This is normally quoted as 415AD, and this dating depends on the
statement of Socrates Scholasticus: "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".
The consular dates (see Edith Mendez' posting) point unequivocally to
415, but would require Cyril to count his dates rather strangely (his
episcopate began in October 412). Theophanes, writing in the tenth
century, gave the date as 408, but his dates are known to exhibit
systematic error and to be out by some 6 years. This would give us
414. Baronius, the church historian, chose 415 as the date, and even
emended "sixth" to "seventh" in Socrates' text to try to accommodate
this. The date of 416 was first considered by Wernsdorf in his
dissertation, and perhaps his somewhat inconclusive discussion may be
read as favouring this date over 415. Certainly Seeck (Vol 6 of his
"Geschichte...") favours 416 and claims that the consular dates are
unreliable. Mueller (in "Women of Mathematics: ...") notes the debate,
but favours 415. Hoche has the fullest and best defence of the 415
date. Wolf's biography has 416, but dates the eclipses seen by Theon to
365 (modern dating is 364).
Other dates have also been favoured. E.g. Kingsley chose 412 and van
der Waerden ("Science Awakening") has 418.
It may be possible to compute the date of Easter in 415 & 416, using
Eastern Church algorithms and the Julian calendar, and so learn
something, but I haven't tried this. March is a likely date for Lent
anyway. Hoche has Easter 415 falling on April 11. [Actually, Socrates
doesn't say "Lent". This word is supplied by Zenos, the translator. S
says "the fast". There were 4 fast periods in the church of those days,
but the only one that could overlap with March is Lent.]
So, summing all this up, most people give 415 as the date, but 416 is a
possibility.
2. DATE OF HYPATIA'S BIRTH
As a general rule birth dates are less readily available than death
dates. This is because most famous people are not famous when they are
born; they become so later. All suggested dates are really guesses.
Wernsdorf has 350, and I have seen 375 (but can't exactly remember
where!). Others choose numbers between these. The fullest modern
discussion is Penella's, which has already been noted in this thread.
Hoche has an extensive discussion and in the end goes for 370; this is
the source of this figure.
Essentially two scenarios are envisaged. Call them "Late" and "Early".
"Late" has her dying as a relatively young woman, and depends on the
assumption "beautiful is young", and we are told that Hypatia was
beautiful. On this scenario, Theon would perhaps have been born around
340, saw the eclipses in 364 as a relatively young man, fathered his
daughter in his late 20's and lived long enough to collaborate with her
when she was in her 20's & he in his 50's.
"Early" has Theon being born around 325 and thus being plausibly a
younger colleague of Pappus, seeing the eclipses in his early 40's or
late 30's and being a little over 50 when he saw the conjunction of 378
(if indeed he did). He could still have been active in the reign of
Theodosius I and would have been about 65, when the Museum was
destroyed. He would, on this scenario, have been collaborating with his
daughter at about this time.
Mueller adduces three lines of evidence in favour of "Early". They are:
1. She reached her zenith in the reign of Arcadius (according to the
Suda)
2. Malalas says she was an old woman when she was killed.
3. Synesius her pupil was himself born around 370.
On these points: Arcadius reigned from 395 to 408, so little conclusive
can be derived from this. I find Malalas unreliable (read his account
of Theon -- Dzielska alone takes it seriously) and so dismiss the second
point, but the 3rd point I find conclusive. Hoche, who promulgated the
370 date, argues this away, but Penella (& I) find his argument
"exceedingly weak". The best I could do myself was "significantly
before 370; perhaps as early as 350".
3. CYRIL'S GUILT
St Cyril of Alexandria was accorded his title before the Vatican adopted
its current rigorous canonisation procedures. However, Pius XII's
encyclical "Orientalis Ecclesiae" may be taken as a recent endorsement.
Cyril is listed as a "Doctor of the Universal Church" and accorded the
title of "Doctor of the Incarnation". This recognises his theological
work which went a long way to establishing and delineating the
Incarnational Doctrines of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union. His
doctrinal formulation puts him on a par with (say) Aquinas. He also
produced spiritual writings that are accounted profound and wise and was
as well a noted biblical exegete. A bilingual edition of his surviving
writings rus to almost ten large volumes. It is for this that he is
revered; less is said about his personal character. Whether he ordered
the death of Hypatia is uncertain. Her slaying took place against a
background of escalating violence not unlike recent Belfast, or perhaps
Kosova. Most judgements are made in accordance with the writer's
prejudice. Roman Catholics tend to exonerate him, anti-clericals to
accuse him. The Anglican Canon Bright wrote "Cyril was no party to this
hideous deed, but it was the work of men whose passions he had
originally called out". This is perhaps the most balanced assessment.
Certainly there was Christian sentiment glorifying her murder. Just
look at John of Nikiu's: "And all the people surrounded the patriarch
Cyril and called him 'the new Theophilus'; for he had destroyed the last
remains of idolatry in the city."
However, I tend to object to the use of this incident as fuel for
anti-clericalism or sectarian bias. Not because of any personal
commitment to any church (I have none), but because I think it a misuse
of history.
4. HUBBARD & OSEN
Hubbard's account of Hypatia (now available at Landman's website) is
pure fabulation and is designed to illustrate Hubbard's personal moral
philosophy. It has no credence whatsoever as history and Osen's later
use of it (not to say plagiarism!) is irresponsible in the extreme. Nor
can one easily excuse the laxity of MIT Press in publishing this
drivel. That such books are irresponsible is evidenced by young students'
quite understandable reliance on such works. One should not need to have
to tell the students of this world that works which they have reason to
regard as authoritative are simply trash. Students deserve better.
Mike Deakin