Thesis title: Seeking Hypatia’s symbol: the evolving legacy of the fifth-century philosopher Institution: Universiteit van Amsterdam, Graduate School of Humanities, Ancient Studies (Classics and Ancient Civilizations)
Student name: Lillian Fell Student number: 12175633
Thesis supervisor: Dr Martijn Icks Second reader:
Date of completion: 30/06/2019
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor at the Universiteit van Amsterdam, Dr Martijn Icks, for his helpful guidance and advice which supported me through the process of writing this thesis.
Contents
I. Introduction.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .page 4 II. “Mother, sister, teacher, and withal benefactress”: Hypatia in the
ancient sources.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..page 13 III. “A Sacrifice to the Prelate’s Pride”: Toland’s treatment of Hypatia.. .page 22 IV. The “Queen of Alexandria”: Kingsley’s treatment of Hypatia.. .. .. .. .page 33 V. A “Christian Martyr in Reverse”: Molinaro’s treatment of Hypatia.. ..page 44 VI. Conclusion.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. page 54
“Hypatia has suffered a fate worse than neglect; she has become a symbol.”1 This is the declaration made by Bryan Whitfield in his article which attempts, by re-examining the life and achievements of the fifth-century Alexandrian philosopher, to rescue her from this fate. It is a noble aim, but one that Whitfield acknowledges is fraught with difficulties. The
mythologisation of Hypatia has its roots in antiquity. Synesius, Hypatia’s student who went on to become the bishop of Ptolemais, arguably created the symbolic version of Hypatia through his presentations of his tutor as the embodiment of female virtue.2 His
conceptualisation proved extremely useful for later authors. Whilst the fifth-century
ecclesiastical historian Socrates Scholasticus manages to maintain some level of objectivity in his discussion of Hypatia’s murder, the accounts of his contemporary Philostorgius and of the sixth-century pagan philosopher Damascius co-opt the figure of Hypatia in order to attack Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria, and his clergy. Hypatia’s symbolic significance has been manipulated to suit authorial aims ever since. Within this essay, I intend to trace the
mythologisation of Hypatia from antiquity into the modern era. In doing so, I will seek to argue that her symbol has retained its appeal due to its continued relevance and adaptability. The efforts of scholars including Edward Watts, Maria Dzielska and Michael Deakin to recover a facet of the ‘real’ Hypatia from the legend which has grown up around her demonstrates the weight of opinion which supports Whitfield’s assessment:
“This process of symbolization, unfortunately, has too often resulted in such distortion of Hypatia’s contributions: her mutilation in the streets of Alexandria has generated a continuing
violence at the hands of numerous historians. From the sixth-century writings of Damascius to more recent writers like Charles Kingsley, Edward Gibbon, and Carl Sagan, the tragedy of
Hypatia’s death has been used as an occasion for a miscreant euhemerization that falsifies historical fact, at best in the service of a larger narrative, at worst in the service of
propaganda.”3
Dzielska warns us that “the legend has enjoyed wide popularity for centuries, obstructing scholarly endeavours to present Hypatia’s life impartially, and it persists to this day”, whilst Watts concludes his biography with the recommendation that we “appreciate Hypatia for the 1 Whitfield, Bryan J. “The Beauty of Reasoning: A Reexamination of Hypatia of Alexandra”. The Mathematics
Educator, vol. 6, no. 1, 1995, p. 14.
2 Bregman, Jay. “Synesius of Cyrene: Early Life and Conversion to Philosophy.” California Studies in Classical Antiquity, vol. 7, 1974, p. 57
person that she was, not the literary character that she became.”4 These historical studies are essential in providing new angles of perspective on Hypatia and the society in which she lived. However, the ongoing significance of Hypatia’s symbol, combined with the relative lack of scholarly analysis regarding this phenomenon, suggests to me that a study of ancient and modern receptions of the fifth-century philosopher is overdue.5 Before I turn to Hypatia’s literary legacy, I will outline the scant evidence we possess regarding the real woman who lived and worked in fifth-century Alexandria.
The challenges inherent in studying Hypatia are illustrated by the fact that scholars debate even her basic biographical information, such as the dates of her birth and death.
Traditionally, her birth is ascribed to 355CE, whilst March of 415CE is given as the date she was murdered.6 However, Dzielska notes that some scholars posit Hypatia’s birth as late as 370CE, whilst Deakin argues that the “best and most detailed discussions” opt for 416CE as the year in which she was killed.7 As my study focuses on the literary Hypatia rather than the historically accurate one I won’t comment on this debate, other than to note that I will follow Watts, who uses the traditional dates of 355CE and 415CE.
Our evidence regarding Hypatia’s intellectual output is similarly lacking. Despite the efforts of scholars such as Dzielska and Alan Cameron to reconstruct some of her philosophical and mathematical writings, the sad reality is that none of her works survive.8 Dzielska is correct 4 Dzielska, Maria. Hypatia of Alexandria. Trans. Lyra, F. London: Harvard University Press, 1995. p. 1; Watts, Edward J. Hypatia: The Life and Legend of an Ancient Philosopher. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. p. 155.
5 Whilst several scholars have attempted to recover the historical Hypatia, there are few studies dedicated to her literary legacy, a situation which I hope my essay will play a minor role in rectifying. Hardy Grant’s essay “Who’s Hypatia? Whose Hypatia Do You Mean?” does discuss the ongoing mythologisation of Hypatia, but I would suggest that Grant falls victim himself to what Whitfield argues is the misleading narrativisation of Hypatia’s life and death; adhering to the interpretation promoted by Damascius, Grant asserts that “internal decay” was sapping the energy of the Roman empire and he reveals his personal bias by describing Cyril as a “harsh and zealous defender of his faith.” See: Grant, Hardy. “Who’s Hypatia? Whose Hypatia Do You Mean?” Math Horizons, vol. 16, no. 4, 2009, pp. 11-12. 6 For this dating of Hypatia’s birth and death, see: Watts, Hypatia, p. 21, pp. 2-3.
7 Dzielska, Hypatia of Alexandria, pp. 66-68; Deakin, Michael. “Review: Hypatia of
Alexandria by Maria Dzielska.” The American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 103, no. 1, 1996, p. 84.
8 For a discussion of the attempts of some scholars to reconstruct Hypatia’s works, see: Deakin, “Review”, p. 86; Waithe, Mary Ellen. “Finding Bits and Pieces of Hypatia.” Hypatia’s Daughters: Fifteen Hundred Years of Women Philosophers. McAlister, Linda
to suggest that we can use the philosophical and theological approaches of her student
Synesius to guess at the nature of the education offered by Hypatia, although I would support Mary Ellen Waithe’s comment that we must treat Dzielska’s tendency to attribute the
majority of Synesius’ beliefs to Hypatia with caution.9 Overall, the scholarly consensus is that Hypatia taught a form of Neoplatonic philosophy which adhered to the interpretative tradition established by Plotinus and Porphyry, rather than the strand of theurgic ritual promoted by Iamblichus.10 Regarding Hypatia’s academic abilities, Deakin is right to insist that we shouldn’t ignore her status as a mathematician.11 Damascius provides the titles of several mathematical works she apparently authored. These include a commentary on Diophantus, who is regarded as one of the most challenging mathematicians of antiquity.12 This evidence from Damascius, combined with Synesius’ praise of his great teacher and Socrates’
discussion of Hypatia’s public achievements, demonstrates that the majority of the ancient sources agree that Hypatia was remarkably gifted as a philosopher, mathematician, teacher and speaker.
As well as her academic abilities, the ancient sources emphasise Hypatia’s physical beauty and moral virtue. I will analyse the comments and approaches of individual authors within the overview of the ancient sources which I will provide in the next chapter. Here, it suffices to note that Hypatia’s beauty and virtue are frequently interconnected, with her external appearance often acting as a physical guarantor of her moral excellence. This presentation has permeated modern interpretations of the fifth-century philosopher, an issue I will discuss at length as I examine the various utilisations of Hypatia’s symbol.
