- Series: Revealing Antiquity (Book 8)
- Paperback: 176 pages
- Publisher: Harvard University Press; Reprint edition (October 1, 1996)
- Language: English
- ISBN-10: 0674437764
- ISBN-13: 978-0674437760
- Product Dimensions: 5.5 x 0.5 x 8.2 inches
- Shipping Weight: 4.8 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
- Average Customer Review: 28 customer reviews
- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #700,770 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Hypatia of Alexandria (Revealing Antiquity) Reprint Edition
Use the Amazon App to scan ISBNs and compare prices.
Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA) is a service we offer sellers that lets them store their products in Amazon's fulfillment centers, and we directly pack, ship, and provide customer service for these products. Something we hope you'll especially enjoy: FBA items qualify for FREE Shipping and Amazon Prime.
If you're a seller, Fulfillment by Amazon can help you increase your sales. We invite you to learn more about Fulfillment by Amazon .
Frequently bought together
Customers who bought this item also bought
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
From Library Journal
Philosopher, mathematician, and teacher, Hypatia dominated the cultural life of Alexandria, Egypt, during the final decades of the fourth century. While she is regarded as one of the last Neoplatonists, only fragments of her writings exist, and details of her life are sketchy. In attempting to add dimension to this legend, historian Dzielska (Jagiellonian Univ., Cracow, Poland) utilizes the few primary sources available, notably the letters of Hypatia's student Synesius. Though her scholarship is commendable, the author fails to substantiate generalized observations about Hypatia's personality with specific illustrations. Her conclusions-that Hypatia was nearly 60 at the time of her death, that she edited the extant works of other Alexandrian philosophers, and that her gruesome murder in 415 was a by-product of a power struggle among Christian factions in the city-do not significantly alter or add to general knowledge of this noble woman. This slight work is a marginal purchase for all but specialized libraries.
Rose Cichy, Osterhout Free Lib., Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
This gem of academic detective work may be the last word on a subject that has fascinated for centuries. (Anthony Gottlieb New York Times Book Review)
Like Cleopatra, Mary Magdalene, Joan of Arc...Hypatia has been retailored to suit the psychic needs of anybody retrospecting her, rational, romantic, nostalgic, or loony. [In this book] Dzielska demystifies Hypatia, sifting patiently through the original sources, from the Sud lexicon to the correspondence of Synesius of Cyrene. (John Leonard Nation)
Through a subtle reading of the ancient sources, Dzielska reconstructs a powerful and persuasive account of Hypatia's life. She also addresses the difficult task of describing her philosophy...with engagement and finesse. (Wilbur Knorr Science)
[A] pithy and engaging attempt to state what we actually know about Hypatia. (Carlin Romano Philadelphia Inquirer)
Hypatia, an exceptional philosopher, mathematician and high profile public figure of late fourth and early fifth century Alexandria, ironically owes her fame in history to the violent and politically contentious nature of her death in 415 AD. From the moment she was brutally murdered by a mob of angry Christians, Hypatia became a legend, a figure who has ever since been used and manipulated by artists, writers, poets and feminists. Maria Dzielska in Hypatia of Alexandria, explores who Hypatia was, what she believed, why she was killed and what she has come to symbolize in the centuries since...Dzielska's discussion of Hypatia has contributed to the understanding of women in late antiquity. Hypatia was an exceptional woman and has been of particular benefit to those interested in Christian and Roman/Hellenic history. The ideas commonly held regarding Hypatia have been strongly influenced and shaped by a tradition which used Hypatia as a symbol for its own attitudes and beliefs. Such details have created a veil over the true figure of Hypatia. This has effectively been removed by Dzielska revealing the historical Hypatia, an extraordinary woman, without the benefit of legend. (P. Murphy Ancient History)
This book is an important monograph for anyone with an interest in the fourth and fifth century Alexandria, its social life, church history, neo-Platonism and mathematics. The book reads well and for this the translator must be congratulated. (Leonora Jackson, Scholia: Natal Studies in Classical Antiquity)
Dzielska...provides here an exemplary 'retrieval' of the life and achievements of Hypatia of Alexandria (c. 335-415). Dzielska traces in detail the modern literary tradition of Hypatia--from the Enlightenment authors who claimed her as the last of the great pagan neoplatonists, through Victorian novelist Charles Kingsley, to today's feminists...The author portrays the close circle of her students and provides the context for her public lectures; she concludes with 35 sober pages on the 'life and death of Hypatia,' interpreting her death as a kind of witch-burning in the transition from pagan Empire to Christian state. Dzielska is meticulous in her pursuit of facts from the widely scattered sources...The book as a whole is a model of feminist scholarship in its sorting out of legend from facts. (Choice)
Maria Dzielska has finally brought us definitive and sober research into who that grand historic figure really was, the circumstances of her life and scholarship, and the dynamics that led to her death. We shall be permanently indebted to Dzielska for her thorough research and for her highly readable book...If you are a historian, Greco-Roman scholar, Egyptologist, anthropologist, psychologist, theologian or a thoughtful person in any field who likes a good read...buy this book! (J. Harold Ellens Biblical Archaeology Review)
History fades to myth. Dzielska's aim in this book is to peel away those mythical images of Hypatia to examine the reality beneath. The result is a splendid example of demythologizing scholarship...[It] deserves to be read by anyone studying ancient gender or her time period [and] is a delight to read, in a translation which is light and natural. (Richard Hawley Classical Review)
Historians and patristic scholars as well as general readers should be grateful to Dzielska for this book which clarifies a dark and interesting spot in Church history. (Coptic Church Review)
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Still, I have a story that I would like to share. The copy that I read was borrowed from the local public library. What merits mention are the edits performed on the book by a previous patron. That person had systematically changed every occurrence of "pagan" with a lower case "p" to "Pagan" with an upper case "p" and penciled out "St." every time Dzielska referred to some personage as "Saint X." Whatever my annoyance at the defacement of the library's book, the result demonstrated to the subsequent reader how apparently neutral linguistic conventions can be construed as embodying a certain Christian religious viewpoint.
