The Perniciously Persistent Myths of Hypatia and the Great Library
June 4, 2010
David B. Hart
As I write this, the first two of what I expect will be three theatrically morose sighs have just issued from my lips; they’re all quite inaudible to you, I know, but they would wrack your heart with pity if you could hear them.
The occasion of my misery is the release of Alejandro Amenábar’s film Agora, which purports to be a historical account of the murder of the female philosopher Hypatia by a Christian mob in the early fifth century, of the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria, and (more generally) of an alleged conflict that raged in the ancient world between Greek science and Christian faith. I have not actually seen the movie, and have no intention of doing so (I would say you couldn’t pay me to watch it, but that’s not, strictly speaking, true). All I know about it is what I have read in an article by Larry Rohter in the New York Times. But that is enough to put my teeth on edge.
Not that I entirely blame Mr. Amenábar. The story he repeats is one that has been bruited about for a few centuries now, often by seemingly respectable historians. Its premise is that the Christians of late antiquity were a brutish horde of superstitious louts, who despised science and philosophy, and frequently acted to suppress both, and who also had a particularly low opinion of women.
Thus, supposedly, one tragic day in a.d. 391, the Christians of Alexandria destroyed the city’s Great Library, burning its scrolls, annihilating the accumulated learning of centuries, and effectively inaugurating the “Dark Ages.” Thus also, in a.d. 415, a group of Christians murdered Hypatia (young and beautiful, of course, as well as brilliant), not only because of her wicked dedication to profane intellectual culture, but also because of the frowardness with which she had forgotten her proper place as a woman.
This is almost all utter nonsense, but I have to suppose that Amenábar believes it to be true.
This does not, of course, exculpate him of his own silly contributions to the story. Apparently, there is a scene in the film in which Hypatia is forced to wear a veil, of a sort vaguely reminiscent of a burqa, which makes about as much sense in a film about late antique Alexandria as a scene set in a singles bar specializing in Hawaiian drinks.
And then, it seems, there is a scene in which Hypatia ventures the heliocentric hypothesis, which—to anyone familiar with the neoplatonism to which she was devoted or the Aristotelian-Ptolemeian cosmological system in which she was trained—is worse than ludicrous. But, again, these little “artistic” touches are only minor additions to a picture that is already so grotesquely distorted that they hardly matter.
The tale of a Christian destruction of the Great Library—so often told, so perniciously persistent—is a tale about something that never happened. By this, I do not mean that there is some divergence of learned opinion on the issue, or that the original sources leave us in some doubt as to the nature of the event. I mean that nothing of the sort ever occurred.
Rohter almost gets the matter right when he remarks that “Roman-era chronicles, as well as later works, suggest that at least part of the library was destroyed when Julius Caesar invaded Egypt in 48 b.c., and that Christians were responsible only for the damage done in Hypatia’s time to a secondary ‘daughter library,’ which may also have been attacked by Muslim conquerors in the seventh century a.d.” But, in fact, there is not a single shred of evidence—ancient, medieval, or modern—that Christians were responsible for either collection’s destruction, and no one before the late eighteenth century ever suggested they were.
The Great Library of Alexandria is one of the more fascinating mysteries of late antique civilization. It enters history already as something largely legendary. Even Strabo, who died around a.d. 23, knew of it only as a tale from the past. We know that it had been built as an adjunct to the Great Museum in the Brucheium (the royal quarter of Alexandria) in the first half of the third century b.c. Its size, however, is impossible to establish.
The estimate in ancient texts varies wildly, between 40,000 scrolls—for the ancient world, an astounding but still plausible number—and 700,000—which is almost certainly impossibly high. And, as of yet, archaeologists have failed to find the remains of any building sufficiently large to have sheltered a collection on either scale.
Whatever the case, as Rohter says, various ancient sources report that the library was destroyed, either in whole or in part, during Julius Caesar’s Alexandrian campaign against Pompey in 48 or 47 b.c. If any part of it remained in the Brucheium, it would probably have perished when the museum was destroyed in a.d. 272, during Aurelian’s wars of imperial reunification. It was certainly no longer in existence in 391.
Rohter is right that there was perhaps a “daughter” library, which may have been located in the grounds of the Serapeum—the large temple of the Ptolemies’ hybrid Greco-Egyptian god, Serapis—placed there either in the late third century b.c., or in the late second century a.d., when the Serapeum was restored and expanded. At least, there is good evidence that scrolls were at certain points kept among the temple complex’s colonnades.
And, in fact, the Serapeum was destroyed in 391. After a series of riots between the pagan and Christian communities of Alexandria—Alexandria was the most extravagantly violent city of the antique world, and riots were something of a revered civic tradition—a number of Christian hostages had been murdered inside the Serapeum, which led the Emperor Theodosius to order the complex demolished (though he excused the murderers, inasmuch as the Christians they had killed were now considered martyrs, and any act of vengeance would have detracted from their witness). And so a detachment of Roman soldiers, with the assistance of an eager crowd of Christians, dismantled the complex—or, at any rate, the temple within it.
As it happens, we have fairly good accounts of that day, Christian and pagan, and absolutely none of them so much as hints at the destruction of any large collection of books. Not even Eunapius of Sardis—a pagan scholar who despised Christians and who would have wept over the loss of precious texts—suggests such a thing. This is not surprising, since there were probably no books there to be destroyed.
The pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus, describing the Serapeum not long before its demolition, had clearly spoken of its libraries as something no longer in existence. The truth of the matter is that the entire legend was the product of the imagination of Edward Gibbon, who bizarrely misread a single sentence from the Christian historian Orosius, and from it spun out a story that appears nowhere in the entire corpus of ancient historical sources.
Which brings me to Hypatia. I do sometimes wish the poor woman’s memory could be left in peace. She’s been the victim of such sordidly sentimental nonsense over the past few centuries that it’s almost impossible to appreciate her for what she was, or to disentangle the tragedy of her death from the ideological rants that typically surround its telling.
She was, all the evidence suggests, a brilliant lecturer in Platonic thought, a trained scientist, and the author of a few mathematical commentaries. Despite the extravagant claims often made on her behalf, however, there is no reason to believe she made any particularly significant contributions to any of her fields of expertise.
She was not, for instance—as she has often been said to have been—the inventor of either the astrolabe or the hydrometer. It is true that the first extant mention of a hydrometer appears in a letter written to Hypatia by her devoted friend, Synesius of Cyrene, the Christian Platonist and bishop of Ptolemais; but that is because Synesius, in that letter, is explaining to her how the device is made, so that she can arrange to have one assembled for him
At the time of her death, she was probably not even the beautiful young woman of lore; she was in all likelihood over sixty.
She was, however, brutally murdered—and then dismembered—by a gang of Christian parabalani (a fraternity originally founded to care for the city’s poor); that much is true. This was not, however, because she was a woman (female intellectuals were not at all uncommon in the Eastern Empire, among either pagans or Christians), or because she was a scientist and philosopher (the scientific and philosophical class of Alexandria comprised pagans, Jews, and Christians, and there was no popular Christian prejudice against science or philosophy).
And it was certainly not because she was perceived as an enemy of the Christian faith; she got on quite well with the educated Christians of Alexandria, numbered many among her friends and students, and was intellectually far closer to them than to the temple cultists of the lower city; and the frankest account of her murder was written by the Christian historian Socrates, who obviously admired her immensely. It seems likely that she died simply because she became inadvertently involved in a vicious political squabble between the city’s imperial prefect and the city’s patriarch, and some of the savages of the lower city decided to take matters into their own hands.
In the end, the true story of Hypatia—which no one will ever make into a film—tells us very little about ancient religion, or about the relation between ancient Christianity and the sciences, and absolutely nothing about some alleged perennial conflict between Christianity and science; but it does tell us a great deal about social class in the late Hellenistic world.
Think of it as an ideal Marxist allegory. It may seem unimaginable to us now that Christians from the lower classes in late antique Alexandria could have conspired in the horrific assassination of an unarmed woman and a respected scholar, but, as it happens, that was how Alexandria was often governed at street level, by every sect and persuasion.
In the royal quarter, pagans, Christians, and Jews generally studied together, shared a common intellectual culture, collaborated in scientific endeavor, and attended one another’s lectures. In the lower city, however, religious allegiance was often no more than a matter of tribal identity, and the various tribes often slaughtered one another with gay abandon.
The chasm between the two worlds could scarcely have been vaster. Hypatia was a victim of what might fashionably be called a social contradiction—one that none of the science, philosophy, or religion of the time had ever done anything to resolve.
David B. Hart is a contributing writer of First Things. His most recent book is Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies.
Comments:
6.4.2010 | 4:04am
Brettongarcia says:
"She was, however, brutally murdered—and then dismembered—by a gang of Christian parabalani (a fraternity originally founded to care for the city’s poor)...."
6.4.2010 | 6:11am
john says:
Amenabar, another "member" of the Radical European Left (you know, the guys who hates Western Civilisation...)
6.4.2010 | 6:48am
Douglas Johnson says:
Personally, I regard these as valuable myths. It gives Christians the opportunity to make modest gestures, like lightly touching the offender's hand, in an effort to keep him from embarrassing himself. Or then maybe whispering in his ear at the cocktail party "Oh...ha ha, you know that actually never happened." And then when George persists more publicly and gives you the "aaaah, yeah...it DID happen!" Then you just flash an uncomfortable smile and look a little contrite at the embarrassment you wish you didn't have to expose him to as you lay it out step-by-step and bring George to his knees, sobbing in a corner. Good times.
Another fun angle is just to say something like "Actually that ever happened, but it IS fascinating how this 18th c myth has managed to become 21st c dogma. But you're right, among many it's on the order of unfalsifiable scientific fact, right up there with man-made global warming. But first a little background..."
Unfortunately, I don't travel in circles where this actually comes up...
Another fun angle is just to say something like "Actually that ever happened, but it IS fascinating how this 18th c myth has managed to become 21st c dogma. But you're right, among many it's on the order of unfalsifiable scientific fact, right up there with man-made global warming. But first a little background..."
Unfortunately, I don't travel in circles where this actually comes up...
6.4.2010 | 7:23am
brettongarcia says:
Your article starts out in the typical mainstream, First Things forte: pompus self-involvement and grandiloquence, whitewashing the evil deeds of the CHurch.
First Things is first and foremost, the last prominent, surviving forum, for a long-rejected genre: Grandiloquence. Pompus, self-satisfied, pretentious use of big words. In the service of the last remaining, self-satisfied Grand Narrative: the alleged perfection of the Roman Catholic Church. Whose grandeur is self evident, as its Bishops grandly strut around in beautiful robes, and llie and cover up for their pederastical exploits.
Fortunately to be sure, having temporarily adopted this corrupt, excrecent style (for purposes of protective coloration?), halfway through you admit that after all, the substance of the claim is correct: at least nominally Christian thugs murdered Hypatia.
But not, you say, the library!
But are you correct even there, regarding the library? In fact your/R's historiographical assumptions or assertions, are incorrect. The assertion is that the library at Alexandria, had been destroyed earlier; and could not have been burned by Christians in the time of Hypatia, herefore. But here both you and R., appear to be making a mistake common among amateur (or not entirely honest) historians.
Grand rhetoricians, people who are not quiet, professional Historians, often make this simple mistake: assuming that if a place was destroyed once, it is gone forever. But in fact, many things that were destroyed once in history, were later rebuilt; to be destroyed and rebuilt, again and again. Jerusalem for example, was destroyed, almost entirely burned to the ground by Rome, in 70; but, after having been rebuilt, is still there today. Many cities destroyed in the American civil war, are there again today.
It's a common mistake among amateur (or biased) historians, to think that once a place is destroyed, that's it; it cannot be destroyed again. A mistake that your mentor R. apparently makes; as you do too. Things destroyed, were often rebuilt. Especially with hundreds of years to do it in. Likely the library at Alex, Egypt, was indeed destroyed - but then rebuilt - many times.
Therefore, likely there WAS a significant, even Alexandrian library there; until you and your friends burned it down again.
Which means that in all likelihood, you and your friends DID sin in yet another way, once again: not only did you 1) kill your enemies instead of loving them; not only did you 2) misrepresent History, but 3) you did so in part, to cover up Christian thugs once again, murdering everyone they didn't like. The time of her murder, coincides very closely to the moment that Christianity was taking over Rome; and likely the elmination of rivals, was its motive. As most objective historians agree.
And so you are the essential First Things sylist. You have grandiloquently, self-righeously lied and misrepresented history, in order to disguise the murderous side of Christianity. But this is behavior utterly consistent with say, the current whitewashing of pederastical priests, by the Bishops. And the endless similar sophestries of apologists. Nothing new here. Christianity or pompus self-satisfied Catholicsm, survives, by hiding its sins.
When will our holy men, our "good Catholics," become good and honest people?
Probably, never. If you want to become good, you must leave the Church. That is the lesson of History.
First Things is first and foremost, the last prominent, surviving forum, for a long-rejected genre: Grandiloquence. Pompus, self-satisfied, pretentious use of big words. In the service of the last remaining, self-satisfied Grand Narrative: the alleged perfection of the Roman Catholic Church. Whose grandeur is self evident, as its Bishops grandly strut around in beautiful robes, and llie and cover up for their pederastical exploits.
Fortunately to be sure, having temporarily adopted this corrupt, excrecent style (for purposes of protective coloration?), halfway through you admit that after all, the substance of the claim is correct: at least nominally Christian thugs murdered Hypatia.
But not, you say, the library!
But are you correct even there, regarding the library? In fact your/R's historiographical assumptions or assertions, are incorrect. The assertion is that the library at Alexandria, had been destroyed earlier; and could not have been burned by Christians in the time of Hypatia, herefore. But here both you and R., appear to be making a mistake common among amateur (or not entirely honest) historians.
Grand rhetoricians, people who are not quiet, professional Historians, often make this simple mistake: assuming that if a place was destroyed once, it is gone forever. But in fact, many things that were destroyed once in history, were later rebuilt; to be destroyed and rebuilt, again and again. Jerusalem for example, was destroyed, almost entirely burned to the ground by Rome, in 70; but, after having been rebuilt, is still there today. Many cities destroyed in the American civil war, are there again today.
It's a common mistake among amateur (or biased) historians, to think that once a place is destroyed, that's it; it cannot be destroyed again. A mistake that your mentor R. apparently makes; as you do too. Things destroyed, were often rebuilt. Especially with hundreds of years to do it in. Likely the library at Alex, Egypt, was indeed destroyed - but then rebuilt - many times.
Therefore, likely there WAS a significant, even Alexandrian library there; until you and your friends burned it down again.
Which means that in all likelihood, you and your friends DID sin in yet another way, once again: not only did you 1) kill your enemies instead of loving them; not only did you 2) misrepresent History, but 3) you did so in part, to cover up Christian thugs once again, murdering everyone they didn't like. The time of her murder, coincides very closely to the moment that Christianity was taking over Rome; and likely the elmination of rivals, was its motive. As most objective historians agree.
And so you are the essential First Things sylist. You have grandiloquently, self-righeously lied and misrepresented history, in order to disguise the murderous side of Christianity. But this is behavior utterly consistent with say, the current whitewashing of pederastical priests, by the Bishops. And the endless similar sophestries of apologists. Nothing new here. Christianity or pompus self-satisfied Catholicsm, survives, by hiding its sins.
When will our holy men, our "good Catholics," become good and honest people?
Probably, never. If you want to become good, you must leave the Church. That is the lesson of History.
6.4.2010 | 8:48am
I find it very readily believable that a rationalist historian with an animus against Christianity like Edward Gibbon would grossly exaggerate the brutish role of Christians in this particular historical episode. Nevertheless. David Hart's attempt to correct the historical record has some important loose strings that warrant further untangling:
1) For one thing, what exactly is the single sentence from the Christian historian Orosius that Gibbon so badly misconstrues, and what exactly is the proper context of that single sentence within the broader stream of thought that Orosius was trying to convey? If Hart had informed us of all of this, it is quite possible that the attitude and behavior of Christians in this particular time and place would look considerably more tarnished than Hart tries to suggest. Possibly, historians like Gibbon would not be quite so full of utter nonsense in their portrayal of Christian behavior in these times as Hart would like to have us think.
2) Hart fails to mention the name of the Patriarch who was involved in the larger power struggle that incited the mob that killed Hypatia. The Patriarch in question is none other than Cyril of Alexandria, who is considered a saint and one of the most important early Fathers in both the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches. (He is a saint in the Roman Catholic Church too, though, like all important early Eastern fathers, he is greatly overshadowed in the Latin understanding of the early Christian intellectual heritage by the towering influence of Augustine.) The fact is that this supposedly great saint, who is also one of the most important Christological writers of the early Church, does not come off looking good in the Hypatia episode. The exact nature of the relationship between the Patriarchal leadership of Cyril and the ghastly violence of the Christian mob that murdered Hypatia is definitely a matter that needs to be scrutinized with unflinching commitment to the truth by Christian historians. Was Cyril of Alexandria in the end really a saint? From the Nestorian point of view, which I believe to be the correct one, it is not difficult to doubt this.
In short, even if there was no library involved, and even if there was no conflict between science and religion involved, the murder of Hypatia remains an unalterably ugly incident in Christian history - one that negatively implicates both ordinary Christian believers and one of the most important and venerated heirarchs of early Christendom.
1) For one thing, what exactly is the single sentence from the Christian historian Orosius that Gibbon so badly misconstrues, and what exactly is the proper context of that single sentence within the broader stream of thought that Orosius was trying to convey? If Hart had informed us of all of this, it is quite possible that the attitude and behavior of Christians in this particular time and place would look considerably more tarnished than Hart tries to suggest. Possibly, historians like Gibbon would not be quite so full of utter nonsense in their portrayal of Christian behavior in these times as Hart would like to have us think.
2) Hart fails to mention the name of the Patriarch who was involved in the larger power struggle that incited the mob that killed Hypatia. The Patriarch in question is none other than Cyril of Alexandria, who is considered a saint and one of the most important early Fathers in both the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches. (He is a saint in the Roman Catholic Church too, though, like all important early Eastern fathers, he is greatly overshadowed in the Latin understanding of the early Christian intellectual heritage by the towering influence of Augustine.) The fact is that this supposedly great saint, who is also one of the most important Christological writers of the early Church, does not come off looking good in the Hypatia episode. The exact nature of the relationship between the Patriarchal leadership of Cyril and the ghastly violence of the Christian mob that murdered Hypatia is definitely a matter that needs to be scrutinized with unflinching commitment to the truth by Christian historians. Was Cyril of Alexandria in the end really a saint? From the Nestorian point of view, which I believe to be the correct one, it is not difficult to doubt this.
In short, even if there was no library involved, and even if there was no conflict between science and religion involved, the murder of Hypatia remains an unalterably ugly incident in Christian history - one that negatively implicates both ordinary Christian believers and one of the most important and venerated heirarchs of early Christendom.
6.4.2010 | 9:44am
Sean says:
lol @ brettongarcia
Well if it could've been rebuilt, then it must've been rebuilt, and if it was rebuilt and disappeared, then the christians did it.
Good job, big guy.
Well if it could've been rebuilt, then it must've been rebuilt, and if it was rebuilt and disappeared, then the christians did it.
Good job, big guy.
6.4.2010 | 10:01am
J. Bob says:
brettongarcia says: Things destroyed, were often rebuilt. Especially with hundreds of years to do it in. Likely the library at Alex, Egypt, was indeed destroyed - but then rebuilt - many times.
One small point to remember, one did not have printing presses back then. Many of the manuscripts may have been one of a kind. Also required were highly trained scribes, to make copies. It took royal patronage to establish the first library. So to re-create the original library may have been impossible, and the ones there after, small shadows of the original.
One small point to remember, one did not have printing presses back then. Many of the manuscripts may have been one of a kind. Also required were highly trained scribes, to make copies. It took royal patronage to establish the first library. So to re-create the original library may have been impossible, and the ones there after, small shadows of the original.
6.4.2010 | 10:15am
alypius says:
This episode of In Our Time largely seconds Hart's analysis, for those skeptical of his claims. It also deals with the story that it was a Muslim Caliph that destroyed the Great Library in the 7th century.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00j0q53
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00j0q53
6.4.2010 | 10:23am
Maz says:
Mr Church of the East fellow,
Dr. Hart covers all of that in his last book, and he hardly exculpates the Christians of Alexandria for the violence in which they (like everyone else) indulged.
By the way, the sentence from Orosius deals with Caesar's burning of the Library, and of the temples in his own times whose books have been stolen or destroyed. None of it has to do with the Christians, the Serapeum, or any other great library. It is a reflection on the decadence of the times.
Maz
Dr. Hart covers all of that in his last book, and he hardly exculpates the Christians of Alexandria for the violence in which they (like everyone else) indulged.
By the way, the sentence from Orosius deals with Caesar's burning of the Library, and of the temples in his own times whose books have been stolen or destroyed. None of it has to do with the Christians, the Serapeum, or any other great library. It is a reflection on the decadence of the times.
Maz
6.4.2010 | 10:25am
Tim J. says:
It's a common mistake among amateur (or biased) historians, to think that once a place is destroyed, that's it; it cannot be destroyed again. A mistake that your mentor R. apparently makes; as you do too. Things destroyed, were often rebuilt. Especially with hundreds of years to do it in. Likely the library at Alex, Egypt, was indeed destroyed - but then rebuilt - many times.
Therefore, likely there WAS a significant, even Alexandrian library there; until you and your friends burned it down again.
You have a whole bunch of nice speculation there. What you don't have is actual evidence. It's not enough to say "maybe somebody could have rebuilt it." To make statements like yours, especially for the purpose of slandering a whole group of people, you should have some form of evidence, such as either ancient testimony or archaeological evidence that the library was rebuilt.
Therefore, likely there WAS a significant, even Alexandrian library there; until you and your friends burned it down again.
You have a whole bunch of nice speculation there. What you don't have is actual evidence. It's not enough to say "maybe somebody could have rebuilt it." To make statements like yours, especially for the purpose of slandering a whole group of people, you should have some form of evidence, such as either ancient testimony or archaeological evidence that the library was rebuilt.
6.4.2010 | 10:36am
Ben says:
brettongarcia:
You write: "First Things is first and foremost, the last prominent, surviving forum, for a long-rejected genre: Grandiloquence. Pompus, self-satisfied, pretentious use of big words. In the service of the last remaining, self-satisfied Grand Narrative: the alleged perfection of the Roman Catholic Church. Whose grandeur is self evident, as its Bishops grandly strut around in beautiful robes, and llie and cover up for their pederastical exploits."
I feel it my duty to politely remind you that Mr. Hart is not, in fact, Roman Catholic, and is therefore unlikely to advance this narrative.
You write: "First Things is first and foremost, the last prominent, surviving forum, for a long-rejected genre: Grandiloquence. Pompus, self-satisfied, pretentious use of big words. In the service of the last remaining, self-satisfied Grand Narrative: the alleged perfection of the Roman Catholic Church. Whose grandeur is self evident, as its Bishops grandly strut around in beautiful robes, and llie and cover up for their pederastical exploits."
I feel it my duty to politely remind you that Mr. Hart is not, in fact, Roman Catholic, and is therefore unlikely to advance this narrative.
6.4.2010 | 10:39am
Linda L. says:
@Church of the East:
I thought the last sentence of this piece made it clear that Hart was not defending the Christians of ancient Alexandria. He was only trying to correct the record. When I was studying the period and asked him for references, he recommended a short book by Maria Dzielska on Hypatia, which gives a very clear portrait of the woman herself, and which paints a very unflattering picture of Cyril.
@ brettongarcia
Calm down, learn to read. If there is absolutely no historical record of something happening, and if there is evidence that it did not happen, and if the story is intrinsically unbelievable, then the historical verdict is that it did not happen. The Christian destruction of the Great Library, therefore, did not happen.
I thought the last sentence of this piece made it clear that Hart was not defending the Christians of ancient Alexandria. He was only trying to correct the record. When I was studying the period and asked him for references, he recommended a short book by Maria Dzielska on Hypatia, which gives a very clear portrait of the woman herself, and which paints a very unflattering picture of Cyril.
@ brettongarcia
Calm down, learn to read. If there is absolutely no historical record of something happening, and if there is evidence that it did not happen, and if the story is intrinsically unbelievable, then the historical verdict is that it did not happen. The Christian destruction of the Great Library, therefore, did not happen.
6.4.2010 | 10:39am
DaBigQ says:
This article has given me a point of departure for further research. Because there are two major forces involved in historical and scientific disinformation in this world: motion pictures and religion. However, the facts as presented seem orderly, and I will check other sources to see if they make more sense than the "founding fathers" myths that are going around.
6.4.2010 | 11:16am
Dear Linda L.,
In response to your assertion that David Hart is only trying to correct the record, I must say that I am more inclined to agree with brettongarcia that David Hart is rather surreptitiously engaging in a bit of historical whitewash here. If it is the case that both the Christian mob and Cyril of Alexandria behaved reprehensibly in connection with the Hypatia incident, then it is simply not true to say that everything the movie ascribes to Christians is "almost all utter nonsense." In fact, the single most damning claim both in the movie and in the Gibbonist historical rendering of the incident that Hart specifically dismisses as "almost utter nonsense " is completely factual: namely, that a Christian mob brutally murdered Hypatia! It is misleading of Hart to caricature Gibbon and the movie using such hyperbolic phraseology when in fact he himself concedes later in his piece that the central ugliness that both Gibbon and the movie portray is completely true. What the motives for the murder were is really a secondary matter, and focusing on the allegedly non-sensical character of the motives that the movie ascribes to the murderers, as Hart does, is a red herring intended to divert attention from the very real and very non-nonsensical murderous ugliness of the incident itself.
And it is also misleading of Hart to try to downplay Cyril of Alexandria's morally questionable role in the matter, insofar as his piece has the overall aim of morally vindicating the Christians of the time in the face of alleged anti-Christian slanders. It turns from what you say that Hart knows perfectly well not only that the accusations of murder againt the Christian mob are not anti-Christian slanders, but that accusations of an unseemly complicity in this murder by Cyril of Alexandria are not anti-Christian slanders either but quite likely factual as well.
I very much sympathize with brettongarcia's sense that Hart's take on the Hypatia incident is uncomfortably reminiscent of the episcopal and papal attitude toward the contemporary sex abuse crisis.
In response to your assertion that David Hart is only trying to correct the record, I must say that I am more inclined to agree with brettongarcia that David Hart is rather surreptitiously engaging in a bit of historical whitewash here. If it is the case that both the Christian mob and Cyril of Alexandria behaved reprehensibly in connection with the Hypatia incident, then it is simply not true to say that everything the movie ascribes to Christians is "almost all utter nonsense." In fact, the single most damning claim both in the movie and in the Gibbonist historical rendering of the incident that Hart specifically dismisses as "almost utter nonsense " is completely factual: namely, that a Christian mob brutally murdered Hypatia! It is misleading of Hart to caricature Gibbon and the movie using such hyperbolic phraseology when in fact he himself concedes later in his piece that the central ugliness that both Gibbon and the movie portray is completely true. What the motives for the murder were is really a secondary matter, and focusing on the allegedly non-sensical character of the motives that the movie ascribes to the murderers, as Hart does, is a red herring intended to divert attention from the very real and very non-nonsensical murderous ugliness of the incident itself.
And it is also misleading of Hart to try to downplay Cyril of Alexandria's morally questionable role in the matter, insofar as his piece has the overall aim of morally vindicating the Christians of the time in the face of alleged anti-Christian slanders. It turns from what you say that Hart knows perfectly well not only that the accusations of murder againt the Christian mob are not anti-Christian slanders, but that accusations of an unseemly complicity in this murder by Cyril of Alexandria are not anti-Christian slanders either but quite likely factual as well.
I very much sympathize with brettongarcia's sense that Hart's take on the Hypatia incident is uncomfortably reminiscent of the episcopal and papal attitude toward the contemporary sex abuse crisis.
6.4.2010 | 11:51am
Peter Leavitt says:
David B. Hart in my view is the ablest of contemporary Christian apologists. His book, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies, skewers contemporary "cultured" despisers of the Christian Revolution in a calm, scholarly, and interesting way. His understanding of early Christianity is exceptional. Calling him a "pompous" writer is beyond absurd.
Hart makes clear that contemporary atheists and agnostics are rather disappointingly shallow and shrill in their analysis; serious Christians are worthy of better criticism.
Hart makes clear that contemporary atheists and agnostics are rather disappointingly shallow and shrill in their analysis; serious Christians are worthy of better criticism.
6.4.2010 | 11:57am
AClarke says:
In the early 1990's when I used to listen to Howard Stern on occasion (loooong time ago) he'd get in big arguments with guests about one thing or another. If the guest happened to be a black male, Stern would ask, always out of the blue, "oh hey, OJ--innocent or guilty?" The poor fellow would then blurt out "innocent!" Suddenly everything the guest said prior was in a whole other context.
I hadn't thought of that old bit until I read the last sentence of the comment by Church of the East (Nestorian) at 8:16am.
I hadn't thought of that old bit until I read the last sentence of the comment by Church of the East (Nestorian) at 8:16am.
6.4.2010 | 12:04pm
john says:
@Church of the East
have you read Hart's Atheist Delusions? please do, you'll find more informations on Hypatia there...
have you read Hart's Atheist Delusions? please do, you'll find more informations on Hypatia there...
6.4.2010 | 12:05pm
Brettongarcia says:
Surely 1) "just" the brutal murder of this woman, by as you say, "Christians," is enough to cause some alarm? As part of a general pogrom against Pagans, by St. Cyril.
But 2) regarding books, libraries in Alexandria? Orosius notes some trunks full of books in "temples," plural, in his time, in Alexandria. Perhaps before or admittedly after 391.
http://www.shekpvar.net/~dna/Publications/Wonders/Wonders/Selected/AlexandriaLibrary.html
This same link speaks of a library in Alex being added to, by Brutus, after having been burned by Caesar.
Clearly, AN Alexandrian library existed in the time of St. Cyril; if not the earlier, fuller Alexandrian library.
The larger Alexandrian library by the way existed early on, in the Temple of Zeus; when "pagan temples" and the daughter library at the museum were attacked by Christians, no doubt many surviving pagan books were destroyed, among other pagan implements.
But 2) regarding books, libraries in Alexandria? Orosius notes some trunks full of books in "temples," plural, in his time, in Alexandria. Perhaps before or admittedly after 391.
http://www.shekpvar.net/~dna/Publications/Wonders/Wonders/Selected/AlexandriaLibrary.html
This same link speaks of a library in Alex being added to, by Brutus, after having been burned by Caesar.
Clearly, AN Alexandrian library existed in the time of St. Cyril; if not the earlier, fuller Alexandrian library.
The larger Alexandrian library by the way existed early on, in the Temple of Zeus; when "pagan temples" and the daughter library at the museum were attacked by Christians, no doubt many surviving pagan books were destroyed, among other pagan implements.
6.4.2010 | 12:11pm
Dear AClarke,
What the tenor of Hart's piece shares in common with the tenor of the heirarchy's response to the sex abuse crisis is an overall tendency to deny or distortionately downplay bitter and difficult truths about ugly realities in the Christian Church. What is so serious and distressing about this tendency is that it powerfully undermines confidence that there is any alternative to relativism and skepticism. When those forces in our culture who most loudly proclaim both the need and the reality of an objective truth are themselves seen to treat matters of objective truth that make them uncomfortable in a way that so obviously flies in the face of their professed commitment to it, then these same forces materially undermine the possibility of a respect for objective truth gaining a foothold in our culture.
That is why, as I have said before, what is ultimately at stake in the Church's response to the sex abuse crisis (and on a smaller scale in attempts at historical revisionism on the part of David Hart) is the fundamental credibility of the very idea of objective truth. The stakes could not be higher, and the margin for error of Christian heirarchs and intellectuals in straying from their professed commitment to it is slim to non-existent. Any betrayal of this ideal only reinforces the hold of the dictatorship of relativism in our culture.
What the tenor of Hart's piece shares in common with the tenor of the heirarchy's response to the sex abuse crisis is an overall tendency to deny or distortionately downplay bitter and difficult truths about ugly realities in the Christian Church. What is so serious and distressing about this tendency is that it powerfully undermines confidence that there is any alternative to relativism and skepticism. When those forces in our culture who most loudly proclaim both the need and the reality of an objective truth are themselves seen to treat matters of objective truth that make them uncomfortable in a way that so obviously flies in the face of their professed commitment to it, then these same forces materially undermine the possibility of a respect for objective truth gaining a foothold in our culture.
That is why, as I have said before, what is ultimately at stake in the Church's response to the sex abuse crisis (and on a smaller scale in attempts at historical revisionism on the part of David Hart) is the fundamental credibility of the very idea of objective truth. The stakes could not be higher, and the margin for error of Christian heirarchs and intellectuals in straying from their professed commitment to it is slim to non-existent. Any betrayal of this ideal only reinforces the hold of the dictatorship of relativism in our culture.
6.4.2010 | 12:44pm
David Alexander says:
brettongarcia: David Hart is not a Catholic, the last I read on the subject. You are apparently unaware of the ecumenical nature of First Things. For instance, did you know that the Senior Editor is Jewish?
David Hart's vocabulary is exceptional and is often commented on. His brilliance is fearful, it seems to me, especially to those who, because of their enthrallment to anti-Christian myths about Christian anti-intellectualism, can only treat the exertion of his obvious intelligence as a horrific anomaly. Complaints about his dazzling prose being grandiloquent, in such a case, are just hasty dodges from dealing with the intellectual substance of his argument.
Hart raises the question by his manifest superiority to the new atheists, etc. whether it is after all intellectually satisfying to be an atheist.
He treats the subject of Hypatia and the library more thoroughly in Atheist Delusions, but this is a fine job here.
David Hart's vocabulary is exceptional and is often commented on. His brilliance is fearful, it seems to me, especially to those who, because of their enthrallment to anti-Christian myths about Christian anti-intellectualism, can only treat the exertion of his obvious intelligence as a horrific anomaly. Complaints about his dazzling prose being grandiloquent, in such a case, are just hasty dodges from dealing with the intellectual substance of his argument.
Hart raises the question by his manifest superiority to the new atheists, etc. whether it is after all intellectually satisfying to be an atheist.
He treats the subject of Hypatia and the library more thoroughly in Atheist Delusions, but this is a fine job here.
6.4.2010 | 12:47pm
Alphonsus says:
"the alleged perfection of the Roman Catholic Church."
You do realize that David Hart is Eastern Orthodox, don't you?
You do realize that David Hart is Eastern Orthodox, don't you?
6.4.2010 | 12:49pm
Martin says:
Church of the East (Nestorian) wrote:
...attempts at historical revisionism on the part of David Hart....
What is your evidence that David Hart is engaging in historical revisionism? Where is your evidence that Christians were responsible for the destruction of the library?
...attempts at historical revisionism on the part of David Hart....
What is your evidence that David Hart is engaging in historical revisionism? Where is your evidence that Christians were responsible for the destruction of the library?
6.4.2010 | 1:06pm
Alphonsus says:
Looks like I'm late to the game in pointing out Hart's ecclesial affiliation. Sorry. :)
6.4.2010 | 1:18pm
Richard says:
Oh dear. Where to start? First, I suppose, with the issues.
James Hannam and his friends have been dealing with the case of Hypatia and the Library at Alexandria for some time. Their arguments, mounted by Christians and atheists alike, conclude that the issue of Hypatia is a red herring designed to condemn all Christians for the actions of a certainly detestable mob, and to show that there is no evidence that Christians burned the great library. To see their arguments, google both Bede's Blog and Quodlibeta and do a search on both Hypatia and the Library. Of particular interest is the following link:
http://www.bede.org.uk/searchresults.htm?cx=011947203054576242702%3Aw3wcj6kcdzo&cof=FORID%3A11&q=hypatia&sa=Search#869.
On Hypatia, see also the Wikipedia article, which is quite informative. Likewise, the very thorough Wikipedia article on the Library of Alexandria is meticulous, and pretty well puts paid to the idea that there is ancient evidence that Christians burned the library.
On Cyril of Alexandria, see the Wikipedia article, which is balanced and quite good. Also very good, somewhat surprisingly, is the nuanced treatment of St. Cyril by the Catholic Encyclopedia, which may be found on the New Advent website. On these accounts, Cyril was too complex a man to be easily characterized. His sins and virtues are both great, and the reader must come to his/her own conclusions.
In addition, I will add a comment or two about the posters. Thank you, Church of the East (Nestorian), for identifying clearly by your nom de plume your perspective. It may be that many readers do not recall that St. Cyril was the theologian more responsible than any other for persuading both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox church that Nestorius was a heretic for denying the divine nature of Christ and for denying that Mary was Theotokos, the mother of God. His behavior in this matter was tactless, and he alienated the moderate bishop of Antioch, John, who convened a council of bishops sympathetic to Nestorius in 433 that declared Cyril "A monster born and educated for the destruction of the Church." However, two years later Cyril and John were reconciled, and both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches closed ranks in support of Cyril. The followers of Nestorius went (and still go) their own way.
As for Brettongarcia, your passion to defame the Catholic Church is a matter of record. What this says to others, I don't know. What it says to me is "caveat emptor." As for your declaring, in effect, that all Catholics in communion with their Church are not good, well that is a supernova among non sequiturs.
Best,
Richard
James Hannam and his friends have been dealing with the case of Hypatia and the Library at Alexandria for some time. Their arguments, mounted by Christians and atheists alike, conclude that the issue of Hypatia is a red herring designed to condemn all Christians for the actions of a certainly detestable mob, and to show that there is no evidence that Christians burned the great library. To see their arguments, google both Bede's Blog and Quodlibeta and do a search on both Hypatia and the Library. Of particular interest is the following link:
http://www.bede.org.uk/searchresults.htm?cx=011947203054576242702%3Aw3wcj6kcdzo&cof=FORID%3A11&q=hypatia&sa=Search#869.
On Hypatia, see also the Wikipedia article, which is quite informative. Likewise, the very thorough Wikipedia article on the Library of Alexandria is meticulous, and pretty well puts paid to the idea that there is ancient evidence that Christians burned the library.
On Cyril of Alexandria, see the Wikipedia article, which is balanced and quite good. Also very good, somewhat surprisingly, is the nuanced treatment of St. Cyril by the Catholic Encyclopedia, which may be found on the New Advent website. On these accounts, Cyril was too complex a man to be easily characterized. His sins and virtues are both great, and the reader must come to his/her own conclusions.
