Hypatia, astronomer and philosopher, on the threshold between two eras

La ricerca che è all’origine di questo articolo affonda le sue radici nei miei studi universitari sostenuti dal Premio Clementina Gatti dall’Università degli Studi di Milano nel 1996. Più recentemente ho ripreso il lavoro stimolata dalle pubblicazioni di A. Belenkiy che, per vie diverse, arriva a conclusioni su Ipazia astronoma analoghe a quelle che già allora avevo formulato e poi lasciato nel cassetto. È questo oggi il mio contributo alla ricerca su Ipazia: lo rilancio perché possa stimolare nelle future generazioni lo slancio all’approfondimento.
L’articolo è stato pubblicato nel volume ‘Il genio femminile nell’antichità’ a cura di Stefano Bruni e Maria Serena Funghi, Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere “La Colombaria” 2024. Lo pubblichiamo anche nella versione inglese autorizzata dalla casa editrice.

Surrounded by an aura of myth, blessed by an exceptionally favourable climate and basking in a past of rich splendour still testified to by great monuments such as the temple of Isis and Serapis: this is how Alexandria in Egypt appeared to the traveller and historian Ammianus Marcellinus who visited it between 363 and 366 AD1. Then there is the other Alexandria portrayed by the poet Palladas2, who wrote during the period immediately following the destruction of this temple (391/392 AD) when, after having defaced the sacred places and melted down the statues to obtain precious
metal, the city’s Catholic bishop Theophilus exposed the objects of worship to ridicule3. The flight of the philosopher-priests from the Serapeum marked the end of a way of creating culture but not yet the end of an era. Synesius, a young man from the Christian aristocracy in Cyrenaica, travelled more than 800 kilometres (no mean task, considering the means of the time)4 and arrived in Alexandria to attend the school of Hypatia. Thus it was that after the destruction, thanks to Hypatia Alexandria returned to being a centre of culture that attracted students from all over the Eastern Roman Empire5. As a contemporary source wrote:

she inherited the Platonic school which had been revived by Plotinus, and she explained all the philosophical disciplines to anyone who wished. As a result anyone who wished to think philosophically flocked to her from all sides6.

Herein lies one of the essential elements of Hypatia’s genius: even during a period of dramatic upheaval her school became the training ground for those men who would govern the Eastern Roman Empire for the following twenty years7. Hypatia was not part of the Hellenic priestly hierarchy, she did not speak in the Serapeum nor was she a survivor of the group of philosopher-priests8. Rather, Hypatia seems to have been speaking from the Mouseion9, one of the most renowned centres of scientific, literary, philosophical and medical research in the Hellenistic world, which at this time was not affected by the conflict raging around the Hellenic places of worship. Hypatia’s father Theon is remembered as the last director of the
Mouseion10, a passionate teacher11 and author of a monumental number of
commentaries which have allowed the survival of works that would otherwise be lost today. Sources report that Hypatia also began to study mathematics at her father’s school12 and his work is the oldest testimony that tells us about her. In the heading of his commentary on the third book of Ptolemy’s Mathematical System, Theon writes:

Commentary by Theon of Alexandria on the third book of the Mathematical System by Ptolemy. Edition edited (παραναγνϝσqειβσξς) by the philosopher Hypatia, my daughter13.

This, which is the oldest testimony to Hypatia’s scientific activity, also indicates that Theon attributed the merit of being co-author of the most difficult part to his daughter. The verb παραναγνϝσqειβσξς in fact refers to the work of redoing the calculations. Deakin draws attention to the innovation of the “tabular approach” to the calculations that appears in this book:

the method employed in a long division performed in Book III (on the sun) differed from that explained in Book I (on mathematical technique). The method in Book III employs a tabular approach, whereas the one in Book I does not; this latter is less systematic and in fact inferior.
[…] it is appropriate to remark that a tabular approach is much closer to later versions of the long division algorithm, and represents a clear improvement over that outlined in Theon’s Commentary on Book I. What we are dealing with here is efficiency of computational technique, and, although the long division algorithms occur in an astronomical context, they are of a more general application than this14.