As it happens, denigrating Christians by mischaracterizing Hypatia isn’t just a modern liberal desire. The use of a fictional Hypatia in this program began more than two hundred years ago, most notably with Gibbon’s “Decline And Fall,” where a fictional Hypatia is used in service of Gibbon’s theory that Christianity destroyed the strong and thriving Roman Empire. Since then, variations on this theme have been modestly common in Western writers, although the additional use of Hypatia as a pawn in the identity politics wars is new. (There were quite a few women intellectuals, philosophers and writers of some note in the Classical world, Christian and non-Christian, but that is usually ignored by those attempting to impute universal misogyny to our Christian ancestors in service of modern politics.)
Hypatia, though, unlike most exemplars used in identity politics, actually was very accomplished, and recognized as such in her time. Maria Dzielska’s “Hypatia Of Alexandria” is a short academic history, from 1995. It is not an entry in the identity politics wars; it is not a political book at all. It is a technical examination of what is really known about Hypatia, drawing on the handful of contemporaneous resources, and an attempt to harmonize the differences in those sources into a coherent picture of Hypatia’s time, life and death.
Dzielska’s book divides her treatment into three sections. She begins by outlining and rejecting the “literary Hypatia.” She finds no example of any literary treatment of Hypatia in the past two centuries that bears anything but a tenuous, if that, relationship to the truth, to the extent the truth is known. If “Agora” had come out before this book was published, Dzielska would doubtless have cast a jaundiced eye on it, as well. Such literary treatments include Gibbon, Voltaire, and numerous less famous writers, all of whom either created or embellished a story not based on history, revolving around a supposed beautiful young pagan philosopher, the last line of defense of Greek philosophy and thought, hater of Christianity, opposed to Christian irrationality and obscurantism, and murdered by the Christians as a result. All of this is made up out of whole cloth, as Dzielska notes.
In the second section, Dzielska digs deep into the source material to understand the milieu in which Hypatia lived and worked. Alexandria was one of the chief cities of the Roman Empire, sufficient to itself, such that Hypatia (and her also-famous father, Theon) never once left it. Dzielska closely parses the letters of Synesius of Cyrene, a disciple of Hypatia (and later a bishop), with their numerous references to other disciples of Hypatia. She also analyzes and compares the other primary sources, all of whom were somewhat hostile to Hypatia: Damascius, the pagan Neoplatonist philosopher of Athens; Socrates Scholasticus, a Christian writer of a church history that discusses Hypatia; and John of Nikiu, a later Christian writer. The analysis turns on careful reading of each writer in context, made deeper by cross-referencing other known facts that illuminate what is said about Hypatia and her circle. Through this analysis, Dzielska examines and attempts to view as clearly as possible not only Hypatia’s thought, acts and writings, but also the characteristics of her disciples.
