Hypatia of Alexandria

Summary       

Hypatia of Alexandria’s (370/375 A.D.-415A.D.) history is riddled with varying accounts and half-truths. Two sources have different years for Hypatia’s birth, one sources dates her birth between 370-375 and another at 375 A.D. Hypatia lived during the time paganism was reaching its end and Christianity was gaining followers and power. Theon, her father, was a teacher of mathematics and astronomy at the Museum. The Museum was a school or more like a center of mathematics and science where Ptolemy’s successors merged physics, mathematics, and philosophy into an applied natural philosophy. Hypatia’s early education is still debated, as there is no record of it. It was assumed by many that Theon taught her but he had not trained in philosophy. Hypatia, however, was known to have taught philosophy in Alexandria, so an inference was made that her training was received from philosophers of the Neo-Platonic school at Alexandria. One of the sources, Hoche, assumed that Hypatia was educated by mathematicians at the Museum in Alexandria and by other scholars there too. She obtained the position of a teacher after her studies at the Museum.

Being a teacher allowed Hypatia to explore and to continue with her studies in philosophy, science, and mathematics. One of her students, Damascius, stated she taught geometry and mathematics. Another, Hesychius, stated she was a great astronomer like her father. One of her most significant pupils was Synesius who was almost exclusively educated by Hypatia. From Synesius’ letters, it has been determined that Hypatia taught the works of Plato and Aristotle, as well as Neo-Platonism, astronomy, mechanics, and mathematics. Hypatia taught and worked during a time where paganism and Christianity were struggling against each other for power. It took courage and strong intellect to teach these subjects in Alexandria.

By 404 A.D., Hyaptia was appointed head of the Neo-Platonic school at Alexandria. Her works included a commentary on Diophantus’ Arithmeticorum, an Astronomical Canon that formed part of her commentary on Ptolemy’s Syntaxis Mathematica, and a commentary on the Conic Sections of Apollonius Pergaeus. She focused more on the writings concerning metaphysics, cosmology, and epistemology. She used philosophy to form a foundation for her intellectual pursuit of astronomy. Through theorems and scientific theories, Hypatia worked to answer philosophical questions of “Who are we, what is our place in the order of things, what is the nature of god…” (Waithe, 176).

Personal Response

It is incredible to learn that a woman could be not just a teacher but also an influential and amazing one in a time of political, religious, and social upheaval. How much weight could be placed in the information provided remains to be seen. Waithe seems to favor one source above others, using Hoche’s assumptions as factual information about Hypatia. It is troubling that the information written could possibly be false or hold very little truth to it. Working with antiquity, it is by no means surprising that information is limited and often full of assumptions, rather than actual factual information. Hypatia did have students of her own and there seemed to be references to her as a teacher of mathematics and science, but still how much truth could be held in them? Waithe commented that some of the sources stated Hypatia’s work had not survived and are considered to be myths. Only for the last decade or so did Hypatia’s work come up in various searches but it was still inconclusive whether it was truly Hypatia’s work. It would have been amazing to know for sure whether the things described really did happen. If so, then why have views about the roles of women in education (especially philosophy and the “male subjects”) changed from Ancient Greece to the Middle Ages to now? How could women be heads of a school in one period of time only to be subjected to discrimination and put on the bottom rung a few hundred years later? 

Source

Chapter 9. "Hypatia of Alexandria" of A History of Women Philosophers: Ancient Women Philosophers 600 B.C.-500 A.D. by Mary Ellen Waithe

Diotima of Mantinea

Summary

While reading about Diotima, what could be concluded is that there is much dispute over whether she was an actual person or a Platonic character. This chapter on Diotima laid out various arguments and counter-arguments to prove the actual existence of Diotima historically.

In the Symposium, Diotima was a priestess from Mantinea who postponed a plague and taught Socrates the nature of Love. Most of the arguments put forth are based on analyzing the Symposium. The first idea put forth to solve the puzzle of Diotima’s existence is that the Form of Beauty is inconsistent with Plato’s Form of the Good. Another argument given to separate Diotima and Plato is that the Form of Beauty is on the level of appearances and not that of Platonic Ideas or Forms. Another argument made is that it is unusual for Plato to cast a woman in one of his dialogs. Similarly, Socrates would never have learned from a woman. One other argument made to suggest that Diotima was a mere character is, that Diotima is not referenced in anything historically except the Symposium. Lastly, that the Symposium was not one of Plato’s philosophical works, but him trying to show that he could write comedy as well as tragedy. That if this were so, Diotima would be a character put in the dialogue for comedic purposes.

These arguments are then countered. The first claim is that Socrates was known to exchange ideas with women. This is proven in Meno, saying that he sought religious advice from men and women priests and priestesses, thus proving (if we take Plato’s descriptions to be factual) that Socrates did converse with priestesses. Secondly, there is a brass overlay above a cassette which is supposed to be Socrates and Diotima because of the resemblance of Socrates in this statue and others from that time period. Also, along with the brass overlay, there was a copy of the Symposium. With all of the various arguments presented, it is disputed whether or not Diotima actually existed or if she was a fictional character.