Hypatia’s superior ability compared to her father Theon is also highlighted by a contemporary source:

Hypatia, daughter of Theon, learned mathematical sciences from her father but became much better than her master, especially in the art of observing the stars, and introduced many people to the mathematical sciences15.

In the catalogue of her works, handed down in the Suda (9th century AD), mention is made of Hesychius, an author active in Constantinople in the 6th century, along with reference to a work that goes beyond the genre of commentary:

She wrote a commentary on Diophantus, the Astronomical Canon, a commentary on the Conics of Apollonius16.

In her edition of the Suda, Ada Adler does not accept the forcing of the Greek text by Tannery, who, perhaps not believing that there could be an original astronomical work at the time of Hypatia, inserted an “a” before Astronomical Canon17. Restored to its correct form18, the passage finally leaves open the question of content, function and possible survival in the tradition of Hypatia’s Astronomical Canon. Deakin is also convinced of this:

The way is now open for us to interpret the “astronomical table” as the tabular method of long division, introduced in her version of Book III of the Almagest. True, a new method (or more accurately a revised and more systematic approach to an older method) of long division is not necessarily astronomical, but the context in which it is presented most definitely is, and the innovation consists precisely in the construction of a table19.

According to the scholar therefore, the Astronomical Canon (which he mentions as astronomical table) would coincide with the calculation tables found in Theon’s commentary on the third book of the Mathematical System and this method, creating a tabular approach to calculation, constitutes an effective step forward compared to the one used up to that point. The term “astronomical” combined with “canon” makes this reading a little shaky and Deakin believes that it refers to the astronomical context in which these tables are inserted. But at this point, why not believe the source that presents a real Astronomical Canon? In this context it is useful to underline that in the tradition preceding Hypatia there is no other work bearing this title, nor even any significant association between the terms “canon” and “astro”, “astronomical” or “astral”20.
Synesius shows the gratitude of someone who is still doing research towards the tradition he felt he was the heir to:

One must be understanding with these men [Hipparchus and Ptolemy], if they worked on mere hypotheses, since the most important questions had not yet been solved and geometry the beginnings of science emerge from the search for the necessary, its development from that for perfection21.

At the school of Hypatia, Synesius had learned to freely approach the tradition in whose fold he was placed by way of teacher, and to be aware of the fact that between the time in which he lived and thought and the time of Hipparchus and Ptolemy himself, mathematics had made such progress as to give him the sense that back then it was at the beginning of its work and here at its completion22. The hypothesis that I advance in light of these observations is that Hypatia’s Astronomical Canon contained the calculation tables of which traces can be found in Theon’s commentary on the third book of the Mathematical System, made independent from the corpus of the commentary on the mathematical system in order to provide contemporaries with a rapid calculation method applicable and applied to astronomy, the “correct canon of truth”23 In Alexandria the application of this method of calculation for astronomical purposes was indeed a delicate if not “hot” topic and a source of conflict between the various Christian churches and the Catholic Church, and between this latter and the Jewish community24. The topic concerned the correct calculation of the Spring
equinox necessary for the determination of the calendar and therefore the correct date of Easter. The attention brought to this aspect by Ari Belenkiy25 sparked an almost unanimous uprising in the academic community, yet the scholar’s arguments in reconstructing the facts leading up to the assassination of Hypatia are far from far fetched, starting with the role played in the affair by the hostility of Cyril, the then bishop of Alexandria, towards the Novatian church26 and the importance of the episcopal throne of Alexandria in determining the correct date of Easter. The bishop had acquired this role precisely thanks to the presence in the city of an authorative scientific community27 with which the episcopate remained in a dialogic relationship even after the destruction of the Hellenic temples. The manifesto of the dialogue still possible between a Catholicism that was organized around dogma and a culture that considered the suspension of judgment essential in the face of what is outside the field of philosophical exercise, can be found in the letter that Synesius wrote from Cyrene to his brother Euoptius on the occasion of his proclamation as bishop, so that he could read it publicly in Alexandria in the presence of bishop Theophilus, who was responsible for this nomination:

It is difficult, if not quite impossible, that convictions should be shaken, which have entered the soul through knowledge to the point of demonstration. Now you know that philosophy rejects many of those convictions which are cherished by the common people. For my own part, I can never persuade myself that the soul is of more recent origin than the body. Never would I admit that the world and the parts which make it must perish. This resurrection, which is an object of common belief, is nothing for me but a sacred and mysterious allegory, and I am far from sharing the views of the vulgar crowd thereon. […] No, if I am called to the priesthood, I declare before God and man that I refuse to preach dogmas in which I do not believe. Truth is an attribute of God, and I wish in all things to be blameless before Him. This one thing I will not dissimulate28.

Strong words from Synesius in the spirit of Hypatian parrhesia29, words that in 410 could still be said and despite which, Theophilus chose to confirm his nomination as bishop. The balance of power in the Eastern empire changed rapidly and in 414, when Pulcheria, the sister of Theodosius II supported by the party of the Catholic bishops, was nominated Augusta of the Eastern empire, the twenty-year government of the so called party of the Hellenes that had Hypatia as its symbol, finally ended30. The main ally of the new Augustan policy was Theophilus’ nephew Cyril, who took office following a bloody struggle against the other candidate who belonged to the Novatian
“sect”. At the end of this struggle the Novatian “sect” had its assets seized and was expelled from the city31 and it was in this changed political-institutional framework that Hypatia’s assassination took place. According to the version of the contemporary source Socrates of Constantinople, with the shedding of Hypatia’s blood and the desecration of her body, a series of conflicts that had torn Alexandria to pieces culminated and come to an end32. He recounts these facts in three successive chapters of the Historia Ecclesiastica: a terrible conflict between Jews and Catholics which led to the expulsion of the Jews from Alexandria and the worsening of the tension between Cyril and the Augustan prefect Orestes with the consequent refusal of the latter to accept the bishop’s peace proposals:

since Orestes did not welcome the initiatives to re-establish friendship, Cyril placed the book of the Gospels before him, thinking that he could induce Orestes to demonstrate respect by this expedient. But since Orestes would not be calmed even in this way and a war without truce remained between them, the events that I will relate consequently occurred33.

The image of Orestes refusing to bow to the authority of the bishop armed with the evangelical canon is to be linked with what the historian writes in the chapter dedicated to Hypatia, in which the murder of the woman at the hands of the same people who had attacked the prefect is described34. The narration of this bloody event is preceded by a short and intense biography in which her authoritative role in the city is underlined:

Because of her magnificent boldness in freedom of speech and action (parrhesia) which resulted from her classical education and upbringing (paideia), [Hypatia] approached the city’s leaders with discretion; it was no cause for shame for her to be among men. In fact, because of her extraordinary intellect, everyone respected her deeply and felt awe towards her. Thus it was for this reason that envy set itself (against her). For since she met frequently with Orestes, envy spread slander about her among people of the church, saying namely that it was she who did not allow Orestes to be reconciled with the bishop35.

It seems that, for the Augustal prefect, the word of Hypatia had a higher authority than that of the bishop “armed” with the evangelical canon. Just like Synesius, Orestes shows his determination to appertain to another canon of truth, hence the accusation made against Hypatia, of preventing the reconciliation between the bishop and the prefect.
What was this “nefarious” influence of Hypatia on Orestes that was so strong as to induce such a violent reaction in a part of the Catholic population? According to Hesychius:

This happened because of envy and her extraordinary wisdom, especially in matters concerning astronomy36.

Socrates, who never mentions Hypatia’s astronomical work – an omission that should not be considered accidental – in my opinion leaves a clue in the detail with which he reports the time of Hypatia’s death37:

it was the month of March during the period of fasting38.

