Talk:Hypatia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Out of order

Reference in Proust

I don't understand "Marcel Proust reference Hypatia in the last sentence of "Madame Swann at Home," the first section of Within a Budding Grove." I thought of changing "reference Hypatia" to "refers to Hypatia," then thought I would look in the book. The last sentence of "Madame Swann at Home" reads IN THE 1924 MONCRIEFF TRANSLATION MODERN LIBRARY 1934:

And as the average span of life,the relative longevity of our memories of poetical sensations is much greater than that of our memories of what the heart has suffered, long after the sorrows that I once felt on Gilberte's account have faded and vanished, there has survived the the pleasure that I still derive--whenever I close my eyes and read, as it were upon the face of a sundial, the minutes that are recorded between a quarter past twelve and one o'clock in the month of May--from seeing myself once again strolling and talking thus with Mme. Swann beneath her parasol, as though in the coloured [sic] shade of a wistaria [sic] bower.

So where is Hypatia? Stuart Filler (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC) 18 December 2008

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. -Unsigned

Everything I read about the matter says the opposite. The Athenian school of NeoPlatonists was at the time of Hypatia, very much under the sway of what some have called "enthusiastic mysticism." Two generations before Hypatia, Alexandria was much the same. But her father took the school in a very different (much more Aristotelian/Platonic manner), so it would be very misleading to characterize Hypatia as part of this movement. Everything I read say that she took the school even closer to a foundation that is modern in terms of its reliance on logic and mathematics. She had nothing to do with divination, unless you think studying astronomy is divination. --DrKamaila (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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! 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.

Does anybody have a copy of Sagan's "Cosmos", or feel like adding its depiction into the "Legacy" section if it was so influential? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible Image

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

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.

I find it worthy of notice that the word magus is associated with astronomy and/or astrology. If the Catholic Church used her as a model for witch-burning, then they had no clue what this word meant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.237.140 (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Power politics

"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."

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

Dzielska is considered little more than a Catholic apologist by most scholars of late antiquity (of which I am one.) Her work is almost iconoclastic, and one must ask why on earth would Christians have killed Hypatia if she was so closely alligned to them? Her errors and modernist assumptions (ie. 30 being the age of maturity) in the age of important figures harpoons her work, there is absolutely no consistency in the ages she attributes to historical figures. The work is also riddled with one unprovable conjecture after another and dubious sources (John Malals is described as arguing persuasively, maybe to her but not to anyone else!!)

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. -Unsigned

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

What I just love is her obvious nonvirginity goes unnoticed. Showing excessive menstrual bleeding implies lack of virginity, and given her use of her rags, this suggests she wasn't as pure as you claim. Howabout giving a precise quote on the issue of her virginity? I believe there is not one source which states her as a virgin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.237.140 (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I realize this is a late response, but you have got to be kidding me. ..... It is quite possible that Hypatia did have sex, but she chose not to marry... Once again I apologize for the late post here, but I didn't [have a clue as to what should be tactfully said in public] -- 204.112.159.205 (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

And she did die a dishonorable death. --207.191.211.248 (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

2002

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

All sides agree it was a disciplined mob of "Christian men" who came with single minded purpose and disciplined manner to kill her. The word "monk" is anachronistic too, but generations of Greek translators have used it to describe the group that killed Hypatia, following Socrates S.--DrKamaila (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Having read the sources, I am not convinced that she was totally innocent. She was a suspected agitator in city politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.100.194 (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The anti-Christian, anti-Coptic propaganda by Western writers in the last three centuries have corrupted the story and created a mythical Hypatia who was representative of all that was good in Greek and Roman culture and who was murdered by the Copts or by St. Cyril I. This is not a balanced article. Why haven't the writers taken into account what Maria Dzielska has written in her Hypatia Of Alexandria which shows the bias and prejudice of Europe against the Early Church and the Copts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.59.13 (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Because Dzielska is considered to almost be a lunatic fringe author who clearly has a bias towards the Catholic Church. She contantly claims her own conjectures as fact and builds upon these 'facts' as the work progresses, utilises highly dubious medieval sources and postulates conclusions that no other scholar would even consider (ie. the worst being that Hypatia's sympathy was more with the Christians than Pagans which is asinine. As a contributor above has asked, if Hypatia was so pro-Christian why was she killed or even in danger?) Look at the numerous refutations provided in journals and on the web about his 'seminal' work. For what it is worth, I agree that a balanced view is needed by Dzielska's work does not meet this need in any way whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

2003

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)

2004

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.