The dating of Hypatia’s death is debated, and each author offers their own views on the issue of who should bear the blame for her murder. Despite this imprecise evidence, the horrifically sudden, violent and public nature of Hypatia’s death remains undisputed. Watts regards the appalling yet fascinating draw of the philosopher’s death as one of the main reasons why she has been mythologised and transformed, as Whitfield phrases it, into a symbol.13 Many accounts, both ancient and modern, seek to blame Cyril or the Alexandrian clergy for the Lopez (ed). Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996. P. 5.
9 Waithe, “Bits and Pieces of Hypatia”, p. 5.
10 Watts, Hypatia, pp. 40-45; Shaw, Gregory. “Theurgy: Rituals of Unification in the Neoplatonism of Iamblichus.” Traditio, vol. 41, 1985, pp. 1–28.
11 Deakin, “Hypatia and Her Mathematics,” pp. 234-243. 12 Dzielska, Hypatia of Alexandria, p. 71.
philosopher’s death. In doing so, they emphasise Hypatia’s paganism as the reason that she was persecuted and killed. This is despite the fact that, as Dzielska notes, Hypatia is never explicitly identified as a devout pagan within any ancient historical account.14 I will devote close attention to this apparent paradox, in which Hypatia is repeatedly configured as a ‘martyr’ for paganism and classical culture despite a lack of evidence regarding her religious practices, within my analysis of the mythologisation of the philosopher.
My overview of the ancient literature should introduce an interesting phenomenon, namely the frequency with which Hypatia has been claimed and invoked by authors who have either been deemed heretics, or who identify themselves as holding views and theologies separate from those of the main church.15 Hypatia has thus – in the guise of a pagan,
female-philosopher – repeatedly featured at the centre of Christian discussion, argument and debate, from antiquity until the modern period. As I explore this pattern in greater detail, I hope to argue that factors including the lack of precise historical information regarding Hypatia, the circumstances of her life and death, and her status as a female philosopher have contributed to her appeal for those searching for a symbol with which they can defend their own ideology whilst attacking that of a rival individual or sect.
Once I have discussed the ancient literature, my focus will turn to the three modern sources around which my study revolves. John Toland’s 1720 essay “Hypatia” aims to attack resurgent Catholicism as a divisive and dangerous force within eighteenth-century British society. Through his writing, Toland also condemns clerical interference in matters of personal religion, as well as the reactionary nature of debate within his contemporary
political, social and religious spheres. He hopes that by invoking fifth-century Alexandria as a disturbing reflection of eighteenth-century England, and by presenting the murder of Hypatia as the tragic result of persecutory policies, he will convince his readers of the necessity for increased lenience and of open-minded, tolerant discussion. His paralleling of late-antique Alexandria with eighteenth-century Britain requires him to frame “Hypatia” as a historical text, but whilst his benignly influential and inviolably beautiful Hypatia has her origins in the ancient literature, I will aim to demonstrate that she is predominantly a 14 Hypatia is categorised as a pagan by John of Nikiu, but this author has clear ulterior motives which will be the subject of a discussion within the next chapter. For a discussion of Hypatia’s pagan status, see: Dzielska, Hypatia of Alexandria, p. 63.
15 This will be discussed at length in the proceeding chapter, but here it suffices to note that these authors include: Socrates Scholasticus, Philostorgius, Damascius, John Toland and Charles Kingsley.
convenient construct of Toland’s imagination. My discussion will go on to examine the ways in which Toland uses his Hypatia to attack the fifth-century patriarch Cyril and,
consequently, his Catholic ‘descendants’, whom Toland regards as a serious threat to the standards and principles of his own society.
Charles Kingsley’s 1853historical romance Hypatia, or New Foes with an Old Face shares Toland’s aim of condemning Catholic influence within British society. Kingsley also hopes to enforce a moral message through his novel, by drawing an explicit parallel between his readers and his characters. He suggests that only by adhering to a correct form of Christianity will his readers avoid the ruinous fates to which the majority of his fifth-century
Alexandrians are ultimately condemned. Kingsley’s Hypatia plays a fundamental role in communicating this message, as we witness her transformation from a militant pagan to a Christianised ‘martyr’. Her religious status is thus emphasised and deployed to suit
Kingsley’s specific aims. His reader is led to conclude that Hypatia practices a truer form of Christianity than that preached by the hypocritical and tyrannical Cyril, and is consequently encouraged to criticise the doctrines of Catholicism. The similarities between Toland and Kingsley’s aims, as well as the significant discrepancies in the form and content of their works, should provide a fruitful foundation from which to launch my discussion of Kingsley’s treatment of Hypatia.
Ursule Molinaro’s 1989 poem “A Christian Martyr in Reverse” recasts Hypatia as a devoted pagan and as a sexually and intellectually liberated woman, in order to criticise what
Molinaro regards as inherently oppressive and patriarchal Judeo-Christian creeds. By
rejecting the traditional ideals of chastity and innocence, Molinaro’s Hypatia initially appears to be entirely separate from the virtuous figure constructed by the ancient literature.
However, I will seek to argue that whilst Molinaro aims to criticise not just one sect or strand of Christian belief, but the faith in its entirety, she also intends to remind her reader that every reception of Hypatia is grounded in the essential facts of Hypatia’s life and the horrifying reality of her death. Molinaro has thus identified that Hypatia’s symbol retains its relevance partly due to the obscurity and silence of the historical Hypatia, as this ambiguity enables authors to reconstruct and repurpose the fifth-century philosopher to suit their own intentions. By comparing the versions of Hypatia created by Toland, Kingsley and Molinaro, I hope to investigate the ways in which her image as a female pagan philosopher has affected the versatility of her symbol. The range of academic opinion regarding her religious and
intellectual practices demonstrates the complexity and significance of this issue. Watts asserts that, whilst we should not underestimate Hypatia’s achievements in successfully navigating the predominantly male spheres of philosophy and mathematics, female academics were not actually that rare within antiquity.16 On the other hand, John Rist states “the fact that she was a woman must never be forgotten. Female philosophers were a comparative rarity in antiquity and were regarded as a marvellous phenomenon.”17 I will dedicate more attention to this debate within the body of my essay. Here, it suffices to note that whilst Watts is right to remind his readers that Hypatia was not the only notable female intellectual of the ancient world, her achievements were exceptional and her status as a philosopher and mathematician generated fascination within her own lifetime and has continued to do so ever since.
In examining the versions of Hypatia constructed by Toland, Kingsley and Molinaro, it is essential to reflect on their intentions in claiming her symbol as well as on their methods of navigating their contemporary religious, social and political landscapes. Ultimately, this study of approaches to Hypatia’s paganism should confirm Martindale’s assertion that “meaning is always realised at the point of reception.”18 Investigating Hypatia the symbol may not shed any light on the person that she was, but it will reveal the flexible, dynamic nature of her legacy, despite – or perhaps, because of – how many individuals, sects and movements attempt to claim her as their own.