With the expression “period of fasting” Socrates indicates the period of Lent which in the 4th/5th century still followed different practices and had a variable duration of six to eight weeks39. Is Socrates perhaps telling us that all this happened in connection with the feast of Easter? The Christian computation of Easter adopted by Theophilus and Cyril was less correct than that which had long been adopted by the Jews40.
The miscalculation is attributable to Ptolemy and, according to Tihon41, this error was officially corrected in the 14th century by Nicephorus Gregoras and the Calabrian monk Barlaam42. Contemporaries and rivals, the two Byzantine scholars came to the conclusion that there was an error of two days in the calculation of the date of the equinox without however being able to establish the consequences for the related astronomical problems43. Probably drawing from a common source, the two scholars concurred without having the tools to go further44. Yet what manuscript did they have in front of them? To try to identify it, it is necessary to go back in time, making the same leap that the astronomical tradition made in the Byzantine world, moving from the 7th to the 9th century AD, when it slowly started up again and then flourished in the 14th century45. We know that in the 7th century an astronomer was active in Constantinople, trained at the school of Alexandria and summoned to the capital by the emperor Heraclius. A treatise is attributed to this Stephen of Alexandria46 which
proposes a method for calculating the date of Easter. This information is provided again by Tihon47 who at the same time recalls that this treatise “pose de curieux problems au niveau de la tradition manuscrite”48: for example, it is sometimes attributed to the emperor Heraclius49 or handed down anonymously as in Marc. Gr. 32550. In this manuscript, according to the evidence provided by Nicephorus Gregoras, “une main postèrieure a ajouté un note disant que ce traité n’est pas de Théon mais d’un auteur plus recent”51. The work of Stephen of Alexandria and also the writings that recur several times in anonymous form in the tradition52 are not yet available in a contemporary edition53. Specifically targeted studies could allow us to understand whether Stephen was also drawing from a previous source which at this point could only be Hypatia’s Astronomical Canon54. It will be necessary to continue working in this direction in order to understand whether there is solid ground for thinking that the trigger for the murder of Hypatia was genuinely connected with her astronomical research and whether this correction of the calculation of the Spring equinox was genuinely one of the innovative contributions of that genius of the “famous philosopher from whom great things have been handed down”55.