In addition, I will add a comment or two about the posters. Thank you, Church of the East (Nestorian), for identifying clearly by your nom de plume your perspective. It may be that many readers do not recall that St. Cyril was the theologian more responsible than any other for persuading both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox church that Nestorius was a heretic for denying the divine nature of Christ and for denying that Mary was Theotokos, the mother of God. His behavior in this matter was tactless, and he alienated the moderate bishop of Antioch, John, who convened a council of bishops sympathetic to Nestorius in 433 that declared Cyril "A monster born and educated for the destruction of the Church." However, two years later Cyril and John were reconciled, and both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches closed ranks in support of Cyril. The followers of Nestorius went (and still go) their own way.
As for Brettongarcia, your passion to defame the Catholic Church is a matter of record. What this says to others, I don't know. What it says to me is "caveat emptor." As for your declaring, in effect, that all Catholics in communion with their Church are not good, well that is a supernova among non sequiturs.
Best,
Richard
6.4.2010 | 1:25pm
brettongarcia says:
First Things of course, was largely based around Catholic writers (like Neuhaus?); if it branched out now and then to include the Orthodox Church, and even Jewish writers, that is no more or less than the Catholic Church hierarchy has done. But if you insist: all this is to support the more vain aspects, of "the Judeo-Christian" narrative.
In the typical First Things article, a spectacular vocabulary is employed to give the impression of intellectual superiority and prettiness; but often subsituting finery, for substantial argument. Nearly all of what is said here, seems to appear in a c. May 20, 2010 article on the Web; this seems to be a mere pretty-fication of some similar earlier works. While several references above suggest that, beyond spectacular appearance, showy robes, in terms of real substance, good historiography, his article is lacking.
This is typical of First Things: it attempts to re-create the "arch" or disdainfully aristocratic, vocabularian style of almost say, the Restoration, or Victorianism; to use lots of big words in order to suggest solid, traditional intellectual content. But what we see is nearly always, a pretty face, verbal finery - but no really solid scholarship underneath. Appearances are deceiving. The Catholic love of "guilt" - gold (or note, polysemically, sin?) - comes to mind here.
We all need to look beyond rich appearances; didn't Jesus tell us to do that?
Note that we are not just citing glossy appearance; we ARE also dealing with the - misleading - substance of his argument, above. First, 1) the "mere" murder of this woman, was important enough. But then too, 2) apparently there WAS an Alexandrian library in the time of Hypatia; probably housed in a pagan temple or museum; probably destroyed or dispersed, by Christian thugs destroying them in the time of St. Cyrl.
In the typical First Things article, a spectacular vocabulary is employed to give the impression of intellectual superiority and prettiness; but often subsituting finery, for substantial argument. Nearly all of what is said here, seems to appear in a c. May 20, 2010 article on the Web; this seems to be a mere pretty-fication of some similar earlier works. While several references above suggest that, beyond spectacular appearance, showy robes, in terms of real substance, good historiography, his article is lacking.
This is typical of First Things: it attempts to re-create the "arch" or disdainfully aristocratic, vocabularian style of almost say, the Restoration, or Victorianism; to use lots of big words in order to suggest solid, traditional intellectual content. But what we see is nearly always, a pretty face, verbal finery - but no really solid scholarship underneath. Appearances are deceiving. The Catholic love of "guilt" - gold (or note, polysemically, sin?) - comes to mind here.
We all need to look beyond rich appearances; didn't Jesus tell us to do that?
Note that we are not just citing glossy appearance; we ARE also dealing with the - misleading - substance of his argument, above. First, 1) the "mere" murder of this woman, was important enough. But then too, 2) apparently there WAS an Alexandrian library in the time of Hypatia; probably housed in a pagan temple or museum; probably destroyed or dispersed, by Christian thugs destroying them in the time of St. Cyrl.
6.4.2010 | 1:43pm
Robert Moody says:
Brettongarcia, learn how to spell you should before preach you do.
6.4.2010 | 2:51pm
Fred says:
"lol @ brettongarcia
Well if it could've been rebuilt, then it must've been rebuilt, and if it was rebuilt and disappeared, then the christians did it."
That's quite typical of BG's style of reasoning. Some of his arguments in the Eberstadt pornography thread are even sillier (porn involves images, not real people, so it can't possibly harm anybody real. The Bible says pluck out your eye if it offends you, so any Christian that has seen a pornographic image and not done an Oedipus on him/herself is a hypocrit etc.). At first, given his sophistry and attitude, I thought he must be very young, probably an adolescent. Then in another thread he talked about being in Turkey in 1962, so he's at least 48. Apparently, he's a case of arrested development, so there's no chance he'll grow out of it. Sad really.
Well if it could've been rebuilt, then it must've been rebuilt, and if it was rebuilt and disappeared, then the christians did it."
That's quite typical of BG's style of reasoning. Some of his arguments in the Eberstadt pornography thread are even sillier (porn involves images, not real people, so it can't possibly harm anybody real. The Bible says pluck out your eye if it offends you, so any Christian that has seen a pornographic image and not done an Oedipus on him/herself is a hypocrit etc.). At first, given his sophistry and attitude, I thought he must be very young, probably an adolescent. Then in another thread he talked about being in Turkey in 1962, so he's at least 48. Apparently, he's a case of arrested development, so there's no chance he'll grow out of it. Sad really.
6.4.2010 | 2:56pm
Richard says:
Dear BG,
"apparently," "probably." Well thank God that you have solid evidence in hand.
Pax,
Richard
"apparently," "probably." Well thank God that you have solid evidence in hand.
Pax,
Richard
6.4.2010 | 3:40pm
Brettongarcia says:
All:
I'm consistent in not valuing appearances too much; that's why I don't even spell check or correct typos much at all; these are pretty much my unedited first drafts. I think of a blog as an informal forum. Remember, look beyond superifical appearances.
The characterization of me first merely 1) describing the POSSIBLITY of the library rebuilt, properly objected in effect, that establishing the mere possiblity of a rebuilt library, did not establish its actuality. And 2) so, I went on later to cite what appears to be a scholarly source, above. To show that my first finding, that such a thing could be done in theory, was found to later have become actual historical fact. Or, so my first found source said, cited above.
How certain is this? Since I don't have the time to give this all the research a published paper should have, I presented my first source, above, as being "apparently" or "probably" true. Presenting what is not throughly researched here, with some proper humility and hesitation. But offering what appears to be a scholarly citation, above. I'd suggest reading it, before criticizing me further on my historiography. Evaluate the evidence yourself; my own survey of it was very quick to be sure.
But on first glance, what does the preliminary evidence so far suggest? My cited source above, says rather firmly, that after the main library was burned by Caesar, 1) an Alexandrian library was built up again; 2) in part from contributions from Brutus and others. So that, the historical source cited here says, there were new books added, after the "destruction" of the Alexandrian library by Caesar. While this source confirms from other sources in turn (O.), that such books existed in Alexandria, around the time of Hypatia.
How firm is what I present here? I see thhis blog is an informal forum; and I don't have the weeks it would take to correctly, fully research this topic, and confirm my source. But one of my graduate degrees IS in an historical discipline. And it seems from just an admittedly humble, quick survey of material available online, that our author here, has not really done his homework as professionally or correctly as one would wish.
As is evident even to a casual survey, his facts are not well-documented or even true. Rather clearly, his intent is merely to whitewash yet another of the sins of rude, pederastical - or here, literally murderous - Christians.
By the way, my sub-hypothesis here - that our writers here are rather fixed on the superificial appearances of language, while neglecting deeper substance - seems confirmed by the fact that the mere murder of a real, material person - Hypatia - is here regarded as unimportant; the vast bulk of the article is concerned with the shocking possiblity that someone destroyed ... a .... library.
To be sure, libraries are important too. But?
Have Christians today, has the mob changed much, from the days they murdered a woman it didn't like; and while valorizing words, nevertheless burned any library that contains words it could not face?
I'm consistent in not valuing appearances too much; that's why I don't even spell check or correct typos much at all; these are pretty much my unedited first drafts. I think of a blog as an informal forum. Remember, look beyond superifical appearances.
The characterization of me first merely 1) describing the POSSIBLITY of the library rebuilt, properly objected in effect, that establishing the mere possiblity of a rebuilt library, did not establish its actuality. And 2) so, I went on later to cite what appears to be a scholarly source, above. To show that my first finding, that such a thing could be done in theory, was found to later have become actual historical fact. Or, so my first found source said, cited above.
How certain is this? Since I don't have the time to give this all the research a published paper should have, I presented my first source, above, as being "apparently" or "probably" true. Presenting what is not throughly researched here, with some proper humility and hesitation. But offering what appears to be a scholarly citation, above. I'd suggest reading it, before criticizing me further on my historiography. Evaluate the evidence yourself; my own survey of it was very quick to be sure.
But on first glance, what does the preliminary evidence so far suggest? My cited source above, says rather firmly, that after the main library was burned by Caesar, 1) an Alexandrian library was built up again; 2) in part from contributions from Brutus and others. So that, the historical source cited here says, there were new books added, after the "destruction" of the Alexandrian library by Caesar. While this source confirms from other sources in turn (O.), that such books existed in Alexandria, around the time of Hypatia.
How firm is what I present here? I see thhis blog is an informal forum; and I don't have the weeks it would take to correctly, fully research this topic, and confirm my source. But one of my graduate degrees IS in an historical discipline. And it seems from just an admittedly humble, quick survey of material available online, that our author here, has not really done his homework as professionally or correctly as one would wish.
As is evident even to a casual survey, his facts are not well-documented or even true. Rather clearly, his intent is merely to whitewash yet another of the sins of rude, pederastical - or here, literally murderous - Christians.
By the way, my sub-hypothesis here - that our writers here are rather fixed on the superificial appearances of language, while neglecting deeper substance - seems confirmed by the fact that the mere murder of a real, material person - Hypatia - is here regarded as unimportant; the vast bulk of the article is concerned with the shocking possiblity that someone destroyed ... a .... library.
To be sure, libraries are important too. But?
Have Christians today, has the mob changed much, from the days they murdered a woman it didn't like; and while valorizing words, nevertheless burned any library that contains words it could not face?
6.4.2010 | 3:44pm
GeronimoRumplestiltskin says:
brettongarcia:
Therefore, likely there WAS a significant, even Alexandrian library there; until you and your friends burned it down again.
I suppose you missed this paragraph in Dr. Hart's piece:
As it happens, we have fairly good accounts of that day, Christian and pagan, and absolutely none of them so much as hints at the destruction of any large collection of books. Not even Eunapius of Sardis—a pagan scholar who despised Christians and who would have wept over the loss of precious texts—suggests such a thing. This is not surprising, since there were probably no books there to be destroyed.
Also:
at least nominally Christian thugs murdered Hypatia.
This fact does nothing to contradict Dr. Hart's point about Hypatia's murder: that it was not due to any supposed animus of Christianity towards science, philosophy, or learned women.
But thanks for your post. It was a terrific example of a product of an unhinged mind.
Cordially,
GR
Therefore, likely there WAS a significant, even Alexandrian library there; until you and your friends burned it down again.
I suppose you missed this paragraph in Dr. Hart's piece:
As it happens, we have fairly good accounts of that day, Christian and pagan, and absolutely none of them so much as hints at the destruction of any large collection of books. Not even Eunapius of Sardis—a pagan scholar who despised Christians and who would have wept over the loss of precious texts—suggests such a thing. This is not surprising, since there were probably no books there to be destroyed.
Also:
at least nominally Christian thugs murdered Hypatia.
This fact does nothing to contradict Dr. Hart's point about Hypatia's murder: that it was not due to any supposed animus of Christianity towards science, philosophy, or learned women.
But thanks for your post. It was a terrific example of a product of an unhinged mind.
Cordially,
GR
6.4.2010 | 3:57pm
Richard says:
Please allow me once again to try to repair an error from my ignorance in an earlier post. Apparently Nestorius believed in both the divine and natures of Jesus, but saw them as disjunct, so that Mary could not be said to have been the mother of God, since God exists from eternity. The Western and Eastern Churches rejected this theology, and Nestorius was declared heretical.
Best,
Richard
Best,
Richard
6.4.2010 | 4:01pm
Peter Leavitt says:
GR, you run the risk of confusing BG with the facts. The fellow is the sort of "cultured" despiser of religion that Christians have dealt with for millennia.
6.4.2010 | 5:42pm
Sean says:
Fred,
I'll be surprised to see if this gets posted...
Frankly, BG's writing reminds me of an insufficiently developed intellectual, middle-aged, living in a rooming house, doing menial jobs to pay the rent, possibly collects coins, who's never come anywhere near to having sex.
I know the type and you can be certain he isn't a hedge fund manager.
BG: please understand that of all the critics of Hart's style, which is actually improving in articles like this, you have the least leg to stand on in charging him with grandiloquence, prolixity, and archness. You seem to be characterizing this article based on past ones he's written, but the only pretentiousness and self-satisfaction I see on this page are coming from your keyboard.
I'll be surprised to see if this gets posted...
Frankly, BG's writing reminds me of an insufficiently developed intellectual, middle-aged, living in a rooming house, doing menial jobs to pay the rent, possibly collects coins, who's never come anywhere near to having sex.
I know the type and you can be certain he isn't a hedge fund manager.
BG: please understand that of all the critics of Hart's style, which is actually improving in articles like this, you have the least leg to stand on in charging him with grandiloquence, prolixity, and archness. You seem to be characterizing this article based on past ones he's written, but the only pretentiousness and self-satisfaction I see on this page are coming from your keyboard.
6.4.2010 | 10:41pm
Mary says:
'Surely 1) "just" the brutal murder of this woman, by as you say, "Christians," is enough to cause some alarm? As part of a general pogrom against Pagans, by St. Cyril.'
Except that there's no evidence that she was a pagan. No document refers to her religion. OTOH, all of her known students were Christians.
Perhaps more to the point, the motive for her murder was clearly referenced in the documents describing it: a rumor among some Christians that the reason the (Christian) governor was not reconciling with the bishop was her, owing to her friendship and influence.
Except that there's no evidence that she was a pagan. No document refers to her religion. OTOH, all of her known students were Christians.
Perhaps more to the point, the motive for her murder was clearly referenced in the documents describing it: a rumor among some Christians that the reason the (Christian) governor was not reconciling with the bishop was her, owing to her friendship and influence.
6.4.2010 | 11:06pm
Richard says:
Dear Sean,
As an insufficiently developed intellectual, past middle age, who has lived in rooming houses and done menial jobs to pay the rent, colllects coins, knows what sex is only because a good woman was charitable enough to marry me, am not a hedge fund manager, and have at times compensated with grandiloquence, prolixity, archness, pretentiousness and self-satisfaction, I am getting a little nervous here. Have a heart and forgive, unless perchance I fall back into egregious displays of my weaknesses.
Best,
Richard
Best,
Richard
As an insufficiently developed intellectual, past middle age, who has lived in rooming houses and done menial jobs to pay the rent, colllects coins, knows what sex is only because a good woman was charitable enough to marry me, am not a hedge fund manager, and have at times compensated with grandiloquence, prolixity, archness, pretentiousness and self-satisfaction, I am getting a little nervous here. Have a heart and forgive, unless perchance I fall back into egregious displays of my weaknesses.
Best,
Richard
Best,
Richard
6.5.2010 | 2:08am
brettongarcia says:
What concerns me here, is the ease with which our present Christian audience accepts abuse, pederasty, and now literally, murder.
6.5.2010 | 2:51am
rob haskell says:
I think we should invent a new genre of literature: historical demystification. Though the credit really goes to Dan Brown et al. This article nicely expands the genre!
6.5.2010 | 4:28am
Max says:
Dear Mr. Hart: GREAT piece. Very nice to read a thoughtful and thorough debunking of one of the "usual suspects" arguments against Christianity.
Brettongarcia: Our nascent conversation is at an end. Your last few post on the SBNR thread and your posts here make plain that you arent really interested in dialogue, rather you simply have an axe to grind with the Catholic Church. You are free to past whatever you wish, but I am not continuing our conversation. However you and Lady Gaga shall remain in my prayers.
Richard: I like your style, brother.
Brettongarcia: Our nascent conversation is at an end. Your last few post on the SBNR thread and your posts here make plain that you arent really interested in dialogue, rather you simply have an axe to grind with the Catholic Church. You are free to past whatever you wish, but I am not continuing our conversation. However you and Lady Gaga shall remain in my prayers.
Richard: I like your style, brother.
6.5.2010 | 4:58am
Bret Lythgoe says:
Thanks to David Hart, for, as always, providing an intelligent, nuanced article. The Hypatia myth is one of many, historical whoppers out there. I would recommend an excellent book, published last year, by Harvard University Press, and edited by Ronald Numbers, called "twentifive myths about science and religon''. My personal favorite was that, the great middle age thinkers taught that the earth was flat! Of course, anyone even remotely familiar with Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologiae, will know that he explicitly states in it, that the earth is round!
David Hart, keep up the great work!
David Hart, keep up the great work!
6.5.2010 | 8:35am
Sean says:
Sorry Richard, no can do. Nothing personal, I just can't forgive the coin collecting. :(
6.5.2010 | 11:12am
Joshua Gibbs says:
When secularists complain against David Hart's huge vocabulary and occasionally esoteric style, I think, "Oh, have you never read feminist theory from the 1980s?"
6.5.2010 | 12:09pm
JonF says:
Re: various ancient sources report that the library was destroyed, either in whole or in part, during Julius Caesar’s Alexandrian campaign against Pompey in 48 or 47 b.c.
Minor quibble: Pompey was already dead when Caesar arrived in Egypt, and his pickled head was presented to Caesar as a gift (which horrified him). The war in question was a civil war between Cleopatra VII (supported by Caesar) and her siblings, the young Ptolemy XIV (technically Cleopatra's husband) and their older sister Arsinoe.
Re: One small point to remember, one did not have printing presses back then. Many of the manuscripts may have been one of a kind.
Alexandria did not have the only library in existence. There was also a notable one at Pergamum. In principle scrolls could have been copied from other collections and sent to a rebuilt Alexandrian library, though there's no evidence that this was done. By the way, the notion that Christians destroyed the library was first put about by Islamic scholars to refute Christian claims that the Muslim conquerors had destroyed it.
Minor quibble: Pompey was already dead when Caesar arrived in Egypt, and his pickled head was presented to Caesar as a gift (which horrified him). The war in question was a civil war between Cleopatra VII (supported by Caesar) and her siblings, the young Ptolemy XIV (technically Cleopatra's husband) and their older sister Arsinoe.
Re: One small point to remember, one did not have printing presses back then. Many of the manuscripts may have been one of a kind.
Alexandria did not have the only library in existence. There was also a notable one at Pergamum. In principle scrolls could have been copied from other collections and sent to a rebuilt Alexandrian library, though there's no evidence that this was done. By the way, the notion that Christians destroyed the library was first put about by Islamic scholars to refute Christian claims that the Muslim conquerors had destroyed it.
6.5.2010 | 1:47pm
D.P. O'Connell says:
A few points:
1.) There might be a lot less nonsense written here (on both sides) if the list were moderated such that people were forced to sign with their real names rather than aliases, and provide an E-mail address or web-link accessible to all. But perhaps this community is too far-flung (geographically) for this to make any difference. Some of you obviously go back a long way and have many old grievances.
2.) David, this is an interesting column - Occasioned by the myths of the popular culture, you manage to outline the probable truth of the matters at hand (both with regard to Hypatia and the Library of Alexandria), as near as most any of us could.
3.) Nevertheless, it does seem to me that the promise your rhetoric gives in the first paragraphs (of the complete and utter untruth of claims of Christian involvement in the murder of Hypatia and the destruction of the Library) is undercut by the truths that you admit later in your column. Rhetorically speaking, it IS a bit misleading to say that "this is almost all utter nonsense" and then later to admit that, well, it was a group of Christians (acting, supposedly under the orders of one of St. Cyril's readers, a man named Peter) who killed Hypatia.
4.) For someone out to prove, among other things, something about Christian attitudes towards women, I think you do yourself a disservice by going out of your way to diminish Hypatia's contributions to Philosophy. A female Plotinus she was not, but nor was she -- by the Christian historian Socrates' own testimony -- some nobody. She was certainly on a level with Syrianus and Iamblichus. It strikes me that, in an effort to push back against the accretion of myth and secular hagiography, that you are going a bit too far.
5.) Lastly, I really don't understand your willingness to criticize the movie before it comes out and then say "I won't go see it." Why not? I suppose one can object on the grounds of not wanting to feed the machine with one's dollars, but in the end how much is your $10 really going to make a difference? Do go see it, and you would be a lot more credible as a film critic. If, on the other hand, you want to attack what is being said in the NY Times by Mr. Rohter, then do that, and leave the rest be.
Sincerely,
Dan. O'Connell
1.) There might be a lot less nonsense written here (on both sides) if the list were moderated such that people were forced to sign with their real names rather than aliases, and provide an E-mail address or web-link accessible to all. But perhaps this community is too far-flung (geographically) for this to make any difference. Some of you obviously go back a long way and have many old grievances.
2.) David, this is an interesting column - Occasioned by the myths of the popular culture, you manage to outline the probable truth of the matters at hand (both with regard to Hypatia and the Library of Alexandria), as near as most any of us could.
3.) Nevertheless, it does seem to me that the promise your rhetoric gives in the first paragraphs (of the complete and utter untruth of claims of Christian involvement in the murder of Hypatia and the destruction of the Library) is undercut by the truths that you admit later in your column. Rhetorically speaking, it IS a bit misleading to say that "this is almost all utter nonsense" and then later to admit that, well, it was a group of Christians (acting, supposedly under the orders of one of St. Cyril's readers, a man named Peter) who killed Hypatia.
4.) For someone out to prove, among other things, something about Christian attitudes towards women, I think you do yourself a disservice by going out of your way to diminish Hypatia's contributions to Philosophy. A female Plotinus she was not, but nor was she -- by the Christian historian Socrates' own testimony -- some nobody. She was certainly on a level with Syrianus and Iamblichus. It strikes me that, in an effort to push back against the accretion of myth and secular hagiography, that you are going a bit too far.
5.) Lastly, I really don't understand your willingness to criticize the movie before it comes out and then say "I won't go see it." Why not? I suppose one can object on the grounds of not wanting to feed the machine with one's dollars, but in the end how much is your $10 really going to make a difference? Do go see it, and you would be a lot more credible as a film critic. If, on the other hand, you want to attack what is being said in the NY Times by Mr. Rohter, then do that, and leave the rest be.
Sincerely,
Dan. O'Connell
6.5.2010 | 4:56pm
Pastor Spomer says:
brettongarcia no like big words. Me, then, not use big words. brettongarcia think argument to the man… (oops, say bad things about man not his ideas) an ok thing to do. brettongarcia add no good idea to talk.
6.5.2010 | 6:52pm
Bret Lythgoe says:
There's an excellent book, recently published (last year), called 25 Myths about Science and Religion, edited by Ronald numbers, that's relevant to this issue. my personal favorite, is the myth that the middle age intellectuals believed that the earth was flat! Of course, even a cursory reading of Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologiae, would prove this to be false.
I think part of the problem is bigotry against christianity, and the whole myth that christianity was at war with reason and science, is just too good a story. Why let a little thing called the truth get in the way of that?
I think part of the problem is bigotry against christianity, and the whole myth that christianity was at war with reason and science, is just too good a story. Why let a little thing called the truth get in the way of that?
6.6.2010 | 2:07am
brettongarcia says:
There never was a war between science/rationality, and Christianity?
Christianity's assertions of Miracles has always been fully accepted by scientists? That "whosoever believes" can do all the wonders that Jesus did, and "greater things than these"? Like walking on water? Making bread appear out of thin air?
Real science of course, fully accepts this. That's what they always taught us to do in Biology lab of course. No need to try formulas or anything: just pray, and make things appear out of thin air.
Everyone knows miracles are very, very good science. Everyone that gets their science out of say, Watchtower, or the National Review; the great scientific journals.
Whoever made up these absurd myths, about a conflict between Christianity and Science? Glad to see you all are setting the record straight.
Would you like a position on our Texas Schoolbook Commission? We need you to rewrite our history textbooks.
(Stylistic critiques are not ad hominum arguments, when they note that style is predominating over logical substance).
Christianity's assertions of Miracles has always been fully accepted by scientists? That "whosoever believes" can do all the wonders that Jesus did, and "greater things than these"? Like walking on water? Making bread appear out of thin air?
Real science of course, fully accepts this. That's what they always taught us to do in Biology lab of course. No need to try formulas or anything: just pray, and make things appear out of thin air.
Everyone knows miracles are very, very good science. Everyone that gets their science out of say, Watchtower, or the National Review; the great scientific journals.
Whoever made up these absurd myths, about a conflict between Christianity and Science? Glad to see you all are setting the record straight.
Would you like a position on our Texas Schoolbook Commission? We need you to rewrite our history textbooks.
(Stylistic critiques are not ad hominum arguments, when they note that style is predominating over logical substance).
6.6.2010 | 2:19am
brettongarcia says:
Here's a standard account, from History, not religious tracts:
"The Library's contents were likely distributed over several buildings, with the main library either located directly attached to or close to the oldest building, the Museum, and a daughter library in the younger Serapeum, also a temple dedicated to the god Serapis....
In 391, Emperor Theodosius I ordered the destruction of all pagan temples, and Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria complied with this request. Socrates Scholasticus provides the following account of the destruction of the temples in Alexandria in the fifth book of his Historia Ecclesiastica:
"At the solicitation of Theophilus bishop of Alexandria the emperor issued an order at this time for the demolition of the heathen temples in that city; commanding also that it should be put in execution under the direction of Theophilus. Seizing this opportunity, Theophilus exerted himself to the utmost to expose the pagan mysteries to contempt. And to begin with, he caused the Mithreum to be cleaned out, and exhibited to public view the tokens of its bloody mysteries. Then he destroyed the Serapeum, and the bloody rites of the Mithreum he publicly caricatured; the Serapeum also he showed full of extravagant superstitions, and he had the phalli of Priapus carried through the midst of the forum. Thus this disturbance having been terminated, the governor of Alexandria, and the commander-in-chief of the troops in Egypt, assisted Theophilus in demolishing the heathen temples. These were therefore razed to the ground, and the images of their gods molten into pots and other convenient utensils for the use of the Alexandrian church; for the emperor had instructed Theophilus to distribute them for the relief of the poor. All the images were accordingly broken to pieces, except one statue of the god before mentioned, which Theophilus preserved and set up in a public place; 'Lest,' said he, 'at a future time the heathens should deny that they had ever worshiped such gods.'"
The Serapeum housed part of the Library, but it is not known how many books were contained in it at the time of destruction. Notably, Paulus Orosius admitted in the sixth book of his History against the pagans: "[T]oday there exist in temples book chests which we ourselves have seen, and, when these temples were plundered, these, we are told, were emptied by our own men in our time, which, indeed, is a true statement." Some or all of the books may have been taken, but any books left in the Serapeum at the time would have been destroyed when it was razed to the ground.
As for the Museum, Mostafa El-Abbadi writes in Life and Fate of the ancient Library of Alexandria (Paris 1992): "The Mouseion, being at the same time a 'shrine of the Muses', enjoyed a degree of sanctity as long as other pagan temples remained unmolested. Synesius of Cyrene, who studied under Hypatia at the end of the fourth century, saw the Mouseion and described the images of the philosophers in it. We have no later reference to its existence in the fifth century. As Theon, the distinguished mathematician and father of Hypatia, herself a renowned scholar, was the last recorded scholar-member (c. 380), it is likely that the Mouseion did not long survive the promulgation of Theodosius' decree in 391 to destroy all pagan temples in the City."
Plutarch blamed Julius Caesar for the burning of the Library, whereas Edward Gibbon blamed Theophilus. According to Ibn al-Kifti's (History of the wise), whose story was repeated by Bishop Gregory Bar Hebraeus, the remaining books were destroyed by general Amrouh following orders of Caliph Umar (see Luciano Canfora "The vanished Library"). The collection may have ebbed and flowed as some documents were destroyed and others were added. For instance, Mark Antony was supposed to have given Cleopatra over 200,000 scrolls for the Library long after Julius Caesar is accused of burning it. It is also quite likely that even if the Museum was destroyed with the main library the outlying "daughter" library at the Temple of Serapis continued on. Many writers seem to equate the Library of Alexandria with the Library of Serapis although technically they were in two different parts of the city. The tragedy of course is not the uncertainty of knowing who to blame for the Library's destruction but that so much of ancient history, literature and learning was lost forever.
References
Alexander Stille: The Future of the Past (chapter: "The Return of the Vanished Library"). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2002. 246-273.
Uwe Jochum, "The Alexandrian Library and its aftermath" from Library History vol 15 (1999), pp 5-12.
Edward Parsons: The Alexandrian Library. London, 1952.
Edward Gibbon: The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (chapter: "Destruction of Paganism", "The temple of Serapis at Alexandria" and "Its final destruction, A.D. 389" subchapters)
Ellen Brundige: The Decline of the Library and Museum of Alexandria, December 10, 1991
Canfora, Luciano (trans. Martin Ryle) (1989). The Vanished Library. A Wonder of the Ancient World, Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0520072553.
El-Abbadi, Mostafa (1992). Life and fate of the ancient Library of Alexandria, Paris: UNESCO, 2nd edition. ISBN 9231026321.
Orosius, Paulus (trans. Roy J. Deferrari) (1964). The seven books of history against the pagans, Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America.
This is from the source I cited long ago, above.
But let's not confuse religious fanatics, with the facts, and real History?
"The Library's contents were likely distributed over several buildings, with the main library either located directly attached to or close to the oldest building, the Museum, and a daughter library in the younger Serapeum, also a temple dedicated to the god Serapis....
In 391, Emperor Theodosius I ordered the destruction of all pagan temples, and Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria complied with this request. Socrates Scholasticus provides the following account of the destruction of the temples in Alexandria in the fifth book of his Historia Ecclesiastica:
"At the solicitation of Theophilus bishop of Alexandria the emperor issued an order at this time for the demolition of the heathen temples in that city; commanding also that it should be put in execution under the direction of Theophilus. Seizing this opportunity, Theophilus exerted himself to the utmost to expose the pagan mysteries to contempt. And to begin with, he caused the Mithreum to be cleaned out, and exhibited to public view the tokens of its bloody mysteries. Then he destroyed the Serapeum, and the bloody rites of the Mithreum he publicly caricatured; the Serapeum also he showed full of extravagant superstitions, and he had the phalli of Priapus carried through the midst of the forum. Thus this disturbance having been terminated, the governor of Alexandria, and the commander-in-chief of the troops in Egypt, assisted Theophilus in demolishing the heathen temples. These were therefore razed to the ground, and the images of their gods molten into pots and other convenient utensils for the use of the Alexandrian church; for the emperor had instructed Theophilus to distribute them for the relief of the poor. All the images were accordingly broken to pieces, except one statue of the god before mentioned, which Theophilus preserved and set up in a public place; 'Lest,' said he, 'at a future time the heathens should deny that they had ever worshiped such gods.'"
The Serapeum housed part of the Library, but it is not known how many books were contained in it at the time of destruction. Notably, Paulus Orosius admitted in the sixth book of his History against the pagans: "[T]oday there exist in temples book chests which we ourselves have seen, and, when these temples were plundered, these, we are told, were emptied by our own men in our time, which, indeed, is a true statement." Some or all of the books may have been taken, but any books left in the Serapeum at the time would have been destroyed when it was razed to the ground.
As for the Museum, Mostafa El-Abbadi writes in Life and Fate of the ancient Library of Alexandria (Paris 1992): "The Mouseion, being at the same time a 'shrine of the Muses', enjoyed a degree of sanctity as long as other pagan temples remained unmolested. Synesius of Cyrene, who studied under Hypatia at the end of the fourth century, saw the Mouseion and described the images of the philosophers in it. We have no later reference to its existence in the fifth century. As Theon, the distinguished mathematician and father of Hypatia, herself a renowned scholar, was the last recorded scholar-member (c. 380), it is likely that the Mouseion did not long survive the promulgation of Theodosius' decree in 391 to destroy all pagan temples in the City."
Plutarch blamed Julius Caesar for the burning of the Library, whereas Edward Gibbon blamed Theophilus. According to Ibn al-Kifti's (History of the wise), whose story was repeated by Bishop Gregory Bar Hebraeus, the remaining books were destroyed by general Amrouh following orders of Caliph Umar (see Luciano Canfora "The vanished Library"). The collection may have ebbed and flowed as some documents were destroyed and others were added. For instance, Mark Antony was supposed to have given Cleopatra over 200,000 scrolls for the Library long after Julius Caesar is accused of burning it. It is also quite likely that even if the Museum was destroyed with the main library the outlying "daughter" library at the Temple of Serapis continued on. Many writers seem to equate the Library of Alexandria with the Library of Serapis although technically they were in two different parts of the city. The tragedy of course is not the uncertainty of knowing who to blame for the Library's destruction but that so much of ancient history, literature and learning was lost forever.
References
Alexander Stille: The Future of the Past (chapter: "The Return of the Vanished Library"). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2002. 246-273.
Uwe Jochum, "The Alexandrian Library and its aftermath" from Library History vol 15 (1999), pp 5-12.
Edward Parsons: The Alexandrian Library. London, 1952.
Edward Gibbon: The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (chapter: "Destruction of Paganism", "The temple of Serapis at Alexandria" and "Its final destruction, A.D. 389" subchapters)
Ellen Brundige: The Decline of the Library and Museum of Alexandria, December 10, 1991
Canfora, Luciano (trans. Martin Ryle) (1989). The Vanished Library. A Wonder of the Ancient World, Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0520072553.
El-Abbadi, Mostafa (1992). Life and fate of the ancient Library of Alexandria, Paris: UNESCO, 2nd edition. ISBN 9231026321.
Orosius, Paulus (trans. Roy J. Deferrari) (1964). The seven books of history against the pagans, Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America.
This is from the source I cited long ago, above.
But let's not confuse religious fanatics, with the facts, and real History?
6.6.2010 | 8:27am
kfsoh says:
Great article, David. Your prose, as always, is a pleasure to read, the content particularly interesting. And, for the most part, the comments are informative.
But what's w/this "brettongarcia" character? Seemingly waging a solitary cyber-war against FT by way of dodgy spelling and atrocious grammar paired w/not only juvenile but uninformed speculative meandering? Yuck.
Sadly, life doesn't permit me to hit up the FT blog articles or comments nearly as often as I'd like, but this garcia cat's sketchy bilge unfortunately features in far too many. Bretton: get a job, man! Or put some of your time charitable works! Your childish bombasts are annoying and, frankly, embarrassing.
Funny, eh, that Gibbon's mis-readings and mischaracterizations still have relatively significant--however suspect--traction, esp. given the contrary evidence that has come to light since he wrote. Funny as in odd, that is--not funny as in silly "brettongarcia".
But what's w/this "brettongarcia" character? Seemingly waging a solitary cyber-war against FT by way of dodgy spelling and atrocious grammar paired w/not only juvenile but uninformed speculative meandering? Yuck.
Sadly, life doesn't permit me to hit up the FT blog articles or comments nearly as often as I'd like, but this garcia cat's sketchy bilge unfortunately features in far too many. Bretton: get a job, man! Or put some of your time charitable works! Your childish bombasts are annoying and, frankly, embarrassing.
Funny, eh, that Gibbon's mis-readings and mischaracterizations still have relatively significant--however suspect--traction, esp. given the contrary evidence that has come to light since he wrote. Funny as in odd, that is--not funny as in silly "brettongarcia".
6.6.2010 | 12:10pm
Richard says:
Below the reader will find a link to a thorough and balanced review of Agora by Tim O'Neill, a well-informed atheist with an aversion to erroneous history, especially for polemical agendas. As cinema, O'Neill liked the film. As a fair rendering of what we can reconstruct of actual events, he reports that the movie substantially alters the record to the disadvantage of Christianity. If O'Neill is right, Professor Hart has shrewdly divined the tenor of the movie without having seen it, and his worst fears, and his proleptic corrections, were fundamentally on target.
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2010/05/hypatia-and-agora-redux.html
Best,
Richard
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2010/05/hypatia-and-agora-redux.html
Best,
Richard
6.6.2010 | 2:58pm
Colonel Sun says:
A purely speculative essay that attempts and completely fails to successfully arrive at a predetermined position.
6.6.2010 | 3:45pm
Charles freeman says:
The argument over what was or what was not destroyed at the serapeum is gradually being eclipsed by the mounting archaeological and documentary evidence of widespread destruction of pagan symbols by christians after 380.what happened is only one episode in a wider story . Read Martin the deacon's account of Porphyry of Gaza's destruction of the temple there together with it's sacred books. Of course amajor preoccupation of Nicene Christians was with heretics and we have a host of laws ordering the destruction of their books and even the death penalty for housing such books. Christians were divided among themselves and were hardly going to allow the paganism they had resolutely rejected to stand in their way as the laws against paganism passed by the fanatical advisors of Theodosius I in the 390s make clear. All this period of history needs rewriting so as to move on!
6.6.2010 | 8:24pm
Linda says:
@ O'Connell
What Dr. hart said was utter nonsense was that Hypatia was killed because of a supposed Christian hostility to science and women in the 5th century, the same hostility that led to the (mythical) burning of the Great Library. Please re-read the paragraph in question.
Neither did he claim that Hypatia was some nobody. He calls her a brilliant lecturer, which is precisely what her reputation was in her day. As for your claims that she was on a level with Syrianus and Iamblichus, they simply cannot be supported by the historical record. She may have been, perhaps, but she is not credited with any philosophical writings of any magnitude, even by her admirers.
Finally, the column is not a film review.
What Dr. hart said was utter nonsense was that Hypatia was killed because of a supposed Christian hostility to science and women in the 5th century, the same hostility that led to the (mythical) burning of the Great Library. Please re-read the paragraph in question.
Neither did he claim that Hypatia was some nobody. He calls her a brilliant lecturer, which is precisely what her reputation was in her day. As for your claims that she was on a level with Syrianus and Iamblichus, they simply cannot be supported by the historical record. She may have been, perhaps, but she is not credited with any philosophical writings of any magnitude, even by her admirers.
Finally, the column is not a film review.