The figure of Hypatia is closely associated with the fate of paganism in many of our sources, with authors ranging from Damascius to the eighteenth-century historian Edward Gibbon opting to present her death as indicative of the decisive decline of classical culture and philosophy.19 This paralleling of Hypatia with paganism means that an overview of the state of polytheistic religion in late antiquity is required. We may compare Whitfield’s concerns regarding the narrativisation of the death of Hypatia with Cameron’s attempts to dismantle several “romantic myths” which relate to late antique paganism. Both scholars are concerned that these interpretations of historical events serve to distort our understanding of the reality of the late antique Roman empire.20 Cameron targets in particular the notion that a “pagan
16 Watts, Hypatia, p. 93.
17 Rist, J. M. “Hypatia”. Phoenix, vol. 19, no. 3, 1965, p. 220.
18 Martindale, Charles. Redeeming the Text. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. P. 3.
19 Whitfield, “A Reexamination of Hypatia”, p. 14; Dzielska, Hypatia of Alexandria, p. 4. 20 Cameron, Alan. The Last Pagans of Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. P. 3.
revival” was staged in the late fourth century, as well as the conceptualisation of the Battle of the Frigidus in 394CE as “paganism’s last stand”.21
That paganism was in decline throughout the period of late antiquity is indisputable. Stephen Mitchell suggests that over the course of the fourth century, more than half of the inhabitants of the empire converted to Christianity.22 However, regional and social variations complicate this picture. Garth Fowden interprets the continuation of polytheistic practices at Carian Aphrodisias until the late fifth century as evidence of the tenacity of paganism in some areas and amongst certain communities.23 As well as this regional variation, it is also essential to note the variety of practice which was possible within both Christianity and paganism. Fowden discusses the “unusual and thoroughly personal choice” made by Pegasius, the bishop of Troy who gave the (then officially Christian) Julian a tour around the pagan altars which he had ensured remained well-cared for and maintained.24 Hypatia’s student Synesius self-identified as both a Christian and as a philosopher, illustrating the possibility of a unique and independent religious approach.25 However, such an approach was in conflict with the Christian tenet of universal worship of the single supreme deity. As Christianity spread across the empire, disagreements regarding the nature of worship and the correct interpretation of Scripture multiplied.26 Geoffrey De Ste Croix suggests that schism was present within the church from its earliest stages, arguing that after his conversion Constantine “felt the
necessity, for the first time, of enforcing unity in worship.”27 Despite his earnest attempts, this was a task at which Constantine – and indeed, all subsequent imperial rulers – would fail.
21 Cameron, Last Pagans of Rome, p. 4.
22 Mitchell, Stephen. A History of the Later Roman Empire AD 284–641. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2015. P. 225.
23 Fowden, Garth. “Polytheist Religion and Philosophy.” Cameron, Averil and Garnsey, Peter (eds). Cambridge Ancient History 13: The Late Empire, A.D. 337–425. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. p. 541.
24 Fowden, “Polytheist Religion and Philosophy”, p. 542.
25 Watts notes that “some of the hymns written by Synesius in the years immediately following his departure from Hypatia’s school show the relatively seamless ways in which the Platonism of Hypatia could blend with Christian ideas”, see: Watts, Hypatia, p. 47. 26 For a discussion of the development of heresy and orthodoxy within the early church, see: Cameron, Averil. “The Cost of Orthodoxy.” Church History and Religious Culture, vol. 93, 2013, pp. 339-61.
27 De Ste. Croix, G.E.M. “Heresy, Schism, and Persecution in the Later Roman Empire.” Christian Persecution, Martyrdom, and Orthodoxy. Whitby, Michael & Streeter, Joseph (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. p. 212
Christian factionalism occurred at a local as well as at an imperial level. When Cyril gained the bishopric of Alexandria in 412CE, one of his first acts was to close the churches of the Novatians.28 This sect adhered to the doctrines of its founder, the third-century bishop Novatian. He had argued against readmitting any Christians who had renounced their faith during periods of persecution back into the church.29 Cyril’s anti-Novatian policy was widely regarded as an act of personal vengeance, as the Novatians had opposed his promotion to the bishopric.30 As several of our ancient sources on Hypatia indicate, Cyril was a divisive figure, partly because of his connections with his uncle and predecessor, the bishop Theophilus. Theophilus had attracted admiration and condemnation in equal measure for his role in encouraging the destruction of the pagan Serapeum in Alexandria in 391CE.31 Furthermore, Cyril promoted an understanding of Christ’s divinity which set him apart from the
mainstream church, an issue I will discuss in greater detail when I analyse the reception of Cyril within the ancient literature.32 What I hope to emphasise here is that within Hypatia’s Alexandria (and the empire as a whole), there were serious divisions within the church and within the wider Christian community, as well as between groups of Christians, Jews and pagans across the city.33 This situation was nuanced and delicately balanced, and modern scholars must therefore take care when discussing what may initially appear to be
straightforward clashes between Christians and pagans, or when applying terms such as ‘Christian’ or ‘pagan’ to any late antique individual.
Mitchell suggests that, contrary to modern expectations, few active measures were taken to suppress paganism until the reign of Justinian, perhaps because many Christians regarded heretics, rather than the dwindling polytheists, as the greatest threat to their faith.34 Regarding the decline of polytheism, Cameron concludes: “Roman paganism was not extinguished on the field of battle or even by imperial laws. It died a natural death, and was already mortally ill before Theodosius embarked on his final campaign.”35 The pervasiveness of the various
28 Watts, Hypatia, p. 108.
29 Kelly, Douglas Floyd. “Novatian of Rome”. Edinburgh Research Archive (Online), 1973, pp. 1-34. http://hdl.handle.net/1842/30338, accessed: 03/06/2019.
30 Watts, Hypatia, p. 108. 31 Watts, Hypatia, pp. 59-60.
32 McGuckin, John A. St Cyril of Alexandria The Christological Controversy, Its History, Theology and Texts. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994.
33 Watts, Hypatia, pp. 56-62; Rist, “Hypatia”, p. 222. 34 Mitchell, A History of the Later Roman Empire, p. 245. 35 Cameron, Last Pagans of Rome, p. 131.
myths which have developed around events such as the destruction of the Serapeum, the Battle of the Frigidus and the death of Hypatia demonstrates the persistent desire to portray the period of late antiquity as one of transformation and transition – an era characterised by cultural, social and religious clashes, and thus a time of inevitable decline. Yet, as Whitfield and Cameron separately point out, such a portrayal has little grounding in historical reality. I will end this introduction to the historical Hypatia by noting that whilst many literary
accounts focus on her religious practice as the cause of her death, scholars point to tragic timing, the history of mob violence in Alexandria or to the pressures placed on an
impoverished population by lack of work and the Lenten fast as potential factors.36 As I turn to the symbolic Hypatia, I will be guided by the question of why – despite the lack of evidence regarding her personal faith – authors have consistently chosen to ignore these elements emphasised by scholars, in favour of imagining Hypatia as the victim of religious persecution, a martyr for her own faith and philosophy.
Word Count: 3678
“Mother, sister, teacher, and withal benefactress”: Hypatia in the ancient sources37
36 For these explanations for Hypatia’s death, see: Watts, Hypatia, p. 19; pp. 154-55.
37 Fitzgerald, A. The Letters of Synesius of Cyrene. London: Oxford University Press: 1926. p. 99.
The Hypatia which we have inherited from history is a multi-faceted and somewhat
fragmented figure, a fact which is referenced in the titles of two articles on the Alexandrian philosopher. Hardy Grant’s “Who’s Hypatia? Whose Hypatia Do You Mean?” (2009) alludes to the range of factions and individuals who have laid claim to her legacy, whilst Waithe’s “Finding Bits and Pieces of Hypatia” (1998) surveys modern methods which aim to reconstruct the experiences of the ‘real’ Hypatia.38 That this task is extremely difficult is acknowledged by those scholars who attempt it; given our relative dearth of secondary sources, the span of time and the loss of Hypatia’s writings, I would go so far as to argue that it is impossible.39 As attempts to separate the ‘real’ Hypatia from her legend demonstrate, even our earliest sources contribute to the mythologisation of the philosopher. Whitfield criticises Damascius in particular as the inventor of Hypatia as “the embodiment of
Hellenism destroyed by the onslaught of mindless Christianity, the epitome of the end of the wisdom of the ancients.”40 This suggests that any ‘true’ or ‘historical’ version of the fifth-century philosopher is irrevocably lost. I will attempt to demonstrate this as I progress chronologically through an overview of our ancient literature, beginning with the correspondences of Synesius of Cyrene.