Hypatia, and her circle of disciples, were upper-class elitists devoted to the life of the mind and the Platonic contemplation of knowledge. They were not populists and they occupied leading positions in city life. They were heavily involved in patronage networks to obtain advantage for other upper-class acquaintances and friends. They were not theurgists (i.e., interested in ritual magic), even though other philosophers and Hypatia’s father were. (In Classical times, the lines blurred among philosophers, mathematicians, astronomers, astrologers, theurgists and so forth, but each individual tended to focus on one area.) They were not involved in any way in the debates among pagans and Christians; in fact, Hypatia’s students included many Christians, including a deacon, and there does not appear to have been any concern about that. Finally, although Hypatia was heavily involved in mathematics and astronomy, sometimes in conjunction with her father, these were not her prime focus, which was pure philosophy and the attainment of Platonic enlightenment (to which end she and her circle were somewhat secretive of their learning, fearing that it might be sullied if exposed to the uninitiated). She therefore did not create any new advancements in philosophy, mathematics or any other area, but instead taught the teachings of and commented on earlier writers such as Plato, Ptolemy (whose earth-centered universe she wholly endorsed) and Diophantus (the founder of algebra, if there was one specific person who founded it).
Finally, Dzielska discusses the specifics of Hypatia’s life and death. She concludes Hypatia was about 65 when she died, in 415 A.D. She was killed by a mob acting in the perceived interest of Cyril, the recently elected archbishop of Alexandria. Prior to that time, Hypatia had had an excellent relationship with the Church authorities, in the person of Theophilus, the previous archbishop. Cyril, a hard and power-hungry man (though a canonized saint in the Roman Catholic Church), was in a political conflict with Orestes, the recently appointed prefect of Alexandria (i.e., the representative of civilian Imperial power). Hypatia, well-connected to the upper classes throughout the city, was a supporter of Orestes and the upper classes generally in this struggle. Orestes had ostensibly more political power, but Cyril had plenty of allies, many among the lower classes, who saw Hypatia’s alliance with Orestes as an obstacle to getting rid of him.
Therefore, Orestes’s enemies spread rumors that Hypatia was an idolater and sorceress (not a pagan, which everybody knew and nobody cared). These rumors were aided by her (dead) father’s known theurgical tendencies and her close relationship with her father. This whipped up the lower classes against Hypatia, who was already regarded as a member of the elite and no friend of the common people. Then a political assassination of Hypatia was planned and executed, involving a political riot (common in Alexandria) and the dismemberment and burning of Hypatia. The act was probably done by the hired young thugs of the cathedral guard (not by monks—although those had earlier attacked Orestes). The murder was well planned and had its desired political effect: Orestes left, never to be heard from again, and Cyril (who may not have known of the plan at all, but, like Henry II in his struggle with Thomas Becket, probably desired the effect) acceded to the main political power in the city.
Such political assassinations are, of course, common throughout history, up to the present day (just ask Hugo Chavez, if you can find him among the plumes of sulfur, or Vladimir Putin). This was not at all a struggle between pagans and Christians. Both Cyril and Orestes were very much Christian, and Hypatia not only took no part or position in, but was not affected in any way by, Cyril’s earlier suppression of the pagans and their cult center at the Serapheum (which was not the Library—that had likely been destroyed by Julius Caesar, with the destruction completed under Aurelian, both accidentally). In fact, Alexandrian mobs had earlier murdered two separate Christian bishops in a manner similar to how Hypatia was murdered, so there was actually nothing unique about her murder.
Dzielska shows that most accepted facts about Hypatia are wrong. She wasn’t a pagan in the sense of polytheist; philosophers who were pagan in that sense joined the Alexandrian mini-civil war that ended in the sacking of Serapheum, and had already all been killed or exiled. Instead, she was a Platonist philosopher, attempting “to achieve religious experience as the ideal of philosophy,” and not interested at all in religious struggles. Misogyny had little or nothing to do with her death; men also died in similar ways in similar political struggles. Nor did Hypatia’s death mark in any way the passing of the Classical world, as Gibbon would have it. Neoplatonist philosophy continued thereafter, as did paganism. And, of course, Christianity in the Classical world, as later, was not at all opposed to science and philosophy—the vast majority of scientific advances prior to the Industrial Age were made by avowed Christians, in medieval times mostly under the aegis and financial support of the Church.
Hypatia’s death didn’t mean anything at all, really, any more than the death of Archimedes at the hands of Roman soldiers at Syracuse did. All people die; some accomplish more than others before it happens to them. And although it may not be kind to say so, Hypatia created nothing new and did not advance human knowledge, although she undoubtedly was an excellent teacher of the work of others, and her students were devoted to her. Her work was purely derivative of the work of others; she made no advances in any area in which she studied, nor did she invent any scientific instruments, despite laughable claims she invented the astrolabe and the hydrometer. Bluntly, nobody at all would remember her except as an obscure figure, any more than hundreds of other known people of similar accomplishments, had she not been a woman and her manner of death gruesome and endlessly fascinating to later writers. But whatever the reason, we do remember her, such that Hollywood makes major movies about her, and this book is an excellent summation of what we actually know about her, in contradiction to what is normally said about her.