James Still

We have a primary source on the Hypatia incident from a reputable historian and church scholar named Socrates Scholasticus, who wrote in his Church History:

"THERE WAS a woman at Alexandria named Hypatia, daughter of the philosopher Theon, who made such attainments in literature and science, as to far surpass all the philosophers of her own time. Having succeeded to the school of Plato and Plotinus, she explained the principles of philosophy to her auditors, many of whom came from a distance to receive her instructions. On account of the self-possession and ease of manner, which she had acquired in consequence of the cultivation of her mind, she not unfrequently appeared in public in presence of the magistrates. Neither did she feel abashed in going to an assembly of men. For all men on account of her extraordinary dignity and virtue admired her the more. Yet even she fell victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed. For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes, it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop. Some of them, therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home, and dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her with tiles.* After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burnt them. 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. This happened in the month of March during Lent, in the fourth year of Cyril's episcopate, under the tenth consulate of Honorius, and the sixth of Theodosius."

This is an extremely detailed and credible account. It tells us what other sources have told us repeatedly, namely, early Christians rejected science and ended up throwing the Holy Roman Empire into an extended period of intellectual stagnation.

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: James Still ]</p>

RyanS2

"Hypatia of Alexandria" by Maria Dzieska states that:

'Cryil's people found a way to exploit Hypatia's detachment from the common people: they devised a subtle scheme of negative propaganda among the urban mob. John of Nikiu relates that they portrayed her as a witch and imputed to her the worst type of sorcery - black magic - which drew the severest punishment not only in the legal system of the Christian empire; it was as old as the Twelve Tables. Rumors of the practice of black magic spawned devastating fear among ordinary people, who were accordingly ever ready to take violent and ruthless action against sorcerers.

Alexandrians thus learned that the famous woman philosopher was in reality an abominable messenger of hell, "devoted at all times to magic, astrolabes, and instruments of music." The ecclesiastical propagandists thus imbued one tendentious little story about a sorceress with information about Hypatia's mathematical and astronomical research, her philosophical and religious interests, and anecdotes circulating about her in the city. To authenticate the information about Hypatia's forbidden practices it sufficed to refer to her father's preoccupation with astrology and magic, his writings on the interpretation of dreams, and the Alexandrians astrologists' calls at their house Heychius, aware of what lay at the core of the people's agitation, states unequivocally that it was astronomy that sealed her fate - understood, of course, as astrology alloyed with black magic and divination.'

Here is the official Roman Catholic description of Hypatia:

'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.'

She was commisioned to the Church by a Church father, a heretic against the official ones. Her support of him caused the propaganda to be written and Peter the Reader, formerly out converting scorpions in the desert for Christ, led a group of zealots to kill her, mutiliate her, and then burn down the library which she ran. After that, no one felt compelled to try and rebuild it. In the book though, the author believes that Hypatia was much older than usually assumed to be.

FunkyRes

Except that account does not mention the Library of Alexandria, which there doesn't seem to be any reliable evidence for.

James Still

I'd say you're missing the main point. The library suffered many disasters over the centuries but whether there was one book or a million the fact remains that it was the center of science in antiquity. To attack Hypatia and destroy the school at Alexandria amounts to an attack on the best minds and resources the ancient world had at the time. After the Hellenistic period the ancient world plunged into the Dark Ages, not to emerge from ignorance until after the scholastics re-discovered the Greeks in the 12th century.

FunkyRes

There surely could have been a library there- but it would have then been a fairly recent library, and to therefore claim it contained these "missing scrolls" that prove the mythros point is like me claiming the documentation to link Darius the Mede with Gubaru was in the Library that was destroyed near 50 B.C.

Bede

James,

The murder of Hypatia is not well enough documented for us to know why she was killed although there is no doubt that Christians did the deed. She was revered by some orthodox Christians as well as pagans so it isn't possible to make any across the board judgements about pagan/Christian attitudes towards her. Her death is abhorred by the earliest Christian chronicler Socrates Scholasticus.

However, the school of Alexandria thrived under Christian rule after her death producing such great pagan and Christian thinkers as John Philoponus, Damascius and Ammonius Hermiae. Indeed, so successful was the school in this time that Richard Carrier erronously believes the Great Library must have survived up to the Arab conquest.

Also, there were no Dark Ages in the East. Byzantium shone with the light of magnificent art, culture and literature for centuries while the West struggled under the barbarian invaders. It is therefore quite wrong to say that Christianity caused a dip in culture. Even science was far more pressured by Stoicism and neo-Platonism (whether pagan or Christian) than it ever was by official Christian policy.