Scholars often present Synesius as our most insightful and substantial source on what might be termed the ‘real’ Hypatia. 41 I do not dispute that his personal relationship with Hypatia and his experiences as her student mean that his evidence should be assessed seriously. However, it is important to note that within antiquity letters were often composed with the expectation that they would be published or at least read aloud at a gathering.42 Synesius’ careful prose and repeated referencing of Greek authors such as Homer and Aristophanes imply that he was aware that his letters might become public texts, and hence of a need to refine his image within them.43 For example, his declaration to Hypatia – “I account you as the only good thing that remains inviolate, along with virtue” (Ep.81) – venerates the philosopher but also reflects well on Synesius himself, as the former student of this “only 38 Grant, Hardy. “Who’s Hypatia? Whose Hypatia Do You Mean?” pp. 11–15; Waithe, Mary Ellen. “Finding Bits and Pieces of Hypatia.”.
39 Watts, Hypatia, p. 5.
40 Whitfield, “A Reexamination of Hypatia”, p. 14. 41 Dzielska, Hypatia of Alexandria, p. 28.
42 For a discussion of letters within antiquity, see: McGuire, Martin R. P. “Letters and Letter Carriers in Christian Antiquity.” The Classical World, vol. 53, no. 5, 1960, pp. 148–153. 43 Dzielska, Hypatia of Alexandria, p. 30.
good thing”. Within this same letter he recalls that Hypatia described him as “the providence of others”, demonstrating that these correspondences sometimes reveal more about their author than they do about Hypatia.
Dzielska claims that none of our historical sources provide us with a clear indication that Hypatia actually practiced as a pagan.44 I agree that explicit evidence regarding the philosopher’s religious status is lacking, and I also support Dzielska’s argument that the presence of Christian students at Hypatia's lectures indicates that she cannot have been the militant pagan that authors like Kingsley imagine. However, Synesius does categorise her as a ‘Greek’: “you will be the first of the Greeks to have access to the work” (Ep.154). This may refer to Hypatia’s ancestral heritage, but as ‘Greek’ and ‘Hellene’ had come to function as respectful terms for those who practiced polytheism, it is also possible that Synesius is alluding to his tutor’s pagan religious activities.45
Synesius’ preference for using evocative terms and metaphors within his letters has altered later imaginings of Hypatia. He addresses his former tutor as his “august mistress” (Ep. 10), “the Philosopher” (Ep. 10) and as his “mother, sister, teacher, and withal benefactress” (Ep. 16), whilst his praise in a letter sent to his fellow student Olympius verges on deification as he describes the “sacred hand” of their “common teacher” (Ep. 133). 46 Perhaps of greatest significance is Synesius’ characterisation of Hypatia as the embodiment of female virtue, through his greeting “mother, sister, teacher, and withal benefactress”. Here, Hypatia is made to simultaneously typify maternal care, sisterly companionship and philosophical and moral guidance, whilst her status as “benefactress” signals a more general, nebulous generosity. This hyperbolic description holds Hypatia to an impossibly high standard, demonstrating that even within the letters of our most ‘trustworthy’ source, the ‘real’ Hypatia often remains obscured behind an idealised one.
Synesius’ portrait of Hypatia as an unparalleled exemplar of female goodness has infiltrated almost every subsequent depiction of the fifth-century philosopher. From the historical 44 Dzielska, Hypatia of Alexandria, p. 63.
45 For Hypatia’s Greek heritage, see: Dzielska, Hypatia of Alexandria, p. 61. For the development of the term ‘Hellene’, see: Cameron, Last Pagans of Rome, pp. 3-33.
46 For a discussion of Synesius’ ‘sanctification’ of Hypatia, see: Dzielska, Hypatia of Alexandria, p. 47.
account of Socrates Scholasticus to Charles Kingsley’s romantic novel, Hypatia is repeatedly presented as the pinnacle of feminine virtue, the embodiment of innocence, wisdom and beauty. John Toland’s exhortation to the “most beautiful, most vertuous, most learned, and every way accomplish’d LADY” demonstrates this well.47 Synesius remains an essential source, in that he offers glimpses of the style of philosophy Hypatia might have taught and her status as a teacher.48 However, rather than providing insight into the ‘real’ Hypatia, I suggest that within his letters we have the origin of Hypatia as a symbol.
From the correspondences of Synesius, we turn to the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus. Socrates was born around 380CE, making him – alongside Synesius and the historian Philostorgius – one of just three sources who livedcontemporary with Hypatia.49 His Ecclesiastical History, which focuses on the period 305 – 439CE, was meant to continue the work done by Eusebius of Caesarea. His account of Hypatia constitutes one short chapter of his history, but her terrible and terrifying death provides Socrates with a means of
expressing his concerns regarding the prevalence of intolerance and reactionary violence amongst some Christian communities.50 Alberto Puertas notes that whilst Socrates imitated the content of Eusebius’ text, he diverged significantly in style, employing a simple, straight-forward tone in contrast to Eusebius’ elaborate prose.51 Puertas interprets this as a reflection of Socrates’ fundamental belief that in order to attain unanimity and uniformity within the church, pretentious displays of rhetoric and grand claims of learning and culture must be rejected, in favour of humility and a modest style.52 Socrates understood that displays of rhetoric often caused or inflamed the disputes which were splitting the church. This greatly concerned him, as attaining cohesion within the Christian faith was his ultimate aim and desire.53 Yet, as his account of Hypatia demonstrates, his desire for a more unified
47 Toland, John. Tetradymus. Atheism in Britain, Vol. II. Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 1996. p. 101.
48 Dzielska attempts to identify the type of philosophy taught by Hypatia through an overview of her students, see: Dzielska, Hypatia of Alexandria, pp. 27-65.
49 Watts, Hypatia, p. 124. 50 Watts, Hypatia, pp. 122-3.
51 Puertas, Alberto J. Quiroga. “The Literary Connoisseur. Socrates Scholasticus on
Rhetoric, Literature and Religious Orthodoxy.” Vigiliae Christianae, vol. 69, no. 2, 2015, p. 111.
52 Puertas, “The Literary Connoisseur”, p. 111. 53 Puertas, “The Literary Connoisseur”, p. 111.
Christianity did not dissuade him from criticising any Christians he believed to be acting against the central tenets of his faith.
Socrates describes Hypatia as a woman who “made such attainments in literature and science, as to far surpass all the philosophers of her own time” (HE.7:15).54 He emphasises her “extraordinary dignity and virtue” (HE.7:15) which impressed men, and suggests that she held a position of influence within Alexandrian society. This complements the impression we receive from Synesius, who claimed that Hypatia would “always have power, and long may you have it and make a good use of that power” (Ep.81), before asking her to use her influence to ensure the prosperity of two young men in Alexandria.
But whilst Synesius presents Hypatia’s influence as an advantage, Socrates implies that it caused her to fall “a victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed” (HE.7:15). Whitfield is correct to note that Socrates – who makes no reference to Hypatia’s religious practices, pagan or otherwise – frames her death as the culmination of political tensions within Alexandria.55 However, this does not mean that his account didn’t influence later depictions of Hypatia as a pagan martyr, with Cyril as her wicked persecutor. Socrates concludes his account by stating: “This affair brought not the least opprobrium, not only upon Cyril, but also upon the whole Alexandrian church. And surely nothing can be farther from the spirit of Christianity than the allowance of massacres, fights, and transactions of that sort” (HE.7:15). This suggestion that Hypatia’s death revealed the extent to which the Alexandrian church (presided over by Cyril) had strayed from “the spirit of Christianity” provided later authors with a basis on which to present Cyril as the instigator of Hypatia’s murder, his church as a cradle for heresy and vice.56
54 Socrates Scholasticus. The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates, Surnamed Scholasticus, Or the Advocate:
Comprising a History of the Church, In Seven Books, From the Accession of Constantine, A.D. 305, to the 38th Year of Theodosius II., Including a Period of 140 Years. Trans. Walford, Edward & de Valois, Henri. London:
H. Bohn, 1853.
55 Whitfield, “A Reexamination of Hypatia”, p. 17.
56 The development of this depiction will be discussed in greater depth in the proceeding chapter, but here it suffices to note that in his essay on Hypatia, Toland cites Socrates as evidence of Cyril’s wickedness, see: Toland, “Hypatia”, p. 133.