6.6.2010 | 8:29pm
James Cobden says:
@ Sean
David Hart, for the past few years, has been writing some of the most perfectly formed prose f anyone in the English-speaking world, with passages of great power and passages of absolutely hilarious wit, as well as many passages of extraordinary beauty. Therefore I find your talk of his writing improving to be impertinent and silly. I know we live in a post-literate era, and web-prose has more or less destroyed the discipline of crafting sentences. But you really have to be a philistine not to see how brilliant his mastery of language and sentence-structure is, and how ell he builds up his arguments. Sorry, but I had to say that.
J. Cobden
David Hart, for the past few years, has been writing some of the most perfectly formed prose f anyone in the English-speaking world, with passages of great power and passages of absolutely hilarious wit, as well as many passages of extraordinary beauty. Therefore I find your talk of his writing improving to be impertinent and silly. I know we live in a post-literate era, and web-prose has more or less destroyed the discipline of crafting sentences. But you really have to be a philistine not to see how brilliant his mastery of language and sentence-structure is, and how ell he builds up his arguments. Sorry, but I had to say that.
J. Cobden
6.6.2010 | 8:34pm
Clara Brandon-Jonson says:
Mr. O'Connell,
If Hart says Hypatia was a brilliant lecturer in Platonic thought, a trained scientist, and a writer of mathematical commentaries, but that we have no reason to think she was an especially original thinker or a notable scientist, he is just stating the plain truth. I didn't see any attempt to diminish her in his remarks.
I also think you miss the point of this piece if you think he was reviewing a film. He was revieweing a myth that is often treated as history.
Clara
If Hart says Hypatia was a brilliant lecturer in Platonic thought, a trained scientist, and a writer of mathematical commentaries, but that we have no reason to think she was an especially original thinker or a notable scientist, he is just stating the plain truth. I didn't see any attempt to diminish her in his remarks.
I also think you miss the point of this piece if you think he was reviewing a film. He was revieweing a myth that is often treated as history.
Clara
6.6.2010 | 9:55pm
Richard says:
BrettonGarcia,
There you go again. I see you have been very busy with the reading list I gave on the Great Library, particularly the Wikipedia article on the library. Every single source you cite is cited in the article, and every argument you make is carefully weighed by the anonymous author and and adjudged as not proving Christian involvement. There is also a wealth of other evidence presented there that you don't mention. That author concluded:
"In short, there is no evidence, ancient or medieval, textual or archeological, to support the story of a Christian destruction of any great library of Alexandria. And yet the story has become fixed in many popular sources."
There's no doubt that Christians destroyed temples and I do not doubt that they burned cult texts. But you have not made your case that they destroyed the learned corpus of antiquity by burning great libraries, and there is an abundance of evidence that they collected and preserved, copied and recopied, taught and passed on much of it. You have thrown a flimsy scissors paste job in the face of people you slander as religious fanatics as though it proved your point, and it does not. Whether or not this case can be reasonably be made from ancient evidence I don't know. As for calling other people fanatics, before you criticize other people for having motes in their eye take out the beam in your own.
Sincerely,
Richard
There you go again. I see you have been very busy with the reading list I gave on the Great Library, particularly the Wikipedia article on the library. Every single source you cite is cited in the article, and every argument you make is carefully weighed by the anonymous author and and adjudged as not proving Christian involvement. There is also a wealth of other evidence presented there that you don't mention. That author concluded:
"In short, there is no evidence, ancient or medieval, textual or archeological, to support the story of a Christian destruction of any great library of Alexandria. And yet the story has become fixed in many popular sources."
There's no doubt that Christians destroyed temples and I do not doubt that they burned cult texts. But you have not made your case that they destroyed the learned corpus of antiquity by burning great libraries, and there is an abundance of evidence that they collected and preserved, copied and recopied, taught and passed on much of it. You have thrown a flimsy scissors paste job in the face of people you slander as religious fanatics as though it proved your point, and it does not. Whether or not this case can be reasonably be made from ancient evidence I don't know. As for calling other people fanatics, before you criticize other people for having motes in their eye take out the beam in your own.
Sincerely,
Richard
6.6.2010 | 10:16pm
Richard says:
Dear Charles Freeman,
I think you mean Mark the Deacon. Porphyry was said to be reacting to the extreme hostility of the local pagans, and finally received permission from the empress Eudoxia to destroy the temples. This was certainly a part of a much wider campaign to shut pagan temples or convert them to churches. I don't doubt that hieratic texts were sometimes destroyed.
This is, however, not the equivalent of the wholesale destruction of pagan learning.
I am very interested in getting documentation for laws decreeing the death penalty for those in possession of anti Nicene documents. I am not categorically denying they existed, but it would be surprising, since the documented cases of execution of heretics by Christians are exceedingly scarce, and sometimes bitterly censured by famous clerics like Ambrose.
If you could post the specifics of those particular laws I would be grateful.
Best,
Richard
I think you mean Mark the Deacon. Porphyry was said to be reacting to the extreme hostility of the local pagans, and finally received permission from the empress Eudoxia to destroy the temples. This was certainly a part of a much wider campaign to shut pagan temples or convert them to churches. I don't doubt that hieratic texts were sometimes destroyed.
This is, however, not the equivalent of the wholesale destruction of pagan learning.
I am very interested in getting documentation for laws decreeing the death penalty for those in possession of anti Nicene documents. I am not categorically denying they existed, but it would be surprising, since the documented cases of execution of heretics by Christians are exceedingly scarce, and sometimes bitterly censured by famous clerics like Ambrose.
If you could post the specifics of those particular laws I would be grateful.
Best,
Richard
6.6.2010 | 10:20pm
Edward Alleyn says:
We certainly owe a great deal to those Christian scholars of the Renaissance, especially in Italy, who sought out, collected, preserved, edited and published pagan literature.
6.6.2010 | 10:48pm
Bob G says:
James Cobden is right: this David Hart is one of the most impressive prose stylists of our times--actually, I can't think of a better. Maybe Russell Baker was in Hart’s league. Hart’s articles and books are as readable for how they say it as for what they say. They bring the subject to vibrant life.
What a treat to get his prose for no charge. Thank you Mr. Hart.
What a treat to get his prose for no charge. Thank you Mr. Hart.
6.6.2010 | 11:23pm
Linda L. says:
Gosh, is that really Charles Freeman chiming in? The famous popular historian, celebrated for his historical errors, philosophical ignorance, and anti-Christian animus? What an honor to all of us. His Closing of the Western Mind is an absolute monument to spurious scholarship.
Many Christians in the late third through seventh centuries destroyed many pagan holy places, and often killed one another over doctrinal disputes. I happen to know David Hart would happily concede all of that, because that is what he used to teach in his lectures on the early church. I never heard him try to excuse or deny any of that, and generally he had a pretty low opinion of the imperial church and a lot of post-Constantinian Christian society. He also described Cyril as a mafioso, with a shockingly sharp mind. But he also, as Freeman never has, talked about the violence on all sides, including that of the pagan mobs of Alexandria. No one came out of his lectures with a particularly high opinion of any of the sects of the time. He liked Julian the Apostate, though, as well as many of the Stoics, Platonists, and spiritual Christian writers.
None of which changes the fact that, as this column points out, there was no great war between Christianity and Hellenistic science, no Christian mob burned the Alexandrian Library, and Hypatia was murdered not because she was a scientist or a philosopher or a woman, but because of the vicious politics of the city, especially during the squabbles between Orestes and Cyril. Please pay attention to what the article says, rather than what you think it must be saying.
Many Christians in the late third through seventh centuries destroyed many pagan holy places, and often killed one another over doctrinal disputes. I happen to know David Hart would happily concede all of that, because that is what he used to teach in his lectures on the early church. I never heard him try to excuse or deny any of that, and generally he had a pretty low opinion of the imperial church and a lot of post-Constantinian Christian society. He also described Cyril as a mafioso, with a shockingly sharp mind. But he also, as Freeman never has, talked about the violence on all sides, including that of the pagan mobs of Alexandria. No one came out of his lectures with a particularly high opinion of any of the sects of the time. He liked Julian the Apostate, though, as well as many of the Stoics, Platonists, and spiritual Christian writers.
None of which changes the fact that, as this column points out, there was no great war between Christianity and Hellenistic science, no Christian mob burned the Alexandrian Library, and Hypatia was murdered not because she was a scientist or a philosopher or a woman, but because of the vicious politics of the city, especially during the squabbles between Orestes and Cyril. Please pay attention to what the article says, rather than what you think it must be saying.
6.6.2010 | 11:57pm
Bret Lythgoe says:
All of classical learning, philosophy, literature, and so on, would have been lost, in the early middle ages, were it not for the irish monks, who heroically copied and preserved them. Also, we owe many of the translations of Plato and Aristotle to the labors of Boethius, the fifth century christian philosopher.
I think that many people are suprised to learn that, were it not for christianity, our knowledge of ancient greece and rome would be limited indeed. We should all give a bit of thanks to those unsung irish monks who belabored in their scriptoria, on our behalf.
I think that many people are suprised to learn that, were it not for christianity, our knowledge of ancient greece and rome would be limited indeed. We should all give a bit of thanks to those unsung irish monks who belabored in their scriptoria, on our behalf.
6.7.2010 | 3:24am
Paul says:
brettongarcia says First Things Forum is all about: Grandiloquence. Pompus, self-satisfied, pretentious use of big words.... then you go about doing the same things yourself. Only your arguments are transparently ill-informed and full of hatred.
You are not showing us anything better. There is no superior approach to dialogue in your writing. It's just more sound and fury signifying nothing.
You are not showing us anything better. There is no superior approach to dialogue in your writing. It's just more sound and fury signifying nothing.
6.7.2010 | 3:36am
brettongarcia says:
Richard and Hart:
You and Hart are Christian revisionists, trying to destroy objective History; to produce a whitewashed, "Christian" version that flatters your vanity, and that caters to your inability to face, "confess," your own sins, the "sins of the Church."
Look more carefully, LOGICALLY, at the data above: following reliable sources, it notes first of all, that 1) the libraries in Alexandria, were in or associated with pagan - non-Christian - temples. And 2)the destruction of those temples, was ordered and carried out by such persons as "Theodosius" and Theophilus; whose names, refer to the Christian God: "Theophilus" means "God Lover." So 3) what we have here, in the standard history, is the destruction of temple libraries, in Alexandria, by "God-lovers" or Christians. While we will see, 4) several sources confirm there had been books in those temples; so that the destruction of the temples would logically have destroyed books.
Re-examine the data, on both the Museum and the Seraphim. Keeping in the mind by the way, that against Hart's criminal revisionism, the "daughter" library, and "Seraphim," SHOULD be considered part of Alexandria's library. The two together, were part of the "Library at Alexandria." The smaller one would be considered in effect, a "branch" library.
Where does it say Christians destroyed the libraries? It just takes a little simple, logical deduction: 1) Libraries at the time were associated with temples; pagan temples, meaning non-Christian. The Museum library, was associated with pagan temples, the temple of Zeus, and of the "muses." So that 2) logically, when "temples" were destroyed, by Christians like "Theolphilus," or "God Lover," the libraries of course would have been destroyed as part of that.
Here again, Richard and Hart, is the standard account of that process, regarding the destruction of "all" pagan temples at Alexandria. That would include of course, not just the Serapeum, but also the Museum, the main library. Note, the destruction of temples, museums, would also destroy the libraries associated with them:
"The younger Serapeum, also a temple dedicated to the god Serapis....
In 391, Emperor Theodosius I ordered the destruction of all pagan temples, and Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria complied with this request. Socrates Scholasticus provides the following account of the destruction of the temples in Alexandria in the fifth book of his Historia Ecclesiastica:
'At the solicitation of Theophilus bishop of Alexandria the emperor issued an order at this time for the demolition of the heathen temples.'"
So here we have Christians - named after God himself, "Theos" - destroying the pagan temples ... that were also the libraries of the time.
How did Hart miss this? Perhaps in his grandiloquence and (occasional) Christian fervor, Hart neglected to note that a very, very simple logical deduction or two, makes it clear that even if historical sources did not DIRECTLY mention destruction of "libraries" per se, the fact that they destroyed the pagan temples they were in, LOGICALLY IMPLIES that destruction.
And was it Christians vs. Pagans? Clearly it was: "God Lovers" against pagan temples.
What happened? Can't Hart make a logical deduction? But lack of logic, has often been the problem, with those who think you do Biology and Science, by praying for things to appear out of thin air.
Now, specifically, were there BOOKS in these pagan temples, even after Caesar? Historical, PRIMARY SOURCES FROM THE TIME, tell us there were:
"The collection may have ebbed and flowed as some documents were destroyed and others were added. For instance, Mark Antony was supposed to have given Cleopatra over 200,000 scrolls for the Library long after Julius Caesar is accused of burning it. It is also quite likely that even if the Museum was destroyed with the main library the outlying 'daughter' library at the Temple of Serapis continued on."
Against Hart, many scholars accept the notion that the "daughter library" is real. In any case, several temples plural - not just the Temple of Serapis - contined books. That the pagan "temples" (plural) of Alexandria contained books, even after Caesar etc., was confirmed not only by the sources quoted above, but also by say- PRIMARY SOURCE - Paulus Orosius:
"The Serapeum housed part of the Library, but it is not known how many books were contained in it at the time of destruction. Notably, Paulus Orosius admitted in the sixth book of his History against the pagans: '[T]oday there exist in temples book chests which we ourselves have seen, and, when these temples were plundered, these, we are told, were emptied by our own men in our time, which, indeed, is a true statement.' Some or all of the books may have been taken, but any books left in the Serapeum at the time would have been destroyed when it was razed to the ground."
So, Hart and Richard: books WERE in the temples. Which were plundered in the time of Theophilus. As confirmed here, by an historical, PRIMARY SOURCE, Paulus Orosius.
As for the Museum, the main library proper? "Mostafa El-Abbadi writes in Life and Fate of the ancient Library of Alexandria (Paris 1992): 'The Mouseion, being at the same time a 'shrine of the Muses', enjoyed a degree of sanctity as long as other pagan temples remained unmolested. Synesius of Cyrene, who studied under Hypatia at the end of the fourth century, saw the Mouseion and described the images of the philosophers in it. We have no later reference to its existence in the fifth century. As Theon, the distinguished mathematician and father of Hypatia, herself a renowned scholar, was the last recorded scholar-member (c. 380), it is likely that the Mouseion did not long survive the promulgation of Theodosius' decree in 391 to destroy all pagan temples in the City.'"
The order to demolish pagan temples, was not merely a rumor started by Muslims (many of whom are quite reliable by the way); it is probably easy enough to go to the original Roman records, (and the writings of say Theophilus himself?) to find the orders, mandating this destruction. Thus confirming local histories. And which seems confirmed by logic too: given Christian opposition to paganism, to this very day.
No doubt, any original destruction of much of the first, original configuration of the library (/libraries) at Alexandria, in the time of Caesar, was a great loss to history. No doubt, there were many original, unique manuscripts lost. But the library was clearly built up again, says the evidence, in part thanks to a gift of 200,000 books by the Romans, like Antony; as noted above from historical references, and original primary sources.
No doubt, many libraries were partially or wholly destroyed, and built up again, over and over. Clearly, the libaries in Alexandriawere built up again. After the time of Caesar. So that there WERE signifiant libraries in Alexandria, in the time of the "God lovers," like Theophilus. And when God Lovers destroyed the pagan temples in 391, the libraries would have been, once again, demolished. Particularly the Museum - named after the pagan "Muses" and associated with pagans, non Christians, and the branch library the Serapheum - would have been destroyed, when Theolosius - "God lover" - began on record, "to destroy all pagan temples in the city," c. 391.
It's all easy enough; its all firm, logical deduction. But that's the problem with Christians; they are lost in subjective self-"love"; in grandiloquence and vanity and self-love, and self-concious, self-loving elegance. While they're awful at science - and real History. They just can't reason; just just can't make the logical deductions; and they lack the hard-thinking rationality, to face their own sins.
Someone needs to contact Wikipedia, to let their staff know that their article on the Great Library at Alexadria, has been edited by a biased, Christian-revisionist author (Hart himself?). The fact is, not only what historians call major "Secondary sources" - like Gibbon - but also what we call in historiography, "Primary sources" - like countless decrees of Theophilus and so forth, and the account of Socrates - all confirm all the facts that we need. They give us all we need to deduce the demolition of libraries by Christians: that 1) there were books in these pagan temples, museums. And that 2) God-lovers like Theophilus - "God Lover" - destroyed the temples. And 3) therefore, Christians destroyed the books. Christians destroyed the library at Alexandria.
Hart's book is "all hat and no cattle," as they say in Texas; all style, and no substance. Hart writes elegantly; but he here, writes very bad, revisionist history. Probably he knows better; probably he just needed a few more publications in Christian journals, so he decided to cater to their biases.
But journals like First Things, are not really real, respected, scholarly, peer-reviewed journals. They are not real History journals; and what they recount, is not accepted, by real historians.
What we have here, is "History" dishonestly, subjectively rewritten, bastardized; to flatter Christian vanity.
Give up your vain displays of literary elegance; and learn to think logially.
It's in the Bible after all: avoid "Vanity"; "come, let us Reason together."
You and Hart are Christian revisionists, trying to destroy objective History; to produce a whitewashed, "Christian" version that flatters your vanity, and that caters to your inability to face, "confess," your own sins, the "sins of the Church."
Look more carefully, LOGICALLY, at the data above: following reliable sources, it notes first of all, that 1) the libraries in Alexandria, were in or associated with pagan - non-Christian - temples. And 2)the destruction of those temples, was ordered and carried out by such persons as "Theodosius" and Theophilus; whose names, refer to the Christian God: "Theophilus" means "God Lover." So 3) what we have here, in the standard history, is the destruction of temple libraries, in Alexandria, by "God-lovers" or Christians. While we will see, 4) several sources confirm there had been books in those temples; so that the destruction of the temples would logically have destroyed books.
Re-examine the data, on both the Museum and the Seraphim. Keeping in the mind by the way, that against Hart's criminal revisionism, the "daughter" library, and "Seraphim," SHOULD be considered part of Alexandria's library. The two together, were part of the "Library at Alexandria." The smaller one would be considered in effect, a "branch" library.
Where does it say Christians destroyed the libraries? It just takes a little simple, logical deduction: 1) Libraries at the time were associated with temples; pagan temples, meaning non-Christian. The Museum library, was associated with pagan temples, the temple of Zeus, and of the "muses." So that 2) logically, when "temples" were destroyed, by Christians like "Theolphilus," or "God Lover," the libraries of course would have been destroyed as part of that.
Here again, Richard and Hart, is the standard account of that process, regarding the destruction of "all" pagan temples at Alexandria. That would include of course, not just the Serapeum, but also the Museum, the main library. Note, the destruction of temples, museums, would also destroy the libraries associated with them:
"The younger Serapeum, also a temple dedicated to the god Serapis....
In 391, Emperor Theodosius I ordered the destruction of all pagan temples, and Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria complied with this request. Socrates Scholasticus provides the following account of the destruction of the temples in Alexandria in the fifth book of his Historia Ecclesiastica:
'At the solicitation of Theophilus bishop of Alexandria the emperor issued an order at this time for the demolition of the heathen temples.'"
So here we have Christians - named after God himself, "Theos" - destroying the pagan temples ... that were also the libraries of the time.
How did Hart miss this? Perhaps in his grandiloquence and (occasional) Christian fervor, Hart neglected to note that a very, very simple logical deduction or two, makes it clear that even if historical sources did not DIRECTLY mention destruction of "libraries" per se, the fact that they destroyed the pagan temples they were in, LOGICALLY IMPLIES that destruction.
And was it Christians vs. Pagans? Clearly it was: "God Lovers" against pagan temples.
What happened? Can't Hart make a logical deduction? But lack of logic, has often been the problem, with those who think you do Biology and Science, by praying for things to appear out of thin air.
Now, specifically, were there BOOKS in these pagan temples, even after Caesar? Historical, PRIMARY SOURCES FROM THE TIME, tell us there were:
"The collection may have ebbed and flowed as some documents were destroyed and others were added. For instance, Mark Antony was supposed to have given Cleopatra over 200,000 scrolls for the Library long after Julius Caesar is accused of burning it. It is also quite likely that even if the Museum was destroyed with the main library the outlying 'daughter' library at the Temple of Serapis continued on."
Against Hart, many scholars accept the notion that the "daughter library" is real. In any case, several temples plural - not just the Temple of Serapis - contined books. That the pagan "temples" (plural) of Alexandria contained books, even after Caesar etc., was confirmed not only by the sources quoted above, but also by say- PRIMARY SOURCE - Paulus Orosius:
"The Serapeum housed part of the Library, but it is not known how many books were contained in it at the time of destruction. Notably, Paulus Orosius admitted in the sixth book of his History against the pagans: '[T]oday there exist in temples book chests which we ourselves have seen, and, when these temples were plundered, these, we are told, were emptied by our own men in our time, which, indeed, is a true statement.' Some or all of the books may have been taken, but any books left in the Serapeum at the time would have been destroyed when it was razed to the ground."
So, Hart and Richard: books WERE in the temples. Which were plundered in the time of Theophilus. As confirmed here, by an historical, PRIMARY SOURCE, Paulus Orosius.
As for the Museum, the main library proper? "Mostafa El-Abbadi writes in Life and Fate of the ancient Library of Alexandria (Paris 1992): 'The Mouseion, being at the same time a 'shrine of the Muses', enjoyed a degree of sanctity as long as other pagan temples remained unmolested. Synesius of Cyrene, who studied under Hypatia at the end of the fourth century, saw the Mouseion and described the images of the philosophers in it. We have no later reference to its existence in the fifth century. As Theon, the distinguished mathematician and father of Hypatia, herself a renowned scholar, was the last recorded scholar-member (c. 380), it is likely that the Mouseion did not long survive the promulgation of Theodosius' decree in 391 to destroy all pagan temples in the City.'"
The order to demolish pagan temples, was not merely a rumor started by Muslims (many of whom are quite reliable by the way); it is probably easy enough to go to the original Roman records, (and the writings of say Theophilus himself?) to find the orders, mandating this destruction. Thus confirming local histories. And which seems confirmed by logic too: given Christian opposition to paganism, to this very day.
No doubt, any original destruction of much of the first, original configuration of the library (/libraries) at Alexandria, in the time of Caesar, was a great loss to history. No doubt, there were many original, unique manuscripts lost. But the library was clearly built up again, says the evidence, in part thanks to a gift of 200,000 books by the Romans, like Antony; as noted above from historical references, and original primary sources.
No doubt, many libraries were partially or wholly destroyed, and built up again, over and over. Clearly, the libaries in Alexandriawere built up again. After the time of Caesar. So that there WERE signifiant libraries in Alexandria, in the time of the "God lovers," like Theophilus. And when God Lovers destroyed the pagan temples in 391, the libraries would have been, once again, demolished. Particularly the Museum - named after the pagan "Muses" and associated with pagans, non Christians, and the branch library the Serapheum - would have been destroyed, when Theolosius - "God lover" - began on record, "to destroy all pagan temples in the city," c. 391.
It's all easy enough; its all firm, logical deduction. But that's the problem with Christians; they are lost in subjective self-"love"; in grandiloquence and vanity and self-love, and self-concious, self-loving elegance. While they're awful at science - and real History. They just can't reason; just just can't make the logical deductions; and they lack the hard-thinking rationality, to face their own sins.
Someone needs to contact Wikipedia, to let their staff know that their article on the Great Library at Alexadria, has been edited by a biased, Christian-revisionist author (Hart himself?). The fact is, not only what historians call major "Secondary sources" - like Gibbon - but also what we call in historiography, "Primary sources" - like countless decrees of Theophilus and so forth, and the account of Socrates - all confirm all the facts that we need. They give us all we need to deduce the demolition of libraries by Christians: that 1) there were books in these pagan temples, museums. And that 2) God-lovers like Theophilus - "God Lover" - destroyed the temples. And 3) therefore, Christians destroyed the books. Christians destroyed the library at Alexandria.
Hart's book is "all hat and no cattle," as they say in Texas; all style, and no substance. Hart writes elegantly; but he here, writes very bad, revisionist history. Probably he knows better; probably he just needed a few more publications in Christian journals, so he decided to cater to their biases.
But journals like First Things, are not really real, respected, scholarly, peer-reviewed journals. They are not real History journals; and what they recount, is not accepted, by real historians.
What we have here, is "History" dishonestly, subjectively rewritten, bastardized; to flatter Christian vanity.
Give up your vain displays of literary elegance; and learn to think logially.
It's in the Bible after all: avoid "Vanity"; "come, let us Reason together."
6.7.2010 | 3:52am
Charles Freema5n says:
Thanks for the compliments, Linda! My latest study of these issues is my AD 381. You can always look at the reviews on Amazon.com to see that Linda's view is not the only one. I have earned my living as a professional historian for37 years so I was amused to find Hart describing me as an amateur historian in his latest tome!
My serious point is that in the past five years lots of new work is pointing out Christian violence against both 'heretics' ,Jews and pagans. Worthier scholars than I will eventually put it together. Ramsay MacMullen has recently highlighted the violence between Christian faction when the elections of bishops took place. I
Incidentally, Hart's dismissive summary of my Closing of the Wester Mind, which is now rather dated,shows he has not read it.
One tragedy is that until the 380s theologians used Greek philosopy very creatively. They were then shut up by the emperors. This area is very much more complex than Hart and some of his supporters suggest.
My serious point is that in the past five years lots of new work is pointing out Christian violence against both 'heretics' ,Jews and pagans. Worthier scholars than I will eventually put it together. Ramsay MacMullen has recently highlighted the violence between Christian faction when the elections of bishops took place. I
Incidentally, Hart's dismissive summary of my Closing of the Wester Mind, which is now rather dated,shows he has not read it.
One tragedy is that until the 380s theologians used Greek philosopy very creatively. They were then shut up by the emperors. This area is very much more complex than Hart and some of his supporters suggest.
6.7.2010 | 4:07am
brettongarcia says:
By the way Richard:
I've just reviewed the Wikipedia article myself, and retract my condemnation; it is more accurate than your misleading account of it.
Among other things, the Wikipedia article on the Alexandrian library that you cite as authority, accepts the "daughter library" thesis, that you and Hart reject.
I've just reviewed the Wikipedia article myself, and retract my condemnation; it is more accurate than your misleading account of it.
Among other things, the Wikipedia article on the Alexandrian library that you cite as authority, accepts the "daughter library" thesis, that you and Hart reject.
6.7.2010 | 6:57am
Richard says:
Dear Linda L.,
Thank you for that refreshing reality check. Particularly appreciated are the acute obiter dicta of Professor Hart. Hagiography and demonization distort the past, and in the end misunderstanding history, innocently or tendentiously, is, as I have seen in my experience in higher education, akin to setting termites loose in a wooden house.
Best,
Richard
Thank you for that refreshing reality check. Particularly appreciated are the acute obiter dicta of Professor Hart. Hagiography and demonization distort the past, and in the end misunderstanding history, innocently or tendentiously, is, as I have seen in my experience in higher education, akin to setting termites loose in a wooden house.
Best,
Richard
6.7.2010 | 6:59am
Sean says:
James,
As someone who owns both of Hart's books and reads everything of his that I can get my hands on, it's fair to say I'm a pretty big fan of his - as a thinker. But as chock full of ideas as Beauty of the Infinite is, it's like wading through paste, what with having to haul out the unabridged dictionary for at least two words in every sentence. He may be a master of the English language, but as a stylist he still has a ways to go - hence the 90% of the criticisms of his essays that focus on his style and largely avoid the essence of his points. When your critics focus on how you say things instead of what you say, you have work to do.
Hart knows this, he's a big fan of Gogol and other master stylists, and I think he knows how he can improve, which is why Atheist Delusions is so much more readable (allowing also that the two books had different audiences in mind). And I think it's fair to say his style has evolved over the years, with fewer fifty cent words, taking less obvious delight in his thesaurus and more pains to get his point across simply and directly.
Like everyone else, I can see the man's facility with ideas is something to behold - and once his style catches up he'll be unstoppable.
As someone who owns both of Hart's books and reads everything of his that I can get my hands on, it's fair to say I'm a pretty big fan of his - as a thinker. But as chock full of ideas as Beauty of the Infinite is, it's like wading through paste, what with having to haul out the unabridged dictionary for at least two words in every sentence. He may be a master of the English language, but as a stylist he still has a ways to go - hence the 90% of the criticisms of his essays that focus on his style and largely avoid the essence of his points. When your critics focus on how you say things instead of what you say, you have work to do.
Hart knows this, he's a big fan of Gogol and other master stylists, and I think he knows how he can improve, which is why Atheist Delusions is so much more readable (allowing also that the two books had different audiences in mind). And I think it's fair to say his style has evolved over the years, with fewer fifty cent words, taking less obvious delight in his thesaurus and more pains to get his point across simply and directly.
Like everyone else, I can see the man's facility with ideas is something to behold - and once his style catches up he'll be unstoppable.
6.7.2010 | 10:29am
Andrew K. Wentter says:
Sean,
Keep your silly, ill-formed opinions to yourself. If you notice, the people who attack Hart's style are always the ones who can't string a coherent sentence together, or even spell simple words. Don't give aid and comfort to the philistines just because you think everything should be written in a single, simple, journalistic style. For myself, I don't want Hart to "improve," because I find his prose absolutely delightful and absorbing. No one else in the intellectual world has such perfect comic timing in print, or constructs more beautifully flowing sentences. I have re-read The Beauty of the Infinite twice just for the pleasure it gives me. I like symphonic writing, and dislike the fact that most "good" prose today is harmonica music written by journalists.
Andrew
Keep your silly, ill-formed opinions to yourself. If you notice, the people who attack Hart's style are always the ones who can't string a coherent sentence together, or even spell simple words. Don't give aid and comfort to the philistines just because you think everything should be written in a single, simple, journalistic style. For myself, I don't want Hart to "improve," because I find his prose absolutely delightful and absorbing. No one else in the intellectual world has such perfect comic timing in print, or constructs more beautifully flowing sentences. I have re-read The Beauty of the Infinite twice just for the pleasure it gives me. I like symphonic writing, and dislike the fact that most "good" prose today is harmonica music written by journalists.
Andrew
6.7.2010 | 10:36am
Richard says:
Dear Brettongarcia,
You are most unwise to rush into the history of libraries in antiquity, a subject about which neither of us knows very much. It is true that temples (but only a fraction) housed libraries. But they could also be housed in gymnasia and porticoes. It is also true that in the beginning the literature was recorded on papyrus scrolls, which were fragile and simply crumbled to dust with use and age. So it was necessary to constantly recopy the materials. Libraries were also susceptible to burning from, for example, accidents, wars, lightening strikes, etc.
The idea that Christians were systematically hostile to pagan literature is demonstrably incorrect. There were great libraries at Constantinople which were full of pagan literature, philosophy, etc., and they existed there thanks to the bibliographic interest of Constantine and his son Constantius II (both Christian emperors). The latter is responsible for having masses of pagan writings transferred from crumbling papyrus to leather parchment, a far more durable material. The process was superintended by Themistius, a Hellenophilic pagan man of letters, and but for Constantius he would have left out Latin literature, which he considered barbaric. The process is nicely described by Knut Kleve, a pappyrologist from Oslo who reported it at a conference at Bellagio. Considering the importance of the issue, I quote him at some length:
The fourth century was a critical time for the classical literature of Greece and Rome. Written on papyrus, it was gradually crumbling away and threatened to sink into oblivion unless transferred to parchment Constantine the Great had begun that process by having the books of Holy Scripture copied, and his son the Emperor Constantius II undertook to continue the effort. The result of his initiative was the first imperial library of Constantinople, which contained more than 100,000 volumes The leader of the project was Themistios who commanded a considerable team of calligraphers and librarians.
One of the main problems was, as it is today, to choose what to save, for it was impossible to save everything. First, Themistios and the emperor chose to save the old literature--Homer and other great authors of the golden age of Greece. Themistios seems to have been uninterested in Latin authors. He did not, and did not want to, understand Latin. He was an arrogant Greek who regarded all other people, including Romans, as simply barbarians. But the emperors were Romans and Latin speaking, so Constantius saw that the classical literature was also transferred to parchment.
Although the older literature was regarded as more valuable than contemporary work no one any longer spoke the Greek of the great Attic authors. So it was necessary to save commentaries and works of grammar as well as the texts of Sophocles, Plautus and other classical works From the record, we can see that Themistios knew many more classical authors than we have today. For instance, he mentions a triad of Stoic philosophers whose work is completely lost to us except for a few citations by other classical authors and some scraps among the carbonized remains at Herculaneum,
Themistios also had a remedy for the papyrus rolls that could not possibly be transcribed. He tried to delay the decay by putting the rolls into parchment coverings, rather like our attempt to encase brittle books in special envelopes or boxes.
The greatest enemy of ancient literature was, however, fires Several fires in the Constantinople library eventually destroyed much of the collection, but Themistios' efforts had not been wholly in vain, for visitors came to the library from the provinces to consult works and take away copies--and some of the copies were recopied. Without the efforts of Constantius and Themistios our knowledge of the classical literature would certainly have been even smaller.
http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/bellagio/bellag1.html
I would also add that even when a library was purposely burned or pillaged, often the books were kept. Those 200000 scrolls that Antony may or may not have given to Cleopatra (the report is questionable) were looted by Antony from the Great Library at Pergamum.
In all fairness it must be reported that the Great Library at Constantinople was brutally sacked and burned by knights of the Fourth Crusade in 1204. The sack came about because a faction leader had offered the Crusaders a great deal of money to install him in power, but he could not pay when the time came. This crime was done in defiance of specific and repeated commands from Pope Innocent III that no Christian city be attacked, especially Constantinople. Innocent excommunicated everyone in high leadership positions, but the damage was done. Some of the manuscripts were taken off by mauraders who knew their value, but most were lost. It is difficult to understand this as a religious act. Rather it was caused by frustration and cultural hatred, but if you must find examples of Christians behaving badly with books, this qualifies.
Nonetheless the library had been in existence for eight hundred years, and during that time thousands of pagan, Christian and Islamic scholars came to Constantinople and copied and took home precious manuscripts, some of which made their way to our modern libraries. Their preservation is in most cases due to the work of monks and Islamic scholars who hoarded, copied and studied the ancient treasures and kept them alive for us.
For a convenient account of the sack of Constantinople, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade
Best,
Richard
You are most unwise to rush into the history of libraries in antiquity, a subject about which neither of us knows very much. It is true that temples (but only a fraction) housed libraries. But they could also be housed in gymnasia and porticoes. It is also true that in the beginning the literature was recorded on papyrus scrolls, which were fragile and simply crumbled to dust with use and age. So it was necessary to constantly recopy the materials. Libraries were also susceptible to burning from, for example, accidents, wars, lightening strikes, etc.
The idea that Christians were systematically hostile to pagan literature is demonstrably incorrect. There were great libraries at Constantinople which were full of pagan literature, philosophy, etc., and they existed there thanks to the bibliographic interest of Constantine and his son Constantius II (both Christian emperors). The latter is responsible for having masses of pagan writings transferred from crumbling papyrus to leather parchment, a far more durable material. The process was superintended by Themistius, a Hellenophilic pagan man of letters, and but for Constantius he would have left out Latin literature, which he considered barbaric. The process is nicely described by Knut Kleve, a pappyrologist from Oslo who reported it at a conference at Bellagio. Considering the importance of the issue, I quote him at some length:
The fourth century was a critical time for the classical literature of Greece and Rome. Written on papyrus, it was gradually crumbling away and threatened to sink into oblivion unless transferred to parchment Constantine the Great had begun that process by having the books of Holy Scripture copied, and his son the Emperor Constantius II undertook to continue the effort. The result of his initiative was the first imperial library of Constantinople, which contained more than 100,000 volumes The leader of the project was Themistios who commanded a considerable team of calligraphers and librarians.
One of the main problems was, as it is today, to choose what to save, for it was impossible to save everything. First, Themistios and the emperor chose to save the old literature--Homer and other great authors of the golden age of Greece. Themistios seems to have been uninterested in Latin authors. He did not, and did not want to, understand Latin. He was an arrogant Greek who regarded all other people, including Romans, as simply barbarians. But the emperors were Romans and Latin speaking, so Constantius saw that the classical literature was also transferred to parchment.
Although the older literature was regarded as more valuable than contemporary work no one any longer spoke the Greek of the great Attic authors. So it was necessary to save commentaries and works of grammar as well as the texts of Sophocles, Plautus and other classical works From the record, we can see that Themistios knew many more classical authors than we have today. For instance, he mentions a triad of Stoic philosophers whose work is completely lost to us except for a few citations by other classical authors and some scraps among the carbonized remains at Herculaneum,
Themistios also had a remedy for the papyrus rolls that could not possibly be transcribed. He tried to delay the decay by putting the rolls into parchment coverings, rather like our attempt to encase brittle books in special envelopes or boxes.
The greatest enemy of ancient literature was, however, fires Several fires in the Constantinople library eventually destroyed much of the collection, but Themistios' efforts had not been wholly in vain, for visitors came to the library from the provinces to consult works and take away copies--and some of the copies were recopied. Without the efforts of Constantius and Themistios our knowledge of the classical literature would certainly have been even smaller.
http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/bellagio/bellag1.html
I would also add that even when a library was purposely burned or pillaged, often the books were kept. Those 200000 scrolls that Antony may or may not have given to Cleopatra (the report is questionable) were looted by Antony from the Great Library at Pergamum.
In all fairness it must be reported that the Great Library at Constantinople was brutally sacked and burned by knights of the Fourth Crusade in 1204. The sack came about because a faction leader had offered the Crusaders a great deal of money to install him in power, but he could not pay when the time came. This crime was done in defiance of specific and repeated commands from Pope Innocent III that no Christian city be attacked, especially Constantinople. Innocent excommunicated everyone in high leadership positions, but the damage was done. Some of the manuscripts were taken off by mauraders who knew their value, but most were lost. It is difficult to understand this as a religious act. Rather it was caused by frustration and cultural hatred, but if you must find examples of Christians behaving badly with books, this qualifies.
Nonetheless the library had been in existence for eight hundred years, and during that time thousands of pagan, Christian and Islamic scholars came to Constantinople and copied and took home precious manuscripts, some of which made their way to our modern libraries. Their preservation is in most cases due to the work of monks and Islamic scholars who hoarded, copied and studied the ancient treasures and kept them alive for us.
