had recently been expelled from Alexandria because of some mob actions of their own. Second, it ignores the role of the 391 imperial decree forbidding worship at pagan temples. So really that particular sentence oversimplifies the situation at best, and misstates it entirely at worst. And finally, I think I agree with VivaEmilyDavies that "dogmatic" seems to be used in an anachronistic sense in your example. Someone tried to suggest that Synesius was referring to "dogmatic thinkers" when the quote doesn't show that he meant anything of the kind, as far as I can tell. --Wesley 05:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

I'm not sure about the pictures: the sketch at the top of the article is unremarkable "so wha?", and the painting at the bottom (showing almost everything but the bottom) is freakishly vulgar. Perhaps there should be a separate article: Daft Victorian Notions of Hypatia? BTW: can anyone confirm the pronunciation of her name with a hard "T"?--shtove 02:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Vulgar? It's a little artful nudity. —This unsigned comment was added by 142.104.250.115 (talk • contribs) .

Not just vulgar but freakishly so? Freakishly vulgar is scat porn. This is just a skinny art nude.

Wot is scat porn? I'll see if WP has an article - Coprophilia! That's not vulgar - disgusting (and intriguing). Both pictures should be removed because they're just daft Victorian fantasies that really have nothing to do with the subject. Instead of representing how she appeared (even in the nip), or what her life meant, they demonstrate how a couple of English doodlers 100 years ago thought she ought to appear. I have no objection to, say, Caravaggio's the taking of christ appearing on the article about Jesus - but then that's actual art, not a hack-job.--shtove 15:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Oy Shtove, I just always say hoo-pah-TEE-ah, which solves the whole problem!

Thanks - but what (w)hole problem? And a hard T, with emphasis and rhythm. But how does Hy turn in to Hoo? Ancient Greek? Or is it Irish-whiskey pronunciation? There's a bit on the Roman pronunciation of Veni Vidi Vici talk - weeni weedi weechi?

Death & Cyril's complicity

I cut out the latest "possible involvement" edit: the content is covered by the existing text, and the edit seemed to be pushing an anti-church line.--shtove 08:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing restored paragraph

This paragraph should stay out for several reasons: badly placed + completely POV + the contents are better covered under the section Hypatia's Death. I have relocated the part worth keeping further down.--shtove 09:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

How is it POV? Giovanni33 09:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"Possibly as a result of Christian leaders who felt threatened by her scholarship, learning, and depth of scientific knowledge..." is POV speculation. That Peter may have been acting on Cyril's orders is POV speculation. Besides, the paragraph should explain the discrepancy between her being dragged off her chariot and murdered, and it taking place in a church. And as shtove said, this account belongs in the section regarding her death. Wesley 20:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Scraping with shells

The article Scraping with shells was recently created, consisting of a brief description of Hypatia's death here. It was consequently changed to a redirect to this article, but the article doesn't really mention the idea of "scraping with shells". Is the description reliable? If so the article needs to say something to put the redirect in context for users who might get here from it; otherwise the redirect needs to go through RfD. BigBlueFish 22:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the redirect should probably go through RfD. One of the quotes suggested she was scraped with "potsherds", but these may have been oyster shells. In any case, the exact instruments used to tear her apart probably aren't that relevant to what happened, and if this is the only example, there's no reason for a 'Scraping with shells' article, even as a redirect. Wesley 03:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The Greek word for the instruments used to kill her is 'ostraka', I believe, which means 'oyster shells' but has also been translated as referring to roof tiles/pot shards made from oysters. Either way, a redirect sounds rather useless. biriwilg 22:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I think the main reasons I added the NPOV tag have been resolved. Are other editors agreeable to the article as it stands now? Wesley 04:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)