Read the bibliography to K. Wider's article in the 1986 Hypatia journal article on women philosophers. You can find it on JSTOR.--DrKamaila (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• 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.

I agree with you about the witch argument. Although, allowing some form of the witch controversy to stay in the article seems proper, given that it is certainly arguable that Hypatia's death constitutes persecution of wise people/witches by the Christian church in one form or another.

I think it can be shown this is a model which the Catholic Church or perhaps Eastern churches used in hunting "witches." Magus was a greek term for someone who pratices astronomy/astrology; and the Catholic Church was woefully lacking in sound magus philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.237.140 (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• 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.

Damascius and the Suda are also excellent primary sources. --DrKamaila (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

2005

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)

2006

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?

The pictures of this article are misleading. Hypatia at the time of the events that lead to her death around 415 AD was an old woman. Presenting Hypatia as a beautiful youth is inaccurate and misleading, and has been used by the Enlightenment and liberals to promote their anti-Church thinking by using a "sexy", "lusty" philosopher.

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)

There's a translation in the journal, Hypatia, 1986 that uses "sea shells" as the instrument. --DrKamaila (talk) 03:35, 23 November 2007 (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)

Nah. The lengthy quotes need to be cut and processed into the text, so there's plenty POV dispute left in this one.--shtove 23:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Throwing sanitary napkins?

In the Suda, it says she threw one of her sanitary napkins at some guy she didn't like! We need a paragraph on this interesting incident!--Sonjaaa 20:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yip. The story is that one of her pupils fell in love with her, but Hypatia for whatever reason (she was probably an ascetic and sexually reserved) deterred him by displaying her soiled "sanitary napkins" and demanding how he could fall for her when she produced that. That's my recollection, but I have no sources available. I thought it was in this article - check an earlier version to see.--shtove 21:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

and to deter him

Maybe she was gay. :) --Sonjaaa 14:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"He went away a changed man." I don't know the greek for this passage; and it does sound like he was paid for the spectacle.--12.227.237.140 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this story from a 10th century encyclopedia relevant? Did such an incident really occur in the first place anyway (being put on record about 600 years after the fact...)?--70.82.44.129 22:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be more reliable than some of the recent sources which have much more speculation. Do you have any proof that this is just a 10th century account without sources, or that it is even a 10th century account? --12.227.237.140 (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Not much relevant, but far more plausible, and says more about her neoplatonic ambience than most of the garbage written about her. The key to understand this anecdote is that Hypatia is saying she has bodily functions and therefore is corruptible, how can anyone interested in the pure archetypes be in love with such a low and curruptible thing? It is extremely neoplatonic, and even the great Plotinus is said to behave in a such manner. This is an interesting point where fiction and myth depart from history and only by anylising such anecdotes and similar works from her peers we can have a truly glimpse of her and not of her myth.Bruno Gripp 01:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish, she was pretending to be pious and wanted to be insulting at the same time.--12.227.237.140 (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Block quotes

There are way too many block quotes in here - the latest is from Gibbon. They should be cut down and incorporated into the text.--Shtove 16:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, what do you have against block quotes? In most cases, I would agree, but given that there is so much myth surrounding this figure, it would appear that the only thing which has quieted the crowd it presentation of clear citatioans from decent sources. Bridesmill 01:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations are one thing, block quotes another. The readability of the article is as important as its reliability. The block quotes could be condensed and kept as hidden citations, like on Adolf Hitler.--Shtove 12:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That's quite the comparison. I will have a go, but given the history of the article, condensing any/all of the citations (which seems to be obligatory to convince people of what contemporary & later writers said) without losing context (& thus slipping in more POV) is not in this case going to be a trivial exercise. Given that, and that the only remaining dispute is more on layout/style than content, methinks perhaps neutrality is no longer in dispute.