For a convenient account of the sack of Constantinople, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade
Best,
Richard
6.7.2010 | 10:37am
Linda L. says:
If Charles Freeman's book had simply said what he said here (that emperors put the screws on Christian thinkers), that would have been interesting, if wrong. Christian thinkers went on using the resources of pagan philosophy without break right from the patristic era through the medieval period. That's why figures like the Pseudo-Dionysius, Maximus the Confessor, John Scotus Erigena keep appearing in the libraries, you know. But that's not what Freeman's book said at all. It was full of nonsensical claims about the eclipse of reason as a result of Christianity's rise, with all sorts of bizarre mistakes in it that showed he really did not understand (or did not want to understand) the period.
One thing I know for certain is that Hart understands the complexity of that period far better than Freeman does.
One thing I know for certain is that Hart understands the complexity of that period far better than Freeman does.
6.7.2010 | 10:43am
David Halladay says:
@ Sean
I think Hart has about five books in print, so you can't really have "both" his books...
As for prose, I really love his "The Doors of the Sea." The beauty book is clearly written at an academic level somewhat beyond my ken, but it has some really gorgeous passages in it.
But, anyway, I couldn't disagree with you more. I'd give anything to be able to write the sort of prose one finds on almost every page of his books and articles. It always takes me by surprise.
David Halladay
I think Hart has about five books in print, so you can't really have "both" his books...
As for prose, I really love his "The Doors of the Sea." The beauty book is clearly written at an academic level somewhat beyond my ken, but it has some really gorgeous passages in it.
But, anyway, I couldn't disagree with you more. I'd give anything to be able to write the sort of prose one finds on almost every page of his books and articles. It always takes me by surprise.
David Halladay
6.7.2010 | 11:16am
GeronimoRumplestiltskin says:
brettongarcia:
You quoted Paulus Orosius thusly:
"[T]oday there exist in temples book chests which we ourselves have seen..."
However, you omitted a word. The correct quote is:
"in some of the temples there remain up to the present time book chests, which we ourselves have seen..."
http://sites.google.com/site/demontortoise2000/orosius_book6
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/greece/paganism/serapeum.html
Some of the temples housed books; some did not. Did the temple in question have books? Let's look at the account of the destruction you cited:
"Socrates Scholasticus provides the following account of the destruction of the temples in Alexandria in the fifth book of his Historia Ecclesiastica:..."
So, the account specifically mentions the looting of...
-tokens: "exhibited to public view the tokens of its bloody mysteries"
-a phallic statue/symbol: "phalli of Priapus carried through the midst of the forum"
-images: "images of their gods molten into pots", "images were accordingly broken to pieces"
all of which were hated by Christians, but not one word about the destruction of any books, which - according to the movie in question and the standard anti-Christian myth about the temple's destruction - the Christians hated as much if not more. As stated in the Encyclopedia Romana (not a Christian source, BTW) link above:
"That the temple did have a library is related by Ammianus, as well as by Epiphanius, who, writing in AD 392, speaks of a second library "in the Serapeum, called its daughter." But there is no support for the presumption that it was destroyed at the same time as the temple or even that it still existed by then. Writing c.AD 417, Orosius does say that "in some of the temples there remain up to the present time book chests, which we ourselves have seen, and that, as we are told, these were emptied by our own men in our own day when these temples were plundered." But the Serapeum was said to have been destroyed. Indeed, Eunapius, who died about AD 414, bitterly exclaims that, in demolishing the temple, the Christians stole statues and votive offerings. "Only the floor of the temple of Serapis they did not take, simply because of the weight of the stones which were not easy to remove from their place." The empty armaria seen by Orosius must therefore have been located somewhere else."
The funny thing is this: even if the temple housed books that were destroyed in the process of the razing of the temple (and that this somehow escaped the notice of historical accounts), your own screed demonstrates rather clearly that these books were destroyed NOT because of any animus of the Church or Christians against reason, NOT because of any animus of the Church or Christians against science, and NOT because of any animus of the Church or Christians against learning - which was the point of Dr. Hart's article in the first place.
Cordially,
GR
You quoted Paulus Orosius thusly:
"[T]oday there exist in temples book chests which we ourselves have seen..."
However, you omitted a word. The correct quote is:
"in some of the temples there remain up to the present time book chests, which we ourselves have seen..."
http://sites.google.com/site/demontortoise2000/orosius_book6
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/greece/paganism/serapeum.html
Some of the temples housed books; some did not. Did the temple in question have books? Let's look at the account of the destruction you cited:
"Socrates Scholasticus provides the following account of the destruction of the temples in Alexandria in the fifth book of his Historia Ecclesiastica:..."
So, the account specifically mentions the looting of...
-tokens: "exhibited to public view the tokens of its bloody mysteries"
-a phallic statue/symbol: "phalli of Priapus carried through the midst of the forum"
-images: "images of their gods molten into pots", "images were accordingly broken to pieces"
all of which were hated by Christians, but not one word about the destruction of any books, which - according to the movie in question and the standard anti-Christian myth about the temple's destruction - the Christians hated as much if not more. As stated in the Encyclopedia Romana (not a Christian source, BTW) link above:
"That the temple did have a library is related by Ammianus, as well as by Epiphanius, who, writing in AD 392, speaks of a second library "in the Serapeum, called its daughter." But there is no support for the presumption that it was destroyed at the same time as the temple or even that it still existed by then. Writing c.AD 417, Orosius does say that "in some of the temples there remain up to the present time book chests, which we ourselves have seen, and that, as we are told, these were emptied by our own men in our own day when these temples were plundered." But the Serapeum was said to have been destroyed. Indeed, Eunapius, who died about AD 414, bitterly exclaims that, in demolishing the temple, the Christians stole statues and votive offerings. "Only the floor of the temple of Serapis they did not take, simply because of the weight of the stones which were not easy to remove from their place." The empty armaria seen by Orosius must therefore have been located somewhere else."
The funny thing is this: even if the temple housed books that were destroyed in the process of the razing of the temple (and that this somehow escaped the notice of historical accounts), your own screed demonstrates rather clearly that these books were destroyed NOT because of any animus of the Church or Christians against reason, NOT because of any animus of the Church or Christians against science, and NOT because of any animus of the Church or Christians against learning - which was the point of Dr. Hart's article in the first place.
Cordially,
GR
6.7.2010 | 12:21pm
Ben Murphy says:
If David Hart was trying to absolve Christians of any part in Hypatia's death he did a terrible job, because by the end of the article, it is clear that Christians were responsible. So maybe he wasn't trying to absolve them.
As I read it, his complaint is that her life is being used as a way of telling a story about the relationship between science and religion, particularly the Christian religion, and that this theoretical perspective is an obstacle to attaining a true understanding of the factors that led to her death.
As I read it, his complaint is that her life is being used as a way of telling a story about the relationship between science and religion, particularly the Christian religion, and that this theoretical perspective is an obstacle to attaining a true understanding of the factors that led to her death.
6.7.2010 | 5:31pm
Sean says:
David,
You're right, he does have five books. My bad. I don't have Doors of the Sea and I believe Provocations and Laments is a collection of essays that one can find online...
I loved Atheist Delusions, devoured it in two sittings, though it could stand a little editorial cleaning. My only problem with it is that it wasn't two or three times bigger. Beauty of the Infinite is going to be a long-term project - flipping through the pages, you can tell it has all kinds of nifty insights, but it's going to take a while with the unabridged dictionary to make it through. Thing is, I don't think the ideas I've seen in it are that difficult to grasp, it's just that he likes to couch them in terms like 'chthonic' and 'tergiversate.'
One thing he still does that drives me up a wall, is the sentence (usually introductory) with five different clauses in it. Something like, "I would, I think, be uncharitable -if, admittedly, uncharitable is the correct word- were I to neglect my friend, the honorable..." etc. He opened this essay with that technique, and frankly there have to be easier ways to express one's fully justified contempt for christianity's cultured despisers.
Other than that, the rest of the article was fine, and fun reading.
Just sayin'.
You're right, he does have five books. My bad. I don't have Doors of the Sea and I believe Provocations and Laments is a collection of essays that one can find online...
I loved Atheist Delusions, devoured it in two sittings, though it could stand a little editorial cleaning. My only problem with it is that it wasn't two or three times bigger. Beauty of the Infinite is going to be a long-term project - flipping through the pages, you can tell it has all kinds of nifty insights, but it's going to take a while with the unabridged dictionary to make it through. Thing is, I don't think the ideas I've seen in it are that difficult to grasp, it's just that he likes to couch them in terms like 'chthonic' and 'tergiversate.'
One thing he still does that drives me up a wall, is the sentence (usually introductory) with five different clauses in it. Something like, "I would, I think, be uncharitable -if, admittedly, uncharitable is the correct word- were I to neglect my friend, the honorable..." etc. He opened this essay with that technique, and frankly there have to be easier ways to express one's fully justified contempt for christianity's cultured despisers.
Other than that, the rest of the article was fine, and fun reading.
Just sayin'.
6.7.2010 | 6:15pm
brettongarcia says:
When we are attracted to a writer because of his style, just because of the beauty of his writing - while there is no real substance underneath? In effect, we are being attracted to pornography. Or to a whore; attracted to a superficial painted appearance, without anything good inside. We are attracted to a "siren song." To writing that is in effect, pornography; it is all superficial appearance, and no real substance. We are attracted to the "Whore of Babylon"; to the often comely but misleading appearance of the "confusion of languages," of "tongues."
What is the SUBSTANCE here? In this case, the original primary source, Orosius, does firmly say that there had been 1) specifically BOOK chests. And 2) in several temples, plural. A random word omitted in some translations, does not change its meaning much if at all: the important fact is that book chests existed in more than one temple in Alexandria shortly after 391; and those chests had been emptied.
WHICH temples had books been in, specifically? Had they been in the Seraph? It hardly matters; likely the books of Alexandria could have been in any number of different locations; Orosius in fact mentions "temples," plural. The important thing is that significant numbers of books, were in temples. And thus a library existed in Alexandria. Until Theolophilus and his friends looted it.
Why all this stuff about gold, and not books, in some other accounts, outside Orosius? Why only one account mentioning books, while another account of the looting of temples, mentions mostly gold? Well: 1) how much can we expect an ancient document to tell us about? Can 2) you really argue from no other mentions? Then too, 3) having ANY ancient accounts of many events, is rare enough. It is enough that we have at least one offered here for now: Orosius.
By the way, 4) often a single books of the New Testament, is the only one, to mention an incident; do you therefore say that book is false? Some critics do; but not most believers.
So we have at least one mention of specifically empty book chests having been looted from Alexandria around 391; more do you want from 391 AD? Video tape? Then too, 5) that evidence is corroborated by other evidence cited elsewhere.
Then too after all, let's 6) use common sense: many of the kind of people who loot temples, are people who notice gold, more than books.
Or, 7) those who loot books, don't usually want to tell others about it. Loquacious looters? Probably a very small set.
What about lack of mention of books specifically in the Serah? If the Serapheum was destroyed in 391, then the lack of accounts of books in the Serapheum after the destruction, is logical.
Then too, it is not so important; the books could have been anywhere and everywhere; in many "temples" plural in fact as mentioned. But in any case, if the Serapheum was destroyed by 414, that leaves open the possibility it had been destroyed in 391. It may also have had its own chests of books - which of course were taken, before the place was razed down to the floor tiles.
Empty book chests in remaining temples, in any case, testify to many books somewhere in town, until the destruction. Perhaps, for that matter, if the Serapheum was demolished, the chests in other temples were even, the very chests looted from the Seraphim or Museum. Now emptied, having been sold by looters.
Now: motives. Didn't people in that day respect Greek reason and science? Would the people of the day, have refrained from even simply, destroying Greeks texts, out of reverence for Greek culture, and science? Likely the Greco-Roman temples destroyed by Christians, were demolished in part by Christians, because they disliked Greeks, Pagans in general; and/or their reason, and science. At TIMES and in SOME places - at times in Constantinople for example - Jews, Greeks, Christians, often respected each other and worked together. Other times though, they went to war and literally killed each other by the thousands. Looting and destroying. Especially note this: many of those who hated Greeks in general, no doubt also hate their culture - and philosophy and science too. (As they do to this day; as I know from having lived in Turkey).
So is it impossible to imagine people destroying ancient learning? Consider this too: book burnings are not unknown in history; not EVERYBODY is dutifully preserving the books of cultures they don't like.
Was any demolition or book-burning of Greco-Roman and other books, just because of their simple jingoism or racism? Or their hate for Greek learning too? Likely, both went hand in hand, often. Especially among the common people. Many hated Greeks - and no doubt, many of those who did, undoubtedly ALSO hated their Philosophy - and "learning" and "science" - too. Indeed, one ancient word in Persia for early men of learning, including alchemists and early proto-scientists, was "Magi" or "magicians"; these and other magicians were often reviled in the Old Testament and New (excepting the "Three Magi").
No doubt, a FEW Christian/Jewish intellectuals held back, in Constantinople for example, from hating EVERYTHING Pagan or Greek or Roman; especially a FEW sensible people valued their reason, their science. No doubt, some respected old forms of knowledge, and would want to save books writtin by other, even enemy peoples, other religions. But no doubt, thousands of others, undoubtedly, would not hold back from hating also the intellectual center of Greco-Roman culture; including all forms of its wisdom, and science.
What is the SUBSTANCE here? In this case, the original primary source, Orosius, does firmly say that there had been 1) specifically BOOK chests. And 2) in several temples, plural. A random word omitted in some translations, does not change its meaning much if at all: the important fact is that book chests existed in more than one temple in Alexandria shortly after 391; and those chests had been emptied.
WHICH temples had books been in, specifically? Had they been in the Seraph? It hardly matters; likely the books of Alexandria could have been in any number of different locations; Orosius in fact mentions "temples," plural. The important thing is that significant numbers of books, were in temples. And thus a library existed in Alexandria. Until Theolophilus and his friends looted it.
Why all this stuff about gold, and not books, in some other accounts, outside Orosius? Why only one account mentioning books, while another account of the looting of temples, mentions mostly gold? Well: 1) how much can we expect an ancient document to tell us about? Can 2) you really argue from no other mentions? Then too, 3) having ANY ancient accounts of many events, is rare enough. It is enough that we have at least one offered here for now: Orosius.
By the way, 4) often a single books of the New Testament, is the only one, to mention an incident; do you therefore say that book is false? Some critics do; but not most believers.
So we have at least one mention of specifically empty book chests having been looted from Alexandria around 391; more do you want from 391 AD? Video tape? Then too, 5) that evidence is corroborated by other evidence cited elsewhere.
Then too after all, let's 6) use common sense: many of the kind of people who loot temples, are people who notice gold, more than books.
Or, 7) those who loot books, don't usually want to tell others about it. Loquacious looters? Probably a very small set.
What about lack of mention of books specifically in the Serah? If the Serapheum was destroyed in 391, then the lack of accounts of books in the Serapheum after the destruction, is logical.
Then too, it is not so important; the books could have been anywhere and everywhere; in many "temples" plural in fact as mentioned. But in any case, if the Serapheum was destroyed by 414, that leaves open the possibility it had been destroyed in 391. It may also have had its own chests of books - which of course were taken, before the place was razed down to the floor tiles.
Empty book chests in remaining temples, in any case, testify to many books somewhere in town, until the destruction. Perhaps, for that matter, if the Serapheum was demolished, the chests in other temples were even, the very chests looted from the Seraphim or Museum. Now emptied, having been sold by looters.
Now: motives. Didn't people in that day respect Greek reason and science? Would the people of the day, have refrained from even simply, destroying Greeks texts, out of reverence for Greek culture, and science? Likely the Greco-Roman temples destroyed by Christians, were demolished in part by Christians, because they disliked Greeks, Pagans in general; and/or their reason, and science. At TIMES and in SOME places - at times in Constantinople for example - Jews, Greeks, Christians, often respected each other and worked together. Other times though, they went to war and literally killed each other by the thousands. Looting and destroying. Especially note this: many of those who hated Greeks in general, no doubt also hate their culture - and philosophy and science too. (As they do to this day; as I know from having lived in Turkey).
So is it impossible to imagine people destroying ancient learning? Consider this too: book burnings are not unknown in history; not EVERYBODY is dutifully preserving the books of cultures they don't like.
Was any demolition or book-burning of Greco-Roman and other books, just because of their simple jingoism or racism? Or their hate for Greek learning too? Likely, both went hand in hand, often. Especially among the common people. Many hated Greeks - and no doubt, many of those who did, undoubtedly ALSO hated their Philosophy - and "learning" and "science" - too. Indeed, one ancient word in Persia for early men of learning, including alchemists and early proto-scientists, was "Magi" or "magicians"; these and other magicians were often reviled in the Old Testament and New (excepting the "Three Magi").
No doubt, a FEW Christian/Jewish intellectuals held back, in Constantinople for example, from hating EVERYTHING Pagan or Greek or Roman; especially a FEW sensible people valued their reason, their science. No doubt, some respected old forms of knowledge, and would want to save books writtin by other, even enemy peoples, other religions. But no doubt, thousands of others, undoubtedly, would not hold back from hating also the intellectual center of Greco-Roman culture; including all forms of its wisdom, and science.
6.7.2010 | 6:24pm
Jon says:
@ brettongarcia:
I'm trying to read through these comments as fairly as possible to see if I can deduce a reasonable answer to the events Dr. Hart commented on in this article. I believe that is the only fair thing to do since I am not well read or studied at all in this portion of history. However, your arguments have completely lost any weight in my mind since you simply refuse to discuss, to have any sort of point-counter point debate with the others. Mostly, you are simply becoming offensive. You said
"It's all easy enough; its all firm, logical deduction. But that's the problem with Christians; they are lost in subjective self-"love"; in grandiloquence and vanity and self-love, and self-concious, self-loving elegance. While they're awful at science - and real History. They just can't reason; just just can't make the logical deductions; and they lack the hard-thinking rationality, to face their own sins."
Quite an ironic statement, not to mention totally narrow minded. Please, read a little bit about Alister McGrath and his academic accomplishments and tell me if he is "awful at science". Or please, read something about the amount of research Jaroslav Pelikan did for his "History of Christian Doctrine" five volume series, and tell me his is awful at "real History" (whatever you mean by real History). Of course, they are both Christians so I doubt you will take any of their accomplishments or academic endeavors with any "hard-thinking rationality".
Everyone else, please continue commenting because I really do enjoy the reading. I love that First Things allows us all to be so pompous, self-involved and grandiloquent.
Jon.
I'm trying to read through these comments as fairly as possible to see if I can deduce a reasonable answer to the events Dr. Hart commented on in this article. I believe that is the only fair thing to do since I am not well read or studied at all in this portion of history. However, your arguments have completely lost any weight in my mind since you simply refuse to discuss, to have any sort of point-counter point debate with the others. Mostly, you are simply becoming offensive. You said
"It's all easy enough; its all firm, logical deduction. But that's the problem with Christians; they are lost in subjective self-"love"; in grandiloquence and vanity and self-love, and self-concious, self-loving elegance. While they're awful at science - and real History. They just can't reason; just just can't make the logical deductions; and they lack the hard-thinking rationality, to face their own sins."
Quite an ironic statement, not to mention totally narrow minded. Please, read a little bit about Alister McGrath and his academic accomplishments and tell me if he is "awful at science". Or please, read something about the amount of research Jaroslav Pelikan did for his "History of Christian Doctrine" five volume series, and tell me his is awful at "real History" (whatever you mean by real History). Of course, they are both Christians so I doubt you will take any of their accomplishments or academic endeavors with any "hard-thinking rationality".
Everyone else, please continue commenting because I really do enjoy the reading. I love that First Things allows us all to be so pompous, self-involved and grandiloquent.
Jon.
6.7.2010 | 10:51pm
Ye Olde Statistician says:
1. Comments on Dr. Hart's style and vocabulary are appalling. I had not realized that the quality of education had fallen so low.
2. Ben Murphy said, "If David Hart was trying to absolve Christians of any part in Hypatia's death he did a terrible job, because by the end of the article, it is clear that Christians were responsible."
I can hardly wait to read what Mr. Murphy believes the violence done by black mobs tell us of the black race. Or what of the earlier riot in Alexandria that was part of the chain of events that ended in Hypatia's murder? A mob of Jews attacked and murdered Christians. What does Mr. Murphy believe this tells us of the character of Jews? Or what do the actions of the pagan mob that eviscerated the young Christian women in Heliopolis in the reign of Julian tell us of the character of pagans?
The whole effort to characterize an entire folk based on the actions of individuals is repugnant. It might be useful to distinguish between a mob of Christians and a Christian mob.
Dr. Hart was not trying to "absolve Christians of any part" in Hypatia's death. He was pointing out that her death had nothing to do with any supposed hostility to "science" (such as it was back then), Greek philosophy, women, or any of the other Modern concerns that we project back on ancient events.
brettongarcia says:
When we are attracted to a writer because of his style, just because of the beauty of his writing
Mr. Brettongarcia need have no personal worries on that account.
brettongarcia says:
Many hated Greeks - and no doubt, many of those who did, undoubtedly ALSO hated their Philosophy - and "learning" and "science" - too.
Dude, they =were= the Greeks. They were not an alien race that came to Alexandria from another planet. Far from hating Greek philosophy, Christians comprised all of Hypatia's known students (incl. two future bishops and possibly one saint). Christians like Augustine, Origen, and others had made Greek philosophy (Plato, specifically) a cornerstone of Christian theology. It continued to be studied, not only in Alexandria and Constantinople, but in Rome and even where circumstances permitted in Gothic and Frankish territory.
Of course, there were multiple repositories of books in Alexandria. Alexandria continued to be a center of learning and research down to the time of Simplicimus and John Philoponus, just before the muslim invasion. There was never a general looting and destruction of texts. Philoponus was able to write a commentary on the Physics of Aristotle in which he argued against Aristotelian physics and performed the inclined plane experiment that Galileo would do much later.
That Antony looted the Library of Pergamum to re-stock Alexandria was reported by Plutarch in his Life of Antony. He reports it with three or four other slanders against Antony and concludes that since they were spread by an enemy of Antony's they were probably not true.
If it weren't for the weenie some folks have against religion in general, Christianity as a whole, or (in one remarkable instance above) against the Council of Ephesus, this would not be an argument. But there are many who hold that if they do not like Group X, then Group X must be guilty of every bad thing that ever happened.
2. Ben Murphy said, "If David Hart was trying to absolve Christians of any part in Hypatia's death he did a terrible job, because by the end of the article, it is clear that Christians were responsible."
I can hardly wait to read what Mr. Murphy believes the violence done by black mobs tell us of the black race. Or what of the earlier riot in Alexandria that was part of the chain of events that ended in Hypatia's murder? A mob of Jews attacked and murdered Christians. What does Mr. Murphy believe this tells us of the character of Jews? Or what do the actions of the pagan mob that eviscerated the young Christian women in Heliopolis in the reign of Julian tell us of the character of pagans?
The whole effort to characterize an entire folk based on the actions of individuals is repugnant. It might be useful to distinguish between a mob of Christians and a Christian mob.
Dr. Hart was not trying to "absolve Christians of any part" in Hypatia's death. He was pointing out that her death had nothing to do with any supposed hostility to "science" (such as it was back then), Greek philosophy, women, or any of the other Modern concerns that we project back on ancient events.
brettongarcia says:
When we are attracted to a writer because of his style, just because of the beauty of his writing
Mr. Brettongarcia need have no personal worries on that account.
brettongarcia says:
Many hated Greeks - and no doubt, many of those who did, undoubtedly ALSO hated their Philosophy - and "learning" and "science" - too.
Dude, they =were= the Greeks. They were not an alien race that came to Alexandria from another planet. Far from hating Greek philosophy, Christians comprised all of Hypatia's known students (incl. two future bishops and possibly one saint). Christians like Augustine, Origen, and others had made Greek philosophy (Plato, specifically) a cornerstone of Christian theology. It continued to be studied, not only in Alexandria and Constantinople, but in Rome and even where circumstances permitted in Gothic and Frankish territory.
Of course, there were multiple repositories of books in Alexandria. Alexandria continued to be a center of learning and research down to the time of Simplicimus and John Philoponus, just before the muslim invasion. There was never a general looting and destruction of texts. Philoponus was able to write a commentary on the Physics of Aristotle in which he argued against Aristotelian physics and performed the inclined plane experiment that Galileo would do much later.
That Antony looted the Library of Pergamum to re-stock Alexandria was reported by Plutarch in his Life of Antony. He reports it with three or four other slanders against Antony and concludes that since they were spread by an enemy of Antony's they were probably not true.
If it weren't for the weenie some folks have against religion in general, Christianity as a whole, or (in one remarkable instance above) against the Council of Ephesus, this would not be an argument. But there are many who hold that if they do not like Group X, then Group X must be guilty of every bad thing that ever happened.
6.7.2010 | 11:50pm
Charles Freeman says:
Linda. First, apologies for my poor grammar. I am researching in Italy and struggling with an Iphone screen.
I am happy for readers to follow up the reviews of my work from
my Amazon author profile and set them against Hart's analysis in Atheist Delusions. What I can't find in Hart's work is any evidence that he has read any of therecent scholarship.
A lot of my work is based on 'on the ground research-I started work as an amateur archaeologist in Rome in 1966. much of my experience is distilled in my Blue Guide to Sites of Antiquity-2009. You can't go far in Classical Turkey where I am taking a study tour this year without being aware of Christian destruction. The massive temple to Artemis at Ephesusfamed throughout the Mediterranean,was demolished so completely by Christians that there is nothing left for visitors to see.
You do have to add the archaeology to the documentary evidence in this subject.
I will leave it for readers to decide between Hart and myself-perhaps I may even sell a book or two!
I am happy for readers to follow up the reviews of my work from
my Amazon author profile and set them against Hart's analysis in Atheist Delusions. What I can't find in Hart's work is any evidence that he has read any of therecent scholarship.
A lot of my work is based on 'on the ground research-I started work as an amateur archaeologist in Rome in 1966. much of my experience is distilled in my Blue Guide to Sites of Antiquity-2009. You can't go far in Classical Turkey where I am taking a study tour this year without being aware of Christian destruction. The massive temple to Artemis at Ephesusfamed throughout the Mediterranean,was demolished so completely by Christians that there is nothing left for visitors to see.
You do have to add the archaeology to the documentary evidence in this subject.
I will leave it for readers to decide between Hart and myself-perhaps I may even sell a book or two!
6.8.2010 | 1:17am
Charles Freeman says:
Linda. Two small points.Pseuo-Dionysius was a mystic not a rationalist -often used as an example of the retreat from reason-Erigena was eventually declared heretical. The Church itself declared that its doctrines , notably the Trinity,came from revelation, not reason. Who am I to disagree with that- it is still the official Catholic view if you read your catechism. As this topic is about the Christian destruction of pagan symbols,human and otherwise,I will leave it at that,but my books are there for those who wish to assess them for themselves.
Finally,if you take the assertion that monks copied out reams of classical texts with caution and actually look at what is RECORDED as surviving in western monasteries,there is actually very little-only ONE work by Plato,for instance.
I hope that readers of this blog will at least be aware that this a vast and fascinating area if approached without prejudice. I think it will be completely rewritten in the next ten years and the archaeological evidence will play a major part.
Finally,if you take the assertion that monks copied out reams of classical texts with caution and actually look at what is RECORDED as surviving in western monasteries,there is actually very little-only ONE work by Plato,for instance.
I hope that readers of this blog will at least be aware that this a vast and fascinating area if approached without prejudice. I think it will be completely rewritten in the next ten years and the archaeological evidence will play a major part.
6.8.2010 | 4:11am
Paul says:
Let the first demographic that is without sin cast the first stone. Violence in Christian history??? Gasp! NO!
I mean it's not like Pagans were terribly violent (Cough, Roman empire, Cough) or Atheists (Cough Mao, Stalin etc. etc. Cough) Or Muslims (Oh COME ON!)
Or... or ..or .... or....
Seriously what is the point of all this garbage?
MY demographic is better than your demographic.
Does this thread really amount to anything more than that?
Because I don't see it.
I mean it's not like Pagans were terribly violent (Cough, Roman empire, Cough) or Atheists (Cough Mao, Stalin etc. etc. Cough) Or Muslims (Oh COME ON!)
Or... or ..or .... or....
Seriously what is the point of all this garbage?
MY demographic is better than your demographic.
Does this thread really amount to anything more than that?
Because I don't see it.
6.8.2010 | 7:09am
brettongarcia says:
Charles Freeman:
Thanks for your assistance! And welcome to Turkey by the way; I lived in Izmir for two years, and recommend the coast.
Do we claim all Christians hated all Greeks? Of course not. Especially when the Greeks became the Christian, Byzantine, Eastern, Greek Orthodox Church.
But did many Christians - meaning especially the average people; more than intellectuals - hate Greek PAGANS, and NONCHRISTIAN pagan learning? Of course they did.
Remember, for example, the Old Testament Jews were often literally at war, with Greece and Rome; they and the "nations" were ancient enemies. In spite of some intellectual overlaps.
Christians and Greek pagans interfaced for a last brief moment on more or less equal terms, in the time of Hypatia; just as Rome was making Christianity the official religion of the empire, c. 400 AD. After that ... Christians were far less tolerant of Greco-Roman paganism; in fact, it was soon illegal in Rome.
The word "pagan" is still a bad word to this very day, in Southern Baptist churches. And to begin looking into Platonic elements of the writings of Paul, say, still causes some uneasiness in many circles. Not among educated intellectuals; but among ordinary Christians. But indeed, Hart himself in effect noted that; it was the Christian rabble, not the educated elite, that kills Hyptaia.
Then too, if you look at the political/military history of Greece, you see it being invaded and fought against over and over. By various nations/credos. From Visigoths, to the Christian crusaders.
Not everybody loved the Greeks and their learning. As those of us who have spent much time in Turkey know well enough.
Thanks for your assistance! And welcome to Turkey by the way; I lived in Izmir for two years, and recommend the coast.
Do we claim all Christians hated all Greeks? Of course not. Especially when the Greeks became the Christian, Byzantine, Eastern, Greek Orthodox Church.
But did many Christians - meaning especially the average people; more than intellectuals - hate Greek PAGANS, and NONCHRISTIAN pagan learning? Of course they did.
Remember, for example, the Old Testament Jews were often literally at war, with Greece and Rome; they and the "nations" were ancient enemies. In spite of some intellectual overlaps.
Christians and Greek pagans interfaced for a last brief moment on more or less equal terms, in the time of Hypatia; just as Rome was making Christianity the official religion of the empire, c. 400 AD. After that ... Christians were far less tolerant of Greco-Roman paganism; in fact, it was soon illegal in Rome.
The word "pagan" is still a bad word to this very day, in Southern Baptist churches. And to begin looking into Platonic elements of the writings of Paul, say, still causes some uneasiness in many circles. Not among educated intellectuals; but among ordinary Christians. But indeed, Hart himself in effect noted that; it was the Christian rabble, not the educated elite, that kills Hyptaia.
Then too, if you look at the political/military history of Greece, you see it being invaded and fought against over and over. By various nations/credos. From Visigoths, to the Christian crusaders.
Not everybody loved the Greeks and their learning. As those of us who have spent much time in Turkey know well enough.
6.8.2010 | 10:13am
Linda L. says:
Charles Freeman shows his typical scholarly care. He claims that, after Nicea, it was a capital offense to break with Nicene doctrine. This is false. The death of Priscillian in Spain was a great scandal, and it would be many years indeed before the institutional church or the secular arm started killing people it deemed heretics. Bad show, of course, but get your facts right.
He also makes a false distinction between "rationalists" and "mystics," as if that makes any sense when talking about ancient philosophy. The Pseudo-Dionysius was a Christian Neoplatonist philosopher, who made great use of Proclus, and whose Divine Names has a remarkably sophisticated ontology, as well as laying the groundwork for much later philosophy on predication and analogy. He is the single most influential figure in vast territories of the Christian intellectual tradition, both East and West. In general, his metaphysics is about as philosophically sophisticated as any writing of the late ancient world.
He states that the Church taught that the doctrine of the Trinity was a revealed doctrine. True, but not to the exclusion of "rationality," as he seems to think. It was revealed by the historical economy of salvation, it was believed, but required endless philosophical refinement to be stated doctrinally.
He also continues to rely on Ramsay MacMullen, but one thing that Hart's last book demonstrated pretty conclusively (demonstrated, not implied) is that MacMullen is a scholar who routinely misrepresents sources. He cannot be trusted. He has forfeited the right.
Anyway, this is a silly argument. Freeman is not a classicist or trained in ancient philosophy, and it is an area where he should not dabble. If he really wants to put his scholarly pedigrees up against Hart's, he's just going to come away looking foolish. His "Closing" book was a disaster.
And who is Brettongarcia? He actually seems to think Hart is engaged in historical revisionism for denying that myth of a Christian destruction of the Great Library. In fact, Hart is simply saying what all good historians of the period already know. This is no great challenge to scholarly orthodoxy, but only to popular historical legend. But then again it's hard to take seriously anyone who calls David Hart an amateur historian while revealing that he himself believes the Romans burned the whole city of Jerusalem to the ground in 70 ad. Sheesh, as they say.
He also makes a false distinction between "rationalists" and "mystics," as if that makes any sense when talking about ancient philosophy. The Pseudo-Dionysius was a Christian Neoplatonist philosopher, who made great use of Proclus, and whose Divine Names has a remarkably sophisticated ontology, as well as laying the groundwork for much later philosophy on predication and analogy. He is the single most influential figure in vast territories of the Christian intellectual tradition, both East and West. In general, his metaphysics is about as philosophically sophisticated as any writing of the late ancient world.
He states that the Church taught that the doctrine of the Trinity was a revealed doctrine. True, but not to the exclusion of "rationality," as he seems to think. It was revealed by the historical economy of salvation, it was believed, but required endless philosophical refinement to be stated doctrinally.
He also continues to rely on Ramsay MacMullen, but one thing that Hart's last book demonstrated pretty conclusively (demonstrated, not implied) is that MacMullen is a scholar who routinely misrepresents sources. He cannot be trusted. He has forfeited the right.
Anyway, this is a silly argument. Freeman is not a classicist or trained in ancient philosophy, and it is an area where he should not dabble. If he really wants to put his scholarly pedigrees up against Hart's, he's just going to come away looking foolish. His "Closing" book was a disaster.
And who is Brettongarcia? He actually seems to think Hart is engaged in historical revisionism for denying that myth of a Christian destruction of the Great Library. In fact, Hart is simply saying what all good historians of the period already know. This is no great challenge to scholarly orthodoxy, but only to popular historical legend. But then again it's hard to take seriously anyone who calls David Hart an amateur historian while revealing that he himself believes the Romans burned the whole city of Jerusalem to the ground in 70 ad. Sheesh, as they say.
6.8.2010 | 10:17am
James Hannam says:
Hi Charles,
Just a quickie. You mention that Christians destroyed the temple of Artemis at Ephesus. Could you point me to your source for this? The only historical record of the event I can find says pagan Goths burnt it down in around 260AD.
And an interesting point for everyone on the Serapeum in Alexandria. Archaeologists (which as Charles so rightly says are repainting our view of the past) have noted that the collonades in which we expect that the library was found were NOT destroyed in 391AD and may have survived until the Arab invasions (see McKenzie et al in The Journal of Roman Studies, 94 (2004) 73-121). Only the inner temple was razed by the mob. But of course the library had already gone by 391AD in any case. Ammianus leaves no room for doubt on this point.
Best wishes
Dr James Hannam
Just a quickie. You mention that Christians destroyed the temple of Artemis at Ephesus. Could you point me to your source for this? The only historical record of the event I can find says pagan Goths burnt it down in around 260AD.
And an interesting point for everyone on the Serapeum in Alexandria. Archaeologists (which as Charles so rightly says are repainting our view of the past) have noted that the collonades in which we expect that the library was found were NOT destroyed in 391AD and may have survived until the Arab invasions (see McKenzie et al in The Journal of Roman Studies, 94 (2004) 73-121). Only the inner temple was razed by the mob. But of course the library had already gone by 391AD in any case. Ammianus leaves no room for doubt on this point.
Best wishes
Dr James Hannam
6.8.2010 | 11:53am
GeronimoRumplestiltskin says:
brettongarcia:
Your descent into incoherence continues, I see.
You wrote:
"A random word omitted in some translations, does not change its meaning much if at all..."
It was not "A random word omitted" word, but an omitting of a word that weakens your claim that there MUST have been books in the Serapeum by stating that only "some" temples contained books; together with the fact that no account of the temple's destruction mentions books being taken or destroyed (though the fate of numerous other items was detailed), and with the fact that
"The pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus, describing the Serapeum not long before its demolition, had clearly spoken of its libraries as something no longer in existence."
...would convince any sane person that there were likely no books in the Serapeum to be looted or destroyed.
You also put forth this mind-boggling argument:
"What about lack of mention of books specifically in the Serah? If the Serapheum was destroyed in 391, then the lack of accounts of books in the Serapheum after the destruction, is logical."
This is perhaps the most incompetent argument in support of any thesis since Richard Dawkins' last book. Ammianus said the libraries were gone prior to its destruction. No account of the destruction of the Serapheum mentions books. And your response is, "Well, naturally there were no books because they were destroyed along with the Serapheum." And you have the nerve to accuse others of not being capable of reason.
I am truly sorry for you that you feel so compelled to try to distort the destruction of the Serapeum and the murder of Hypatia to fit into your narrative of "Christianity is against science, reason, women, and pretty much everything that is good, and will ruthlessly murder any who oppose them." I am also truly sorry that you were compelled to insult Dr. Hart in particular and all Christians in general as being dishonest and incapable of reason, all the while arguing your case as incompetently and illogically as you have. I suppose, as a Christian, that I should be worried for your soul; honestly, having picked through your above screeds, I am much more worried for your sanity.
Good luck and God Bless,
GR
Your descent into incoherence continues, I see.
You wrote:
"A random word omitted in some translations, does not change its meaning much if at all..."
It was not "A random word omitted" word, but an omitting of a word that weakens your claim that there MUST have been books in the Serapeum by stating that only "some" temples contained books; together with the fact that no account of the temple's destruction mentions books being taken or destroyed (though the fate of numerous other items was detailed), and with the fact that
"The pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus, describing the Serapeum not long before its demolition, had clearly spoken of its libraries as something no longer in existence."
