Saturday Reading and Research | December 02, 2017 | AskHistorians Archive Observer

I used Thanksgiving travel to blitz through Edward J. Watts, Hypatia: The Life and Legend of an Ancient Philosopher. To be clear: this is not an academic book in the sense of laying out an argument that strives to say something new, but Watts is a professor at UCSD and the book is published by Oxford UP as part of its "Women in Antiquity" series. Unfortunately, Watts can't quite figure out whether he is writing for a popular audience or a nonspecialized academic one (like me), and I found it an educational but somewhat frustrating read.

HLaL is, I think, similar to the other books in the series in that it tackles the Olympian task of telling the life of a famous ancient woman about whom we have very, very few sources. In this, the book ends up as sort of an "intellectual biography of 4th-5th century Alexandria," and this was its most valuable aspect to me.

Watts sketches out an Alexandrian intellectual life in the middle of turmoil between pagan and Christian authorities on one hand, and among pagan/Neo-Platonic philosophers on the other. The practice of philosophy at the time might be thought of as the doctorate (...of philosophy, yeah yeah) level of ancient education. After initial elementary work, men intending on a career in government and some women could go on to study grammar more formally. This and subsequent levels of education were done in a "school" that centered around one master teacher, with helpers trained in his or her specific approach to philosophy.

From grammar, a few students would progress to the study of mathematics, which in late antiquity was more like a partner to contemporary philosophy. Only the most advanced and committed to an intellectual life would continue on to study philosophy. Watts' description of the purpose and method of philosophy in this era remind me of Platonist approaches in medieval mysticism, e.g. from Bonaventure. Philosophy was about the cultivation of inner virtue and detachment from worldly trappings in favor of the "life of the mind" and the approach of the pure divine or its first shadow in the world. The practical justification was not to spin off muted branches of ethics or beliefs for common people, but rather for selfless, objective philosophers to advise city and imperial rulers to govern best.

Hypatia's father, Theon, was one of these teachers, and apparently a fantastically successful one. Watts posits that Hypatia probably studied with her father before striking out on her own. But rather than inherit her father's philosophical approach, Hypatia developed her own that stands out in several ways. First, in decades of repeated and violent strife between pagan and Christian factions in Alexandria (at one point, the bishop imported monks to start a bigger riot), she was ecumenical. Christians and pagans flocked to her teaching--one of our best sources on her life is the Christian philosopher and bishop (not that bishop) Synesius. The idea of philosophy as a way to approach the Divine, however conceived, was something Hypatia translated into terms simultaneously acceptable to both.

Second, to the extent that mathematics and philosophy were distinct, she adopted a more philosophical approach to doing and teaching mathematics. The one bit of her work that actually survives, through an edition of her father's work that she edited (which meant working out the mathematics proofs, among other things), was long disparaged by scholarship for not being as pretty as the version from the contemporary philosophy school that became ascendant after her death. Recent research has corrected this from the standpoint of the goals and means of late antique philosophy, rather than applying present-day standards. I will say more about this in a bit.

Third, Hypatia apparently broke the philosophical version of the fourth wall: she is said in numerous sources to have taken her teaching to the people. There aren't details, but Watts posits something like public lectures in addition to the formal classes she held in her home.

Hypatia is perhaps most famous for her murder, and Watts covers both the event and its legacy in later writing. He argues that we should 't be deceived by the brutality of her death: it was probably opportunistic circumstance and mob mentality rather than a targeted hit. Mobs were known to stand outside homes and harass verbally, but not to break in. Hypatia was probably caught unaware in public one day amidst yet another wave of violence between Christians and pagans and among Christian factions. I'm skimming over this part because it's been covered on AH before, but I want to point out how committed Watts is to the idea this was an accident.

In the final part of the books, Watts situates Hypatia in two historical contexts besides Alexandria: other late antique women philosophers, and subsequent literary/religious polemic. Together, these build a case for Hypatia's uniqueness--which is surprisingly and tragically ambivalent. I enjoyed learning about the other women intellectuals! All of them, however, seem to have flourished as helpers or students of men (one is only known as someone else's wife, not even by name!). Hypatia's ability to operate a very successful school is special and stunning. The later literary heritage shows that Hypatia was remembered for her death, not her life. Her "unique" philosophical approach only seems unique today because it was forgotten after her murder. The dissolution of pagan intellectual life, the Christianization of Alexandria, the ascension of Christian and pagan neo-Platonisms promoted by other thinkers erased her legacy.

And this is where my biggest problem with Watts' book comes in. I cannot tell you how badly this needs a critical gender approach. To everything. Watts makes a case that one reason Hypatia passed down no legacy in the form of a school, like her father to her, is that she had no children. Maintaining public virginity was crucial to her ability to operate as a woman in the public presence of men. And this is where I think Watts struggles most to articulate his intended audience. Elsewhere in the book (not the early chapters, though)he does the amazing medievalist thing of an almost pathological attention to the sources. We find out who wrote the thing, why they wrote it, how the text survives today, and all the problems with it before finding out what it says, and then Watts gives in-depth excavations of...a couple sentences. I love it; gimme gimme.

But there is absolutely NOTHING critical or analytical on gender and interrelated sexuality issues. This is a really short book, less than 200 pages of body text. Why is there no chapter on women in the ancient world? He assumes a VAST array of knowledge here. He does't analyze the virginity claims, either--not contextually in Alexandria, and not critically in the later sources' mentions. Especially since those are often Christian, there is a MOUNTAIN of things to be said here. And it's not that Watts is dismissive, which, okay you do you--he doesn't even raise it as a point. It's the weirdest lapse, next to the rest of the second half of the book.

So ultimately, that's my question: who is this written for? The band of classicists who know gender and women's ancient history, but not late antique philosophy? Then really, what's the point. Nonspecialist academics like medievalist me? Maybe, in the second half of the book where he stays closer to the sources and is more explicit about their analysis, but I found the first chapters frustratingly lacking in that. (Yeah, yeah, I'm the snob who wouldn't believe Theon was really Hypatia's father until chapter like 7 or 8 where Watts finally quoted a source to that extent.) And again, my people are going to be expecting some gender analysis and needing some gender background.

Grassroots historians and history readers? (d.h. Probably you, dear reader! :D) Given the way the book starts off more generally and then eases into "here are my sources" mode, I think it could make a great intro to the way medievalists and classicists tend to write formal history! But I'm still really bothered--probably even more so from this perspective--by how little Watts sets the stage for Hypatia as a woman. I don't want him to take away a single bit of the rest of the book! I love the emphasis on Hypatia as an intellectual, as a philosopher. But I want him to add a chapter, a section, a paragraph about women's status in late 4th century Alexandria. We need to understand the significance of either Hypatia's actual chastity or the invention of claims about it. We need to know how she forged a path that, Watts shows, was unique for a woman, in addition to the unique philosophical path.

This is, in the end, an intellectual biography of Alexandria. I don't regret reading it at all. But it's crystallized for me the demands of being an academic writing for a broader audience--and the importance of knowing in advance just who you want that audience to be.