Personal Response

Throughout my education I have always been taught that the answer to whether Diotima was an actual person was unknown, but it was commonly acknowledged that she was a fictional character to enhance Plato’s Symposium for whatever reason. Although I found certain arguments on both sides to be compelling, I still remain questioning where or not she was fictional. I find it slightly more likely that Plato used her to be ironic. Regardless, I thought that some of the points made in the beginning arguments were incorrect. It was argued that Diotima’s Form of Beauty was inconsistent with Socrates’ Form of the Good. I disagree and do not see any differences in the way that they are described; both seem to indicate a latter-like climb from ignorance to wisdom. Also, both Forms seem to start on the same level at appearances and ascend to a Form which is separate from particulars. Overall, I still remain indifferent about with she was an actual person or only a character. The section about Diotima might have better been utilized by explaining more about how she influenced works later created in the middle ages.

Source

Julia Domna

Summary

Julia Domna was born around 170 A.D. in Syria. While there is no record of her education, it is speculated that she was exposed to many ideas from a young age due to the position of her father, Julius Bassianus, who was the high priest of the temple of the sun-god Elagabalus. Her father entertained many prominent visitors in Julia’s childhood, one of whom would become her husband:  Roman general Lucius Septimius Severus. Just a few years later her husband became emperor of Rome and she became one of the most influential women of the Roman Empire and later was made into a divinity.

Though much of her biography covers the influence of her husband and sons in government, Julia was very active in Severus’ reign, going with him on campaigns and potentially even influencing some of his military decisions. After her husband’s death, she was also influential in the reign of her eldest son Bassianus (aka: Caracalla, who killed his younger brother for sole power over the empire). As he was often on campaign, Julia conducted much of the imperial business and hosted many gatherings with the influential men of the empire. This is where it is said much of her philosophical influence came into play. When her son died, some say she mourned the loss of her position of influence in Rome.

“The Philosopher Julia” 

It is said that Julia’s “inner circle,” consisted of all the prominent Sophists of her day, who she would converse with at social gatherings she hosted. While most of the specific men are not known, one of her most notable acquaintance is Flavius Philostratus, a sophist who wrote Lives of the Sophists, (describing many others who may have been part of Julia’s circle) but who also wrote a book commissioned by Julia herself, the Life of Appolonius. While Julia has no written works, her encouragement and direction regarding the commission of this book is the closest insight we have to the philosophical views of Julia herself.

Apollonius of Tyana is said to have been a Neopythagorean who combined teachings of Pythagoras with Platonism and mysticism. The book discusses his conceptions of God and the relation between man and divinities, immortality and the soul (similar to that discussed in Plato’s Phaedo) as well as notion of personal ethics and political philosophy. Evidence suggests that Julia’s views were very much in line with Apollonius’ in his worship of the sun-god and his acceptance of statue representations of deities. He also understood God as creator, and that man alone (not animals as the Egyptians practiced) had an ability to relate to and understand God. His ideas on ethics hold similar to some notions portrayed by Plato and Aristotle in a championing of wisdom and virtues. Apollonius claimed that it is essential for persons to acquire wisdom, courage, justice and temperance, but also must practice such virtues regularly – including actively doing just actions rather than simply avoiding injustice.

Finally, his ideas on political philosophy involved individuals acting excellently for the good of the communal society, as well as insisting that a ruler can be a good monarch if he rules justly and philosophically. It is believed that Julia found this favorable, that philosophy could influence the practice of politics and ruling. While other rulers (such as Nero) banned philosophy, Julia’s position as an empress combined with her interests may have helped preserve philosophy.

Personal Response

I found it interesting and a little depressing that much of Julia Domna’s life was described by the men who were influential in her life. Most of her biography referred to her role as wife and then mother of the emperor and her support of these men. Additionally, she is known as one who conversed with contemporary intellectuals and philosophers, but never wrote anything herself. Instead, the only work we can relate to Julia was a book written by a male philosopher, about the life of another male philosopher that Julia supposedly had commissioned. While this is a bit disappointing, I know I have to keep in mind what was available at the time and what influence women had. Although, it is clear from the introduction that there were women who were intellectuals and teachers at various schools around this time, as well as influential in politics and among some of the male philosophers. I suppose it is more than some women had the Julia is mentioned by male figures and figures prominently in her husband’s reign as emperor. Perhaps only a shadow of Julia can be seen among the men who figured prominently in her life.

I also wonder, since there is speculation about the authenticity of the relationship between Philostratus (the author of Julia’s commissioned book and otherwise) and Julia, can we really rely on his own writings of their interactions as valid proof of what Julia was up to philosophically? Perhaps he simply wanted to give some sense of legitimacy to his writing (the way Severus indicated his pretend kinship with Marcus Aurelius to legitimate his reign as emperor). I guess there is no way to be certain absent the existence of further writings to shed light on these days. But I hope that this is an indication of Julia’s actual views.