...would convince any sane person that there were likely no books in the Serapeum to be looted or destroyed.
You also put forth this mind-boggling argument:
"What about lack of mention of books specifically in the Serah? If the Serapheum was destroyed in 391, then the lack of accounts of books in the Serapheum after the destruction, is logical."
This is perhaps the most incompetent argument in support of any thesis since Richard Dawkins' last book. Ammianus said the libraries were gone prior to its destruction. No account of the destruction of the Serapheum mentions books. And your response is, "Well, naturally there were no books because they were destroyed along with the Serapheum." And you have the nerve to accuse others of not being capable of reason.
I am truly sorry for you that you feel so compelled to try to distort the destruction of the Serapeum and the murder of Hypatia to fit into your narrative of "Christianity is against science, reason, women, and pretty much everything that is good, and will ruthlessly murder any who oppose them." I am also truly sorry that you were compelled to insult Dr. Hart in particular and all Christians in general as being dishonest and incapable of reason, all the while arguing your case as incompetently and illogically as you have. I suppose, as a Christian, that I should be worried for your soul; honestly, having picked through your above screeds, I am much more worried for your sanity.
Good luck and God Bless,
GR
6.8.2010 | 12:26pm
Charles Freeman says:
James. I am without my library so this from memory. The Temple of Artemis was rebuilt. The sources say that afinal destruction in c.400 was at the direct command of John Chrysostom. There are so many cases where Christian bishops added such destructions to their c.v.s that we cannot be sure but I think the archaeology fits.
I loved Linda's description of Closing as a disaster. Its 80,000 plus sales have subsidized my less profitable activities. Harvard,MIT,and some other colleges have an annual Roundtable Conference on Faith and Reason. John polkinghorne was their guest speaker in 2007. I was in 2008 with Closing as the study book. At the same time Yale UP offered me a two book deal as a result of Closing. Above all my intellectual life has been transformed by the enormous number of people who have discussed Closing with me. The issues in it resonate with people. My only regret is that more have not readmy later books that develop my themes.
All these people have clearly been deceived but if so the sooner I can write another disaster the better. Closing has enrichened my intellectual life enormously!
If I am quite such a fraud as Linda suggests, I wonder why my Egypt, Greece
And Rome was accepted by OUP and has also sold70,000 copies in its two editions. It only goes to show that there are some things that are beyond reason!guide
I loved Linda's description of Closing as a disaster. Its 80,000 plus sales have subsidized my less profitable activities. Harvard,MIT,and some other colleges have an annual Roundtable Conference on Faith and Reason. John polkinghorne was their guest speaker in 2007. I was in 2008 with Closing as the study book. At the same time Yale UP offered me a two book deal as a result of Closing. Above all my intellectual life has been transformed by the enormous number of people who have discussed Closing with me. The issues in it resonate with people. My only regret is that more have not readmy later books that develop my themes.
All these people have clearly been deceived but if so the sooner I can write another disaster the better. Closing has enrichened my intellectual life enormously!
If I am quite such a fraud as Linda suggests, I wonder why my Egypt, Greece
And Rome was accepted by OUP and has also sold70,000 copies in its two editions. It only goes to show that there are some things that are beyond reason!guide
6.8.2010 | 1:20pm
Brettongarcia says:
Linda:
You misrepresent my remarks; I say the Romans burned "nearly" the entire city of Jerusalem to the ground. As they did, semi-accidentally it is said, when they destroyed the Temple in 70 AD.
OR have the Christian revisionists disappeared that well-known fact too, recently?
If so, here's a standard reference on the event:
"The Roman seige began at Passover 70 CE, while internecine warfare raged in teh city. Alll Jerusalem was in the hands of teh legions by Late August. By order of Titus it was levelled to the ground, the only exceptions being the great towers..." (Jerome Murphy-OConnor, OP, Prof. of New Testament, "Jerusalem," The Oxford Companion to the Bible, 1993, p. 352.)."
No doubt as Charles says, many of us are making some errors, in our present first, rough draft of the new history of Christianity. But "we all make many mistakes," as St. James said, even of the saints. And things are firming up better and better, all the time.
Standard history says that in 70 AD the city of Jerusalem, was leveled by the Romans, except for a few towers. Some reports mention fires that "accidentally" started in the city, as part of the process; though others suggest the Romans deliberately started them. In any case, the city was gone, the classic literature says. Perhaps "burned" is not appropriate; "razed" might be better?
Are you denying the destruction of Jerusalem c. 70 AD? Have the Christian apologists and revisionists recently disappeared this part of history too? The famous "Destruction of the Second Temple," as Jewish history refers to this c. AD 70 event?
Just how much history are Christians now trying to whitewash and disappear? Haven't they read the BIBLE, telling them to tell the truth; not "bear false witness"? Not to "whitewash" their own sins, but "confess" them?
As for the libraries at Alex? They were destroyed and rebuilt fairly often; most notably in the time of Caesar, c. 48 BC; which is the famous "Destruction of the Great Library at Alexandria." But many libraries were built up again, in Alex. And so, the general order in 319 AD by the Christian emperor, to "God Lover," to demolish "all" the "temples" in Alexandria, would have been a particularly dramatic moment in the demolition of "pagan" knowledge.
Who is Linda L.? Contemporary historians need to think this through carefully. The conventional historical idea of the destruction of "The Great Library at Alexandria" to be sure, focuses on the first, and most dramatic time of destruction; in the time of Caesar. However, a secondary historical tradition - as supported by evidence repeated here - now suggests, from the above, that the libraries were at least partially rebuilt or replaced by other Alexandrian libraries; but then destroyed again, c. 391.
This was not to be sure, the most famous destruction, of the configuration that is conventionally known in History, as "The" Great Library. Still, I now assert, it is a significant demolition of an important successor to that: the later nexus of Libraries at Alexandria. A nexus that was good enough to sustain much scholarship there, after Caesar.
And unfortunately, this newer, scholarly collection of books, would have been signifiantly set back - when Christians began looting and tearing down pagan temples and the libraries associated with them, in 391.
So that in effect, "an" if not "the" destruction of a great Alexandrian Library, took place in 391. As suggested by Orosius, among others.
And so a point of semantics. To date, THE "Destruction of the Great Library at Alexandria" has often referred to only the demolition in the time of Caesar; however, it is now time for historians, to be more cognizant of the rebuilt libraries; and their fate at the hands of Christians, c. 391 AD. Historians need to take more seriously, the rebuilt, Alexandrian library nexus. And its destruction.
In noting this, by the way, are we saying CHristians were much worse than other cultures, in this violence? Not at all. We are just suggesting that Christians are not quite as good or holier-than-thou, as they have claimed; Christians did many bad things, often enough.
And indeed, they are bad enough today, here and now, too: shouldn't any real Christian be embarassed by the easy acceptance, by many pro-Christian commentators here and now, of the admitted murder of Hypatia by Christians? Clearly CHristians are not as good as they claim; here many are not even embarassed when their predecessors became murderers.
The admitted Christian murder of Hypatia, is all but simply ignored here. And almost no one objects to this. Almost no alleged Christian, here, objects to Christians murdering Hypatia. This is enough evidence in itself, of their hypocrisy and murderousness.
As far as the antagonism of Christianity to science? Some of my remarks here are obviously hyperbole; many Christians did learn a lot of science. But it was always a difficult thing for them. Since 1) a core doctrine of popular (if not elite) Christianity - the existence of physical, supernatural miracles - conflicted dramatically with an anti-supernatural science. Even in the time of Socrates and Plato (who were at times pious, but other times said things doubting the gods).
Then too, there are hundreds of historical accounts of individual conflicts, between scientists and the Church; from 2) Galileo, to 3) Padua forbidding the dissection of bodies. Even today, 4) just look around you: look at the current Christian fundamentalists insisting the world is only 6,000 years old.
I myself believe that the Bible itself suggests that Christianity can be and must be compatible with real science. And historically, many Christians have tried to accomodate science. On the other hand, there have obviously often been many deep conflicts between the two.
And it should come as no surprise, that such conflicts began to surface dramatically, c. 391 CE. When the obviously at-least partially rational, obviously successful engineering culture of traditional "pagan," Greco-Roman civilization, was attacked by Christians. In Alexandria, Egypt. When, if not "The" first Great Alexandrian Library, but a successor network, another great Alexandrian library network, was demolished. According not to pop tradition, but sources like Orosius, etc..
By the way, to Charles Freeman: Merhaba! ("Hello" in Turkish). Good luck in re-assessing, on site, more recent archeological data on the Temple of Artemis. Which indeed, the Bible itself noted, was already being verbally attacked, when Paul opposed its god, Artemis, by supporting another God of his own (Acts 19.24 - 20.l1)
You misrepresent my remarks; I say the Romans burned "nearly" the entire city of Jerusalem to the ground. As they did, semi-accidentally it is said, when they destroyed the Temple in 70 AD.
OR have the Christian revisionists disappeared that well-known fact too, recently?
If so, here's a standard reference on the event:
"The Roman seige began at Passover 70 CE, while internecine warfare raged in teh city. Alll Jerusalem was in the hands of teh legions by Late August. By order of Titus it was levelled to the ground, the only exceptions being the great towers..." (Jerome Murphy-OConnor, OP, Prof. of New Testament, "Jerusalem," The Oxford Companion to the Bible, 1993, p. 352.)."
No doubt as Charles says, many of us are making some errors, in our present first, rough draft of the new history of Christianity. But "we all make many mistakes," as St. James said, even of the saints. And things are firming up better and better, all the time.
Standard history says that in 70 AD the city of Jerusalem, was leveled by the Romans, except for a few towers. Some reports mention fires that "accidentally" started in the city, as part of the process; though others suggest the Romans deliberately started them. In any case, the city was gone, the classic literature says. Perhaps "burned" is not appropriate; "razed" might be better?
Are you denying the destruction of Jerusalem c. 70 AD? Have the Christian apologists and revisionists recently disappeared this part of history too? The famous "Destruction of the Second Temple," as Jewish history refers to this c. AD 70 event?
Just how much history are Christians now trying to whitewash and disappear? Haven't they read the BIBLE, telling them to tell the truth; not "bear false witness"? Not to "whitewash" their own sins, but "confess" them?
As for the libraries at Alex? They were destroyed and rebuilt fairly often; most notably in the time of Caesar, c. 48 BC; which is the famous "Destruction of the Great Library at Alexandria." But many libraries were built up again, in Alex. And so, the general order in 319 AD by the Christian emperor, to "God Lover," to demolish "all" the "temples" in Alexandria, would have been a particularly dramatic moment in the demolition of "pagan" knowledge.
Who is Linda L.? Contemporary historians need to think this through carefully. The conventional historical idea of the destruction of "The Great Library at Alexandria" to be sure, focuses on the first, and most dramatic time of destruction; in the time of Caesar. However, a secondary historical tradition - as supported by evidence repeated here - now suggests, from the above, that the libraries were at least partially rebuilt or replaced by other Alexandrian libraries; but then destroyed again, c. 391.
This was not to be sure, the most famous destruction, of the configuration that is conventionally known in History, as "The" Great Library. Still, I now assert, it is a significant demolition of an important successor to that: the later nexus of Libraries at Alexandria. A nexus that was good enough to sustain much scholarship there, after Caesar.
And unfortunately, this newer, scholarly collection of books, would have been signifiantly set back - when Christians began looting and tearing down pagan temples and the libraries associated with them, in 391.
So that in effect, "an" if not "the" destruction of a great Alexandrian Library, took place in 391. As suggested by Orosius, among others.
And so a point of semantics. To date, THE "Destruction of the Great Library at Alexandria" has often referred to only the demolition in the time of Caesar; however, it is now time for historians, to be more cognizant of the rebuilt libraries; and their fate at the hands of Christians, c. 391 AD. Historians need to take more seriously, the rebuilt, Alexandrian library nexus. And its destruction.
In noting this, by the way, are we saying CHristians were much worse than other cultures, in this violence? Not at all. We are just suggesting that Christians are not quite as good or holier-than-thou, as they have claimed; Christians did many bad things, often enough.
And indeed, they are bad enough today, here and now, too: shouldn't any real Christian be embarassed by the easy acceptance, by many pro-Christian commentators here and now, of the admitted murder of Hypatia by Christians? Clearly CHristians are not as good as they claim; here many are not even embarassed when their predecessors became murderers.
The admitted Christian murder of Hypatia, is all but simply ignored here. And almost no one objects to this. Almost no alleged Christian, here, objects to Christians murdering Hypatia. This is enough evidence in itself, of their hypocrisy and murderousness.
As far as the antagonism of Christianity to science? Some of my remarks here are obviously hyperbole; many Christians did learn a lot of science. But it was always a difficult thing for them. Since 1) a core doctrine of popular (if not elite) Christianity - the existence of physical, supernatural miracles - conflicted dramatically with an anti-supernatural science. Even in the time of Socrates and Plato (who were at times pious, but other times said things doubting the gods).
Then too, there are hundreds of historical accounts of individual conflicts, between scientists and the Church; from 2) Galileo, to 3) Padua forbidding the dissection of bodies. Even today, 4) just look around you: look at the current Christian fundamentalists insisting the world is only 6,000 years old.
I myself believe that the Bible itself suggests that Christianity can be and must be compatible with real science. And historically, many Christians have tried to accomodate science. On the other hand, there have obviously often been many deep conflicts between the two.
And it should come as no surprise, that such conflicts began to surface dramatically, c. 391 CE. When the obviously at-least partially rational, obviously successful engineering culture of traditional "pagan," Greco-Roman civilization, was attacked by Christians. In Alexandria, Egypt. When, if not "The" first Great Alexandrian Library, but a successor network, another great Alexandrian library network, was demolished. According not to pop tradition, but sources like Orosius, etc..
By the way, to Charles Freeman: Merhaba! ("Hello" in Turkish). Good luck in re-assessing, on site, more recent archeological data on the Temple of Artemis. Which indeed, the Bible itself noted, was already being verbally attacked, when Paul opposed its god, Artemis, by supporting another God of his own (Acts 19.24 - 20.l1)
6.8.2010 | 1:28pm
Peter Leavitt says:
The best take of Charles Freeman comes from Dr. Hannam's summary paragraph of his review of The Closing of the Western Mind as follows:
"So, The Closing of the Western Mind explains something that never happened and manages to get the explanation wrong. I’m going to indulge in a little armchair psychology to try and explain how Freeman managed to make the catastrophic mistake of writing fiction and calling it history. As mentioned at the start of this review, Freeman and I both share a passion for the classical world. I get the impression that Freeman sincerely regrets its passing and cast around for someone to blame. Like many other humanists, he settled on the Christians and set out to write the indictment. From there it all started to go wrong. Freeman put the hypothesis before the research and ended up with a brilliantly written piece of anti-Christian polemic.
"A classics don once said to me of Tacitus’s histories, “enjoy it, but don’t believe it.” The same applies to The Closing of the Western Mind."
Though Dr. Hannam is being properly gracious to Freeman on this thread, I prefer Linda's salty remarks.
"So, The Closing of the Western Mind explains something that never happened and manages to get the explanation wrong. I’m going to indulge in a little armchair psychology to try and explain how Freeman managed to make the catastrophic mistake of writing fiction and calling it history. As mentioned at the start of this review, Freeman and I both share a passion for the classical world. I get the impression that Freeman sincerely regrets its passing and cast around for someone to blame. Like many other humanists, he settled on the Christians and set out to write the indictment. From there it all started to go wrong. Freeman put the hypothesis before the research and ended up with a brilliantly written piece of anti-Christian polemic.
"A classics don once said to me of Tacitus’s histories, “enjoy it, but don’t believe it.” The same applies to The Closing of the Western Mind."
Though Dr. Hannam is being properly gracious to Freeman on this thread, I prefer Linda's salty remarks.
6.8.2010 | 2:17pm
Charles freeman says:
If people want to go on being obsessed with my Closing of the Western Mind -2002! so be it-but I did clarify my thoughts in my AD 381 and that book provides much more detailed analysis of the subject of this whole debate. I can only ask readers to look at the 16 unsolicited reviews, several of which outline its argument in detail, on Amazon.com to see whether it is of interest. I am only trying to contribute productively to this debate! There has always been a minority of my readers who wish to cast me as some kind of bogeyman! Good luck to them! I am happy to rely on the views and support of the majority of my readers!
6.8.2010 | 2:25pm
GeronimoRumplestiltskin says:
Brettongarcia:
You continue to amaze.
You wrote:
"And indeed, they are bad enough today, here and now, too: shouldn't any real Christian be embarassed by the easy acceptance, by many pro-Christian commentators here and now, of the admitted murder of Hypatia by Christians? Clearly CHristians are not as good as they claim; here many are not even embarassed when their predecessors became murderers. "
Do you honestly believe that I - or any other Christian commenter in this thread - am in any way defending the murder of Hypatia? Or the destruction and/or looting of pagan temples? I (we) am/are simply arguing that the actual evidence does NOT support the thesis that these actions were due to any supposed animus on the part of Christianity to science, religion, or learned women. Are you really incapable of understanding that, or are you willfully ignoring it?
Do you honestly believe that I - or any other Christian commenter in this thread - have an obligation to answer for the actions of a group of people who lived more than 1,600 years ago, in a culture far removed from ours, and in a political climate far different from ours, just because they professed the same creed we do (and, as you admit, perhaps only "at least" nominally)?
If 'yes' to the above question, then are you likewise required to answer for the actions of those who share (however nominally) your beliefs, whatever they may be, no matter how far in the past nor how far removed from your present cultural and political climate they were? If not, why not?
The truth - no matter how hard you wish to ignore this fact - is that regardless of whatever your religious belief may be (Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, pagan, or - especially- atheist), blame for a number of dead bodies and irrational acts throughout history can be laid at the feet (for one reason or another) of those whose beliefs resemble yours. Your particular affliction is that you are determined to extrapolate from historical events an animus on the part of the historical Church towards science, reason, and learning, despite evidence clearly contradicting your arguments and the abandonment by most modern professional historians of the tired "Church as enemy of science, reason, and learning" narrative.
Given my questions above, your choices now are rather simple: either disclose your personal beliefs and begin the long an arduous process of answering for all the sins of those throughout history whose beliefs resemble yours, or find a new hobby other than "trying to indict Christianity with incompetent and foolish argumentation". I hear Fantasy Baseball is fun, or perhaps stamp collecting....
Take care and God Bless,
GeronimoRumplestiltskin
You continue to amaze.
You wrote:
"And indeed, they are bad enough today, here and now, too: shouldn't any real Christian be embarassed by the easy acceptance, by many pro-Christian commentators here and now, of the admitted murder of Hypatia by Christians? Clearly CHristians are not as good as they claim; here many are not even embarassed when their predecessors became murderers. "
Do you honestly believe that I - or any other Christian commenter in this thread - am in any way defending the murder of Hypatia? Or the destruction and/or looting of pagan temples? I (we) am/are simply arguing that the actual evidence does NOT support the thesis that these actions were due to any supposed animus on the part of Christianity to science, religion, or learned women. Are you really incapable of understanding that, or are you willfully ignoring it?
Do you honestly believe that I - or any other Christian commenter in this thread - have an obligation to answer for the actions of a group of people who lived more than 1,600 years ago, in a culture far removed from ours, and in a political climate far different from ours, just because they professed the same creed we do (and, as you admit, perhaps only "at least" nominally)?
If 'yes' to the above question, then are you likewise required to answer for the actions of those who share (however nominally) your beliefs, whatever they may be, no matter how far in the past nor how far removed from your present cultural and political climate they were? If not, why not?
The truth - no matter how hard you wish to ignore this fact - is that regardless of whatever your religious belief may be (Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, pagan, or - especially- atheist), blame for a number of dead bodies and irrational acts throughout history can be laid at the feet (for one reason or another) of those whose beliefs resemble yours. Your particular affliction is that you are determined to extrapolate from historical events an animus on the part of the historical Church towards science, reason, and learning, despite evidence clearly contradicting your arguments and the abandonment by most modern professional historians of the tired "Church as enemy of science, reason, and learning" narrative.
Given my questions above, your choices now are rather simple: either disclose your personal beliefs and begin the long an arduous process of answering for all the sins of those throughout history whose beliefs resemble yours, or find a new hobby other than "trying to indict Christianity with incompetent and foolish argumentation". I hear Fantasy Baseball is fun, or perhaps stamp collecting....
Take care and God Bless,
GeronimoRumplestiltskin
6.8.2010 | 2:36pm
brettongarcia says:
Geronimo Rumplestiltskin:
1) Should I have to seriously address a person called "Geronimo Rumplestiltskin"?
But briefly: 2) I am unconcerned about the existence or non-existence, of either the Seraph or the Museum, in 391. Because, as suggested above, I am now of the opinion that various libraries could have existed in various OTHER parts of Alexandria, OTHER "temples," c. 391, before and after the destruction of either of these, or both.
Personally - as I believe I implied somewhere above - I am not committed to the presence of libraries, in 391, in either the old Museum, or in Serapheum. Indeed I am unconcerned with the existence of either. Here, I follow Orosius, in noting collections in UNNAMED "temples."
I'm suggesting in fact, that if the Museum and/or Serapheum WERE destroyed, any suriving or new collection, would of course be ... IN YET ANOTHER LOCATION, aside from either of these; some OTHER "temples."
I am 3) also, following Orosius, not committed to the existence of libraries in ALL such temples either. So a) your minor change regarding translation does nothing here. Indeed, in any case b) the first translation can be read the same way as the second; to say books existed in "temples" does not imply ALL of them. Nor does any part of my argument, assume libraries in ALL temples; only in two of them or more.
In a big, scholarly town like Alex, likely there were quite a few places, even many temples, to stash books. Other than the Seraph, or the Museum; which indeed might well have not even existed in 391.
Therefore simply: my thesis, following Orosius, was that the "New Alexandrian Library," as I hereby term it here, was found in one or more "temples." But those "temples" are unnamed; and were probably in fact temples OTHER than the Serpah, or the Museum.
We have countless records of scholars reading books in Alex around that time; obviously, they were reading from collections therefore, in other locations in the city.
Other temples.
When one library burns down, often towns put together other, new ones, in other buildings. A notoriously scholarly town like Alex, likely did not tolerate the non-existence of a library long. So if the Museum and/or the Seraph were demolished, I suggest they simply established other libraries, in other "temples." As suggested from our quote from Orosius.
And it was that "New Alexandrian" collection, as I hereby term it, that the c. 391 demolitions, would have destroyed.
1) Should I have to seriously address a person called "Geronimo Rumplestiltskin"?
But briefly: 2) I am unconcerned about the existence or non-existence, of either the Seraph or the Museum, in 391. Because, as suggested above, I am now of the opinion that various libraries could have existed in various OTHER parts of Alexandria, OTHER "temples," c. 391, before and after the destruction of either of these, or both.
Personally - as I believe I implied somewhere above - I am not committed to the presence of libraries, in 391, in either the old Museum, or in Serapheum. Indeed I am unconcerned with the existence of either. Here, I follow Orosius, in noting collections in UNNAMED "temples."
I'm suggesting in fact, that if the Museum and/or Serapheum WERE destroyed, any suriving or new collection, would of course be ... IN YET ANOTHER LOCATION, aside from either of these; some OTHER "temples."
I am 3) also, following Orosius, not committed to the existence of libraries in ALL such temples either. So a) your minor change regarding translation does nothing here. Indeed, in any case b) the first translation can be read the same way as the second; to say books existed in "temples" does not imply ALL of them. Nor does any part of my argument, assume libraries in ALL temples; only in two of them or more.
In a big, scholarly town like Alex, likely there were quite a few places, even many temples, to stash books. Other than the Seraph, or the Museum; which indeed might well have not even existed in 391.
Therefore simply: my thesis, following Orosius, was that the "New Alexandrian Library," as I hereby term it here, was found in one or more "temples." But those "temples" are unnamed; and were probably in fact temples OTHER than the Serpah, or the Museum.
We have countless records of scholars reading books in Alex around that time; obviously, they were reading from collections therefore, in other locations in the city.
Other temples.
When one library burns down, often towns put together other, new ones, in other buildings. A notoriously scholarly town like Alex, likely did not tolerate the non-existence of a library long. So if the Museum and/or the Seraph were demolished, I suggest they simply established other libraries, in other "temples." As suggested from our quote from Orosius.
And it was that "New Alexandrian" collection, as I hereby term it, that the c. 391 demolitions, would have destroyed.
6.8.2010 | 3:42pm
GeronimoRumplestiltskin says:
brettongarcia:
You are truly a piece of work.
What, exactly, did you think you accomplished in your post of 11:36am? You made fun of my handle and contradicted your earlier arguments as to the presence of books in the Serapeum. You provided absolutely nothing in the way of support for your thesis that these books - wherever they were - were destroyed (indeed you earlier revised this claim to that these works were "sold") due to any animus on the part of the historical Church towards science, reason, or learned women.
I will assume that you did not respond to anything I wrote at 11:25am because it was not yet posted at the time of your writing. Now that response should be a treat....
GR
You are truly a piece of work.
What, exactly, did you think you accomplished in your post of 11:36am? You made fun of my handle and contradicted your earlier arguments as to the presence of books in the Serapeum. You provided absolutely nothing in the way of support for your thesis that these books - wherever they were - were destroyed (indeed you earlier revised this claim to that these works were "sold") due to any animus on the part of the historical Church towards science, reason, or learned women.
I will assume that you did not respond to anything I wrote at 11:25am because it was not yet posted at the time of your writing. Now that response should be a treat....
GR
6.8.2010 | 3:44pm
Peter Leavitt says:
The best tribute to pagan thought is that the ablest of Christian thinkers respected it and integrated it into their own thought, especially Augustine with Plato and Aquinas with Aristotle. Also, Christian monks did much to preserve the best of pagan literature.
As David Hart makes clear in his dense though crystalline prose, Christian as well as pagan rabble existed in Alexandria and other places. Some "Christian" Roman and Germanic barbarian rulers took pleasure and profit in destroying pagan monuments. However, when contemporary neo-pagan "scholars" and a certain other rabble rouser on this thread make Christianity itself a rather barbarian culprit, truth is distorted.
As David Hart makes clear in his dense though crystalline prose, Christian as well as pagan rabble existed in Alexandria and other places. Some "Christian" Roman and Germanic barbarian rulers took pleasure and profit in destroying pagan monuments. However, when contemporary neo-pagan "scholars" and a certain other rabble rouser on this thread make Christianity itself a rather barbarian culprit, truth is distorted.
6.8.2010 | 4:45pm
brettongarcia says:
Peter:
"By their fruits you shall know them." The father is known through the son.
"By their fruits you shall know them." The father is known through the son.
6.8.2010 | 5:12pm
brettongarcia says:
Rumple:
Thanks to useful - if vituperative - feedback from others here, I have perhaps slightly refined my initial position, to answer objections. My final position - "now" as I said above - is not to assert or depend on the existence of EITHER the Seraph or Museum in 391. So, if there is data against the existence of these in 391, I am not in conflict with that data.
My present, more refined thesis, is that after the destruction of "the" Great Library of Alexandria c. 48 BC, significant new Alexandrian libraries had certaintly been built up, by c. 391. In two or more of "temples"; as confirmed in part according to Orosius. The new Alexandrian libraries, were not necessarily in the Seraph or Museum. If those buildings no longer existed, the collections could well have been in other pagan temples of the time. Orosius mentions book chests in "temples"; but it appears so far, that he did not specify which temples.
In any case, when Christian intellectual and political leaders - Theodoseus and Theophilus - destroyed "all" the pagan temples in Alexandria in 391, a significant number of important pagan books, were undoubtedly destroyed; or looted and sold. In what I might tentatively call here, the Second Destruction of the newer Alexandrian Libraries. This would have been largely out of a general revulsion for all "pagan" things no doubt; including, for many, pagan science.
Thanks to useful - if vituperative - feedback from others here, I have perhaps slightly refined my initial position, to answer objections. My final position - "now" as I said above - is not to assert or depend on the existence of EITHER the Seraph or Museum in 391. So, if there is data against the existence of these in 391, I am not in conflict with that data.
My present, more refined thesis, is that after the destruction of "the" Great Library of Alexandria c. 48 BC, significant new Alexandrian libraries had certaintly been built up, by c. 391. In two or more of "temples"; as confirmed in part according to Orosius. The new Alexandrian libraries, were not necessarily in the Seraph or Museum. If those buildings no longer existed, the collections could well have been in other pagan temples of the time. Orosius mentions book chests in "temples"; but it appears so far, that he did not specify which temples.
In any case, when Christian intellectual and political leaders - Theodoseus and Theophilus - destroyed "all" the pagan temples in Alexandria in 391, a significant number of important pagan books, were undoubtedly destroyed; or looted and sold. In what I might tentatively call here, the Second Destruction of the newer Alexandrian Libraries. This would have been largely out of a general revulsion for all "pagan" things no doubt; including, for many, pagan science.
6.8.2010 | 5:40pm
GeronimoRumplestiltskin says:
brettongarcia:
You wrote:
"This would have been largely out of a general revulsion for all "pagan" things no doubt; including, for many, pagan science. "
There is no evidence whatsoever that any book was destroyed or looted and sold out of any revulsion towards "pagan science". You just continually try to read your "Christianity as the enemy of science, etc." into the actual events.
You also have not addressed the bulk of my post at 11:25am, in which I address your accusations that Christian posters here a) excuse the murder of Hypatia and the destruction of books and b) are under some obligation to "answer for the actions of a group of people who lived more than 1,600 years ago, in a culture far removed from ours, and in a political climate far different from ours, just because they professed the same creed we do (and, as you admit, perhaps only "at least" nominally)". I also inquired, if your answer to b) was "yes", whether or not you also are under an obligation to answer for the sins of those throughout history who had beliefs similar to yours.
You have, at great length, argued rather incoherently that there were books in Alexandria and that in the process of destroying vestiges of paganism, these books were destroyed or looted. Neither Dr. Hart nor I dispute this. I (we) am/are simply arguing that the actual evidence does NOT support the thesis that these actions were due to any supposed animus on the part of Christianity to science, religion, or learned women. Are you really incapable of understanding that, or are you willfully ignoring it?
As per my post of 11:25am, I look forward either to your lengthy answering for the sins of all those throughout history whose beliefs resemble yours, or a retraction of your statements in regards to Christians on this board excusing murder and the destruction of books.
But I won't be holding my breath.
Au revoire,
GR
You wrote:
"This would have been largely out of a general revulsion for all "pagan" things no doubt; including, for many, pagan science. "
There is no evidence whatsoever that any book was destroyed or looted and sold out of any revulsion towards "pagan science". You just continually try to read your "Christianity as the enemy of science, etc." into the actual events.
You also have not addressed the bulk of my post at 11:25am, in which I address your accusations that Christian posters here a) excuse the murder of Hypatia and the destruction of books and b) are under some obligation to "answer for the actions of a group of people who lived more than 1,600 years ago, in a culture far removed from ours, and in a political climate far different from ours, just because they professed the same creed we do (and, as you admit, perhaps only "at least" nominally)". I also inquired, if your answer to b) was "yes", whether or not you also are under an obligation to answer for the sins of those throughout history who had beliefs similar to yours.
You have, at great length, argued rather incoherently that there were books in Alexandria and that in the process of destroying vestiges of paganism, these books were destroyed or looted. Neither Dr. Hart nor I dispute this. I (we) am/are simply arguing that the actual evidence does NOT support the thesis that these actions were due to any supposed animus on the part of Christianity to science, religion, or learned women. Are you really incapable of understanding that, or are you willfully ignoring it?
As per my post of 11:25am, I look forward either to your lengthy answering for the sins of all those throughout history whose beliefs resemble yours, or a retraction of your statements in regards to Christians on this board excusing murder and the destruction of books.
But I won't be holding my breath.
Au revoire,
GR
6.9.2010 | 5:01am
brettongarcia says:
GR:
1) Were Christians attacking Rationality and Science itself, in part? I earliler noted an a) notable, general antagonism among many Christians, and in Popular Christianity in general, against elements of Science and Reason. This I noted in say, my posts of 6/7 3:15 PM, and 6/8 10:20 AM. In b) support of others' similar postings. Noting too with others, c) that when paganism was attacked in general, key pagan scientific and rational traditions, would logically have been attacked as well. Including the eminent rationalism of say, Socrates and Plato; prominently rational/deductive/logical pagan philosophers. Whose works in fact were often supported, but also often attacked, in Christian traditions.
2) Are present-day Christians, and Christianity itself, besmirched by the bad actions of earlier Christians? Like those who destroyed libraries and murdered people like Hypatia? I think the record of such events - which we are uncovering now in our survey of the real, fuller history of Christianity, warts and all - does speak poorly of many of Christianity's claims.
3) What does the Bible say about the idea that bad individual actions by Christians might reflect poorly on all? Are you "your brother's keeper" here? Shouldn't we judge Chrsitianity in part by such negative "fruits"? Can't we know Christians today in part, from their History; is the Father known through the son?
4) You and many other defenders of the Church elsewhere, often suggest that even if Christians historically made many serious mistakes - even if they often murdered many people for example - such evil deeds after all, should not be presented as evidence against Christianity, or against the Church, itself. Such evil deeds, it is often claimed, should not be regarded as evidence of a systematic failing or hypocrisy, in Christianity itself, or in the Church per se. Rather, such bad deeds should be regarded merely as examples, of fallible individual Christians, the "members" of the Church, failing to live up to otherwise, good Christian standards.
But here, I briefly sketched a few biblical quotes that might suggest that there might be a Biblical reason or two to say that such individual and collective "fruits" MIGHT reflect badly on Christianity itself, as a whole.
What I would now more expliclitly suggest here, is that indeed, the many, many such "individual" failures by Christians, found in a more honest survey of History - real History; not revisionist whitewash jobs - finally DO inductively suggest a significant systematic failure or two, deep within Christianity itself. By its individual and historical "fruits" we know what Christianity really is deep down; and while many of those fruits are positive, some are not.
5) What does the Bible itself say we should do about the record of our Christians' bad deeds? We should not "whitewash" them, it says; but learn to "face" and "confess" our sins. In order to see them well enough to effectively and realistically address and fix them, finally.
So for many logical and Biblical reasons therefore, I am opposed to any "whitewash"ing or Christian Revisionist histories, like Hart's. That, by citing misleading bits of evidence, try to merely deny or cover up, the many serious individual and structural failures in Christianity. Rather, we should - as John Paul II and Benedict XVI have begin to hint - simply learn to honestly address the larger picture, warts and all. And then, "confess the sins of the Church." So that we can next try to, forthrightly, fix those problems at last.
1) Were Christians attacking Rationality and Science itself, in part? I earliler noted an a) notable, general antagonism among many Christians, and in Popular Christianity in general, against elements of Science and Reason. This I noted in say, my posts of 6/7 3:15 PM, and 6/8 10:20 AM. In b) support of others' similar postings. Noting too with others, c) that when paganism was attacked in general, key pagan scientific and rational traditions, would logically have been attacked as well. Including the eminent rationalism of say, Socrates and Plato; prominently rational/deductive/logical pagan philosophers. Whose works in fact were often supported, but also often attacked, in Christian traditions.
2) Are present-day Christians, and Christianity itself, besmirched by the bad actions of earlier Christians? Like those who destroyed libraries and murdered people like Hypatia? I think the record of such events - which we are uncovering now in our survey of the real, fuller history of Christianity, warts and all - does speak poorly of many of Christianity's claims.
3) What does the Bible say about the idea that bad individual actions by Christians might reflect poorly on all? Are you "your brother's keeper" here? Shouldn't we judge Chrsitianity in part by such negative "fruits"? Can't we know Christians today in part, from their History; is the Father known through the son?
4) You and many other defenders of the Church elsewhere, often suggest that even if Christians historically made many serious mistakes - even if they often murdered many people for example - such evil deeds after all, should not be presented as evidence against Christianity, or against the Church, itself. Such evil deeds, it is often claimed, should not be regarded as evidence of a systematic failing or hypocrisy, in Christianity itself, or in the Church per se. Rather, such bad deeds should be regarded merely as examples, of fallible individual Christians, the "members" of the Church, failing to live up to otherwise, good Christian standards.
But here, I briefly sketched a few biblical quotes that might suggest that there might be a Biblical reason or two to say that such individual and collective "fruits" MIGHT reflect badly on Christianity itself, as a whole.
What I would now more expliclitly suggest here, is that indeed, the many, many such "individual" failures by Christians, found in a more honest survey of History - real History; not revisionist whitewash jobs - finally DO inductively suggest a significant systematic failure or two, deep within Christianity itself. By its individual and historical "fruits" we know what Christianity really is deep down; and while many of those fruits are positive, some are not.
5) What does the Bible itself say we should do about the record of our Christians' bad deeds? We should not "whitewash" them, it says; but learn to "face" and "confess" our sins. In order to see them well enough to effectively and realistically address and fix them, finally.
So for many logical and Biblical reasons therefore, I am opposed to any "whitewash"ing or Christian Revisionist histories, like Hart's. That, by citing misleading bits of evidence, try to merely deny or cover up, the many serious individual and structural failures in Christianity. Rather, we should - as John Paul II and Benedict XVI have begin to hint - simply learn to honestly address the larger picture, warts and all. And then, "confess the sins of the Church." So that we can next try to, forthrightly, fix those problems at last.
6.9.2010 | 7:22am
Richard says:
Those who wonder why Lady Gaga's "spirituality" is a fit subject for derision should check out this link:
http://www.breitbart.tv/lady-gaga-sticks-it-to-catholics/
This-time-not-the-best,
Richard
http://www.breitbart.tv/lady-gaga-sticks-it-to-catholics/
This-time-not-the-best,
Richard
6.9.2010 | 8:33am
Brettongarcia says:
SUMMARY?
David Hart makes many claims here that are obviously historically misleading or false. Hart in general seems to want to claim that Atheists, Liberals - and liberal movies, like the movie on Hypatia - are distorting the sterling record of Christian history. Impugning bad, bad things, unustly, to a wonderful church, and its archly aristocratic (if slightly archaic and supercilious) defenders, like himself.
But of course, the movie Hart attacks, is just a movie; not serious liberal history after all; and no doubt it makes mistakes. But surely that is more forgivable in a movie, than in a serious article. And as we make our way though Hart - through his deliberately "high," archaic, supercillious language, his royally Purple Prose - we discern any number of false assertions, in Hart's own allegedly superior piece.