The only school closed by a Christian emperor was that in Athens by Justinian who did so for purely political rather than religious reasons (the academics were criticising him and he didn't like it).

The myth that culture some how suffered under the Christian emperors is extremely pervasive but quite untrue. Culture certainly changed and we could anachronisticly claim it changed for the worse. But anyone familiar with the achievements of Byzantium would dismiss such a judgement out of hand.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

James Still

I'll let Richard speak for himself but my point is that after Ptolemy, Galen, Hypatia, and others like them science was in decline. Islam would continue to carry the torch but it all but went out in the West.

I am no expert on Byzantium by any stretch. My remark centered on the death of science and not whether art and high culture waxed or waned. Also, let me be clear about something. I am not so simplistic as to suggest that Christianity was the root cause of the decline of science. I think that the rise of Christianity was merely the symptom and therefore had no interest in reversing the trend.

If the punch line is in there somewhere I must have missed it. After Constantine, Julian had to issue an edict to protect pagans from Christian zeal. Whole towns were wiped out, people were exiled or put into prison and who knows how many were killed. Constantine ordered the burning of any book that "offended the minds of the pious." I should think it clear that many schools were closed down and many lives were lost during this pogrom.

[Fixed a broken tag. -js]

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: James Still ]</p>

Sojourner553

Hi Bede!

Nice to talk to you.

BTW, I do agree with you that there are no credible sources that have “proved” Christian mobs ever directly attacked the Library of Alexandria. You are completely justified in busting these myths, and any others you can prove/attempt to prove.

I also agree with your point that just because Hypatia was attacked by a fanatical Christian mob, this does not mean ALL Christians were fanatical fundies! That is a problem we get into when we identify a bad Christian group and then try to brand all Christians as the “same”. (The comparison would be like saying ALL Christians are like “Jerry Falwell”; or even, ALL atheists are like “Madlyn O’Hare”.)

Indeed, previously Hypatia had been good friends with the Christian Roman governor of Alexandria (the latter who was a bitter enemy of the extremist Bishop Cyril.) The real problem was that later Roman emperors took the side of the fanatically fundie Christian leaders and mobs (as opposed to the moderates like the governor of Alexandria) in allowing the mobs to attack pagan and Jewish temples without civil protection. (To me, the disruption in the social disorder that followed was one of the root causes of the Dark Ages IN THE WEST!)

It has been documented that library book shelves were found empty following attacks on pagan temples. However, I am inclined to agree with you (Bede) that it is a false picture that the books themselves were the PRIMARY target of violent SMASHINGS. Many times pagans were allowed to leave Roman cities and take their books with them. Many books could also have rotted over time through apathy, as monks had close to 0% interest in preserving secular/scientific works. For example Aristotle’s writings were lost in the West (and this could be explained just as easily from apathy not from burning.)

On the other hand there are other images that were violent:

The devestation of the Temple of Serapeum is well documented. I think the persecutions against the Jews (that continued on through the Dark Ages) are generally accepted. (Do YOU deny this, Bede?)

Look at how the bibles of early pro-Protestants were hunted down and burned as one example of another violent event. (Of course this was violence by Christians against other Christians)

Bede – I thought the Greek statues were marble, just like the Romans; and that the Romans learned their arts from the Greeks and therefore imitated the style AND materials. (???)

But assuming somehow Greek statues were bronze and Roman statues were marble (?)– I still have never heard of the “perishability” of bronze. I have of course heard that bronze is a softer metal and therefore weaker than say iron in a battle.…

Now, the melt down of bronze for reuse does sound like a more plausible theory. There are some good tests for this, I think. Are bronze works of the Greeks more likely to have survived if they were of a secular nature (building decorations, mirrors, etc) than of a statue with a pagan theme?

But I keep coming back to this: are you really sure Greek statues were made of bronze? Here is the Gombrich paragraph)

“ Christian Churches were built on many of the old destroyed temple sites--as
any traveler to Italy or Greece can see today. Statues and paintings of
the Greek and Roman gods were sought out and destroyed. Indeed, the reason
why there are so few statues left of the ancient world, is because early
Christians felt it their moral duty to smash them. The sculptures in museums,
are for the most part, cheap and inferior COPIES made for travelers and
private collectors during Roman times. Unlike the original works, these
copies were overlooked in the zealous campaign of destruction that took
place in the temples and cities. (EH Gombrich, THE STORY OF ART, Phaidon
Publishers, Inc, 1966, p 56)

Sounds more like marble to me. Gombrich also references paintings. Surely you are not saying the paintings were done on bronze too?

When I toured Greece and Italy, I saw firsthand how many churches were built on the site of old temples. So this rang true to me.