Whilst scholars are split as to whether Socrates was aligned to any particular Christian sect, there is no such debate regarding his contemporary, Philostorgius.57 He vehemently rejected the teachings made orthodox by the Nicene creed,which stated that Christ the Son shared the essence of God the Father.58 Philostorgius favoured Arius’ stance, quoted here by Socrates: “‘If,’ said he, ‘the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore
necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing’” (HE.5:1). Ultimately, Arius argued that Christ the Son had been created by the Father, and was thus subordinate to Him. The ‘Arian controversy’, the term for the schism which arose as a result of this position, was one of the most bitterly contested disputes of the early church. Its effects were still
reverberating during Philostorgius’ lifetime, as is demonstrated by his manipulation of Hypatia’s death as a means of attacking his rival Nicene Christians. He first affirms the image, established by Synesius and Socrates, of Hypatia as a gifted philosopher and mathematician, before stating that this remarkable woman was torn to pieces by the “Homoousian party”, another term for the adherents of the Nicene creed.59 Philostorgius is thus the first in a long line of authors to use Hypatia as a dynamic and versatile symbol through which his own aims and ideologies may be disseminated.
Our next source is the pagan philosopher Damascius. He was serving as head of the School of Athens when Justinian closed it in 529CE, and is thus is sometimes styled the ‘last of the Neoplatonists’.60 His Life of Isidore is an account of his philosophical mentor, but it is also an overview of late antique Platonism, which Damascius generally represents as being in a deplorable state.61 The main factors he blames for this are harsh anti-pagan imperial edicts, 57 For a discussion of Socrates’s theological allegiances, see: Walford, Edward & de Valois, Henri. “The Life of Socrates”, pp. iii-x; Watts, Hypatia, p. 124; and Drake, H.A.
“Intolerance, Religious Violence, and Political Legitimacy in Late Antiquity.” Journal of the
American Academy of Religion, vol. 79, no. 1, 2011, pp. 193–235. For a discussion of Philostorgius’ religious allegiances, see: Rist, “Hypatia”, p. 222.
58 Mitchell, A History of the Later Roman Empire, pp. 277-325.
59 Beatrice, Pier Franco. “The Word ‘Homoousios’ from Hellenism to Christianity.” Church History, vol. 71, no. 2, 2002, p. 243; Philostorgius. The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen: Comprising a History of the Church From A.D. 324 to A.D. 440. Trans. Walford, Edward. London: H.G. Bohn, 1855.
60 Watts, Hypatia, p. 125.
61 Watts, Edward. “Doctrine, Anecdote, and Action: Reconsidering the Social History of the Last Platonists (c.430-c.550C.E.)”. Classical Philology, Vol. 106, No. 3, 2011, p. 239; O'Meara, Dominic J. “Patterns of Perfection in Damascius' ‘Life of Isidore.’” Phronesis, vol.
militant Christian zealots and a general culture of ignorance and intolerance.62 As he agonises over the attrition of polytheistic practices and beliefs, Damascius presents his reader with some exemplary pagans to emulate, men and women who adhered to Epictetus’ teachings on the duty of the philosopher to refuse to serve the corrupt state.63 Hypatia is one of these.
Damascius used the accounts of his predecessors – most notably, that of Socrates Scholasticus – in order to craft his own depiction of Hypatia.64 Before I analyse his
presentation, it is important to note that his Life of Isidore only survives in fragments. Some of these are recorded within the Library of the ninth-century Constantinopolitan patriarch Photius, whilst others have survived through the tenth-century Greek lexicon, the Suda.65 The Suda actually contains two different, collated accounts of Hypatia, one from Damascius and another from an unnamed source. Watts argues that the scribe responsible for transmitting these sources to the Suda misunderstood Damascius, as his account claims Hypatia was married to his mentor, Isidore.66 The impact of this on later sources will be explored in the next chapter. Here, it is sufficient to note that Damascius’ account is fragmentary and that it has been subjected to misinterpretations over time.
Damascius provides us with some of the titles of Hypatia’s works. These include a
commentary on the mathematician Diophantus, a text titled The Astronomical Canon and a discussion of The Conics of Apollonius.67 These works indicate Hypatia’s considerable mathematical abilities, and Damascius justifiably identifies her as a “geometer” as well as a “philosopher”. Interestingly, whilst Damascius provides more detail regarding Hypatia’s academic activities than Socrates or Philostorgius, he also dedicates more attention to her beauty and chastity. He claims she always remained a virgin, and that “She was so beautiful and shapely that one of her students fell in love with her”. This student was only dissuaded from his infatuation when Hypatia presented him with a rag stained with her menstrual blood and declared, “This is what you love, young man, and it isn’t beautiful!” Whilst Dzielska chooses to interpret this scenario as indicative that Hypatia lived by Platonic doctrines of 51, no. 1, 2006, p. 86.
62 Watts, Hypatia, p. 125; Watts, “The Social History of the Last Platonists”, p. 238. 63 Watts, “The Social History of the Last Platonists”, p. 237.
64 Watts, Hypatia, p. 124. 65 Watts, Hypatia, p. 125. 66 Watts, Hypatia, p. 128.
rejecting the corporeal self in favour of the spiritual one, I suggest that Waithe’s warning that this story may be apocryphal is well-founded.68
Whilst Socrates reports that the death of Hypatia tarnished the reputation of both Cyril and the church and Philostorgius lays the blame with the Homoousians as a collective group, Damascius openly depicts Cyril as the instigator of her murder. He states that when Cyril learned of Hypatia’s popularity, “he was so struck with envy that he immediately began plotting her murder”. This portrait of the patriarch as the jealous and wicked persecutor has been adapted and utilised in many sources since. As Cyril is made to symbolise the
intolerance and cruelty which Damascius associated with Christianity, Hypatia becomes the innocent victim whose fate is intertwined with that of philosophy:
“The whole city rightly loved her and worshipped her in a remarkable way, but the rulers of the city from the first envied her, something that often happened at Athens too. For even if philosophy itself had perished, nevertheless, its name still seems magnificent and venerable
to the men who exercise leadership in the state”.
This association demonstrates that Whitfield is perhaps justified in condemning Damascius as the creator of Hypatia as the personification of polytheistic culture and classical philosophy, a portrait which conceptualises her death as synonymous with the decline of the pagan world.69
The last ancient source of great relevance to my study is John of Nikiu. The seventh-century Coptic bishop attempted to trace the history of humanity from the fall of Adam to his present day in his Chronicle, and through this he offers a very different perspective on Hypatia.70 His account corresponds with the essential facts established by Socrates Scholasticus, suggesting that – like Philostorgius, Damascius and others – he used Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History as a basis for his own work. However, John reaches a very different conclusion from those of his predecessors, one which reveals his allegiance to Cyril.
68 Dzielska, Hypatia of Alexandria, p. 51; Waithe, “Bits and Pieces of Hypatia”, p. 5. 69 Whitfield, “A Reexamination of Hypatia”, p. 14.
70 Sterk, Andrea. “‘Representing’ Mission from Below: Historians as Interpreters and Agents of Christianization.” Church History, vol. 79, no. 2, 2010, pp. 271–304.