1) First of all to be sure, to take this movie as an implied example of Atheist delusion, as a biased Liberal rewriting of History, is unfair; this is a Hollywood movie after all; no one is presenting it as totally reliable academic history. While moreover, even with that caveat in mind, we will find here that even this semi-fictionalize movie, is more reliable than Hart's similarly cinematic and polemical prose.
2) My major historiographical objection to Hart, is that the Destruction of teh Great Library at Alexandria Egypt, c. 48 BCE, was almost certainly NOT the only destruction of a great library in Alexandria. I showed above that a) after 48 BC, more books came into Alexandria; creating yet another, newer Alexandrian library system. Those b) books, book chests, were found in part, in pagan "temples," as Orosius notes in that time. So that b) by 391 CE, when Christian rulers ordered a destruction of "all" pagan temples, there would have been yet another destruction of a significant Alexandrian collection of books, or libraries.
3) This is verified by Gibbon.
4) Did Gibbon "misunderstand" an account from the time, by Orosius, as Hart claims? When we examine Orosius - whose statement Hart aludes to, but that Hart studiously, selectively, does not replicate - we see it clearly enough: according to Orosius, there had been books in the "temples" till 391; all that was left after that, were empty book chests. In effect, there were books in the temples; forming in effect libraries. Thus, these newer Alexandrian libraries HAD been destroyed or looted, from pagan temples, in the 391 Christian attacks.
5) Which temples were these libraries in? I myself do not necessarily hold to the existence of either the Seraph or Museum temple libraries, in 391; I assert libraries might well have existed, more likely, in other "temples." So the existence or nonexistence of these two specific traditional sites - the Seraph and the Museum - is irrelevant. (Though incidentally, some here suggest that if Hart accepted the existence of the Seraph, that was incorrect?).
6) Hart himself in any case, moreover, admits that Christains killed Hypatia; that in itself suggests Christians were doing bad things to, specifically, pagans. Is she killed specifically for being a pagan? That seems indicated. Though Christians and pagans sometimes got along, often they did not.
Was Hypatia, for example, killed by a Christian leader, for having an affair with a pagan leader? Then after all, this would be part of an increasing conflict between Christian leaders, and Pagans; the Christian attacks on pagan temples in 391, that began to break down even the ties between the two, in elite intellectual culture. Hypatia to be sure, also had Christian students who spoke highly of her; but finally in spite of many Christian friends, other Christians - even elite Christians like Theophilus and St. Cyrl - were attacking Greco-Roman institutions. Even, rational philosophy. And it was after at Christian orders, that everyday Christians attacked and killed Hypatia.
7) Was she killed in part for being an early feminist? This seems so obvious as to scarcely need comment. To be sure, a) SOME Christian intellectuals got along well enough with female intellectuals. But a) by 391, there is no doubt that a very patriarchial Christian Church was on the rise. In that church, b) God himself was called our "Father"; the c) priests were exclusively male, and d) also called "fathers"; while e) St. Paul in the New Testament suggested that proper women might well wear hair-covers, scarves, or veils. Paul f) also adding that for a woman to speak prominently in a Church, was an abomination.
Clearly, Christianity was on the rise; and the Church was highly patriarchial. (Odd that Hart, an Orthodox scholar who strongly supports the study of the "patristic" "faithers," should miss this). At this time, a female, pagan intellectual therefore, would have been doubly disliked by some (if not all) local Christians. In part, for being a woman; especially who presumed to have authority.
(Was it just for having an affair with a pagan leader? She would have been thus a woman doubly linked to pagan authority, by an affair. And for that matter, for having an affair; which violated Christian morality.)
8) Were these murderous Christian elites and folks both, also opposing science as they opposed Hypatia? Was that part of their target? See my notes on Christian opposition to science, above. Did they target Hypatia in part for her support of science? It seems likely that she was linked to rationalism and science both. As a neo-Platonist, she knew and followed the often, pre-eminently highly rational work of Plato and Socrates. She might not have invented many scientific instruments; but she was enquiring on how to build them. Etc..
9) So were Christians responsible for the a) destruction of the new Alexandrian libraries? And for the b) murder of Hypatia? Or was this, as Hart claims, "only" Marx's class war? Low class Christians against upper class ... agnostic thinkers? In very small part it might have been. But note that the specific upper AND low class elements most directly involved in all the destruction and murders, happened here to be Christian. Including, by the way, the otherwise rather a) classy Theodoseus (I?), an emperor; and b) Theophilus, a theologian (and Bishop?); as c) well as the Christian mob of "Parabalani."
No doubt, a very few intellectuals have always been above much of this; seeing good and evil, in both pagans and Christians. But to simply deny, as Hart seems to, that specifically Christians, and firm attachments to Christian ideology, were the direct cause of many murders, is simply a gross distortion of History.
If the intention of Hart's lofty, supercilious language, is to hint at the existence of a higher class that is above such elementary oppositions, that might almost be useful. But to cater even for a moment to the implication that Christians specifically are blameless in such rowdy battles, is not honest.
Hart's article here therefore, is just not good History. It seems barely, if at all better, than the Hollywood movie it condemns, unseen.
Hart is writing bad, Christian revisionist history.
David Hart makes many claims here that are obviously historically misleading or false. Hart in general seems to want to claim that Atheists, Liberals - and liberal movies, like the movie on Hypatia - are distorting the sterling record of Christian history. Impugning bad, bad things, unustly, to a wonderful church, and its archly aristocratic (if slightly archaic and supercilious) defenders, like himself.
But of course, the movie Hart attacks, is just a movie; not serious liberal history after all; and no doubt it makes mistakes. But surely that is more forgivable in a movie, than in a serious article. And as we make our way though Hart - through his deliberately "high," archaic, supercillious language, his royally Purple Prose - we discern any number of false assertions, in Hart's own allegedly superior piece.
1) First of all to be sure, to take this movie as an implied example of Atheist delusion, as a biased Liberal rewriting of History, is unfair; this is a Hollywood movie after all; no one is presenting it as totally reliable academic history. While moreover, even with that caveat in mind, we will find here that even this semi-fictionalize movie, is more reliable than Hart's similarly cinematic and polemical prose.
2) My major historiographical objection to Hart, is that the Destruction of teh Great Library at Alexandria Egypt, c. 48 BCE, was almost certainly NOT the only destruction of a great library in Alexandria. I showed above that a) after 48 BC, more books came into Alexandria; creating yet another, newer Alexandrian library system. Those b) books, book chests, were found in part, in pagan "temples," as Orosius notes in that time. So that b) by 391 CE, when Christian rulers ordered a destruction of "all" pagan temples, there would have been yet another destruction of a significant Alexandrian collection of books, or libraries.
3) This is verified by Gibbon.
4) Did Gibbon "misunderstand" an account from the time, by Orosius, as Hart claims? When we examine Orosius - whose statement Hart aludes to, but that Hart studiously, selectively, does not replicate - we see it clearly enough: according to Orosius, there had been books in the "temples" till 391; all that was left after that, were empty book chests. In effect, there were books in the temples; forming in effect libraries. Thus, these newer Alexandrian libraries HAD been destroyed or looted, from pagan temples, in the 391 Christian attacks.
5) Which temples were these libraries in? I myself do not necessarily hold to the existence of either the Seraph or Museum temple libraries, in 391; I assert libraries might well have existed, more likely, in other "temples." So the existence or nonexistence of these two specific traditional sites - the Seraph and the Museum - is irrelevant. (Though incidentally, some here suggest that if Hart accepted the existence of the Seraph, that was incorrect?).
6) Hart himself in any case, moreover, admits that Christains killed Hypatia; that in itself suggests Christians were doing bad things to, specifically, pagans. Is she killed specifically for being a pagan? That seems indicated. Though Christians and pagans sometimes got along, often they did not.
Was Hypatia, for example, killed by a Christian leader, for having an affair with a pagan leader? Then after all, this would be part of an increasing conflict between Christian leaders, and Pagans; the Christian attacks on pagan temples in 391, that began to break down even the ties between the two, in elite intellectual culture. Hypatia to be sure, also had Christian students who spoke highly of her; but finally in spite of many Christian friends, other Christians - even elite Christians like Theophilus and St. Cyrl - were attacking Greco-Roman institutions. Even, rational philosophy. And it was after at Christian orders, that everyday Christians attacked and killed Hypatia.
7) Was she killed in part for being an early feminist? This seems so obvious as to scarcely need comment. To be sure, a) SOME Christian intellectuals got along well enough with female intellectuals. But a) by 391, there is no doubt that a very patriarchial Christian Church was on the rise. In that church, b) God himself was called our "Father"; the c) priests were exclusively male, and d) also called "fathers"; while e) St. Paul in the New Testament suggested that proper women might well wear hair-covers, scarves, or veils. Paul f) also adding that for a woman to speak prominently in a Church, was an abomination.
Clearly, Christianity was on the rise; and the Church was highly patriarchial. (Odd that Hart, an Orthodox scholar who strongly supports the study of the "patristic" "faithers," should miss this). At this time, a female, pagan intellectual therefore, would have been doubly disliked by some (if not all) local Christians. In part, for being a woman; especially who presumed to have authority.
(Was it just for having an affair with a pagan leader? She would have been thus a woman doubly linked to pagan authority, by an affair. And for that matter, for having an affair; which violated Christian morality.)
8) Were these murderous Christian elites and folks both, also opposing science as they opposed Hypatia? Was that part of their target? See my notes on Christian opposition to science, above. Did they target Hypatia in part for her support of science? It seems likely that she was linked to rationalism and science both. As a neo-Platonist, she knew and followed the often, pre-eminently highly rational work of Plato and Socrates. She might not have invented many scientific instruments; but she was enquiring on how to build them. Etc..
9) So were Christians responsible for the a) destruction of the new Alexandrian libraries? And for the b) murder of Hypatia? Or was this, as Hart claims, "only" Marx's class war? Low class Christians against upper class ... agnostic thinkers? In very small part it might have been. But note that the specific upper AND low class elements most directly involved in all the destruction and murders, happened here to be Christian. Including, by the way, the otherwise rather a) classy Theodoseus (I?), an emperor; and b) Theophilus, a theologian (and Bishop?); as c) well as the Christian mob of "Parabalani."
No doubt, a very few intellectuals have always been above much of this; seeing good and evil, in both pagans and Christians. But to simply deny, as Hart seems to, that specifically Christians, and firm attachments to Christian ideology, were the direct cause of many murders, is simply a gross distortion of History.
If the intention of Hart's lofty, supercilious language, is to hint at the existence of a higher class that is above such elementary oppositions, that might almost be useful. But to cater even for a moment to the implication that Christians specifically are blameless in such rowdy battles, is not honest.
Hart's article here therefore, is just not good History. It seems barely, if at all better, than the Hollywood movie it condemns, unseen.
Hart is writing bad, Christian revisionist history.
6.9.2010 | 9:53am
Charles Freeman says:
I am so pleased to have found common ground with Peter Leavitt. One reason I knew Hart had failed to read my Closing of the Western mind, which he attacked with such confidence in his Atheist Delusions, was that he claimed that I had argued that Christianity had crushed 'pagan wisdom'. In fact, as those who HAVE read Closing will know, my argument was that Platonism formed 'the intellectual backbone of Christian theology'. The problem was the authoritarianism of Platonism. ..... I also show how some leading thinkers such as Galen and Ptolemy were uncritically absorbed into Christian thought.
I am not fashionable in any sense of the word, so I suppose I should take Hart's inclusion of myself as one of his 'fashionable enemies' as some kind of accolade. All publicity is good publicity.
I am not fashionable in any sense of the word, so I suppose I should take Hart's inclusion of myself as one of his 'fashionable enemies' as some kind of accolade. All publicity is good publicity.
6.9.2010 | 10:27am
bernard wills says:
I would be very curious to know by what standards the commenters above classify anyone in late antiquity as 'scientific' and 'rational' as opposed to 'unscientific' and 'irrational'....I say this because it is well known to anyone who bothers to read the Ancient Neo-Platonists (which hardly anyone does) that they had a considerable tolerance for mystery, mysticism, magic and ritual along with their highly developed metaphysical sytems....are they in fact what we would call rationalists? If not, how is the murder of Hypatia to be construed as an attack on 'reason'? If Mr. Freeman were to read Proclus or Iamblichus would he really find them more 'scientific' that Dionysius or Gregory of Nyssa?
6.9.2010 | 11:17am
Charles freeman says:
No, I wouldn't, Bernard, as one of the main themes of my work is to stress that there were rational and less rational schools of Greek thought.Christian inellectuals drew on some strands and condemned others. The majority of my readers seem to grasp this so I do get a bit frustrated with those that don't!
The excitement of Greek intellectual thought is its breadth - there was never a uniform Greek rational tradition. It is the specific ways in which Christians appropriated or froze elements of Greek thought that fascinates me.
The excitement of Greek intellectual thought is its breadth - there was never a uniform Greek rational tradition. It is the specific ways in which Christians appropriated or froze elements of Greek thought that fascinates me.
6.9.2010 | 12:08pm
James Hannam says:
I would note that the reason Egypt Greece and Rome has sold so well is it is very good and still the best introduction to the ancient world for the general reader. Closing is an excellent read and tells a story many people want to hear, but I am afraid it is grossly inaccurate (and yes, I've read it).
On a related point, Charles is wrong to say that Christians or even John Chrysostom demolished the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus. Over at Quodlibeta I've just posted something on my digging into the sources of this particular myth.
And I'd also say it is precisely NOT the point that Christians destroyed pagan symbols and shrines. There is no doubt that they did. The point is that they did not deliberately destroy pagan learning or turn their backs of pagan rational thought. To argue the destruction of images and temples is evidence that reason went into decline is a bit like arguing that the dissolution of the monasteries is evidence that England was a scientific backwater in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
On a related point, Charles is wrong to say that Christians or even John Chrysostom demolished the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus. Over at Quodlibeta I've just posted something on my digging into the sources of this particular myth.
And I'd also say it is precisely NOT the point that Christians destroyed pagan symbols and shrines. There is no doubt that they did. The point is that they did not deliberately destroy pagan learning or turn their backs of pagan rational thought. To argue the destruction of images and temples is evidence that reason went into decline is a bit like arguing that the dissolution of the monasteries is evidence that England was a scientific backwater in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
6.9.2010 | 12:45pm
brettongarcia says:
As the justly-famous Charles Freeman rightly notes - right here in our present forum - different Christians selectively adopted different elements of Greco-Roman thought. According to their own bent. In the case of Neo-Platonists, I add, these were Christians who to be sure ignored, the extremely rational, logical interrogations that utterly dominate the work of Plato and Socrates; to concentrate on the mystical side of "Ideal Forms" in "Heaven." But not all readers of Plato, turned into mystical Neo-Platonists, I suggest here. Indeed, the better Greeks and Romans, I feel (speaking for myself here) got an entirely different and better message from Plato and Socrates.
Many pagans to be sure, read Plato, and became mystics - or Christians. It was this group that became known as the "Neo-Platonists"; people who apparently got off on the seemingly mystical ,haunting notion of Ideal Forms floating in heaven (as did St. Paul). But the Christians who did this, would indeed however have been therefore neglecting - and often flatly rejecting - what many more properly see as the better part of Plato: the logical rational, inductive/deductive method of Socrates.
In fact, it was not the part of Plato devoted to Ideal Forms in Heaven, that I suggest, was the major contribution of Plato. Rather, it was the logical interrogrations by Socrates, that many Greeks no doubt, found to be far more useful. And it was THAT perception, I suggest, that became the backbone of modern science. It created a pagan/Christian cadre, that came from Plato; but from his better, rational side; not the relatively few mystical-seeming remarks he made.
The rational/logical method used by Socrates was perhaps appreciated by a few Christian "Neo-Platonists" proper; though usually the rubric Neo-Platonism, is only applied to those Christians who focused obsessively on the mystical side of Ideal Forms in Heaven (like GOD). So I suggest that to look for the wider, better influence of Plato, we need to look beyond "Neo Platonists." Looking for the new cadre of Greek ... rationalists.
What now about these other - I would say wiser - heads? That took Socrates ... and learned his best lesson: logic and syllogisms; not mysticism? What were THESE better readers called? And where were they found? They might not have been known as Neo Platonists; we might not even call them Philosophers at all. Perhaps we today would see them as just rational thinkers. And they might include first of all, Aristotle. Who was long thought to be rational enough, and empirical enough, to be considered the founder of modern science.
And then after Socrates, then soon enough after Aristotle - came the first "scientists." And then Roman "pragmatists" and engineers. These I suggest, were the better successors of Plato; not the "Neo Platonists."
These people - who thought rationally, like Socrates - I suggest here, not mystical "Neo-Platonists," that were really the best, truest heirs of Plato.
And their contribution was enormous: they were long regarded as being among the first great names, in the beginnings of real Science.
Many pagans to be sure, read Plato, and became mystics - or Christians. It was this group that became known as the "Neo-Platonists"; people who apparently got off on the seemingly mystical ,haunting notion of Ideal Forms floating in heaven (as did St. Paul). But the Christians who did this, would indeed however have been therefore neglecting - and often flatly rejecting - what many more properly see as the better part of Plato: the logical rational, inductive/deductive method of Socrates.
In fact, it was not the part of Plato devoted to Ideal Forms in Heaven, that I suggest, was the major contribution of Plato. Rather, it was the logical interrogrations by Socrates, that many Greeks no doubt, found to be far more useful. And it was THAT perception, I suggest, that became the backbone of modern science. It created a pagan/Christian cadre, that came from Plato; but from his better, rational side; not the relatively few mystical-seeming remarks he made.
The rational/logical method used by Socrates was perhaps appreciated by a few Christian "Neo-Platonists" proper; though usually the rubric Neo-Platonism, is only applied to those Christians who focused obsessively on the mystical side of Ideal Forms in Heaven (like GOD). So I suggest that to look for the wider, better influence of Plato, we need to look beyond "Neo Platonists." Looking for the new cadre of Greek ... rationalists.
What now about these other - I would say wiser - heads? That took Socrates ... and learned his best lesson: logic and syllogisms; not mysticism? What were THESE better readers called? And where were they found? They might not have been known as Neo Platonists; we might not even call them Philosophers at all. Perhaps we today would see them as just rational thinkers. And they might include first of all, Aristotle. Who was long thought to be rational enough, and empirical enough, to be considered the founder of modern science.
And then after Socrates, then soon enough after Aristotle - came the first "scientists." And then Roman "pragmatists" and engineers. These I suggest, were the better successors of Plato; not the "Neo Platonists."
These people - who thought rationally, like Socrates - I suggest here, not mystical "Neo-Platonists," that were really the best, truest heirs of Plato.
And their contribution was enormous: they were long regarded as being among the first great names, in the beginnings of real Science.
6.9.2010 | 1:49pm
bernard wills says:
now i am well and truly baffled....Neo-Platonists are not part of the 'rational' wing of the Greek intellectual tradition....yet the murder of Hypatia a NEO-PLATONIST of the school of Iamblichus and Syrianus (if i'm not mistaken) is a deleiberate attack on the greek rationalist tradition?
I suspect 'rationalist' is an anachronistic cateory applied to late antiquity...
I suspect 'rationalist' is an anachronistic cateory applied to late antiquity...
6.9.2010 | 4:30pm
Brettongarcia says:
Bernard:
Your confusion is a common one. Indeed, it is endemic in many circles. The nature of the confusion, I note here, is that Plato inspired two major, very different kind of followers: 1) mystics, who liked his ideas of mystical, Ideal Forms (Paradigms) in Heaven. Eventually out of this group, perhaps, Plotinus? But then, aside from the followers of Plato's mystical side, there were also the 2) rationalists; who followed Socrates' logical, rational, questioning method. The later group included students of Plato, like Aristotle; who was quite rational and even scientific.
The confusion regarding the term "Neo-Platonists" therefore comes from this: two very, very, very different groups, might be called "Neo-Platonists." Both Platonic mystics, and Socratic rationalists. Both of them are following Plato. However of course, the problem is that they are following Plato, in very different, even opposite, ways.
Thus the label "Neo Platonist" can be extremely misleading and confused; it can refer to two, radically different orientations to Plato, and to life. This creates massive confusion in History to this very day, I note here.
And to complicate matters, no doubt many individual "Platonic" thinkers, like Hypatia, borrowed bits, from both traditions. Indeed, though I am not a trained classicist, I suspect that Hypatia, was a bit of both schools.
However finally: regarding Hypatia, it is evident that THIS "Neo-Platonist" also had a very strong strain of the rational/scientific side in her. As evidenced by her interest in scientific instruments. So that the murder of even the "Neo-Platonist" Hypatia WAS in part, a blow against Rationalism and Science.
By the way, since the term "Neo-Platonist" is so inexact, and since it is can apply to two very, very different ways of continuing teh legacy of Plato, many scholars in the past have proposed some kind of special vocabulary or another, to apply here. But different scholars use different terms.
So, to clear up any confusion here, we might typically here introduce a stipulative definition: we might just stipulate here and now, that when we here in this blog, refer to 1) the more mystical tradition, we will call THEM "Neo Platonists." And yet however, this means that we have another bigger following of Plato, that drops off the radar entirely as equally Platonist; the rationalists. Who also followed Plato too. So to keep them on the radar as rational,a nd yet still followers of Plato/Socrates, we might stipulatively call THESE rational followers, say,2) "Socratic," or "Rational Platonists."
These terms might help.
Still, keep in mind, we only established this particular vocabulary,right here and now; in the meantime, for thousands of years prior, many, many other historians, will have been using the term "Neo Platonistic," or "Platonistic," or "Platonic," etc., in a confused way. To refer to either tradition, or both. Or typically, in a way that incorrectly assumed that all those who followed Plato, followed his mystical side.
Therefore, when you hear of Hypatia or others, being described in historical literature, as a "Neo-Platonist," or as a follower of Plato, keep in mind, this might mean any number of quite different things. But briefly, it seems clear from Hypatia's interest in scientific instruments and math, that if Hypatia had a rather 1) mystical Platonic side, it is also evident from 2) her interest in scientific instruments, that she ALSO was somewhat in the Rational Platonic school too.
So that therefore, when Christians murdered Hypatia, the "Neo-Platonist" in the old sense, they murdered a thinker who was at least in part, a follower of Plato's Rational/Scientific side. And thus by killing her, Christians in part WERE attacking the Rational scientific tradition.
(By the way, I would not consider the word "Rational" or "scientific" to be anachronistic, when applied to Socrates and Aristotle; who were QUITE, QUITE rational and logical, even by modern standards. Especially when compared to mystics. Indeed, though modern or postmodern scholars balk a bit at this, for many centuries Aristotle was referred to as the founder of modern science.)
Your confusion is a common one. Indeed, it is endemic in many circles. The nature of the confusion, I note here, is that Plato inspired two major, very different kind of followers: 1) mystics, who liked his ideas of mystical, Ideal Forms (Paradigms) in Heaven. Eventually out of this group, perhaps, Plotinus? But then, aside from the followers of Plato's mystical side, there were also the 2) rationalists; who followed Socrates' logical, rational, questioning method. The later group included students of Plato, like Aristotle; who was quite rational and even scientific.
The confusion regarding the term "Neo-Platonists" therefore comes from this: two very, very, very different groups, might be called "Neo-Platonists." Both Platonic mystics, and Socratic rationalists. Both of them are following Plato. However of course, the problem is that they are following Plato, in very different, even opposite, ways.
Thus the label "Neo Platonist" can be extremely misleading and confused; it can refer to two, radically different orientations to Plato, and to life. This creates massive confusion in History to this very day, I note here.
And to complicate matters, no doubt many individual "Platonic" thinkers, like Hypatia, borrowed bits, from both traditions. Indeed, though I am not a trained classicist, I suspect that Hypatia, was a bit of both schools.
However finally: regarding Hypatia, it is evident that THIS "Neo-Platonist" also had a very strong strain of the rational/scientific side in her. As evidenced by her interest in scientific instruments. So that the murder of even the "Neo-Platonist" Hypatia WAS in part, a blow against Rationalism and Science.
By the way, since the term "Neo-Platonist" is so inexact, and since it is can apply to two very, very different ways of continuing teh legacy of Plato, many scholars in the past have proposed some kind of special vocabulary or another, to apply here. But different scholars use different terms.
So, to clear up any confusion here, we might typically here introduce a stipulative definition: we might just stipulate here and now, that when we here in this blog, refer to 1) the more mystical tradition, we will call THEM "Neo Platonists." And yet however, this means that we have another bigger following of Plato, that drops off the radar entirely as equally Platonist; the rationalists. Who also followed Plato too. So to keep them on the radar as rational,a nd yet still followers of Plato/Socrates, we might stipulatively call THESE rational followers, say,2) "Socratic," or "Rational Platonists."
These terms might help.
Still, keep in mind, we only established this particular vocabulary,right here and now; in the meantime, for thousands of years prior, many, many other historians, will have been using the term "Neo Platonistic," or "Platonistic," or "Platonic," etc., in a confused way. To refer to either tradition, or both. Or typically, in a way that incorrectly assumed that all those who followed Plato, followed his mystical side.
Therefore, when you hear of Hypatia or others, being described in historical literature, as a "Neo-Platonist," or as a follower of Plato, keep in mind, this might mean any number of quite different things. But briefly, it seems clear from Hypatia's interest in scientific instruments and math, that if Hypatia had a rather 1) mystical Platonic side, it is also evident from 2) her interest in scientific instruments, that she ALSO was somewhat in the Rational Platonic school too.
So that therefore, when Christians murdered Hypatia, the "Neo-Platonist" in the old sense, they murdered a thinker who was at least in part, a follower of Plato's Rational/Scientific side. And thus by killing her, Christians in part WERE attacking the Rational scientific tradition.
(By the way, I would not consider the word "Rational" or "scientific" to be anachronistic, when applied to Socrates and Aristotle; who were QUITE, QUITE rational and logical, even by modern standards. Especially when compared to mystics. Indeed, though modern or postmodern scholars balk a bit at this, for many centuries Aristotle was referred to as the founder of modern science.)
6.9.2010 | 8:16pm
bernard wills says:
I assume you know that the 'rationalist' Socrates had a guardian spirit he talked to on a regular basis?
Your real problem is this....the distinction you draw between the 'rational' and the 'mystical' is one hardly anyone in the late Antique period would have drawn...it is a modern distinction that does not apply to this period...the Neo-Platonists combined mathematical, scientific, religious and speculative interests directly and there is no evidence offered here that Hypatia was any different in this regard than a Christian like, say, John Philoponus...If you are going to argue that the Christian mob of Alexandria attacked the 'scientific rationalist' tradition (leaving aside the question of what possible access you could have to their motives) it is incumbent on you to say who it was in Ancient Alexandria who could possibly have been taken to represent such a tradition and lay out criteria for identifying them....Hypatia had mathematical and scientific interests...so what?...so do many people of a 'mystical' and 'supra-rational' bent....for example the early modern occultist and alchemist Sir Issac Newton! Engaging in rational activities and being a 'rationalist' are not the same thing....
I think you would be greatly helped by consulting E.R. Dodds Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety and by reading people like Fustigiere and Hadot..
I think the problem of anachronism is a much more serious one that you realize as witnessed by the difficulty of finding the distinctions you are trying to draw anywhere in the Ancients themselves....
BTW...if there is a 'rationalist' tradition in Antiquity the Epicurean tradition is the best candidate though even that is problematic and they are simply not players in the story presently under consideration
Your real problem is this....the distinction you draw between the 'rational' and the 'mystical' is one hardly anyone in the late Antique period would have drawn...it is a modern distinction that does not apply to this period...the Neo-Platonists combined mathematical, scientific, religious and speculative interests directly and there is no evidence offered here that Hypatia was any different in this regard than a Christian like, say, John Philoponus...If you are going to argue that the Christian mob of Alexandria attacked the 'scientific rationalist' tradition (leaving aside the question of what possible access you could have to their motives) it is incumbent on you to say who it was in Ancient Alexandria who could possibly have been taken to represent such a tradition and lay out criteria for identifying them....Hypatia had mathematical and scientific interests...so what?...so do many people of a 'mystical' and 'supra-rational' bent....for example the early modern occultist and alchemist Sir Issac Newton! Engaging in rational activities and being a 'rationalist' are not the same thing....
I think you would be greatly helped by consulting E.R. Dodds Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety and by reading people like Fustigiere and Hadot..
I think the problem of anachronism is a much more serious one that you realize as witnessed by the difficulty of finding the distinctions you are trying to draw anywhere in the Ancients themselves....
BTW...if there is a 'rationalist' tradition in Antiquity the Epicurean tradition is the best candidate though even that is problematic and they are simply not players in the story presently under consideration
6.9.2010 | 9:34pm
bernard wills says:
also....I would like some evidence for your claim that there was a 'Rational Platonist' school in late Antiquity distinct from the Neo-Platonists...you mention Aristotle but he is centuries before our period...Aristotle's texts were studied in our period and commented on but this activity was carried on in most cases by the 'mystical' Platonists or by Christians like Philoponus....if there was a Late Antique peripatetic or follower of Aristotle who opposed the 'rationalism and logic' of Aristotle to the 'mysticism' of Christian or Neo-Platonic religion I would like you to tell me who he or she is.... I think it is not confusion on the part of Historians that is the problem here... it is that you have attempted to draw a distinction between two types of Platonism that were at no point in Antiquity ever really distinct...
6.10.2010 | 1:26am
brettongarcia says:
I am not claiming, nor do I need to claim for my case, that many people in the Antique or Hellenistic period were CONSCIOUSLY aware of a distinction between mystical vs. rational elements in Plato; just that today, we can consciously see that distinction. While many might have even rather unconsciously gravitated long ago, to one side or the other of the divide.
Indeed, as you rightly note, most people in that period, most philosophers, confused and freely intermixed rationalism and mysticism; as likely, did Hypatia. Though clearly, at least 1) Socrates, for his occasional mysticism, was overwhelmingly, 90%, logical. While next, 2) Aristotle was (fairly) good at abstracting out the scientific side of his mentor, Plato/Socrates. And 3) Aristotle's version of this tradition continued on, for hundreds of years; indeed in 1950's England you could still find self-described "Aristotelians."
I suggested above that those Christians who attacked and murdered Hypatia, probably did so in part, because of a simple revulsion to ALL things non-Christian or Pagan, rational AND irrational. But I noted above some reasons that Christians might particularly resent, the scientific side of Hypatia. Given conflicts between Christians promises of "miracles" for example, and science.
If Aristotle was "centuries before" the Antique or Platonistic or Hellenistic periods, then after all, his tradition was available therefore to people of that periord. Indeed, Aristotle particularly, was ENORMOUSLY influential; and his legacy was still partially alive. Indeed, a thousand years after his death, Thomas Aquinas was called an "Aristotelian" at times. Indeed, Western Civ. didn't really give up Aristotle, till about 1900. His rational/scientific Platonic tradition would have been alive and kicking in your time frame therefore. Not so much in Philosophy per se, perhaps; but in engineering and science especially.
Broaden the scope of your inquiry; to be sure, so long as you are looking just at "Philosophers," then you'll see lots of mysticism. But Socrates'/Aristotle's mostly rational heirs, often eschewed the vagueness of Philosophy ... and became scientists.
To see the true Rational Platonists therefore, look beyond the rubric of "Philosophy" and philosophers; look at say, Roman engineers. The true rational heirs of Socrates/Plato. They are the true Rational Platonists, as I term them here.
Too bad so many Christians kept killing them; they were enormously fruitful, as long as they were alive. By the way, partly because of such continuous and deadly persecution from Christians, they would often NOT loudly call attention to their tradition, or to its conflicts with Christian mysticism.
Indeed, as you rightly note, most people in that period, most philosophers, confused and freely intermixed rationalism and mysticism; as likely, did Hypatia. Though clearly, at least 1) Socrates, for his occasional mysticism, was overwhelmingly, 90%, logical. While next, 2) Aristotle was (fairly) good at abstracting out the scientific side of his mentor, Plato/Socrates. And 3) Aristotle's version of this tradition continued on, for hundreds of years; indeed in 1950's England you could still find self-described "Aristotelians."
I suggested above that those Christians who attacked and murdered Hypatia, probably did so in part, because of a simple revulsion to ALL things non-Christian or Pagan, rational AND irrational. But I noted above some reasons that Christians might particularly resent, the scientific side of Hypatia. Given conflicts between Christians promises of "miracles" for example, and science.
If Aristotle was "centuries before" the Antique or Platonistic or Hellenistic periods, then after all, his tradition was available therefore to people of that periord. Indeed, Aristotle particularly, was ENORMOUSLY influential; and his legacy was still partially alive. Indeed, a thousand years after his death, Thomas Aquinas was called an "Aristotelian" at times. Indeed, Western Civ. didn't really give up Aristotle, till about 1900. His rational/scientific Platonic tradition would have been alive and kicking in your time frame therefore. Not so much in Philosophy per se, perhaps; but in engineering and science especially.
Broaden the scope of your inquiry; to be sure, so long as you are looking just at "Philosophers," then you'll see lots of mysticism. But Socrates'/Aristotle's mostly rational heirs, often eschewed the vagueness of Philosophy ... and became scientists.
To see the true Rational Platonists therefore, look beyond the rubric of "Philosophy" and philosophers; look at say, Roman engineers. The true rational heirs of Socrates/Plato. They are the true Rational Platonists, as I term them here.
Too bad so many Christians kept killing them; they were enormously fruitful, as long as they were alive. By the way, partly because of such continuous and deadly persecution from Christians, they would often NOT loudly call attention to their tradition, or to its conflicts with Christian mysticism.
6.10.2010 | 2:44am
Bret Lythgoe says:
Charles Freeman: You claim that, in the monastaries, only one work of Plato was maintained. Do you care to eloborate on that? Clearly, we owe the survival of ancient texts to the labors of irish monks.
You constanly claim that Dr. Hart did not read your book, "The closing of the Western Mind''. How do you know this? This sounds as if you're attacking his integrity.
You take issue with Dr. Hart's assertion that you're an amateur historian. Well, what, precisely, are your credentials?
You constanly claim that Dr. Hart did not read your book, "The closing of the Western Mind''. How do you know this? This sounds as if you're attacking his integrity.
You take issue with Dr. Hart's assertion that you're an amateur historian. Well, what, precisely, are your credentials?
6.10.2010 | 7:51am
bernard wills says:
Well, now let me get your considerably altered thesis straight....Hypatia was murdered out of a revulsion for all things Pagan rational and irrational so it scarcely matters how 'rational' or 'mystical' she was (as indicated by the scare quotes I don't find these entirely useful categories but anyway let's run with it for now) because the real 'rationalists' were the engineers....still, you indicate as a subsidiary cause of her murder (leaving aside again on what grounds you could possibly know this) a perceived conflict between science (any science at all) and the miraculous....just as a philosophical question I'm not sure there even is such a conflict but the question is a historical one and here you face another problem of anachronism....the question of whether the notion of miracle was compatible with the regularity of nature was much discussed in the 17th and 18th centuries but what evidence is there that it was a serious issue for Alexandrian Neo-Platonists and Christian mobs? Was it discussed at the time and by whom? If it was, in what terms was it discussed given the difference between Ancient and Modern conceptions of nature? If you are going to claim the the Christian attack on the 'rational tradition' was anything more than accidental (if I run over a Brazillian guy its not necessarily an attack on Brazillian football!) than you have much more work to do....
6.10.2010 | 8:06am
Richard says:
Dear Brettongarcia,
I am a Classicist. I teach ancient philosophy as part of some undergraduate courses, and I have served as editor and referee for, and myself delivered, learned papers on the ancient philosohers, especially Plato, and I teach the development of the Western intellectual tradition as part of my work. All this not by way of crowing--I am certainly not a specialist--but to document that my views are not utterly uninformed.
It is clear that you show little understanding of the development of the ancient intellectual tradition. Your separation of Plato into the mystic and rationalist is arbitrary. You also show no sign of realizing that "rationalism" can mean several things, and it is critical to define the term. I am not sure that you understand that without Socrates would have been no Plato, and without Plato no Aristotle. Aristotle was Plato's student at the Academy. He was certainly no cookie cutter Platonist, but he revered his teacher and his system was a brilliant development of Plato's ideas. He "immanentized" the forms into the world and solved the problem of how the substrate "participates" in the order of the transcendental forms by the conception of things moving from potency to act in achieving their "telos," their instantiated perfection in the full realization of the forms, which according to him exist only realized orderly ends in the world. (REAL Platonists please forgive and correct any slips in this characterization). Aristotle was certainly more empirically concerned and productive than Plato, and it is not wrong to consider him one of the fathers of science if we grasp the limitations of this statement.
To see Roman engineers as true Rational Platonists is simply intellectually incoherent. And to see engineers as particular targets of Christians is bizarre. It is well known that Western science did not begin to really systematically flower until it broke free from the teleology of Aristotle in the thinking of men like John Philoponus and Galileo. Aristotle remains a giant, and I am by no means sure that ideas like the forms and final cause are totally gone forever, but sidestepping teleology was a necessary tactical move for science.
I know you listen to no advice. You are a single minded assassin and ultimately nothing gets in your way. But if you were receptive to counsel, I would tell you for God's sake and your own, don't play the part of a tour guide through the museum of history. There is nothing more painful for considerate people, or more gleeful for the malicious, than to sit at Trimalchio's table and listen to him blunder and bluster disastrously through the rubble his incomprehension has made of whatever takes his fancy. I don't know what you think you accomplish with arguments like " if (dubious) and if (hypothetical) and if (preposterous), then (ridiculous)", but it is embarassing to watch. For this Socrates drank the Hemlock?
Be well. Believe it or not, I wish you the best. But I am not optimistic.
Resignedly,
Richard
I am a Classicist. I teach ancient philosophy as part of some undergraduate courses, and I have served as editor and referee for, and myself delivered, learned papers on the ancient philosohers, especially Plato, and I teach the development of the Western intellectual tradition as part of my work. All this not by way of crowing--I am certainly not a specialist--but to document that my views are not utterly uninformed.