Finally, I find it interesting that the mention of sophistry in this article is spoken of favorably as merely a form of persuasive rhetoric and an honorable lifestyle. At least as described by Plato and Aristotle, Sophistry was reviled because it was seen as the use of misleading, but eloquent arguments to circumvent truth rather than seeking truth. They were reputes as seeking money and pleasures of fame and fortune over the Good in character and understanding that philosophers like Plato and Aristotle champion over the pursuit of fame and fortune. Nevertheless, chapter seven of this book and this article indicate that this is just a misleading stereotype that did not encompass the beneficial contributions of the sophists. Regardless of the claims about sophistry, if it is the case that Julia Domna was as supportive of Philostratus’ book as is indicated, it seems she had solid and valuable views on essential philosophical questions that seem to be repeated in later ethical views as well.

Source

Chapter 7 "Julia Domna" by Beatrice H. Zedler, from A History of Women Philosophers: Ancient Women Philosophers 600 B.C. to 500 A.D. by Mary Ellen Waithe

From Arete to Lasthenia

Summary

Arete of Cyrene lived in North Africa in what is now known as Libya. She was the daughter of Aristippus, a student and friend of Socrates. Aristippus founded a hedonist school where Arete taught natural and moral philosophy. Eventually taking over the school from her father, Arete is believed to have written forty books. No known works written by Arete survive, therefore our knowledge stems primarily from second hand accounts or the works of the hedonist sect to which she belongs. Cyrenaic doctrines that we have today are believed to have been written down by Aristippus the Younger, Arete's son. In general, the Cyrenaics saw pleasure as the sole criterion for morality, but this pleasure comes not from extreme excitement. The pleasure they described came through calm reflection. Good was defined as independence and not being ruled by desire for pleasure or fear of pain. The epitaph on Arete's tomb suggests she was well-regarded during her life: it "declared that she was the splendor of Greece and possessed the beauty of Helen, the virtue of Thirma, the pen of Aristippus, the soul of Socrates and the tongue of Homer" (198).

Asclepigenia of Athens taught at a neo-Platonic school, headed by her father (Plutarch of Athens), during the 5th century (AD). The school, Asclepigenia included, taught material that starkly contrasted with the new and fast-spreading Christian doctrines of the time. Again, no primary texts survive written by her. But based on the work of her teachers and pupils, we may assume that she was interested in understanding causes and predicting outcomes with the use of magic to influence the gods.

Axiothea of Philesia is remembered because she famously dressed like a man to attend Plato's lectures in the 4th century (BCE). Why exactly she did this is unknown. In fact some consider this a criticism of Plato's work since, the argument goes, based on his works and what he said about the nature of women he should have allowed a woman to study under him.

Cleobulina of Rhodes has the distinct honor of having her work referenced by Aristotle. Unfortunately, little is known about her. Her status as a philosopher is often questioned due to the lack of information. But the fact remains that Aristotle at least mentions her, twice quoting her in Poetics and Rhetoric. Plutarch claims that she ultimately influenced her father to rule Rhodes "fairly" (207).

Hipparchia the Cynic apparently became a Cynic to be with a man named Crates. She was criticized for her "undomestic habits" that came with living the life of a Cynic. As far as we know, she made no great contribution to the Cynic philosophy.

Lasthenia of Mantinea is thought to have been a student of Plato, but all evidence is third party and small in quantity.

As a whole, little is known about these women. Their lives and philosophies remain somewhat of a mystery as do their influence and contribution to the areas of philosophy they were interested and involved in.

Personal Response

In the cases of these women--I am thinking here specifically of Arete--it is unfortunate that we do not have access to any written works by them. All we can do is assume Arete shared the beliefs of her order, but we have no way of knowing her personal opinion or contribution to the philosophy. I found it interesting that Arete was attributed with the virtues of both men and women in her epitaph. In many ways it made me think of her as a woman who did not have to disguise herself to pursue philosophy. Axiothea, on the other hand, dressed as a man to learn from Plato. I was disappointed that no more is known about why Axiothea did this and what the outcome was: but it may be significant that both Arete and Asclepigenia had fathers who ran schools.

I find I have to keep reminding myself that even Aristotle's work did not survive in its entirety. These women may have written extensive manifestos; we simply don't know about them. Initially I picked this chapter because I thought it might have something to do with the Aristotelian conception of arete/excellence, but it was still interesting to get a sampling of different women philosophers.

These women, and probably more about whom we don't know, were clearly active philosophically even during the time of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. That suggests that as much as we might think that women were locked up or confined entirely to the domestic scene, at least some were able to participate in the realm of philosophy in some way.

Source

Chapter 10 "Arete, Asclepigenia, Axiothea, Cleobulina, Hipparchia, and Lasthenia" of A History of Women Philosophers: Ancient Women Philosophers 600 B.C.-500 A.D. by Mary Ellen Waithe