John supported the monophysite Christological formula which understood that Christ possessed a “double consubstantiality”, meaning that he had a divine as well as a human nature which existed as one element within him, whilst remaining separate and distinct.71 In 451CE the council of Chalcedon ruled against this, in favour of a formula which emphasised the two natures of Christ, human and divine, which maintained equilibrium and were neither mixed nor separate.72 One of the most significant proponents of monophysitism was Cyril, and the Coptic church to which John belonged was one of the sects which expressed its continued allegiance to him after Chalcedon.73 With the background of these theological controversies in mind, we can better understand John’s attempts to portray Cyril as a hero of the Christian faith.
Just as Damascius must present Cyril as the villain in the tragedy of Hypatia’s death if he is to succeed in rendering Hypatia a symbol of philosophy’s decline, John must portray Hypatia as a monstrous threat in order to demonstrate Cyril’s heroism. Unlike other ancient authors, John explicitly references Hypatia’s paganism, highlighting her status as a “female
philosopher, a pagan” and claiming that she was “devoted at all times to magic, astrolabes and instruments of music, and she beguiled many people through (her) Satanic wiles” (Chron.84:87).74 When we read that this sorceress-figure was torn to pieces and her body burned at the Cinaron, we are meant to rejoice. John goes on to explicitly identify Cyril as the mastermind of this killing, claiming: “And all the people surrounded the patriarch Cyril and named him ‘the new Theophilus’; for he had destroyed the last remains of idolatry in the city” (Chron.84:103). Like Damascius, John has Hypatia embody the vestiges of a fast-fading paganism, although his reader is of course meant to cheer the decisive destruction of idolatry. The association of Cyril with his uncle and predecessor Theophilus is significant, due to the elder bishop’s role in encouraging the destruction of the pagan Serapeum in
391CE.75 By suggesting the people bestowed this title on Cyril, John presents the patriarch as a champion of true Christianity, the enemy of pagans (and heretics) everywhere.
71 Bibawy, Anthony. “The Christology of the Coptic Orthodox Church.” The Dialogue Between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches. Chaillot, Christine (ed). Volos Academy Publications, 2016. Pp. 273-287.
72 Mitchell, A History of the Later Roman Empire, pp. 277-325. 73 Bibawy, “Christology of the Coptic Orthodox Church”, p. 277.
74 John of Nikiu, The Chronicle of John. Trans. Charles, Robert Henry. Amsterdam: APA-Philo Press, 1916. P. 101.
This overview of our ancient sources should have demonstrated that the process of mythologisation, through which Hypatia became a poignant and malleable symbol, was begun in antiquity. Having established the origins of Hypatia’s legend, I will now turn to John Toland’s essay “Hypatia”, the first detailed study of the fifth-century philosopher composed in a modern European language.76
Word Count: 3342
“A Sacrifice to the Prelate’ s Pride ”: Toland’s treatment of Hypatia77 Introduction
In his study of the life and works of John Toland, Justin Champion describes the outspoken intellectual as an “enigma.”78 This seems an appropriate term for a man whose writings, philosophy and religious beliefs provoked such controversy and debate during and after his lifetime. Born in Ireland in 1690 and raised Catholic, at the age of sixteen Toland renounced his faith and moved to Glasgow where he became involved with the Presbyterians.79 His introduction to this Protestant sect helped to develop his lifelong commitment to intellectual and religious freedom, a commitment which frequently pitted him against some of the more conservative thinkers of his time.80 One of these, the Anglican cleric Thomas Lewis, liked to refer to Toland as “the great Advocate of Mahomet and Presbytery.”81 An obituary composed to mark Toland’s death in 1722 noted: “As for religion…it is more easy to guess what he was not, than to tell what he was. ‘Tis certain, he was neither Jew nor Mahometan: But whether he was a Christian, a Deist, a Pantheist, an Hobbist, or a Spinozist, is the Question.”82 Whilst he emphasised his status as a “True Christian” who was allied to the doctrines of the Church of England, Toland also opted to describe himself as a “Nazaren” and a “pantheist”.83
77 Toland, “Hypatia”, p. 129.
78 Champion, Justin. Republican Learning: John Toland and the Crisis of Christian Culture, 1696-1722. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003. P. 1.
79 Simms, J. G. “John Toland (1670 - 1722), a Donegal Heretic.” Irish Historical Studies, vol. 16, no. 63, 1969, p. 304; Presbyterianism is “the system of church government by representative assemblies called presbyteries, in opposition to government by bishops (episcopal system), or by congregations (congregationalism). In its strict sense,
Presbyterianism is the name given to one of the groups of ecclesiastical bodies that represent the features of Protestantism emphasized by French lawyer John Calvin (1509-1564), whose writings crystallized much of the Reformed thinking that came before him”, see: “History of the Church”, Presbyterian Historical Society,
https://www.history.pcusa.org/history-online/presbyterian-history/history-church, accessed: 11/05/2019. 80 Simms, “John Toland, a Donegal Heretic”, p. 305.
81 Toland, “Hypatia”, p. xix.
82 Champion, Justin. “John Toland: The Politics of Pantheism”. Revue de Synthèse, Vol. 4, Nos 2-3, April 1995, p. 261; for a discussion of Deism, see: Reedy, Gerard. “Socinians, John Toland, and the Anglican Rationalists.” The Harvard Theological Review, vol. 70, no. 3/4, 1977, pp. 285–304; ‘Hobbist’ refers to a follower of the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, see: Buckingham et al, The Philosophy Book. London: Dorling Kindersley Limited, 2011. Pp. 112-115; ‘Spinozist’ refers to a follower of the philosopher Spinoza, see: Buckingham et al, The Philosophy Book, pp. 126-129.
Champion notes that by “pantheist”, Toland meant to indicate an intellectual rather than a philosophical outlook, and that the most significant feature of his pantheism was tolerance of other men’s beliefs.84
Between the publication of his first (and arguably most impactful) treatise Christianity not Mysterious in 1696, and his essay “Hypatia” in 1720, Toland authored well over thirty political tracts, historical investigations and social commentaries.85 Through these varied writings, he consistently argued that when it came to the disputes which dominated the spheres of politics and religion, clear guidelines were required to ensure that justice, tolerance and reason prevailed.86 One of the most heated and divisive disputes of Toland’s era revolved around the status of dissenters.87 ‘Dissenters’ was the term used to refer to the various
religious groups which did not observe the tenets of Anglican worship.88 As a consequence, these groups often founded their own educational and religious establishments which were separate from those of the Church of England.89 Dissenters were generally opposed to
governmental interference in religious matters, a stance which was exacerbated by the state’s persistent restriction of their religious freedom.90 Whilst different sects including the Quakers, Baptists and Congregationalists campaigned for their religious and civil liberties, staunch Anglicans urged the government to enforce religious conformity.91 Some, such as the clergyman Henry Sacheverell, presented dissenters as the greatest threat to the English
84 Champion, “John Toland: Politics of Pantheism”, p. 270.
85 Champion, Justin. “John Toland, the Druids, and the Politics of Celtic Scholarship.” Irish Historical Studies, vol. 32, no. 127, 2001, p. 321.
86 Champion, “John Toland: Politics of Pantheism”, p. 271.
87 For an overview of the status of dissenters in eighteenth-century England, see: Coffey, John. “Church and State, 1550-1770: The Emergence of Dissent”. The T&T Clark
Companion to Nonconformity. Ed. Pope, Robert. London: T&T Clark: 2013. Pp. 1-40. 88 Philip, Mark. “Rational Religion and Political Radicalism.” Enlightenment and Dissent, Vol. 4, 1985. P. 36.