Gemma Beretta
Florence 28th March
2024

  1. Amm. Marc., Res gestae, XXII 16, 7-12 ↩︎
  2. Pallad., Anth, Pal., IX 175 e AP IX 441. ↩︎
  3. Socr., Hist. Eccl., VI, 16. ↩︎
  4. The emphasis on the importance of this journey in terms of travelling in relation to the means of transport available at the time was put forward by a scholar with whom I had the pleasure of speaking during a seminar dedicated to Hypatia held at the University of Verona in 2010. Among his writings see TERUEL P.J., Ipazia d’Alessandria come
    anello della grande tradizione filosofica greca    , «Itinera», n. 4/2012, pp. 20-45. ↩︎
  5. From the letters of Synesius we know that in Hypatia’s circle there were men from Cyrene, Syria and Constantinople as well as Alexandria. See CHR. LACOMBRADE, Synésios de Cyréne Hellène et chrétien, Les Belles Lettres, Paris, 1951, pp. 50-56 and DZIELSKA, Ipazia e la sua cerchia intellettuale, in Paganism in the Later Roman
    Empire and in Byzantium    , a cura di M. Salamon, «Bizantina et Slavica Cracoviensia», 1991, pp. 45-60. ↩︎
  6. Socr., Hist. Ecc., VII 15, 1, my translation. In this text I have chosen to offer a translation from Greek to English that is different from that proposed in the text by D. LA VALLE NORMAN and A. PETKAS, in the volume edited by them, Hypatia of Alexandria, which also makes reference to a selection of sources on Hypatia in the appendix and presents a translation into English. The rigorous philological school that guided me in my research does not allow me to keep quiet about the fact that the translation proposed by the aforementioned authors is in some points so distant from the Greek text that it hinders understanding. I will therefore highlight the points in which my translation differs from that of Petkas and La Valle Norman and where it agrees. ↩︎
  7. In this political context Socrates recognizes Hypatia’s Plotinian legacy. See BERETTA, Ipazia d’Alessandria, Editori Riuniti, Roma, 2014, pp. 102-103. ↩︎
  8. BERETTA, Ipazia d’Alessandria, cit., pp. 94-110. ↩︎
  9. CAVALLO, Ad Alessandria nella antichità tarda: un itinerario tra morfologie culturali, contributo nel convegno della Accademia dei Lincei, Academie des Sciences, Ipazia-Hypatie, Roma 28-29 novembre 2023 https://www.lincei.it/it/manifestazioni/ipazia-hypatie-hypatia-convegno hypothesizes that Hypatia taught in one of the Mouseions in Alexandria, a sort of school that was widespread and whose traces have recently been found in the archaeological excavations present in the city. This interpretation is not in conflict with that which sees
    Hypatia as the heir to the Mouseion and which is most accredited over time from the point of view of scientific research and known to us as the Museum of Alexandria. ↩︎
  10. His active presence at the mathematical school is attested to by the account of two eclipses – one solar and the other lunar – which he observed in Alexandria in 364. According to the Suda Lexicon, II 702, 10-16 Theon continued his activity even during the time of Theodosius II (379-395). ↩︎
  11. Theon’s predisposition towards teaching is referred to THEON, Le «Petit com.» p. 199. ↩︎
  12. Socr., Hist. Eccl. VII, 15, 1-2; Dam. Vita Isidori*102 (p. 77, 1-17); Philostorg. Hist. Eccl., VIII, 9. ↩︎
  13. Theon, Comm. In Ptol. Syn math, vol III, p. 807, my translation. CAVALLO, Ad Alessandria, cit., suggested this translation: “By Theon of Alexandria on the third book of the Mathematical Syntax of Ptolemy, commentary made on the edition collated by my daughter Hypatia the philosopher”. The translation of παραναγιγνϝβσϰειν as reading
    by comparing/collating does not take into account the technical meaning to which the term refers in the context of editions of mathematical texts. For this use of the term paranagignwvskein
    see CAMERON, Isidore of Miletus and Hypatia: on the editing of mathematical texts, «Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies», XXXI, 1990, pp. 103-107 and BERETTA, Ipazia d’Alessandria, cit. pp. 58-62. ↩︎
  14. M. A. B. DEAKIN, Hypatia of Alexandria. Mathematician and Martyr, Prometeus Books, Amherst New York, 2007
    p. 92. ↩︎
  15. Philostorg. Hist. Eccl., VIII, 9, my translation. ↩︎
  16. Suda, IV 644, 3-5 my translation. ↩︎