The Mitchell painting, I agree, is somewhat gratuitous in that it misrepresents Hypatia (if anything els, it disregards the advanced age all the contemp. authors agree on). Will do up a short stub on Mitchell & move the pic there. Not sure if the Raphael provides any value added either, esp. as the only avail shot of 'just Hypatia' is terribly low resolution - if this really was her picture, I'd say 'sure' - but again its only an interpretation.Bridesmill 22:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Bridesmill posted both the preceding paragraphs. On the Hitler comparison - it's just for editing technique: any effort made towards readability, while retaining the detailed info in the background, will have my backing. On the images - I think a picture of an archaeological dig in Alexandria, or of the title page of an edition of Plato, would say more about Hypatia than the existing images.--Shtove 23:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree it was too much...I mean...we had a quote of a guy quoting a guy we already quoted...anyways, I've tried to make it simpler, thoughts? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 00:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

School of Athens?

This site has a small tidbit halfway down which proposes that a woman (!) in the School of Athens painting by Raphael is indeed Hypatia. Dubious, granted, but should this be covered? Also, another picture would be a good addition to the article (instead of the current gratuitously nude one). Any thoughts? biriwilg 01:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I linked to the full picture - looks like she's #28. The pictures were discussed at section 12 above - I agree on the nude. The School of Athens would give context. Possible to widen the view, to include and name some of the figures around her. Obviously, the whole picture is too much. Might be available on WP Commons.--Shtove 11:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Death

Check this out ... from www.stoa.org according to Suda.. diffrent motive!

So then once it happened that Cyril who was bishop of the opposing faction, passing by the house of Hypatia, saw that there was a great pushing and shoving against the doors, "of men and horses together,"[7] some approaching, some departing, and some standing by. When he asked what crowd this was and what the tumult at the house was, he heard from those who followed that the philosopher Hypatia was now speaking and that it was her house. When he learned this, his soul was bitten with envy, so that he immediately plotted her death, a most unholy of all deaths. For as she came out as usual many close-packed ferocious men, truly despicable, fearing neither the eye of the gods nor the vengeance of men, killed the philosopher,[8] inflicting this very great pollution and shame on their homeland. And the emperor would have been angry at this, if Aidesios had not been bribed. He remitted the penalty for the murders, but drew this on himself and his family, and his offspring paid the price.

[1] --Sartaj beary 02:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This was alluded to in the text, & has now been footnoted accordingly.Bridesmill 18:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Bridesmill ... Good work .. :) --Sartaj beary 19:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There are plethora of quotes in this section, most of them seem to be either Socrates S. or the Suda, with different translations being used as quotes (as the different translations appear in different scholars' works). Socrates S. is the one who describes how she was skinned with oyster shells, so it should be the same detail each time he's quoted, especially if no particular translation is mentioned. --DrKamaila (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge request

There is a request to merge the section regarding Hypatia on the Persecution of Roman religion article. Though it was not spelled correctly, it is tagged December 2006.

My vote is oppose as it is a valid listing - just a summary. :bloodofox: 07:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

2007

Paganism

The ref in the intro to pagan cults has been switched to Paganism. But I think cults is the correct term. Looks like the editor found it derogatory.--Shtove 18:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Death

The section on her death needs to be written out in prose, it can't just be a selection of long quotes like it is. The main points need to be summed up in original prose.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Better now? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Scholar or philosopher?

In the opening sentence, would we do better to say "Hypatia was a greek/egyptian scholar..." or "Hypatia was a greek/egyptian philosopher..."? It seems "scholar" is a better over-all term for what she was, and then we can distinguish her various studies in the following text. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I just want to note that at the time, the term "philosophy" was broader than used today in reference to our contemporaries. Pete St.John (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Gibbon quote?