89 Cowherd, R. G. “The Politics of English Dissent, 1832-1848.” Church History, vol. 23, no. 2, 1954, p. 136.
90 For a discussion of the various parliamentary laws enacted against dissenters, see: Mullett, Charles F. “The Legal Position of English Protestant Dissenters, 1689-1767.” Virginia Law Review, vol. 23, no. 4, 1937, pp. 389–418.
church and state.92 It was within this context, and against such attitudes, that Toland expounded on the necessity of toleration and balanced, restrained discussion.93
The debates regarding the status of Protestant dissenters did not dilute the potency of anti-Catholic sentiment in the eighteenth century.94 Toland was an ardent opponent of
Catholicism, repeatedly warning against the insidious dangers posed to the true Christian faith by what he termed “Priestcraft”: “Religions safe, with Priestcraft is the war, All friends to Priestcraft, Foes to Mankind are.”95 Such statements led prominent Catholics to launch counter-attacks, but Toland’s calls to simplify and democratise Christian worship also attracted Anglican ire and criticism.96 This condemnation reached critical levels with the publication of his first essay, Christianity not Mysterious, in 1696.97 In this work, Toland argued that there were no mysteries intrinsic within Scripture and that the Bible was comprehensible to all without clerical interference.98 Champion notes that, “by default this was a political claim which compromised the social power claimed by the Church over their exclusive rights of interpreting revelation.”99 Consequently, Toland’s non-orthodox stance was fiercely attacked in London, and in Ireland his work was deemed heretical and burned before the parliamentary buildings.100 Yet the outrage did not silence Toland, and he
continued to publish his political, religious and philosophical treatises until his death. Aside from Christianity not Mysterious, perhaps the most controversial of these works was his 1720 essay, “Hypatia”. This short text claims to offer a historical account of the famous fifth-century philosopher, one which is based on the evidence contained within ancient sources including Synesius, Socrates Scholasticus and Damascius. However, the reader quickly realises that whilst Toland claims that his aim is to defend Hypatia, his true purpose is to attack Cyril and his clergy (who are blamed for Hypatia’s murder) and, consequently, their 92 For a discussion of Sacheverell’s inflammatory sermon, The Perils of False Brethren, see: Holmes, Geoffrey, The Trial of Doctor Sacheverell. London: Eyre Methuen, 1973. pp. 64-65. 93 Champion, Republican Learning, p. 69.
94 Anti-Catholic sentiment in eighteenth century Britain is discussed in: Drury, Marjule Anne. “Anti-Catholicism in Germany, Britain, and the United States: A Review and Critique of Recent Scholarship.” Church History, vol. 70, no. 1, 2001, pp. 98–131.
95 Champion, “John Toland: The Politics of Pantheism”, p. 261.
96 For an overview of the criticisms levelled at Toland by various opponents, see: Simms, “John Toland, a Donegal Heretic”, pp. 304–320.
97 Champion, Republican Learning, p. 69. 98 Champion, Republican Learning, p. 69. 99 Champion, Republican Learning, p. 69. 100 Champion, Republican Learning, p. 77.
‘descendants’ - the eighteenth-century Catholics, as well as the particularly intransigent Anglican clerics, whom Toland considered a danger to the individual liberties and social freedoms he valued so highly.
Toland’s “Sacrifice to the Prelate’s Pride”
As he explains in his preface to “Hypatia”, one case in particular encapsulated for Toland the fractured state of his society: “I was mov’d to undertake this work in a particular manner, by the unlawful and unchristian usage, that Mr Whiston receiv’d from Dr Sacheverell, who wou’d needs forcibly thrust him out of the Church in the midst of divine Service.”101 Before I interrogate Toland’s motives in writing “Hypatia”, this case requires a brief explanation. Sacheverell was an Anglican clergyman who rose to prominence after delivering his controversial sermon, The Perils of False Brethren, on the 5th November 1709 in St Paul’s Cathedral.102 He was preaching to mark the anniversary of the failure of the Gunpowder Plot, at an event which was intended to celebrate the triumph of Protestant Christianity over Catholicism within England. Sacheverell took this opportunity to highlight what he considered to be the greatest current danger threatening the religion of the English Church and state – the existence of dissenters, whom he described as “Seditious Imposters” who sought to poison the “Deluded People” with their “Damnable False Doctrines”.103
Sacheverell’s endorsement of persecutory tactics against these “Seditious Imposters” represents the type of inflammatory and intolerant ideology which Toland ardently opposed.104
The “Mr Whiston” Toland references in his preface is William Whiston, a prominent theologian, historian and mathematician.105 He was also an out-spoken dissenter who, like Toland, was prosecuted for heresy.106 With his promotion of the Arian creed, the
101 Toland, “Hypatia”, p. viii.
102 Holmes, The Trial of Doctor Sacheverell, p. 61.
103 Sacheverell, Henry. The Perils of False Brethren. London: H. Clements, 1709. P. iv 104 Reedy, “Socinians, John Toland, and the Anglican Rationalists”, p. 288.
105 “William Whiston” in Encyclopædia Britannica, the Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc, December 05, 2018.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Whiston. Access date: May 4th, 2019. 106 Whiston, William. Several Papers Relating to Mr. Whiston's Cause Before the Court of Delegates: Viz. I. Mr. Whiston’s Reasons Against That Procedure. II. The Articles Exhibited Against Him by Dr. Pelling In That Court. III. Mr. Whiston's Defence of Himself From Those Articles. To Which Are Added IV. His Letter to the Reverend Dr. Sacheverell. V. His Letter to the Right Reverend the Present Lord Bishop of London, With the Answers. VI. His Letter to
Christological formula which had been condemned as heretical by the council of Nicaea, he epitomised the kind of “Seditious Imposter” Sacheverell warned his congregations against. In 1719, Sacheverell was able to test his own methods for dealing with dissenters when Whiston tried to attend the service in his church of St Andrew’s, Holborn.107 Sacheverell denounced Whiston before the congregation and attempted to bar him from joining the service. This public conflict attracted wide-spread attention and Whiston went on to publish an account of the event, portraying Sacheverell as a tyrannical hypocrite.108
In this clash between Sacheverell and Whiston, Toland saw an opportunity to highlight and denounce the divisions and prejudices of his age. He realised that he could co-opt this event as a reflection of another period of Christian history which he believed was similarly
characterised by schism, dispute and dangerous ideologies. Seizing on the rhetorical promise of this connection, Toland suggested that Whiston, though a victim of “unlawful and
unchristian usage”, had been lucky: “Mr Whiston may (next to God’s providence) thank the good nature of the English people for his preservation: for in some other parts of the world he had, upon much fewer threats and remonstrances […] been torn to pieces for all his gown and his innocence”.109 This reference to “some other parts of the world” is an allusion to Socrates’ claim that the Alexandrians (unlike Toland’s ‘good-natured’ English!) were pre-disposed to acts of mob violence: “The Alexandrians are more delighted with tumult than any other people […] nor is it scarcely possible to check their impetuosity until there has been much bloodshed” (HE.7:13). Through this allusion, and by paraphrasing Philostorgius’ description of Hypatia being “torn to pieces”, Toland hints that Whiston could have suffered the fifth-century philosopher’s fate.
If Whiston is associated with Hypatia, Sacheverell and his allies are paralleled with Cyril, whom Toland blames for Hypatia’s murder. He claims that she was killed “by the Clergy of Alexandria, to gratify the pride, emulation and cruelty of their Archbishop Cyril, commonly but undeservedly stil’d Saint Cyril”.110 Like Philostorgius and Damascius, Toland’s ultimate the Reverend Mr. Broughton, With His Answer. London: J. Clark, J. Brown, and J.
Richardson, 1715. pp. 3-6.
107 Thornbury, Walter. “Farringdon Street, Holborn Viaduct and St. Andrew’s Church.” Old and New London: Volume 2. London: Cassell, Petter & Galpin, 1878. Pp. 496-513.