I thought Gombrich answers this: The implication is that the Greek statues were housed within temples (where they were destroyed by mobs.) Gombrich clearly states that Roman statues were kept in private collections—ie within an individual’s house. The Christian mobs were after Jewish and pagan temples –not individuals’ houses.

Sojourner

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Bede

Sojourner,

Good to talk to you too. Here's some links on bronzes. I hate to just use internet links but would need to do some more serious research to get at some scholarly sources. The final link says pagan Romans were melting down Greek statues for centuries before Christianity came to the fore. The first link reviews a book that rejects the distinction between Greek original and Roman copy. Not sure I agree.

<a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1996/96.12.06.html" target="_blank">http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1996/96.12.06.html</a>
<a href="http://60centuries.copper.org/greco_roman/greece02.html" target="_blank">http://60centuries.copper.org/greco_roman/greece02.html</a>
<a href="http://www.sculpturegallery.com/sculpture/greek_warriors.html" target="_blank">http://www.sculpturegallery.com/sculpture/greek_warriors.html</a>
<a href="http://www.american.edu/TED/BRONZE.HTM" target="_blank">http://www.american.edu/TED/BRONZE.HTM</a>

James,

You said: "After Constantine, Julian had to issue an edict to protect pagans from Christian zeal. Whole towns were wiped out, people were exiled or put into prison and who knows how many were killed. Constantine ordered the burning of any book that "offended the minds of the pious." I should think it clear that many schools were closed down and many lives were lost during this pogrom."

Alas, you are way out of context here. As my <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk/literature.htm" target="_blank">essay</a> showed, pagans were just as bad at suppressing unpious works so why pick on Christians for doing it? Anti-Christian bias. As for whole towns wiped out, loads killed and imprisoned, I'd like to see sources for this as it sounds like the usual anti-Christian hyperbole.

Note I am not saying, contrary to what one of the headbangers claimed above, early Christians were angels. I am saying that they weren't much different to pagans and to pick out anecdotal Christian misdeeds out of social context is simply bad history done for polemical reasons. The idea that there was some great pogrom when the Empire turned Christian when the freethinking, scientific pagans were replaced by force by fanatical, superstitious Christians is utter rubbish but this does seem to be the picture that many around here (but I'm sure, not you) carry around in their heads.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

James Still

It is well known that the council of Nicaea, which Constantine convened in 325 CE, outlined a Creed in keeping with Constantine's own theology. All other Christians who did not adhere to this Creed were considered heretics and their books and churches were to be destroyed. Pagans were persecuted too.

Julian, who succeeded Constantine, issues an Edict restoring the legitimacy of paganism and declares that Christians and pagans ought to live side by side in peace. He states that people should seek to convert one another by use of reason and not force. In effect, he tried to create a healthy division between church and state in order to protect everyone from murdering each other. And of course his reign lasts a whole two years. (Bosnia anyone? Northern Ireland?) But while he lived he wrote in Epistle 52 to the people of Bostra, 362:

...in [Constantine's] reign many of them [heretics and pagans] were banished, persecuted and imprisoned; and many of the so-called heretics were executed.... All this has been reversed in my reign; the banished are allowed to return, and confiscated goods have all been restored to the owners. But such is their folly and madness that, just because they can no longer be despots, or carry out their designs first against their brethren and then against us, the worshippers of the gods, they are inflamed with fury and stop at nothing in their unprincipled attempts to alarm and enrage the people. ...[By this edict all the people] may hold their meetings, if they wish, and offer prayers according to their established use. ... And for the future let the people live in harmony." (Source: Documents of the Christian Church (2nd Ed.) Edited by Henry Bettenson, Oxford, 1963.)

Gratian succeeded Julian and immediately began to raze temples and persecutes pagan priests. After him, Theodosius I prohibits paganism outright and the persecution intensified under his son Theodosius II who spent a year converting all the temples into churches in 435 CE. By the time of Justinian's long reign (527 - 567) if you still observed anything other than the official state religion you were put to death.
Bede argues that it went both ways, that pagans were just as eager to persecute and murder Christians as Christians were to do the same. (And I think he's right.) But the history outlined above shows that the lessons of the movement's founder, so eloquently communicated in the Sermon on the Mount, were completely ignored. I thought Christianity was supposed to be different from other religions? History suggests that Christianity is no more enlightened or peaceful than any other organized religion.

Totally off the subject but something interesting I read: Julian writes, which seems to point out the "scope creep" of the gospels: "But you [Christianos], unfortunately, do not abide by the tradition of the apostles, which in the hands of their successors deteriorated into greater blasphemy. Neither Paul, nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor Mark had the audacity to say that Jesus is God. ... This evil was inaugurated by John."