First, I have to say I'm skeptical about identifying this article as "core" in any sense. I think we are confounding articles we would like to have with scholarship that actually exists. Very very little is actually known about Hypatia. We'd love to know more but we don't. So perhaps we stretch by using published speculation in the manner of Hamburger Helper. More to the point, though, is there a citation for Gibbon saying "... and she beguiled many people through Satanic wiles..."? That's just incredible. Perhaps Gibbon quoted someone else, as in, Gibbon writes that So-and-so wrote that "she beguiled..."? I'll flag it for citation. Pete St.John (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue the "Core" status, it was listed, so I chose it. On that note, thanks for your keen observation that I had unwittingly attributed John's quote to Gibbons, and Gibbons' quote to John. How embarrassing! Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad it was a simple fix, thanks. The "core" thing is an important issue, but a meta-issue; It's a good thing you are improving the article. Pete St.John (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Johannes Malalas

Anybody able to find her story as told by Johannes Malalas? Supposedly a one-sided piece of propaganda, it likely deserves mention/summary in the Legacy portion. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/04z/z_0491-0578__Ioannes_Malalas__Chronographia_(CSHB_Dindorfii_Recensione)__GR_LT.pdf.html Page 359 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.78.6.152 (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Lunar crater in Legacy

Why remove the citation to astronomers having named a crater on the Moon after her? Isn't that notable? Pete St.John 16:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry? I'm not sure I understand, the citation and fact are both at Hypatia_of_Alexandria#Legacy right now (near the bottom). The only real change has been adding in the exact location of the crater, and rewriting it to prose instead of point-form, to move it out of "References in popular culture" section. Or am I misunderstanding your problem? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I think I mistook the most recent of multiple edits, for the net effect. So as Roseanne Rossannadanna said, "nevermind". Pete St.John 16:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

2008

Image reverts

Re this revert: What, I "can't remove images"? Says who? Images should be there not because some TV-spoiled readers can't stand to look at a black-and-white page without colorful spots on it. They should be there for conveying encyclopedic information. The other images on the page do; These two don't. The others tell us something interesting about how this figure was seen thoughout art history. Of the two I removed, one is a random portrait of some other woman, with no relation except that they were vaguely contemporaries; the other is a modern dime-a-dozen piece of artwork from some 1900's book illustrator, with no artistic or historic merit whatsoever, showing nothing but a unoriginal rehashing of a generic stereotype of a "classical Greek beauty". What's the use of having these, except sugering up the page? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed after reverting that one image was of some other woman, so re-deleted that one with an "oops" apology. The other one should remain, however. There are no images of her proper, all we have are artist's "depictions", same with Robin Hood, Jesus or Kublai Khan - but we include the Public Domain artist's depictions so long as the page isn't absolutely cluttered by them. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't. If people include random images on other pages, that's no reason to make the same mistake here. Artist's impressions should only be included insofar as they have artistic merit of their own or exemplify some notable cultural tradition of iconography. Images of Jesus obviously do; I'd guess so does the one used in Kublai Khan (can't judge). That 1900 illustration in our case doesn't, in my judgment; it's simply non-notable kitsch. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Again: Is there any positive reason why anybody would want that 1908 image in this article, except having an image for the sake of having an image? What does it add? If I don't get an answer that goes significantly beyond why not? or other articles do it too!, I will remove it again. It is an insult against my sense of aesthetics. And by the way please stop calling it a "portrait" in the caption. "Portrait" implies authenticity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind if you relabel it something other than "portrait" certainly, but "your personal sense of aesthetics" isn't at play here. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 06:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. In the absence of any reason for having it, it is one reason against having it. It certainly is part of the job of a responsible encyclopedia author to make sure articles are aesthetically appropriate, or not? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Raphael is indisputably more notable than Elbert Hubbard, the illustrator of Image:Hypatia portrait.png, but an NPOV argument can be made that since Hubbard's work was used in an educative work, Little Journeys to the Homes of Great Teachers (1908) it's actually more relevant to Hypatia's notable legacy as a teacher than a fresco commissioned to decorate the Vatican on the whim of a Christian clergyman. In any case, both images have one thing in common: they are imaginary. Raphael had no better notion of what Hypatia looked like than Hubbard, as was no more anachronistic in his depiction. As for the POV Future Perfect left in the edit summary—"who put this idiotic ahistorical 'portrait' up on top again? And the whole infobox is useless anyway"—it doesn't address the merits of having infoboxes overall, which is a quick guide to a biography. As I noted in the summary, if Aelle of Sussex, who has all of six surviving lines written about him, can reach FA status with such a spare infobox, then surely Hypatia of Alexandria (who one source claims there are all of "17 typed pages" worth of info left about her) should have an infobox.
Raphael is still the better artist, obviously. So I've created a better version for the top. There's no reason to exclude Hubbard, however, as long as the context of its use is clear. Context is what fragmentary biographies are all about. —Yamara ✉ 18:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction: Raphael's depiction is far more anachronistic, literally so, as she is standing amidst philosphers from across time. Hubbard's is a simple profile. —Yamara ✉ 18:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And another correction, Hubbard is the author, not the illustrator. Wikisource has his text about Hypatia here. —Yamara ✉ 19:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Gutenberg has the rest [2]. The illustrator's name is not mentioned, though the publisher's house artists are credited as creating the "borders and initials". The "portraits" are largely taken from other works or photographs. Not a useless source overall, in case some of the original photographs can't be obtained. The image of Hypatia is plainly imaginary, but the artist is basing his portrayal on something; it's his M.O. with the rest of his drawings. —Yamara ✉ 19:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What's that talk about both these pictures being imaginary? But of course they are. Did anybody ever, for a moment, entertain the absurd notion that we were using any image here in order to show what that person physically looked like? Good lord.