108 Whiston, William. An account of Mr Whiston’s prosecution at, and banishment from, the University of
Cambridge. First printed at the end of the Historical preface…with an appendix. Containing Mr Whiston’s farther account…Historical Preface to Primitive Christianity reviv’d. Gale Ecco, 2010.
109 Toland, “Hypatia”, p. viii. 110 Toland, “Hypatia”, p. 101.
aim in writing “Hypatia” was to attack Cyril, the predecessor – in Toland’s view – of the “certain half-professed or whole-disguised Papists” who represented the greatest threat to political, religious and civil liberties.111 In order to succeed he had to present Hypatia as Cyril’s innocent and noble victim, a task which was complicated by Cyril’s status as a Church Father and his audience’s antipathy to any individual or creed identified as ‘atheist’ or ‘heathen’.112 How Toland managed to manipulate the female pagan philosopher he
inherited from antiquity to create a new symbol applicable to his own time reveals something of his authorial techniques and intentions, but it also provides us with insight into the ever-evolving legacy of Hypatia and the processes through which her symbol retains its dynamism and relevance.
Toland was not alone in imagining that the social and political circumstances of the late antique Roman empire were paralleled within his own era. He used this apparent connection to demonstrate the dangers of inflammatory sermons and religious prejudices, but others found precedents which could be emulated. Jean Gailhard, who attacked Toland (amongst others) in his 1697 publication The blasphemous SOCINIAN HERESIE disproved and confuted, argued that the harsh measures implemented against heretics by the emperor Theodosius should be adopted “at least strictly to be practised against live Socinians as dead Manichees”.113 Toland envisaged Hypatia’s society as riven by disputes and repressed by a corrupted form of Christianity. Such a civilisation provided a poignant parallel for his own. Gailhard occupied a position closer to that of John of Nikiu’s, in that he regarded the fifth-century as a period of Christian heroism. According to this view, individuals such as Cyril gained glory and honour by working to silence any pagan or heretic who might obstruct the progress of Christianisation.
111 Toland, “Hypatia”, p. xiii.
112 Toland was forced to vehemently disprove claims that he was a man of “little religion”, meaning that he was aware of the dangers of being associated with divergent creeds such as atheism or paganism. See: Champion, “John Toland: Politics of Pantheism”, p. 262-3. 113 Champion, Republican Learning, p. 71; Reedy outlines the main doctrines of the
Socinians (also called Unitarians): God was “one person, not three”, Jesus was the messenger and son of God “but not God almighty and eternal; and that the Holy Spirit is the power of God, but not God himself.” The Socinians were cautious about the authority ascribed to the Fathers of the Church, an approach which pitted them against the Anglican clergy. See: Reedy. “Socinians, John Toland, and the Anglican Rationalists”, p. 285; Francis Crawford Burkitt outlines Manicheanism, a faith proscribed and persecuted by Christianity, see:
Crawford Burkitt, F. “The Religion of the Manichees.” The Journal of Religion, vol. 2, no. 3, 1922, pp. 263.
When we consider Gailhard’s stance, it becomes clear that a female philosopher who has traditionally been regarded as a pagan (despite the lack of information relating to her
religious practices)was hardly an obvious emblem of innocence and virtue for an eighteenth-century audience. Hypatia’s apparent paganism presented Toland with a problem, especially after he was criticised for deploying the “Craft and Roguery of the Heathen Philosophers” to attack and weaken the clergy.114 In order to make his heroine more palatable to his
contemporaries, Toland had to address the issue of her religion. His first strategy was to directly reference Hypatia’s paganism only once, in a (slightly defensive) acknowledgment:
“...your conclusion that Hypatia was not a Catholic is unspeakably accurate, when in reality she was not as much as a Christian; her father having been a heathen Philosopher, and her self the wife of one, without the least appearance that she was ever any other with regard to
her own persuasion”.115
Toland’s recognition that we only assume that Hypatia was a pagan due to the lack of
contradictory evidence confirms Dzielska’s point that no ancient source – aside from John of Nikiu, who had overt ulterior aims – explicitly identifies her as a pagan worshipper.116 By suggesting that we may assume that Hypatia was a “heathen” because her father and husband were (Toland follows the Suda’s misreading of Damascius and states that Hypatia married Isidore), he may have been attempting to reassure his contemporaries that his heroine was simply adhering to the wishes of her male relatives by adopting their religious beliefs, in an act of female obedience which was recognisably eighteenth-century in style.117
Toland’s second method of promoting Hypatia as an acceptable paradigm was to emphasise the other facets of her character established within the ancient sources. Her academic ability is praised, with Toland writing that she was educated “in the most abstruse sciences, which are reputed the proper occupation of men, as requiring too much labour and application for the delicate constitution of women”.118 He ridicules this as a “vulgar prejudice” and cites the 114 Lewis, Thomas. 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. from the Aspersions of Mr. Toland. Gale Ecco, 2010. P. 1.
115 Toland, “Hypatia”, p. 134.
116 Dzielska, Maria. Hypatia of Alexandria, p. 63.
117 For a discussion of the status and behaviour expected of married women in the
eighteenth century, see: Tague, Ingrid H. “Love, Honor, and Obedience: Fashionable Women and the Discourse of Marriage in the Early Eighteenth Century.” Journal of British Studies, vol. 40, no. 1, 2001, pp. 76–106.
achievements of contemporary women as evidence of its falsity.119 Our knowledge of the nature and content of Hypatia’s philosophical lectures is frustratingly scant, but Toland uses Synesius’ descriptions of the fellowship between Hypatia’s students, as well as his
exhortation to his “mother, sister, teacher and withal benefactress”, to construct the following image: “the flower of all the youth in Europe, Asia, and Africa, sitting at the feet of a most beautiful Lady (for such we are assur’d HYPATIA was) all greedily swallowing Instruction from her mouth.”120 Toland’s Hypatia wields a non-threatening form of authority and influence, with her students gathered around her like adoring children, ‘feeding’ from the wisdom which issues from her mouth. Socrates Scholasticus implies that it was Hypatia’s influence, combined with the political machinations of fifth-century Alexandria, which caused her death. I would suggest that by emphasising the benign nature of Hypatia’s power and influence, Toland prepares to introduce the factors he blames for her murder – namely, the pride, wrath and intolerance of the patriarch Cyril.
Toland’s image, which likens Hypatia to a nurturing mother, may also have been designed to neutralise any contemporary objections to the concept of a female philosopher. As his
assertion that prejudices against educated women are “vulgar” demonstrates, Toland was conscious of what Miller, discussing eighteenth-century attitudes, describes as the “deep feeling of disquiet about contemporary developments in female education.”121 As a
consequence, Toland opts to disregard Damascius’ depiction of Hypatia as philosopher, in which she wanders the streets of Alexandria dispensing her philosophical expertise to anyone “who wished to hear her.” Instead, he reconstructs Synesius’ portrait of the refined lecturer, a paragon of reason and intellect, who was respected and loved like a mother.
The influence of Synesius’ characterisation of Hypatia as the embodiment of female virtue is evident throughout Toland’s essay, but most especially in his references to her beauty and grace. He suggests that in praising her, he “may be deemed to write the panegyric of the whole sex”, revealing the extent to which his Hypatia must function as a representative of all virtuous women.122 Damascius, who informs his reader that the “beautiful and shapely” Hypatia was “both just and chaste and remained always a virgin”, constructs an equally 119 Toland, “Hypatia”, p. 105.
120 Toland, “Hypatia”, p. 108.
121 Miller, P. J. “Women’s Education, 'Self-Improvement' and Social Mobility – A Late Eighteenth-Century Debate.” British Journal of Educational Studies, vol. 20, no. 3, 1972, p. 303.