It is clear that you show little understanding of the development of the ancient intellectual tradition. Your separation of Plato into the mystic and rationalist is arbitrary. You also show no sign of realizing that "rationalism" can mean several things, and it is critical to define the term. I am not sure that you understand that without Socrates would have been no Plato, and without Plato no Aristotle. Aristotle was Plato's student at the Academy. He was certainly no cookie cutter Platonist, but he revered his teacher and his system was a brilliant development of Plato's ideas. He "immanentized" the forms into the world and solved the problem of how the substrate "participates" in the order of the transcendental forms by the conception of things moving from potency to act in achieving their "telos," their instantiated perfection in the full realization of the forms, which according to him exist only realized orderly ends in the world. (REAL Platonists please forgive and correct any slips in this characterization). Aristotle was certainly more empirically concerned and productive than Plato, and it is not wrong to consider him one of the fathers of science if we grasp the limitations of this statement.
To see Roman engineers as true Rational Platonists is simply intellectually incoherent. And to see engineers as particular targets of Christians is bizarre. It is well known that Western science did not begin to really systematically flower until it broke free from the teleology of Aristotle in the thinking of men like John Philoponus and Galileo. Aristotle remains a giant, and I am by no means sure that ideas like the forms and final cause are totally gone forever, but sidestepping teleology was a necessary tactical move for science.
I know you listen to no advice. You are a single minded assassin and ultimately nothing gets in your way. But if you were receptive to counsel, I would tell you for God's sake and your own, don't play the part of a tour guide through the museum of history. There is nothing more painful for considerate people, or more gleeful for the malicious, than to sit at Trimalchio's table and listen to him blunder and bluster disastrously through the rubble his incomprehension has made of whatever takes his fancy. I don't know what you think you accomplish with arguments like " if (dubious) and if (hypothetical) and if (preposterous), then (ridiculous)", but it is embarassing to watch. For this Socrates drank the Hemlock?
Be well. Believe it or not, I wish you the best. But I am not optimistic.
Resignedly,
Richard
6.10.2010 | 10:06am
bernard wills says:
Well, as I sense Brettongarcia struggling to nuance his views I am happy to continue talking to him....
Specifically on Aristotle I would ask him to consider whether he too really belongs to the 'rationalist' side of things....after all it seems that what we would now call 'religious experience' or even 'mysticism' DOES have a place in Aristotle who holds that blessedness consists in loving contmeplation of the highest cause who is God...
I think that when your defence of 'Classical Rationalism' has to resort to maligning the 'vagueness of the philosophers' and recommending to us the Roman Engineers as its only true bearers it is almost time to give up the game..
Specifically on Aristotle I would ask him to consider whether he too really belongs to the 'rationalist' side of things....after all it seems that what we would now call 'religious experience' or even 'mysticism' DOES have a place in Aristotle who holds that blessedness consists in loving contmeplation of the highest cause who is God...
I think that when your defence of 'Classical Rationalism' has to resort to maligning the 'vagueness of the philosophers' and recommending to us the Roman Engineers as its only true bearers it is almost time to give up the game..
6.10.2010 | 2:32pm
brettongarcia says:
Richard, et alia.:
I also at times have taught some Philosophy in universities. And have spent some time with the Classics. Though more time in Art History (MA), and Culture Studies (PhD). I have read all of Plato. And lived many years in the Eastern Mediterranean; the "Greek lake."
Of course I understand the lineage: 1) Socrates; to 2) his student Plato; to Plato's students 3) Aristotle. And perhaps, Plato's other famous student too, 4) Alexander the great. My point is, that this Platonic lineage, is a rather logical/rational tradition. Socrates was very, very strong on early attempts at logical deduction and induction; this was carried out in Plato's accounts of him; and began to come to early fruition in Aristotle. Who was known to many as the founder of modern science.
My point being here, that 1) THIS particular, sometimes-neglected tradition, from Plato, put a very, very strong emphasis not on mystical forms and the "one"; but on rationality, reason - specifically Socrates' attempts at the logical syllogism. Much more than on the 2) other tradition often noted as if it was "the" legacy of Plato: Platonistic religious, metaphysical speculations about joining God, Ideal forms, in heaven.
The stronger fruit of, tradition coming from, Socrates/Plato, I am suggesting here, was not the mystical/ metaphysical "Platonism" so many associate with Plato and his legacy, but rather, the fruits of Plato's rationality and logicality; as carried on by for example, his student, Aristotle. Who carried logic forward, and indeed added empiricism to it; to, as countless scholars have claimed, found science itself.
So that Plato, Neo-Platonism, has a very, very strong scientific element in it that many overlooks.
Thus I am pointing here, to a sometimes-neglected element in "Neo-Platonism": the rational, logical side of Socrates; which was refined finally in Plato's student, Aristotle. Founding not a religious mysticism or metaphysics, but - countless scholars claimed - founding the roots of Science. While science in turn, leads less to philosophers, than to ... better scientists and engineers.
So here's my logic: 1) if logic and reason is a strong element of Socrates, and 2) these became a major influence on developing science, in figures like Aristotle, then 3) in effect, a major legacy of Plato was ironically, not the mystical "Platonism" associated with Plotinus say; but was ironically, science. Thus it becomes possible to say that 4) better scientists and engineers, were the truer Neo-Platonists. Or were equally as Neo Platonic, as the rather more speculative, mystical, or metaphysical philosophers more conventionally associated with Plato, and Neo Platonism.
I mentioned this, my thesis here, originally, as a secondard point regarding Hypatia. It was claimed here that Hypatia was a "Neo Platonist"; and therefore, she could not be regarded as being very rational, or scientific. Here I developed my "own" thesis (or perhaps minor variation on an earlier iteration), showing that even a "Neo-Platonist," as some have called Hypatia here, could be very, very strongly rational and scientific. Since indeed, out of Socrates/Plato, came a very very strong streak of rationalism and scientific interest; that after all, many have traced from Socrates Plato; especially by way of Plato's student, Aristotle. Who is often credited in fact as the founder of Science.
So was Hypatia a "Neo Platonist"? If so, that does NOT prove she was not scientifically minds. While indeed, confirming my thesis, the sketchy biographical details we have of Hypatia's life, indicate that she had an interest in scientific instruments, and math, and so forth; elements of science.
So in sum, even if Hypatia was a "Neo Platonist," I assert that it is not unjust to characterize Hypatia as being, in part, an early "scientist." (Insofar as that term can be accurately applied to anyone, c. 350 BCE - 1400 AD.) Since 1) she might have belonged not so much to the mystical, but to 2) the rational, scientific Aristotelian branch of Plato's thought. That I have already taken too much time here to make clear.
So that, in sum, if Hypatia is ever referred to as a "Neo Platonist," note that does not imply she was JUST philosophical or "mystical," as opposed to scientific. (Using quotes here to indicate I am quoting someone else, above). The fact is, science is in the direct lineage to Plato himself; by way of Aristotle especially.
Is my attempt to characterize two major traditions coming from Plato, accurate or waterproof? I have myself noted constantly here, that the separation of these two traditions, is not perfect; hence in part, my use of quotes around "mystical" and "rational"; not as scare quotes. But to indicate the roughness of my two categorical descriptions, of the two major outflows from Plato: the 1) mystical theory of Forms, vs. the 2) logical/rational method.
And of course I know that in actual practice, these two traditions were not always, absolutely separated; many, many ancients had both elements in them. But I am proposing here (as a semi-original thesis; and not as just a mere misunderstanding of scholarship on this subject), that 1) there were two, very different schools that came out of Plato. And that moreover, 2) probably the more fruitful of the two, was the rationalist/logical "Aristotelian" school. Which became the basis for pragmatic realists, like Alexander the Great; who was note, one of Plato's students. And which, aside from Alexander the Great, lead to other hugely successful logical, scientific thinkers. Like Aristotle; another of Plato's students. Who founded Science itself, many say. HUGE accomplishments, from this often neglected tradition, out of Socrates/Plato.
Why raise this point here? In part for its intrinsic interest. Though its immediate place, in our present argument on Hypatia, is to show that if some sources have characterized her as "Neo Platonic," implying mystical and not scientific, then that implication, is not necessarily accurate; many Neo Platonists, meaning followers of Plato, were actually, as rational and scientific as say, Aristotle.
If Hypatia was called a "Neo Platonist" therefore, that does not in any way conclusively show that she could not have been rather scientific.
As for Christian animus toward her, because of her science? Above, I have indeed, noted some of the many later examples more familiar to me, as a Modernist/Postmodernist; examples from more modern times. Maybe some of you classicists, could find other, better examples in this specific time frame?
I do know that traditional Art History, visually sees and has adequately documented, a sudden, severe decline in scientific realism in art, immediately after Constantine, the first possible Christian emperor, in 300. And Art History documents a continued disinterest in naturalism, realism, in favor of a big-eyed mysticism and spirituality. Scientific realism, disappears indeed, until precisely the revival of Greco-Roman culture, in the Renaissance, in the 15th century.
Thus verifying the longstanding thesis that the mystical, religious side of Christianity, kicked off more than a thousand years, of anti-naturalist, anti-scientific, art and thought.
And suggesting that after all, the Christians who destroyed the temples c. 391, and who murdered Hypatia a few years later, very well WERE likely, reacting in part, against her Science. This seems verified by particular details in the story of Hypatia; but also by the notation of a general anti-naturalism in this time; a general trend that is extremely well documented - and is visually obvious - in Art Historical studies of that time frame.
I also at times have taught some Philosophy in universities. And have spent some time with the Classics. Though more time in Art History (MA), and Culture Studies (PhD). I have read all of Plato. And lived many years in the Eastern Mediterranean; the "Greek lake."
Of course I understand the lineage: 1) Socrates; to 2) his student Plato; to Plato's students 3) Aristotle. And perhaps, Plato's other famous student too, 4) Alexander the great. My point is, that this Platonic lineage, is a rather logical/rational tradition. Socrates was very, very strong on early attempts at logical deduction and induction; this was carried out in Plato's accounts of him; and began to come to early fruition in Aristotle. Who was known to many as the founder of modern science.
My point being here, that 1) THIS particular, sometimes-neglected tradition, from Plato, put a very, very strong emphasis not on mystical forms and the "one"; but on rationality, reason - specifically Socrates' attempts at the logical syllogism. Much more than on the 2) other tradition often noted as if it was "the" legacy of Plato: Platonistic religious, metaphysical speculations about joining God, Ideal forms, in heaven.
The stronger fruit of, tradition coming from, Socrates/Plato, I am suggesting here, was not the mystical/ metaphysical "Platonism" so many associate with Plato and his legacy, but rather, the fruits of Plato's rationality and logicality; as carried on by for example, his student, Aristotle. Who carried logic forward, and indeed added empiricism to it; to, as countless scholars have claimed, found science itself.
So that Plato, Neo-Platonism, has a very, very strong scientific element in it that many overlooks.
Thus I am pointing here, to a sometimes-neglected element in "Neo-Platonism": the rational, logical side of Socrates; which was refined finally in Plato's student, Aristotle. Founding not a religious mysticism or metaphysics, but - countless scholars claimed - founding the roots of Science. While science in turn, leads less to philosophers, than to ... better scientists and engineers.
So here's my logic: 1) if logic and reason is a strong element of Socrates, and 2) these became a major influence on developing science, in figures like Aristotle, then 3) in effect, a major legacy of Plato was ironically, not the mystical "Platonism" associated with Plotinus say; but was ironically, science. Thus it becomes possible to say that 4) better scientists and engineers, were the truer Neo-Platonists. Or were equally as Neo Platonic, as the rather more speculative, mystical, or metaphysical philosophers more conventionally associated with Plato, and Neo Platonism.
I mentioned this, my thesis here, originally, as a secondard point regarding Hypatia. It was claimed here that Hypatia was a "Neo Platonist"; and therefore, she could not be regarded as being very rational, or scientific. Here I developed my "own" thesis (or perhaps minor variation on an earlier iteration), showing that even a "Neo-Platonist," as some have called Hypatia here, could be very, very strongly rational and scientific. Since indeed, out of Socrates/Plato, came a very very strong streak of rationalism and scientific interest; that after all, many have traced from Socrates Plato; especially by way of Plato's student, Aristotle. Who is often credited in fact as the founder of Science.
So was Hypatia a "Neo Platonist"? If so, that does NOT prove she was not scientifically minds. While indeed, confirming my thesis, the sketchy biographical details we have of Hypatia's life, indicate that she had an interest in scientific instruments, and math, and so forth; elements of science.
So in sum, even if Hypatia was a "Neo Platonist," I assert that it is not unjust to characterize Hypatia as being, in part, an early "scientist." (Insofar as that term can be accurately applied to anyone, c. 350 BCE - 1400 AD.) Since 1) she might have belonged not so much to the mystical, but to 2) the rational, scientific Aristotelian branch of Plato's thought. That I have already taken too much time here to make clear.
So that, in sum, if Hypatia is ever referred to as a "Neo Platonist," note that does not imply she was JUST philosophical or "mystical," as opposed to scientific. (Using quotes here to indicate I am quoting someone else, above). The fact is, science is in the direct lineage to Plato himself; by way of Aristotle especially.
Is my attempt to characterize two major traditions coming from Plato, accurate or waterproof? I have myself noted constantly here, that the separation of these two traditions, is not perfect; hence in part, my use of quotes around "mystical" and "rational"; not as scare quotes. But to indicate the roughness of my two categorical descriptions, of the two major outflows from Plato: the 1) mystical theory of Forms, vs. the 2) logical/rational method.
And of course I know that in actual practice, these two traditions were not always, absolutely separated; many, many ancients had both elements in them. But I am proposing here (as a semi-original thesis; and not as just a mere misunderstanding of scholarship on this subject), that 1) there were two, very different schools that came out of Plato. And that moreover, 2) probably the more fruitful of the two, was the rationalist/logical "Aristotelian" school. Which became the basis for pragmatic realists, like Alexander the Great; who was note, one of Plato's students. And which, aside from Alexander the Great, lead to other hugely successful logical, scientific thinkers. Like Aristotle; another of Plato's students. Who founded Science itself, many say. HUGE accomplishments, from this often neglected tradition, out of Socrates/Plato.
Why raise this point here? In part for its intrinsic interest. Though its immediate place, in our present argument on Hypatia, is to show that if some sources have characterized her as "Neo Platonic," implying mystical and not scientific, then that implication, is not necessarily accurate; many Neo Platonists, meaning followers of Plato, were actually, as rational and scientific as say, Aristotle.
If Hypatia was called a "Neo Platonist" therefore, that does not in any way conclusively show that she could not have been rather scientific.
As for Christian animus toward her, because of her science? Above, I have indeed, noted some of the many later examples more familiar to me, as a Modernist/Postmodernist; examples from more modern times. Maybe some of you classicists, could find other, better examples in this specific time frame?
I do know that traditional Art History, visually sees and has adequately documented, a sudden, severe decline in scientific realism in art, immediately after Constantine, the first possible Christian emperor, in 300. And Art History documents a continued disinterest in naturalism, realism, in favor of a big-eyed mysticism and spirituality. Scientific realism, disappears indeed, until precisely the revival of Greco-Roman culture, in the Renaissance, in the 15th century.
Thus verifying the longstanding thesis that the mystical, religious side of Christianity, kicked off more than a thousand years, of anti-naturalist, anti-scientific, art and thought.
And suggesting that after all, the Christians who destroyed the temples c. 391, and who murdered Hypatia a few years later, very well WERE likely, reacting in part, against her Science. This seems verified by particular details in the story of Hypatia; but also by the notation of a general anti-naturalism in this time; a general trend that is extremely well documented - and is visually obvious - in Art Historical studies of that time frame.
6.10.2010 | 5:26pm
Richard says:
Dear Brettongarcia,
Thank you for this long reply. It is far more cogent and clear than some of the other posts we have all recorded here, but I do have a reservation or two. The claim that Hypatia was murdered for her scientific interest (which interest I don't doubt) is still completely inferential and hypothetical and I still think you have to nail it down with concrete and specific evidence--I don't think you can.
As for the claim that the next thousand years were anti naturalistic and anti scientific and it was not only Christianity's fault but a natural outcome of its essence [if that is a fair statement of the claim], for my money that is still to be proven. I appreciate Charles Freeman's civility and friendliness, and I recognize that he has published a considered and documented argument in several books issued by quality presses and well received by many scholars, but I will not be able to accept the claim before I have read his books and examined the sources and specialty literature. From my own background knowledge and the work of James Hannam and Tim O'Neill, I am inclined to be dubious, and I must point out that Mr. Freeman is bearing a message that at this point in time Western intellectuals want, almost desperately, to believe. That certainly does not make it wrong, but I cannot yet in good conscience grant the point.
Another detail. Alexander was the student of Aristotle, not Plato. You will probably be happy to recall that, since it sits more comfortably with the rest of your argument, but it is so.
I will retire in a couple of years and devote the rest of my life to Church history, European history, biblical scholarship, patristics, theology and philosophy, and Christian apologetics (my cunning plan is to have interests so copious that I expire before I run out of things to do). But my approach to the past of my religion is hard-bitten and robust. Although by my reckoning I am a devout man, I insist on the truth, the whole truth, the good, the bad, and the ugly. The past flatters no parties, and if my faith does not stand up to the scrutiny of a candid historical review, so much the worse for my faith. I have no wish to live a lie.
I will tell you what I expect to find. The hagiographers who see little in Christian history that is reprehensible are wrong. Human beings in any long tradition at times do horrible things, both individually and collectively. We need to get used to it.
On the other hand, the revisionists, while performing a useful service in uncovering uncomfortable and sometimes repulsive features about the Christian past, have at time pressed their case beyond tenability. The truth, I suspect, lies in between. Christianity has produced both horror and glory. The glory is a refraction of the divine. The horror is what we can be when we surrender to the worst in us. Sometimes unbelievers will ask me what we need to be saved from. All I can do is look at them in stunned incredulity.
Best,
Richard
Thank you for this long reply. It is far more cogent and clear than some of the other posts we have all recorded here, but I do have a reservation or two. The claim that Hypatia was murdered for her scientific interest (which interest I don't doubt) is still completely inferential and hypothetical and I still think you have to nail it down with concrete and specific evidence--I don't think you can.
As for the claim that the next thousand years were anti naturalistic and anti scientific and it was not only Christianity's fault but a natural outcome of its essence [if that is a fair statement of the claim], for my money that is still to be proven. I appreciate Charles Freeman's civility and friendliness, and I recognize that he has published a considered and documented argument in several books issued by quality presses and well received by many scholars, but I will not be able to accept the claim before I have read his books and examined the sources and specialty literature. From my own background knowledge and the work of James Hannam and Tim O'Neill, I am inclined to be dubious, and I must point out that Mr. Freeman is bearing a message that at this point in time Western intellectuals want, almost desperately, to believe. That certainly does not make it wrong, but I cannot yet in good conscience grant the point.
Another detail. Alexander was the student of Aristotle, not Plato. You will probably be happy to recall that, since it sits more comfortably with the rest of your argument, but it is so.
I will retire in a couple of years and devote the rest of my life to Church history, European history, biblical scholarship, patristics, theology and philosophy, and Christian apologetics (my cunning plan is to have interests so copious that I expire before I run out of things to do). But my approach to the past of my religion is hard-bitten and robust. Although by my reckoning I am a devout man, I insist on the truth, the whole truth, the good, the bad, and the ugly. The past flatters no parties, and if my faith does not stand up to the scrutiny of a candid historical review, so much the worse for my faith. I have no wish to live a lie.
I will tell you what I expect to find. The hagiographers who see little in Christian history that is reprehensible are wrong. Human beings in any long tradition at times do horrible things, both individually and collectively. We need to get used to it.
On the other hand, the revisionists, while performing a useful service in uncovering uncomfortable and sometimes repulsive features about the Christian past, have at time pressed their case beyond tenability. The truth, I suspect, lies in between. Christianity has produced both horror and glory. The glory is a refraction of the divine. The horror is what we can be when we surrender to the worst in us. Sometimes unbelievers will ask me what we need to be saved from. All I can do is look at them in stunned incredulity.
Best,
Richard
6.10.2010 | 7:09pm
bernard wills says:
well, by 'rational and scientific' you seem to mean a concern with logic (inductive and deductive) and natural science...this you call 'Aristotelian' though Aristotle himself classified Metaphysics or Theology as the first science and certainly would have rated ethics and politics as higher studies than logic....if Aristotle thus mutilated and truncated was the sum and substance of Hypatia's Platonism it is difficult to imagine her getting on in any Platonic school....on the other hand, if she combined these interests with the broader speculative, religious and ethical concerns of Late Platonism that does not distinguish her from Proclus, Iamblichus, Damascius etc. or for that matter from any number of Christian figures (Boethius, Augustine, Philoponus etc.) and the supposed opposition between 'rational classicism' and 'mystical Christianity' simply never existed....in other words, if her 'rationalism' was of an exclusive kind she is a complete anomaly in her age....if it is inclusive of spiritual and ethical interests or at least not thought of as opposed to them then she is largely at one with with the most enlightened of her Christian contemporaries (the average Christian being no more or less superstitious than the average pagan one supposes)....
6.11.2010 | 3:56am
brettongarcia says:
Bernard:
Well, I DID say above that many figures in this timeframe, (adding now, even Aristotle) did share some qualities borrowed BOTH from 1) Classic Rationalism AND 2) Mystical Platonism/Christianity. Though of course, the exact proportion of the mix, would vary widely, from one individual to the next.
I think most scholars would still put, say, Aristotle strongly in the more scientific/rational/empirical camp. As the "father of science." Though technically he might have put ethics and metaphysics logically ahead of or prior to such material concerns, subsequent developments in History, favored his practical/scientific themes better, I'd suspect. And gave them practical priority.
In the specific case of Hypatia? I would agree that she might have some religious metaphysical leanings; but tentatively I would say that the reason she was murdered in fact, was that in the precise time period when mystical Christianity was being most forcefully imposed over and against classical culture - c. 300-391-400-415 CE say - Hypatia was unfortunately, with her interest in math and scientific instrumentation, rather more on the rational/classica/scientific end of the scale.
Then too no doubt, though in many respects her position might have been very close to many more intellectual Christians, Hypatia apparently did not officially call herself a Christian; or behave according to their morality (she was having an affair). And those are the reasons that Hypatia was killed, by Christians. She was just a step or two or three, outside their enforced boundary lines; she was rather scientific, and pagan; and she had not proclaimed herself to be "A Christian."
And so she was murdered, by Christians, as not being one of them.
Well, I DID say above that many figures in this timeframe, (adding now, even Aristotle) did share some qualities borrowed BOTH from 1) Classic Rationalism AND 2) Mystical Platonism/Christianity. Though of course, the exact proportion of the mix, would vary widely, from one individual to the next.
I think most scholars would still put, say, Aristotle strongly in the more scientific/rational/empirical camp. As the "father of science." Though technically he might have put ethics and metaphysics logically ahead of or prior to such material concerns, subsequent developments in History, favored his practical/scientific themes better, I'd suspect. And gave them practical priority.
In the specific case of Hypatia? I would agree that she might have some religious metaphysical leanings; but tentatively I would say that the reason she was murdered in fact, was that in the precise time period when mystical Christianity was being most forcefully imposed over and against classical culture - c. 300-391-400-415 CE say - Hypatia was unfortunately, with her interest in math and scientific instrumentation, rather more on the rational/classica/scientific end of the scale.
Then too no doubt, though in many respects her position might have been very close to many more intellectual Christians, Hypatia apparently did not officially call herself a Christian; or behave according to their morality (she was having an affair). And those are the reasons that Hypatia was killed, by Christians. She was just a step or two or three, outside their enforced boundary lines; she was rather scientific, and pagan; and she had not proclaimed herself to be "A Christian."
And so she was murdered, by Christians, as not being one of them.
6.11.2010 | 8:26am
Charles Freeman says:
Brett. The only recorded work of Plato in a western monastery by Plato by 1200 is the Timaeus. I am not sure what you mean by Irish monks as conveyors of the classical tradition as Ireland was never part of the classical world and what we do know of the bigger western monasteries on mainland Europe, they were not necessarily IRISH monks who did the copying. One needs to read the surviving monastic catalogues to what a tiny proportion of classical works are listed.
I could't recognise the argument of Closing from Hart's summary of it in his Atheist Delusions-make of that what you will.
I first worked in the ancient Mediterranean inRome at the British School in 1966.I have earned aliving professionally as a historian sine 1973 in all kinds of capacities. I helped pioneer the Internationlal Baccalaureate History courses and was for many years a Senior Examiner in the critical thinking course, the Theory of Knowledge,which brought me into constant contact with philosophers and other thinkers. However the ancient Mediterranean has been my first love and I challenge anyone who has read my Egypt,Greece and Rome and my Sites of antiquity to say I don't know it pretty well. When the prestigious Blue Guides were being relaunched,iwas appointed as their sole historical consultant.
Richard. Thank you for noting my approach to these debates and mentioning,that whatever some contributors to this discussion may claim, I also have a lot of academics who support me wholly or in part. However, the point I wish to reiterate,and I made in the closing remarks of a lecture to a crowded audience at the Hay Literary Festival a few days ago-THIS WHOLE SUBJECT IS DESPERATE NEED OF REWORKING!!
I could't recognise the argument of Closing from Hart's summary of it in his Atheist Delusions-make of that what you will.
I first worked in the ancient Mediterranean inRome at the British School in 1966.I have earned aliving professionally as a historian sine 1973 in all kinds of capacities. I helped pioneer the Internationlal Baccalaureate History courses and was for many years a Senior Examiner in the critical thinking course, the Theory of Knowledge,which brought me into constant contact with philosophers and other thinkers. However the ancient Mediterranean has been my first love and I challenge anyone who has read my Egypt,Greece and Rome and my Sites of antiquity to say I don't know it pretty well. When the prestigious Blue Guides were being relaunched,iwas appointed as their sole historical consultant.
Richard. Thank you for noting my approach to these debates and mentioning,that whatever some contributors to this discussion may claim, I also have a lot of academics who support me wholly or in part. However, the point I wish to reiterate,and I made in the closing remarks of a lecture to a crowded audience at the Hay Literary Festival a few days ago-THIS WHOLE SUBJECT IS DESPERATE NEED OF REWORKING!!
6.11.2010 | 9:18am
F Arundell says:
Always good to hear from you David. One more fashionable enemy of the Christian Revolution taken to task.
Since Christian, especially Catholic, bashing is the popular sport today, it gives me hope. We must be doing something right when Truth is attacked for commercial purposes. We will not be overcome with evil, but we will overcome evil with good. We bless those who persecute us; we bless and do not curse. Teach the "Catholic League" your fine touch, i.e responding with the knowledge of Truth.
Frank
Since Christian, especially Catholic, bashing is the popular sport today, it gives me hope. We must be doing something right when Truth is attacked for commercial purposes. We will not be overcome with evil, but we will overcome evil with good. We bless those who persecute us; we bless and do not curse. Teach the "Catholic League" your fine touch, i.e responding with the knowledge of Truth.
Frank
6.11.2010 | 9:47am
bernard wills says:
let me conclude by saying this (and you can have the last response)...natural science was not an over-riding interest for Chirstians in late antiquity (that is true)....nonetheless, it is not completly absent either and in his De Doctrina Augustine recommends the study of nature as indispensible to the interpretation of scripture....Yet, as people like Dodds have shown, Late Paganism was little different than Chirstianity in this regard....its overwhelming concerns were religious and ethical...it too had some room for scientific study though for the Neo-Platonists these were most likey to be directed to the 'divine' sciences of mathematics and geometry rather than physical nature...so, given that there was so much convergance between Pagan and christian in this period it is prima facie unlikely that the murder of Hypatia can be taken as expressing some kind of culture war between 'reason' and mysticism....at least i await evidence from you that it did....cheers bw
6.11.2010 | 5:06pm
brettongarcia says:
Bernard et alia:
Thanks for Bernard's generous offer to allow me the last word. Though to tell the truth, there are some relevant arguments, I'm holding back, for an upcoming book or two. Bernard is quite right, that a few key parts of the puzzle are missing; I'm just holding them back here, for strategic reasons.
In any case, I wouldn't want the last word here. I'd like to thank far more prominent Classics scholars than I - like Freeman, Hannam, Leavitt? - for participating in this forum. And would like to defer to them for a while.
In particular though, I've tried here to support Freeman; his (?) focus on 380 AD - the year that Christianity was made the official religion of Rome - should begin to open up much new research; research that will soon change our understanding of this era in history. While the story of the libraries in Alexandria, and of Hypatia, c. 391-416, will form an important sub-set of this revolutionary new investigation.
No doubt, as in any new field, some mistakes will be made, by the early rough pioneers. And yet however, already we are beginning to refine and nuance the earlier assertions and discoveries. So that within another 30 years or so, this should be an amazing, revolutionary, and reasonably mature and stable field of inquiry.
Even here and now, in its earliest days, it is a revolutionary and exciting and momentous field to be entering now and then, even casually.
Thanks for Bernard's generous offer to allow me the last word. Though to tell the truth, there are some relevant arguments, I'm holding back, for an upcoming book or two. Bernard is quite right, that a few key parts of the puzzle are missing; I'm just holding them back here, for strategic reasons.
In any case, I wouldn't want the last word here. I'd like to thank far more prominent Classics scholars than I - like Freeman, Hannam, Leavitt? - for participating in this forum. And would like to defer to them for a while.
In particular though, I've tried here to support Freeman; his (?) focus on 380 AD - the year that Christianity was made the official religion of Rome - should begin to open up much new research; research that will soon change our understanding of this era in history. While the story of the libraries in Alexandria, and of Hypatia, c. 391-416, will form an important sub-set of this revolutionary new investigation.
No doubt, as in any new field, some mistakes will be made, by the early rough pioneers. And yet however, already we are beginning to refine and nuance the earlier assertions and discoveries. So that within another 30 years or so, this should be an amazing, revolutionary, and reasonably mature and stable field of inquiry.
Even here and now, in its earliest days, it is a revolutionary and exciting and momentous field to be entering now and then, even casually.
6.11.2010 | 9:00pm
Timothy Teeter says:
I have scanned all of these comments as best I can. Unless I missed it, no one has cited the best summary article on the actual fate of the Library, by Diana Delia in AHR December 1992 vol 97 no. 5, pages 1449-1467. (If anyone has access to JSTOR, you can find it at www.jstor.org/stable/2165947)
As Diana made clear eighteen years ago, there almost certainly never was any destruction of the Library per se at all. It probably didn't have its own building, being part and parcel of the Museum, and the Museum was defunded by the emperor Caracalla in 215, so there almost wasn't much, if any, of the library left by 391. The destruction of the Serapeum is well attested, and there is evidence of some sort of library there in the early fourth century. It is possible, therefore, that some materials were still in the Serapeum two generations later when it was destroyed in 391, but "the Library" as popularly conceived was not and could not have been there. It would not surprise me in the least if some valuable texts went up in flames in 391, and I do not know how the movie depicts this event, so I won't judge. I've seen the trailer that suggests that Hypatia and company set about saving books, which is entirely possible--but if the movie says that "the Library" was destroyed by either soldiers or a mob, well, that's a gross exaggeration at the very least.
As Diana made clear eighteen years ago, there almost certainly never was any destruction of the Library per se at all. It probably didn't have its own building, being part and parcel of the Museum, and the Museum was defunded by the emperor Caracalla in 215, so there almost wasn't much, if any, of the library left by 391. The destruction of the Serapeum is well attested, and there is evidence of some sort of library there in the early fourth century. It is possible, therefore, that some materials were still in the Serapeum two generations later when it was destroyed in 391, but "the Library" as popularly conceived was not and could not have been there. It would not surprise me in the least if some valuable texts went up in flames in 391, and I do not know how the movie depicts this event, so I won't judge. I've seen the trailer that suggests that Hypatia and company set about saving books, which is entirely possible--but if the movie says that "the Library" was destroyed by either soldiers or a mob, well, that's a gross exaggeration at the very least.
6.11.2010 | 9:26pm
Timothy Teeter says:
"In particular though, I've tried here to support Freeman; his (?) focus on 380 AD - the year that Christianity was made the official religion of Rome - should begin to open up much new research; research that will soon change our understanding of this era in history. While the story of the libraries in Alexandria, and of Hypatia, c. 391-416, will form an important sub-set of this revolutionary new investigation.
No doubt, as in any new field, some mistakes will be made, by the early rough pioneers. And yet however, already we are beginning to refine and nuance the earlier assertions and discoveries. So that within another 30 years or so, this should be an amazing, revolutionary, and reasonably mature and stable field of inquiry."
This is, frankly, an very ill-informed comment. Serious work on all aspects of Late Antiquity has been underway for over a generation. Modern interest can be dated to the work of A.H.M. Jones and Peter Brown in the 1960s.
No doubt, as in any new field, some mistakes will be made, by the early rough pioneers. And yet however, already we are beginning to refine and nuance the earlier assertions and discoveries. So that within another 30 years or so, this should be an amazing, revolutionary, and reasonably mature and stable field of inquiry."
This is, frankly, an very ill-informed comment. Serious work on all aspects of Late Antiquity has been underway for over a generation. Modern interest can be dated to the work of A.H.M. Jones and Peter Brown in the 1960s.
6.12.2010 | 9:39am
Timothy Teeter says:
As I looked again at the various contributions to this thread this morning, I was surprised to see the following comment by Charles Freeman: "THIS WHOLE SUBJECT IS DESPERATE NEED OF REWORKING!!"
All caps, no less! Mr. Freeman (of whose publications I am aware) and his fans here write as if there has not been, in fact, an entire scholarly industry devoted to Late Antiquity (or the Later Roman Empire—which term you use tends to show whose side you are on in certain historiographic disputes) stretching back more than a generation. Is he really unaware of the work of A. H. M. Jones, Peter Brown, Averil Cameron, Stephen Mitchell, Gillian Clarke, Ramsay MacMullen, Roger Bagnall, G. W. Bowersock, Timothy Barnes, James O'Donnell, John Matthews, Peter Heather, and Bryan Ward-Perkins (just to name the English language scholars from the top of my head), who have been leaving no stone unturned in the study of this era for the last fifty years? Study that has resulted, to give an easily accessible example, in two additional volumes (XIII and XIV) to the Cambridge Ancient History's second edition?
There is always room for more scholarship, and I suppose that more migh be discovered about Hypatia in particular, but please do not allow anyone to suggest that there has not been a vigorous examination of this era, including examples of Christian violence (see: election of Pope Damasus) which I regularly discuss in my classroom.
Unlike David Hart, I absolutely intend to see this movie. It will undoubtedly provide an excellent teaching moment on the use of film to use history to promote an agenda or sell tickets, one far better than the unfortunate Gladiator or 300 or HBOs Rome. As far as cinema or television go, the gold standard remains, after all these years, Spartacus and I, Claudius, and that's not saying much.
All caps, no less! Mr. Freeman (of whose publications I am aware) and his fans here write as if there has not been, in fact, an entire scholarly industry devoted to Late Antiquity (or the Later Roman Empire—which term you use tends to show whose side you are on in certain historiographic disputes) stretching back more than a generation. Is he really unaware of the work of A. H. M. Jones, Peter Brown, Averil Cameron, Stephen Mitchell, Gillian Clarke, Ramsay MacMullen, Roger Bagnall, G. W. Bowersock, Timothy Barnes, James O'Donnell, John Matthews, Peter Heather, and Bryan Ward-Perkins (just to name the English language scholars from the top of my head), who have been leaving no stone unturned in the study of this era for the last fifty years? Study that has resulted, to give an easily accessible example, in two additional volumes (XIII and XIV) to the Cambridge Ancient History's second edition?
There is always room for more scholarship, and I suppose that more migh be discovered about Hypatia in particular, but please do not allow anyone to suggest that there has not been a vigorous examination of this era, including examples of Christian violence (see: election of Pope Damasus) which I regularly discuss in my classroom.
Unlike David Hart, I absolutely intend to see this movie. It will undoubtedly provide an excellent teaching moment on the use of film to use history to promote an agenda or sell tickets, one far better than the unfortunate Gladiator or 300 or HBOs Rome. As far as cinema or television go, the gold standard remains, after all these years, Spartacus and I, Claudius, and that's not saying much.
6.12.2010 | 3:08pm
Brettongarcia says:
I am greatful for Tim Teeter's bibliographical update here; and his confirmation that indeed, the field of Late Antiquity/Roman Empire studies, now plainly acknowledges Christian prosecution and murders, (of non-Christians especially?).
Of course, scholarship in nearly every single academic field, has advanced quite a bit since 1960. Still, many feel that Freeman's particular field, or stress - on the militant, even deadly suppression of paganism, by the newly officially Christian Roman empire - HAS been a neglected sub-field. In part because often-Christian scholars, have not wanted to face the dark side of Christianization. Including Christian murders of pagans, and so forth; like the murder of Hypatia.
I am glad to hear therefore, yet another scholar here, like Teeter, confirming that indeed, the larger discipline or field of Late Antiquity/Roman Empire, has developed overall; and even the specific sub-field to which I intended to refer here, the study of the often-violent Christian suppression of paganism.
My position on the Library specifically, is that "The" first, Great Library at Alexandria, probably was destroyed c. 48 BCE; but, since Alexandria Egypt was a famously scholarly town, no doubt the libraries at Alexandria were build up again, in various buildings, again, as far as that was possible. So that significant numbers of books, even libraries, would likely have been destroyed c. 391, when "God Lover" destroyed "all" pagan temples in the city. (A destruction which would have been significant in itself; library or no library).
Though to be sure, no doubt this movie, like all Hollywood movies, takes some liberties with the facts, and theatrically over-emphasizes this or that dramatic feature of History, still, Hart's review here itself, also begins self-consciously, with his OWN "theatrical sighs" and rhetoric. Clearly Hart himself, is not so dedicated to the facts, but to a certain dramatic theatricality of his own; with the aim of using rhetoric, to attempt to destroy the nascient but growing field of criticism of Chrsitian murders; to try to nip this new field in the bud. With his own theatrical mis-emphasis. With his "theatrically morose" sighs.
But Hart's mere theatrical superciliousness, cannot substitute for growing, real scholarship. Which, as Teeter acknowledges here, is now increasingly well aware of the violent Christian suppression and murders, of non-Christians; especially after 380 AD.
And though some scholars seem to feel that enough has already been done in this specific sub-field, I myself, with Freeman, would like to hear LOTS more work done on this. And would like to see what is already known, much-better publicized.
Perhaps in fact, this very Hollywood move, for all its occasional inaccuracies, will however at least foreground a major aspect of this era, that many of us still feel has been relatively underemphasized: the murders of pagans, the violent destruction of paganism and its temples, by the first wave of Christized Romans.