The fact that one of the greatest artists of European civilisation chose to place Hypatia in a composition of the greatest philosophers known to him (and presumably the way he placed her) – that is is truly an important encyclopedic piece of information about Hypatia. That's why we include the Raffael painting. The fact that an unknown and non-notable illustrator of mediocre talent in 1900 was paid a few dollars to scribble together some eye-candy for a not very notable popular book publication, and came up with a stereotypical and entirely unoriginal classical Greek beauty, is not a piece of important encyclopedic information. It is entirely without any value.

I'm still waiting for a positive reason for having this image, to counter the positive reason I gave against having it – it's sheer ugliness. I've again only heard "why not".

As for the infobox issue, I admit it's a pet peeve of mine (see my user page) – I won't rally against an infobox as long as it doesn't contain actively harmful material (such as that image), but for the record, I maintain that this particular box strikes me as particularly useless. And again, your argument for having it is not much more than WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. There's nothing of a "quick guide" in that box that can be taken in more conveniently by reading the box than by reading the article lead. But do with that as you wish. Somebody has again called the Hubbard image a "portrait". Arrrrrggghh. Please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

wikt:portrait: A painting or other picture of a person, especially the head and shoulders.. Isn't that exactly what the 1908 image is? I still don't understand your complaints other than "we should only have paintings by the world's most famous artists, not century-old artists with only nominal fame", that goes against the very idea of WP, as evidenced through the project. Similarly, your personal animus towards infoboxes is intriguing, but thankfully irrelevant. Anybody able to get a PD (presumably NASA) image of her crater on the moon? I see a "poor" image on the crater's article - but can we get a clearer one? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) The term portrait implies authenticity, it implies an image drawn after life, exactly what all these images are not. (2) You have not even bothered trying to understand my position about the images. (3) You have still not given a positive reason why you want that image. Tell me now, at last, is there any such a reason you want it, yes or no? Other than having an image for the sake of having an image? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I want all images of historical persons about whom history has recorded very little. There is very little known about Hypatia, and even fewer portraits of her. I think it's worth preserving all of these, and showing has she has been portrayed throughout the centuries. The term "portrait" does not imply authenticity, by your reasoning we should remove all images of Jesus on WP that show him as a white man? It's a ludicrous argument, that we shouldn't include historical images that aren't "accurate" - as long as we make it clear that they were made centuries after the subject's death, they are still relevant. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. I never made an argument about accuracy. Please give at least a token effort at actually understanding what I'm saying. Please read it again, before I repeat myself unnecessarily. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You have made such an argument, Sunrise, in the edit summaries, which I quote above. "Ahistorical" is a very specific criticism, which applies far more strongly to Raphael than to the Hubbard illustrator. Plainly the Raphael is a more notable work, and I myself made no effort to restore the 1908 work to the article. As for The School of Athens being "truly an important encyclopedic piece of information about Hypatia", this is strictly incorrect: It tells us nothing about her, about of the life of Hypatia. It is merely a highly notable element of her legacy, that she was honored enough in the High Renaissance to grace the walls of the Vatican by the iconic master artist of the day. Let me review a couple more terms.
"Portrait", in a professional artistic and historical context, can imply that it was sat for, i.e. is meant to be a representation from life. Sherurcij, in this I agree with Sunrise; the issue should be addressed first by retitling the image itself (which has the word "portrait' in it), and then avoiding the word when the image is used.
Another word is "imaginary", or "imagined", again when used by professional historians (and artists) it is meant to make clear that a portrayal is outside of the subject's historical context, and only within the scope of the artist's understanding. This aids the chronological context (or historiography) of a biography assembled from fragments, and helps avoid some problems of OR. See its use at, again, Aelle of Sussex. The 1611 picture of the bold Saxon invader makes him look like Burger King dressed as Little Orphan Annie. And yet, it's one of the earliest pictures made of him, and John Speed's "Saxon Heptarchy" is highly notable. The word "imaginary" in the caption helps advise and caution readers as to the accuracy of what they're seeing. This applies to Raphael, who certainly never saw Hypatia, but in who's notoreity one can trust too much.
Finally, Sunrise, if you want other editors to focus on what you have to say, it helps to be precise. Many of your arguments have superfluously POV qualifiers, and that can make it difficult to understand encyclopedic issues you bring up. It could also mean less typing on your part. Cheers, Yamara ✉ 23:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Imaginary" seems a bit over the top to me, we don't do the same for images (as mentioned) of Ghengis Khan, Jesus or Aristotle - but I am not wedded to the title "portrait", would "portrayal" work just as well? "A 1908 portrayal of Hypatia" ? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yamara, we basically seem to agree. The 1611 Aelle of Sussex image is okay because, although artistically awful, it marks an interesting point in historical reception. The Raffael Hypatia is okay because it is historically significant and happens to be great art. The Gaspari Hypatia is neither. "Imagined" would be okay with me, if it wasn't for the fact that Mr Gaspari's imagination is such an utterly non-notable topic to be wasting words on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Long, narrow columns