  17. TANNERY, L’article de Suidas sur Hypatia, «Annales de la Faculté de Lettres de Bordeaux», II, 1880, pp. 197-200: 199. Regarding the philological corrections to Tannery’s observation, see Fernanda Caizzi
    Decleva in BERETTA, Ipazia d’Alessandria, cit., 2014, p.65, n. 85. See also J. MICHEL CHARRUE, La Philosophie Nèoplatonicienne de l’éducation, L’Harmattan, Paris, 2019, p. 33. ↩︎
  18. Tannery’s version has also had a lot of following in twentieth-century studies, hindering detailed research into Hypatia’s work. La Valle Norman and A. Petkas D. in the volume edited by them, Hypatia of Alexandria, p. 248 (D. LA VALLE NORMAN and A. PETKAS, edited by, Hypatia of Alexandria, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2020), translating Hesychius as reported in Suda IV 644,1-11 in Ada Adler’s edition, they remain faithful to the original text: “She wrote a commentary on Diophantus, the Astronomical Canon, and a commentary on the Conics of Apollonius”. In the same collection of texts, however, Gertz (S. GERTZ, ‘A Mere Geometer?’ Hypatia in the Context of Alexandrian Neoplatonism, in LA VALLE NORMAN – PETKAS, cit., pp. 133-150), uncritically reports the text with Tannery’s interpolation. ↩︎
  19. DEAKIN, Hypatia of Alexandria, cit., p. 97. In this way Deakin puts an end to the modern hypotheses that had then been accepted as truth and that alternately interpreted the Astronomical Canon sometimes as Ptolemy’s same Mathematical System, sometimes as the Handy Tables which were nothing other than a catalogue of the kings and
    their chronological placement, which is found within the Mathematical System. ↩︎
  20. This data emerged from a computer-based search of all the Greek texts contained in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae of the University of California (Irvine), version C. The term ‘canon’ in connection with ‘astrological’ occurs only in Plut. De intelligentia animalium, 979C. See also CHARRUE, La Philosophie, cit. p. 34. ↩︎
  21. Syn., De Dono, [4]. ↩︎
  22. Ibidem. From the catalogue of works attributed to Hypatia we know that the philosopher had studied geometry and arithmetic in her most advanced works (the Conic Sections of Apollonius of Perga and the algebra, as this branch of arithmetic would later be called, of Diophantus) and that therefore Hypatia must be given credit for
    having achieved the juxtaposition between the study of conics and Diophantine algebra for the first time in the history of science. For a discussion of this point I refer to BERETTA, Ipazia d’Alessandria, cit., pp. 68-69. ↩︎
  23. Ibidem ↩︎
  24. For more on this question, see also EVIEUX, Introduction, pp. 74-80. I would like to emphasize that the crucial point of the conflicts was not the calculation of the date of Easter from a scientific point of view. This issue concerned those very few who could understand it, while the main issue was the political authority to proclaim Easter, indicating its date. The episcopate of Alexandria made use of the Ptolemaic authority that in my hypothesis, Hypatia would have questioned. This was potentially intolerable for the Alexandrian bishopric, and was a conflict that preceded the question of
    heliocentrism. ↩︎
  25. A. BELENKIY, An astronomical murder? «Astronomy & Geophysics», 51.2, April 2010, pp. 9-13; ID., The Novatian ‘Indifferent Canon’ and Pascha in Alexandria in 414: Hypatia’s Murder Case Reopened, «Vigiliae Christianae», LXX, 2016, pp. 373-400. ↩︎
  26. On the cultural rôle of the Novatian Church see G. BERETTA, Socrate di Costantinopoli: il paradosso di un Elleno cristiano, Salternum, XIX, nn. 34-35, jan-dec. 2015, pp. 83-88. ↩︎
  27. J. ROUGÉ, La politique de Cyrille d’Alexandrie et le meurtre d’Hypatie, «Cristianesimo nella storia: ricerche storiche, esegetiche, teologiche», ed. Dehoniane Bologna, XI.3, 1990, pp. 485-504: 495 and EVIEUX, Introduction, cit., p. 87. ↩︎
  28. Syn. Ep. 105 pp. 275 -277. Trad. A. Fitzgerald. ↩︎
  29. With regard to Hypatia’s parrhesia, see BERETTA, Ipazia d’Alessandria, pp. 185-193 and S. FERRANDO, Michel Foucault, La politica presa a rovescio. La pratica antica della verità nei corsi al Collège de France, Franco Angeli, Milano, 2012, pp. 221-247. ↩︎
  30. G. BERETTA, Il segno politico di Ipazia nella poesia civile di Pallada, «Itinera», 4/2012, pp. 1-19. ↩︎
  31. Socr., Hist. Eccl., VII, 7, 1-5. ↩︎
  32. Socr., Hist. Eccl., VII, 14, 20. ↩︎
  33. Socr., Hist. Eccl., VII 13, my translation. ↩︎
  34. Socr., Hist. Eccl., VII, 15. In chapter VII, 14, 1 he refers to monks from the mountains of Nitria, defined as “men of overheated souls”. This same expression occurs in chapter VII, 15, 5 regarding the murderers of Hypatia ↩︎
  35. Socr., Hist. Eccl., VII, 15, my translation. ↩︎
  36. Suda, IV 644, 5-8 my translation. ↩︎
  37. The chronological precision with which Socrates identifies the time of Hypatia’s murder is not at all usual for the historian who, like most late antique Church historians, is rather vague in this kind of indication. See EVIEUX, Introduction, cit., p. 55. ↩︎
  38. Socr., Hist. Eccl., VII 15, my translation. ↩︎
  39. For the various Lenten practices still extant in the 4th century see A. CAMPLANI, Quaresima, in Nuovo dizionario patristico di antichità Cristiane, Marietti, Bologna 2010, pp. 4428 -4432. ↩︎
  40. J.F. MONTUCLA, Histoire des Mathématiques, Paris Librairie Scientifique et Tecnique, 1960, pp. 333-334. EVIEUX, Introduction, cit., p. 74, emphasizes that the early Christians conformed to the Jewish calendar to celebrate Easter. ↩︎
  41. A. TIHON, L’astronomie byzantine (du V au XV siècle), «Byzantion», LI, 1981, PP. 603-624; p. 613. ↩︎
  42. Even then, however, the reform of the Easter calendar was not permitted. ↩︎
  43. TIHON, L’astronomie byzantine, cit. p. 613. ↩︎
  44. Nicephorus Gregoras and Barlaam are two of the greatest exponents of that school of thought that Tihon defines as the restoration of Ptolemaic astronomy: both, the scholar observes, were masters in the art of prediction and calculation of eclipses according to Ptolemy’s method, both referring to the texts by Theon. The majority of the manuscripts that have come down to us from the late ancient period date back to this period (for example, more than half of the 55
    manuscripts of the Great Commentary on Handy Tables date back to this period). ↩︎
  45. TIHON, L’astrononime byzantine, cit. pp. 608-609. ↩︎
  46. According to TIHON, L’astrononime byzantine, cit., p. 608, Stephen of Alexandria is one of the last known scholars of the school of Alexandria before the Arab conquest in 640. He was summoned to Constantinople by the emperor Heraclius (610-640) to reorganize the University and his was a first attempt to introduce the teaching of astronomy in Constantinople. It would not be followed up, since traces of scientific studies of this type reappear only in the 9th century. ↩︎
  47. Ibidem. ↩︎
  48. Ibidem. ↩︎
  49. Heraclius certainly did not have the necessary skills to write such a treatise THION, L’astrononime byzantine, cit. p. 608 ↩︎
  50. Ibidem ↩︎
  51. THION, L’astronomie byzantine, cit., p. 608, nota 23. ↩︎
  52. Ibid, p. 608 in this regard: “Ce traité est inédit et pose de curieux problems au niveau de la tradition manuscrite”. Ibid, again p. 608, note 19: “En fait le traité est très souven anonume dans les manuscrits: une étude de ceux-ci devrait permettre d’élucider ce problème”. For the list of manuscripts not yet published of the text attributed to Stephen of Alexandria, see ibid., p. 607, note 18. ↩︎
  53. There is only one in-depth study available on this persona H. USENER, De Stephano Alexandrino, Kleine Schriften III, Teubner, Leipzig-Berlin 1914, pp. 247-323. ↩︎
  54. As already noted by J. ROUGÉ, La politique de Cyrille d’Alexandrie et le meurtre d’Hypatie, cit., p. 496, it is precisely from the testimony of Nicephorus Gregoras, moreover, that we know that the memory of Hypatia survived for a long time in the minds of the Byzantines. In a passage from the Historia Romana, Nicephorus actually reports that Eudocia, second wife of the son of Andronicus II (1282-1328), was called by the wise men of his time “the second Pythagorean Theano or second Hypatia” (Nicephorus Gregoras, Historia Romana, VIII 3,2, PG. 148, col. 469). It is therefore possible that at the time of Nicephorus the astronomical writings of Hypatia were still accessible or that they had re-emerged precisely in that period thanks to the monumental work of editing the ancient texts sponsored by the enlightened court of Andronicus II. ↩︎
  55. Ioann., Mal. Chron. XIV. ↩︎
Avatar di Sconosciuto

Pubblicato da gemmaberetta

Lascia un commento