The long, narrow columns of text about her death are difficult to read. They should not be in columns. Bubba73 (talk), 04:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps they will be easier to read if the image on the right is transferred a bit upwards. Flamarande (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hypatia's religion

I notice there was a lot of discussion earlier on how to properly handle the role of religion in Hypatia's life. Because she had not converted to Christianity, she is called a 'pagan.' I say this often on Wikipedia Talk pages, but in the 4th century and earlier, there is no such thing as 'paganism.' There are religious practices, forms of worship, cults both public and private and cults both local and imported, in great diversity. These were not mutually exclusive: you could be an Eleusinian initiate and still take part in sacrifices to other gods or become an initiate into another mystery religion without renouncing your prior experiences. But 'pagan' is an intellectually inaccurate and misleading term that tells us nothing about Hypatia's own religious practices, in which I would be very interested. (As a mathematician, she would be most likely to take part in cult practices typically labeled 'Pythagorean', which are associated with Orphic and Dionysian religion -- but I have no way of knowing.) I've seen perfectly legitimate scholars in this millennium throw up their hands and use the term 'paganism' claiming that they can't come up with a better label, and though this usually doesn't harm their argument, the term remains uninformative in dealing not with a general discussion of Christians v. 'Pagans' (which is how Christians framed the dichotomy) but with the life of an individual.

Maybe the sources tell us nothing about Hypatia (a subject I know next to nothing about, which is why I'm reading your article) in her religious practices, except that she was not a convert to Christianity. If that's the case, then to me it's clearer and more informative to say just that: 'Nothing is known of Hypatia's religious practices, except that she had not converted to Christianity," with a reference to the sources that tell us that.

It also isn't true that 'religious tolerance' is a modern concept and hence anachronistic in a discussion of antiquity (as suggested above); you can in fact document that some Roman emperors were as a matter of official policy more 'tolerant' (whatever terminology is used) than others of religions that were banned or limited at other times.Cynwolfe (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hypatia was a Roman

Some people don't understand that to be a Roman a person did not have to be born in the city of Rome. Rome had evolved from a city-state to a nation-state. Educated Latin speakers in the Western part of the empire like Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius had a thorough understanding of the Greek language. The Church of Rome's liturgical language was Greek until the 3rd century! ("Greek..continued to be the language of the liturgy for a long time after the year 200 in Rome and the larger cities of Italy...".) --71.108.1.110 (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3