Of course, scholarship in nearly every single academic field, has advanced quite a bit since 1960. Still, many feel that Freeman's particular field, or stress - on the militant, even deadly suppression of paganism, by the newly officially Christian Roman empire - HAS been a neglected sub-field. In part because often-Christian scholars, have not wanted to face the dark side of Christianization. Including Christian murders of pagans, and so forth; like the murder of Hypatia.
I am glad to hear therefore, yet another scholar here, like Teeter, confirming that indeed, the larger discipline or field of Late Antiquity/Roman Empire, has developed overall; and even the specific sub-field to which I intended to refer here, the study of the often-violent Christian suppression of paganism.
My position on the Library specifically, is that "The" first, Great Library at Alexandria, probably was destroyed c. 48 BCE; but, since Alexandria Egypt was a famously scholarly town, no doubt the libraries at Alexandria were build up again, in various buildings, again, as far as that was possible. So that significant numbers of books, even libraries, would likely have been destroyed c. 391, when "God Lover" destroyed "all" pagan temples in the city. (A destruction which would have been significant in itself; library or no library).
Though to be sure, no doubt this movie, like all Hollywood movies, takes some liberties with the facts, and theatrically over-emphasizes this or that dramatic feature of History, still, Hart's review here itself, also begins self-consciously, with his OWN "theatrical sighs" and rhetoric. Clearly Hart himself, is not so dedicated to the facts, but to a certain dramatic theatricality of his own; with the aim of using rhetoric, to attempt to destroy the nascient but growing field of criticism of Chrsitian murders; to try to nip this new field in the bud. With his own theatrical mis-emphasis. With his "theatrically morose" sighs.
But Hart's mere theatrical superciliousness, cannot substitute for growing, real scholarship. Which, as Teeter acknowledges here, is now increasingly well aware of the violent Christian suppression and murders, of non-Christians; especially after 380 AD.
And though some scholars seem to feel that enough has already been done in this specific sub-field, I myself, with Freeman, would like to hear LOTS more work done on this. And would like to see what is already known, much-better publicized.
Perhaps in fact, this very Hollywood move, for all its occasional inaccuracies, will however at least foreground a major aspect of this era, that many of us still feel has been relatively underemphasized: the murders of pagans, the violent destruction of paganism and its temples, by the first wave of Christized Romans.
6.12.2010 | 4:11pm
Charles Freeman says:
Timothy- you will find all these listed,and read, in the bibliography to my AD 381- buy a copy and see. There is an immense amount yet to be done on the theological debates of the fourth century - David Hunter is beginning some good revisionist history. The role of the emperors in defining orthodoxy is still underestimated. The legislation of Theodosius Ii against heretics is only just beginning to be seriosly analysed and there is all the recent archaeology to be integrated and placed alongside the gung-ho accounts of bishops destroying temples. You may be happy with the present accounts but There remains so much to be done.
I have read most of what Peter Brown but nothing compares with hearing him lecture . Averil Cameron read my final chapters of my Egypt, Greece and Rome for me to check them for accuracy.
I contributed to this debate with an uncontroversial statement. Then there was an extraordinary personal attack on a book I wrote eight years ago by one Linda L. Quite bizarre, totally irrevelant to the subject of this debate and totally unscholarly in its crudeness. I am sorry that I have had to go to such lengths to defend myself .
I have read most of what Peter Brown but nothing compares with hearing him lecture . Averil Cameron read my final chapters of my Egypt, Greece and Rome for me to check them for accuracy.
I contributed to this debate with an uncontroversial statement. Then there was an extraordinary personal attack on a book I wrote eight years ago by one Linda L. Quite bizarre, totally irrevelant to the subject of this debate and totally unscholarly in its crudeness. I am sorry that I have had to go to such lengths to defend myself .
6.12.2010 | 4:35pm
Charles freeman says:
I t is only fair to add that as I haven't AD 381 with me in Italy not every one of those names might be in . I had to review O' Donnell's Augustine and found it so eccentric that I don't think I included it.You will find a very full bibliography in AD 381 though as I made a point of scouring the scholarly journals for the latest work.I still think the emphasis of the work is very traditional and we are in for a paradigm shift . We can only wait and see where the next generation of scholars take us.
6.12.2010 | 6:10pm
brettongarcia says:
Charles Freeman and others:
I apologize for the rude attacks, by some alleged Christians, on your scholarship, here today. Attacks which I regard as still more evidence, yet more examples, of the longstanding, undeserved antipathy, anger, and attacks, by alleged Christians, on anyone and anything they feel is threatening to their hegemony.
To Christians: remember that Jesus himself told Christians to "love your enemies"; perhaps in the theory that after all, we can learn even from those we think are wrong. Or from the idea that after all, one day or another, we are supposed to discover that many who thought they were Christians, are to discover they were following after all, a false Christ, a false idea of Christ. While many we thought were "last" before Jesus, may turn out to have been "first" after all.
Ironically in fact, it may well be that in the end, our critical classics scholars here, are much closer to the honesty and fairness that Jesus demanded, for instance, than most professing Christians.
Jesus indeed told us after all, that even "Good Samaritan" - person who is not a Christian at all, but who does good and honest works -can be a better person, more beloved of God, than even a priest or minister, who does not do good, honest works.
While here, I'm seeing plenty of evidence of good, solid works, scholarship, on the side of those who are willing to face at last, the "sins of the Church"; in order to correct them. And to have a better Church perhaps, a better "kingdom" after all, in the end.
No doubt, it is hard for Christians to "face" sins and errors, deep in their holiest traditions, in their History. But only by facing and confessing their sins, will Christians learn to correct their errors; and become truly good, true followers of God, at last.
I apologize for the rude attacks, by some alleged Christians, on your scholarship, here today. Attacks which I regard as still more evidence, yet more examples, of the longstanding, undeserved antipathy, anger, and attacks, by alleged Christians, on anyone and anything they feel is threatening to their hegemony.
To Christians: remember that Jesus himself told Christians to "love your enemies"; perhaps in the theory that after all, we can learn even from those we think are wrong. Or from the idea that after all, one day or another, we are supposed to discover that many who thought they were Christians, are to discover they were following after all, a false Christ, a false idea of Christ. While many we thought were "last" before Jesus, may turn out to have been "first" after all.
Ironically in fact, it may well be that in the end, our critical classics scholars here, are much closer to the honesty and fairness that Jesus demanded, for instance, than most professing Christians.
Jesus indeed told us after all, that even "Good Samaritan" - person who is not a Christian at all, but who does good and honest works -can be a better person, more beloved of God, than even a priest or minister, who does not do good, honest works.
While here, I'm seeing plenty of evidence of good, solid works, scholarship, on the side of those who are willing to face at last, the "sins of the Church"; in order to correct them. And to have a better Church perhaps, a better "kingdom" after all, in the end.
No doubt, it is hard for Christians to "face" sins and errors, deep in their holiest traditions, in their History. But only by facing and confessing their sins, will Christians learn to correct their errors; and become truly good, true followers of God, at last.
6.12.2010 | 8:40pm
Bret Lythgoe says:
Charles Freeman: Thanks for your thoughtful response. My point is that much of classical literature, particularly of the roman period, e.g.,Terence, Virgil, Cicero, were preserved only because of the laborious copying of Monks, especially Irish Monks. They were selective, and gave priority to religious texts, but if it was not for them, much of classical learning would be lost forever. You're right about Plato.
Your work, Egypt, greece and Rome, sounds very good, and has received high praise. I have not read it, but I will. I think that the concern among some is that you dislike christianity, and that this dislike has perhaps affected your work. You seem like a reasonable person, and I am disinclined to believe this, but the fact is, some scholars have had trouble with your Closing of the Western Mind. I have not read it yet, so I'll reserve judgment. What are your views of christianity, and do you think that these views my have affected your scholarship, and if not, what motivates some people to assert otherwise?
I believe in being respectful, and I'm sorry some on this post have failed to show you respect.
Your work, Egypt, greece and Rome, sounds very good, and has received high praise. I have not read it, but I will. I think that the concern among some is that you dislike christianity, and that this dislike has perhaps affected your work. You seem like a reasonable person, and I am disinclined to believe this, but the fact is, some scholars have had trouble with your Closing of the Western Mind. I have not read it yet, so I'll reserve judgment. What are your views of christianity, and do you think that these views my have affected your scholarship, and if not, what motivates some people to assert otherwise?
I believe in being respectful, and I'm sorry some on this post have failed to show you respect.
6.12.2010 | 9:37pm
Timothy Teeter says:
If I were satisfied with the field of Late Antiquity, I wouldn’t be working in it.; and I am aware of your book, which I have not yet read but intend to when I can. It’s on the list, and although you have a reputation for being tendentious, I shall try to read it with and open mind, particularly as you (and even more your fan Mr. Garcia) write in a tone that suggests that somehow the question of violence—pagan against Christian, Christian against pagan, Christian against Jew, Christian against Christian—is some sort of revelation, a subject long buried in obscurity, when such is simply not the case. See, for example, Timothy Barnes’ Athanasius and Constantius—though if you’re really curious, you can find my review of it in Vigiliae Christianae (sorry, reference not handy).
Imperial anti-pagan legislation is so well known, it is included in such standard undergraduate anthologies as the second volume of Lewis and Rheinhold’s Roman Civilization.
Oh, and for myself, I have found Peter Brown better on the page than live.
BTW, I think the term “murder” is unhelpful in this subject—it sounds like something out of Law & Order. Mob violence is more appropriate.
Imperial anti-pagan legislation is so well known, it is included in such standard undergraduate anthologies as the second volume of Lewis and Rheinhold’s Roman Civilization.
Oh, and for myself, I have found Peter Brown better on the page than live.
BTW, I think the term “murder” is unhelpful in this subject—it sounds like something out of Law & Order. Mob violence is more appropriate.
6.13.2010 | 3:17am
brettongarcia says:
Tim:
Thanks very much, for your VERY useful input and perspective.
Still, I'd like to hang on to at least one semi-technical term of mine, presented here: when Christians killed innocent people, without due process, I think calling that a "CHRISTIAN MURDER" would be quite accurate.
Such Christian murders though - you are quite right - often occured in the context of mob violence, riots; your own term usefully foregrounds the collective, mob mentality that is at work here; the "us-vs-them" mentality that resulted in Christians killing many thousands (and ultimate millions) of innocent people.
Perhaps you can help fill this out a little in fact: Christians in this timeframe, apparently murdering thousands? Of what we might call, say, classical people? (Or what's a good, non-judgemental term for "pagan"s? "Pagan" etymologically implying they were residents from the country, rude country bumpkins; while clearly that term would not apply to Hypatia.)
I hope my term - "Christian murders" - is not unduly theatrical. It is my hope that, in this public, dramatic setting however, the phrase will serve to at least mildly dramatize the problem that many Christians are not facing: facing their own sins, the sins of Christians. The sins of Christianity as a mass movement.
Noting the murderous side of Christianity, is not a prejudice, it is becomming clear: Christianity, historians are now confirming over and over, brutally and unjustly killed, tens of millions people. Thousands, in this era. While later in the Crusades, and then especially in the 30 Years War and the entire 17th century, Christians began murdering others, and then rival Christian denominations, by the millions. Referring here to unust wars, as murders, to be sure.
Thanks very much, for your VERY useful input and perspective.
Still, I'd like to hang on to at least one semi-technical term of mine, presented here: when Christians killed innocent people, without due process, I think calling that a "CHRISTIAN MURDER" would be quite accurate.
Such Christian murders though - you are quite right - often occured in the context of mob violence, riots; your own term usefully foregrounds the collective, mob mentality that is at work here; the "us-vs-them" mentality that resulted in Christians killing many thousands (and ultimate millions) of innocent people.
Perhaps you can help fill this out a little in fact: Christians in this timeframe, apparently murdering thousands? Of what we might call, say, classical people? (Or what's a good, non-judgemental term for "pagan"s? "Pagan" etymologically implying they were residents from the country, rude country bumpkins; while clearly that term would not apply to Hypatia.)
I hope my term - "Christian murders" - is not unduly theatrical. It is my hope that, in this public, dramatic setting however, the phrase will serve to at least mildly dramatize the problem that many Christians are not facing: facing their own sins, the sins of Christians. The sins of Christianity as a mass movement.
Noting the murderous side of Christianity, is not a prejudice, it is becomming clear: Christianity, historians are now confirming over and over, brutally and unjustly killed, tens of millions people. Thousands, in this era. While later in the Crusades, and then especially in the 30 Years War and the entire 17th century, Christians began murdering others, and then rival Christian denominations, by the millions. Referring here to unust wars, as murders, to be sure.
6.13.2010 | 4:05am
Charles Freeman says:
Bret and Timothy, I was brought up a Catholic and left the Church in my fifties without trauma and with some nostalgia.Long before I left I was worried from living in Rome over the immense discrepancy between thegospels and the Church-even though I revel in much religious art.
Readers of my books who see me as anti -Christian are a minority and much of correspodence in England is with Thoughtful Christians. I have a dialogue with anAnglican monk to continue when I get back to England .
One of the strongest points I made in Closing was that it was the emperor Theodosius I who was responsible for making a lively and diverse. Christianity subject to imperial laws a nd I don't regard any review. That does not respond to this argument as inadequate. Reviewers who leave this point out make it look as if I blame Christians ALONE for the Closing. I have taken one James Hannam to task for this approach in his review of Closing. I have no reason to believe that Hannam has a wide following but his approach seems to have been copied uncritically by some who have not read Closing. I decided the best thing to do was to write a more focussed sequel,AD381 ,which made the legislation of Theodosius the central feature.Hannam seems not to have seen it. So I think I can plead that I have been misrepresented and you will find reviewers who cannot detect any anti-Christian bias in my work . Many see my work as essentially a study of the relationship between Cbristianity and political power.
I am so glad you are going to read my books yourselves. I think if you place my arguments alongside those of Drs. Hannam and Hart you will see how they have misrepresented me but I shall leave that up to you.
Incidentally if you want some lighter summer reading Overlook Press are just about to publish my study of the four horses of St .Mark's in Venice!
Readers of my books who see me as anti -Christian are a minority and much of correspodence in England is with Thoughtful Christians. I have a dialogue with anAnglican monk to continue when I get back to England .
One of the strongest points I made in Closing was that it was the emperor Theodosius I who was responsible for making a lively and diverse. Christianity subject to imperial laws a nd I don't regard any review. That does not respond to this argument as inadequate. Reviewers who leave this point out make it look as if I blame Christians ALONE for the Closing. I have taken one James Hannam to task for this approach in his review of Closing. I have no reason to believe that Hannam has a wide following but his approach seems to have been copied uncritically by some who have not read Closing. I decided the best thing to do was to write a more focussed sequel,AD381 ,which made the legislation of Theodosius the central feature.Hannam seems not to have seen it. So I think I can plead that I have been misrepresented and you will find reviewers who cannot detect any anti-Christian bias in my work . Many see my work as essentially a study of the relationship between Cbristianity and political power.
I am so glad you are going to read my books yourselves. I think if you place my arguments alongside those of Drs. Hannam and Hart you will see how they have misrepresented me but I shall leave that up to you.
Incidentally if you want some lighter summer reading Overlook Press are just about to publish my study of the four horses of St .Mark's in Venice!
6.13.2010 | 12:30pm
Charles Freeman says:
I am sorry- my last text was meant to read 'adequate' not 'inadequate'. A small screen and large fingers make it slow work on an Iphone, especially when it seems to add in odd extras!
6.13.2010 | 7:04pm
brettongarcia says:
I think we might indeed usefully distinguish the church or "kingdom" envisioned by the Bible and Jesus some "day" - which many of us support. Versus the pragmatic problems of the imperfect kingdom or churches, the institutional, historical Christianity, that we have historically had here on earth; with its many sins.
Many of us want to continue working with the churches; to at last realize the better vision of God or Good, here on earth, as foretold. And yet to be sure, to get to that point, involves all our traditional Churches, and all real Christians, being capable of - as the Bible called for - learning to "confess" and "face" their sins; even the "sins of the Church." The sins of historical Christianity. As Christianity was perhaps mislead, in part, by Roman emperors, and countless others?
Many of us want to continue working with the churches; to at last realize the better vision of God or Good, here on earth, as foretold. And yet to be sure, to get to that point, involves all our traditional Churches, and all real Christians, being capable of - as the Bible called for - learning to "confess" and "face" their sins; even the "sins of the Church." The sins of historical Christianity. As Christianity was perhaps mislead, in part, by Roman emperors, and countless others?
6.14.2010 | 2:11am
Charles freeman says:
The full text of my exchanges with James Hannam can be found through a Google search of 'Freeman Closing of the Western Mind' . I have to say that in all my many correspondences,etc. I have never heard anyone refer to it but the fact that part was reproduced in this debate suggests that is still live . All the more reason to read my response!
6.14.2010 | 2:13am
Reggie A says:
Mr. B. Garcia,
I find it interesting that you are claiming that others have been unduly rude, considering your own petulant behavior on this board.
As for me, I have not seen anyone as being impolite to Mr. Freeman. They are merely challenging his view, and his scholarship (the heart and soul of any debate).
I find it interesting that you are claiming that others have been unduly rude, considering your own petulant behavior on this board.
As for me, I have not seen anyone as being impolite to Mr. Freeman. They are merely challenging his view, and his scholarship (the heart and soul of any debate).
6.14.2010 | 10:56am
bernard wills says:
these comments are adressed to Mr. Freeman: Your claims have certainly been controversial and not only among thse postings....the general reason given is that critics think you engaged are in polemic disguised as history...you deny any such intention so I will take you at your word...still, i find the things you are saying here and elsewhere do seem to emit an odd smell...if I were to try to identify the source of this smell I would say that it emanates from an unconscious confusion about facts and values and their relationship in historical judgment. Fact: hypatia was mudered by a Christian mob. That is true but of course the historian is interested in the significance and meaning of this fact...so you say the significance of this bare fact is that it symbolizes an assault on the classical intellectual tradition and hence on 'reason'. This latter is a value judgment for to make the first statement 'Hypatia was murdered' support the second 'and this was an attack on rationality and science' the historian must make certain pre-judgments about what reason and science are
This however is where you get in trouble for clearly the standards you apply are your own 21st century ones....look, reason may have a universal content in terms of basic logic and mathematics but if so this is MUCH too thin to be useful in the context of history where reason is situated in cultural, political and religious contexts that determine how and to what ends people employ it....who is a rational person in 381? The only non-contextual answer you can give to this question is 'someone who reasons about something' and the Chritians do as much of this as the pagans...
If however, you give a contextual answer to this question "a rational person is someone who reasons towards the ends we find important and reaches the conclusions we like' then you are engaging in a discredited form of whig history (ie reading the past as if it were a mere anticipation of the present) where no seperation is made betwen the objectivity of the past and the subjectivity of the present and contemporary values are read into past events as if they were an OBJECTIVE PART OF THOSE EVENTS...
Admittedly this is hard to avoid for the historian can shed all his pre-conceptions about value but at the end of the day the value of studying lies for many people in the very fact you seem to deplore...that people DID NOT have the ends and priorities we do, did not value the things we value, did not draw the inferences we would draw etc...
to sum up....it is not an objective fact that christianity destroyed 'reason' because this puported 'fact' mus tbe constituted by the value judgment of the historian...
This however is where you get in trouble for clearly the standards you apply are your own 21st century ones....look, reason may have a universal content in terms of basic logic and mathematics but if so this is MUCH too thin to be useful in the context of history where reason is situated in cultural, political and religious contexts that determine how and to what ends people employ it....who is a rational person in 381? The only non-contextual answer you can give to this question is 'someone who reasons about something' and the Chritians do as much of this as the pagans...
If however, you give a contextual answer to this question "a rational person is someone who reasons towards the ends we find important and reaches the conclusions we like' then you are engaging in a discredited form of whig history (ie reading the past as if it were a mere anticipation of the present) where no seperation is made betwen the objectivity of the past and the subjectivity of the present and contemporary values are read into past events as if they were an OBJECTIVE PART OF THOSE EVENTS...
Admittedly this is hard to avoid for the historian can shed all his pre-conceptions about value but at the end of the day the value of studying lies for many people in the very fact you seem to deplore...that people DID NOT have the ends and priorities we do, did not value the things we value, did not draw the inferences we would draw etc...
to sum up....it is not an objective fact that christianity destroyed 'reason' because this puported 'fact' mus tbe constituted by the value judgment of the historian...
6.14.2010 | 4:15pm
Brettongarcia says:
Mills:
Your last comments were not directed to me. So I'll only VERY briefly interject my own answer.
Note that 1) I very, very specifically defined the lineage of "Reason," as the development of eventually, formal Logic, and then empiricism, from a) Socrates, to b) Plato, to c) Aristotle. And then perhaps to successful, pragmatic reason in d) Alexander the Great. Or I might add, the e) development of accurate observation, realism, verisimilitude, in Roman Art.
These rather objective qualities, declined even visibly, objectively, as uncovered by the history of art, for example, from precisely the moment Christianity began to take over Rome; from 313 AD, and the big-eyed bust of Constantine (Basilica of Constantine, Rome, 313 AD; Palazzo dei COnservatori, Rome). While Realiism - like accurate, free-standing statue nudes, and so forth - visibly, objectively, did not return to the History of Art, till c. 1425, and/ or the Renaissance.
Certain key attributes of science and reason therefore, as defined above in the Pagan linage from Socrates, Aristotle., provably, visibly, objectively declined. We visibly, objectivbely see the decline in the scientific accuracy of pictures, statues, for example.
What caused this partial decline of Science? In part it might be PARTIALLY attributed to Pagan - and Christian - barbarians, sacking Rome and destroying it, by around 410 AD. But what explains the CONTINUED lack of accuracy in pictures, for the next ... one thousand years? If not the relative disinterest of Christianity in the material "world"? Which is the main subject of Science.
Christianity turned attention away from the material existence or "world" and the "flesh," that is the purview of science; toward the "spirit." While its often cursory relation to matter, was often to in part assume that if we needed physical, material things at all, we would simply pray - and the material things we needed would appear out of thin air, by "miracle."
But if Christian pictures lacked scientific accuracy, this Christian expectation of miracles is, even less, evidence of a continuing, good, scientific attitude.
There is therefore, signficant, objective, visible, material evidence, of a decline in logic, reason, and science, beginning in Rome with Christianity itself, even before the assaults by barbarians.
As indeed, was long accepted, in the Historical account. Until CHristian revisionists attempted to change History. By "proving" that the decline of Roman science never happened; that the "Dark Ages" were no such thing; and apparently that the "Renaissance" achieved nothing at all. Certainly no revival, at last, of Roman science and pictorial verisimilitude.
But now it is time to look at the objective facts, again.
Your last comments were not directed to me. So I'll only VERY briefly interject my own answer.
Note that 1) I very, very specifically defined the lineage of "Reason," as the development of eventually, formal Logic, and then empiricism, from a) Socrates, to b) Plato, to c) Aristotle. And then perhaps to successful, pragmatic reason in d) Alexander the Great. Or I might add, the e) development of accurate observation, realism, verisimilitude, in Roman Art.
These rather objective qualities, declined even visibly, objectively, as uncovered by the history of art, for example, from precisely the moment Christianity began to take over Rome; from 313 AD, and the big-eyed bust of Constantine (Basilica of Constantine, Rome, 313 AD; Palazzo dei COnservatori, Rome). While Realiism - like accurate, free-standing statue nudes, and so forth - visibly, objectively, did not return to the History of Art, till c. 1425, and/ or the Renaissance.
Certain key attributes of science and reason therefore, as defined above in the Pagan linage from Socrates, Aristotle., provably, visibly, objectively declined. We visibly, objectivbely see the decline in the scientific accuracy of pictures, statues, for example.
What caused this partial decline of Science? In part it might be PARTIALLY attributed to Pagan - and Christian - barbarians, sacking Rome and destroying it, by around 410 AD. But what explains the CONTINUED lack of accuracy in pictures, for the next ... one thousand years? If not the relative disinterest of Christianity in the material "world"? Which is the main subject of Science.
Christianity turned attention away from the material existence or "world" and the "flesh," that is the purview of science; toward the "spirit." While its often cursory relation to matter, was often to in part assume that if we needed physical, material things at all, we would simply pray - and the material things we needed would appear out of thin air, by "miracle."
But if Christian pictures lacked scientific accuracy, this Christian expectation of miracles is, even less, evidence of a continuing, good, scientific attitude.
There is therefore, signficant, objective, visible, material evidence, of a decline in logic, reason, and science, beginning in Rome with Christianity itself, even before the assaults by barbarians.
As indeed, was long accepted, in the Historical account. Until CHristian revisionists attempted to change History. By "proving" that the decline of Roman science never happened; that the "Dark Ages" were no such thing; and apparently that the "Renaissance" achieved nothing at all. Certainly no revival, at last, of Roman science and pictorial verisimilitude.
But now it is time to look at the objective facts, again.
6.15.2010 | 2:40am
Charles freeman says:
Bernard.I am reading inter alia Jonathan Israel's magnificent volumes on the Enlightenment. The tone of your posting is very reminiscent of the communications suspected heretics would receive. " You may not know this but we have been reading your works and whatever you say we feel that they are unsettling to the faithful. We shall be sending you some specific questions on your beliefs to which it would be unwise to ignore. Of course, if you make a public retraction of everything you have written, we will be inclined to mercy."
Well, my works may be controversial to some,mainstream history it seems to most of my readers. Thank goodness we live in more tolerant times although. I suspect some of your readers would agree with St. Jerome's views ,"we have descended from the age of the Apostles to the excrement of our own times'. When was the Golden Age?
This is defintely my last posting as I am well behind on Israel and he is truly absorbing and convincing for many of us.
Well, my works may be controversial to some,mainstream history it seems to most of my readers. Thank goodness we live in more tolerant times although. I suspect some of your readers would agree with St. Jerome's views ,"we have descended from the age of the Apostles to the excrement of our own times'. When was the Golden Age?
This is defintely my last posting as I am well behind on Israel and he is truly absorbing and convincing for many of us.
6.15.2010 | 5:24am
Charles Freeman says:
But I could not resist the following. I am sure I am not the first to note the astonishing similarities between the murder of Hypatia and that of the De Witt brothers in The Hague in 1672 by a mob. In a partial defence,it was said that a Treatise was found in their papers " brought forth from he'll by the fallen Jew Spinoza, in which it is proven, in an unprecedented,atheistic fashion, that the word of God must be explained and understood through Philosophy". Now we know when the rot set in!
6.15.2010 | 7:44am
bwills says:
well, somewhat to my surprise Mr. Freeman has ducked my question by implying that i am the grand inquisitor for asking it...the question struck me as entirely fair and his huffy response makes me wonder if he has an answer to it but readers of this post can judge between us...
BG to his credit DID offer a real reply yet his comments illustrated perfectly what I was saying....the objective fact is that representation CHANGED in Late Antiquity...BG's value judgment is that 'verisimilitude declined' yet in the grand tradition of whig historians he presents these two statements as equivalent....as if what OBJECTIVELY HAPPENED was that representation declined...of course, all representation involves selection so there is no such thing as absolute accuracy....this being the case different periods of time can have different notions of what constitutes truth in representation....this is even the case today (been to MOMA lately? what is accuracy in modern and contemporary art?)...also, different time periods can have different notions of what art is for and the art historian cannot simply read the past in terms of his own (in part) historically conditioned aesthetic values...the value of studying the past lies in learning that our categories are not necessarily absolute and opening our minds to broader human possibilities....
So, you say 'reason' is logic and empirical science simply only...the ancients both Pagan and Christian had a broader conception of it and thus we find both reasoning minutely about things like metaphysics and theology that are a bit alien to many of us....the responsible historian must negotiate around this difference and not simply and crudely absolutize his own values (or those of the past either, there must be a critical DIALOGUE between the two)
BG to his credit DID offer a real reply yet his comments illustrated perfectly what I was saying....the objective fact is that representation CHANGED in Late Antiquity...BG's value judgment is that 'verisimilitude declined' yet in the grand tradition of whig historians he presents these two statements as equivalent....as if what OBJECTIVELY HAPPENED was that representation declined...of course, all representation involves selection so there is no such thing as absolute accuracy....this being the case different periods of time can have different notions of what constitutes truth in representation....this is even the case today (been to MOMA lately? what is accuracy in modern and contemporary art?)...also, different time periods can have different notions of what art is for and the art historian cannot simply read the past in terms of his own (in part) historically conditioned aesthetic values...the value of studying the past lies in learning that our categories are not necessarily absolute and opening our minds to broader human possibilities....
So, you say 'reason' is logic and empirical science simply only...the ancients both Pagan and Christian had a broader conception of it and thus we find both reasoning minutely about things like metaphysics and theology that are a bit alien to many of us....the responsible historian must negotiate around this difference and not simply and crudely absolutize his own values (or those of the past either, there must be a critical DIALOGUE between the two)
6.15.2010 | 9:54am
bernard wills says:
Please Mr. Freeman, If a historian says the western mind closed in the fourth century and went over to irrationalism and as evidence for this points to the relative decline of scientific rationality it is NOT inquisitorial to ask "Well, why should a historian of the fourth century (of all periods!) assume that scientific reasoning is identical with reason as such?" This is a question that immediately suggests itself because value judgments on distant historical periods are well known to be treacherous territory and can expose the unthought assumptions of the historian....
6.15.2010 | 3:30pm
Brettongarcia says:
Bernard:
1) In the work of Socrates, what we might call "rationality" was increasingly identified with Math. With Socratic Logic; by the time of Aristotle, with Aristotelian SCIENCE.
THerefore, some of the most advanced Greeks of the time, c. 325 BCE, could and should and DID therefore indentify the "rational," with what today we would call logic, math, and empirical science.
Or in any case, 2) if the term "rational" appears problematic here to some, why don't we just abandon the term "rational" here? And simply note the birth and importance of real "science," and early "scientists," in this era?
Then too, 3) contrary to your assertions, accuracy in representation, verisimilitude, can be objectively measured, by comparison to what science observes.
4) Indeed, much of verisimilitude, was defined by science.The Renaissance was thought far superior to, far more objectively realistic than, earlier, Medieval art, because of its discovery and use of what is called precisely, "Scientific perspective." Verisimilitude - naturalistic accuracy - increased, measurably, scientifically, with the adoption of various scientific advances, into Art itself.
By the way, 5) I am not even concerned solely with Art; but also with the increasing accuracy of scientific illustrations. Which can be seen in Art/Science crossover figures like Da Vinci; who greatly improved verisimiltude, by conducting live observations and scientific dissections. Employing that information not only in Art, but also in scientific diagrams.
The naturalistic/realistic/scientific accuracy of pictures, increased demonstrably, by an infusion into Art, of real Science. And that accuracy, that realism therefore too, can be objectively measured. By Science.
So that, when we speak of Rationality, Science is the aspect of Rationality, that is most valuable; and it can be discerned within the thought of the time; even the "rationality" of the time perhaps.
6) Or indeed, if the word "Rational" is inexact, and open to many different interpretations? Then perhaps we should not even speak of "Rationality" here at all; but the central importance of simply, pagan "Science."
As many do, after all.
Did everyone in that time consciously think of Reason, as identical with Science? Possibly not. But that's irrelevant. Indeed, the status of "Reason" is almost irrelevant. What is important is just this: who in this time frame, knowingly or knowingly, used what amounts to the rudiments of science? Those who did, we now see in restrospect, had hitched their wagons to a star. While those who opposed those elements - under whatever rubric; as "Magic" or "Reason" or "Paganism" or "Science" - were attacking one of humanity's greatest assets.
1) In the work of Socrates, what we might call "rationality" was increasingly identified with Math. With Socratic Logic; by the time of Aristotle, with Aristotelian SCIENCE.
THerefore, some of the most advanced Greeks of the time, c. 325 BCE, could and should and DID therefore indentify the "rational," with what today we would call logic, math, and empirical science.
Or in any case, 2) if the term "rational" appears problematic here to some, why don't we just abandon the term "rational" here? And simply note the birth and importance of real "science," and early "scientists," in this era?
Then too, 3) contrary to your assertions, accuracy in representation, verisimilitude, can be objectively measured, by comparison to what science observes.
4) Indeed, much of verisimilitude, was defined by science.The Renaissance was thought far superior to, far more objectively realistic than, earlier, Medieval art, because of its discovery and use of what is called precisely, "Scientific perspective." Verisimilitude - naturalistic accuracy - increased, measurably, scientifically, with the adoption of various scientific advances, into Art itself.
By the way, 5) I am not even concerned solely with Art; but also with the increasing accuracy of scientific illustrations. Which can be seen in Art/Science crossover figures like Da Vinci; who greatly improved verisimiltude, by conducting live observations and scientific dissections. Employing that information not only in Art, but also in scientific diagrams.
The naturalistic/realistic/scientific accuracy of pictures, increased demonstrably, by an infusion into Art, of real Science. And that accuracy, that realism therefore too, can be objectively measured. By Science.
So that, when we speak of Rationality, Science is the aspect of Rationality, that is most valuable; and it can be discerned within the thought of the time; even the "rationality" of the time perhaps.
6) Or indeed, if the word "Rational" is inexact, and open to many different interpretations? Then perhaps we should not even speak of "Rationality" here at all; but the central importance of simply, pagan "Science."
As many do, after all.
Did everyone in that time consciously think of Reason, as identical with Science? Possibly not. But that's irrelevant. Indeed, the status of "Reason" is almost irrelevant. What is important is just this: who in this time frame, knowingly or knowingly, used what amounts to the rudiments of science? Those who did, we now see in restrospect, had hitched their wagons to a star. While those who opposed those elements - under whatever rubric; as "Magic" or "Reason" or "Paganism" or "Science" - were attacking one of humanity's greatest assets.
6.15.2010 | 9:55pm
bernard wills says:
The works of Socrates? I'm sure you mean the works of Plato...why you persist in claiming that Aristotle identified reason with math logic and empirical science is beyond me...I have pointed out multiple times that he did not...read the Metaphysics if you don't believe me for Aristotle clearly distinguished the science of 'being qua being'from mathematics and the study of nature....
But really, this is not the mere real historical Aristotle we are talking about but YOUR Aristotle from whom you have abstracted the elements you think important and this it seems is the crux of the matter...your only interest in the Classics lies in those elements of Antiquity that you think anticipate the glories of the Enlightenment...you (naively and uncritically) construct your own Antiquity in terms of dogmatically assumed absolutes (like only science is truly rational, only realistic depiction is good art etc.) that say a great deal about you but nothing at all about the richness and complexity of history....
But, as Hubert Butterfield pointed in out in The Whig Interpretation of History, this is a fallacious way for a historian to proceed...the historian who uncritically projects his own values into the past will inevitable distort the historical record, highlighting things of lesser significance for the actual period he studies and neglecting things that are crucial...the resulting distortions of perspective will tell us a lot about the historian but blind us to the actual past...
yourself and Mr. Freeman are almost textbook examples of the fallacy Butterfield criticized...obsessed with a puritanically narrow conception of 'reason' you highlight the limitations of late roman science (as if the state of science were the sole significant thing) and denigrate the richness and creativity of the great spiritual and philosophical movements of the age as 'decline'....the decline you lament, however, is a function simply of your narrowness of focus and not an actual feature of the past...
so, read Butterfield and, since you make such a fetish of renaissance perspective, look at some modern art (ca c'est ne pas une pipe, as Duchamp said)
Cheers BW
But really, this is not the mere real historical Aristotle we are talking about but YOUR Aristotle from whom you have abstracted the elements you think important and this it seems is the crux of the matter...your only interest in the Classics lies in those elements of Antiquity that you think anticipate the glories of the Enlightenment...you (naively and uncritically) construct your own Antiquity in terms of dogmatically assumed absolutes (like only science is truly rational, only realistic depiction is good art etc.) that say a great deal about you but nothing at all about the richness and complexity of history....
But, as Hubert Butterfield pointed in out in The Whig Interpretation of History, this is a fallacious way for a historian to proceed...the historian who uncritically projects his own values into the past will inevitable distort the historical record, highlighting things of lesser significance for the actual period he studies and neglecting things that are crucial...the resulting distortions of perspective will tell us a lot about the historian but blind us to the actual past...
yourself and Mr. Freeman are almost textbook examples of the fallacy Butterfield criticized...obsessed with a puritanically narrow conception of 'reason' you highlight the limitations of late roman science (as if the state of science were the sole significant thing) and denigrate the richness and creativity of the great spiritual and philosophical movements of the age as 'decline'....the decline you lament, however, is a function simply of your narrowness of focus and not an actual feature of the past...
so, read Butterfield and, since you make such a fetish of renaissance perspective, look at some modern art (ca c'est ne pas une pipe, as Duchamp said)
Cheers BW
6.16.2010 | 1:46am
Charles freeman says:
Bernard. I could detect no question in your statement that needed answering. I think that if you going to make sweeping statements about my work , it helps to show some sign that you have read it. At best you caricature one tiny part of my argument. Nice though to hear of Butterfield who we were made to read at school- I don't see the relvance of what he wrote to anything I have actually written.
One of the oddest things about this whole debate is the scholars who claim that Christianity preserved reason when the church apologists themselves specifically deny this. Jonathan Israel shows how when the Enlightenment thinkers claimed that doctrine was not based on reason, the response was that this was irrelevant as Christianity was the Word of God and Beyond reason' or based on sola scriptura.
You will find this approach taken in the Catholic catechism in its articles on the Trinity.
As all of this is not relevant to the theme here and I contributed only to give a wider perspective to the issue at hand, not to defend my work which is freely available for those who wish to make the dramatic decision to actually read it, I shall really opt out.
One of the oddest things about this whole debate is the scholars who claim that Christianity preserved reason when the church apologists themselves specifically deny this. Jonathan Israel shows how when the Enlightenment thinkers claimed that doctrine was not based on reason, the response was that this was irrelevant as Christianity was the Word of God and Beyond reason' or based on sola scriptura.
You will find this approach taken in the Catholic catechism in its articles on the Trinity.
As all of this is not relevant to the theme here and I contributed only to give a wider perspective to the issue at hand, not to defend my work which is freely available for those who wish to make the dramatic decision to actually read it, I shall really opt out.
6.16.2010 | 1:35pm
Brettongarcia says:
Charles Freeman:
It's been a pleasure interfacing with you, Charles; hope I've helped you; we're on the same side. If you like, send me an occasional update to my blog, Brettongarcia's blog on Wordpress, or Brettongarcia@Yahoo.com.
Others: As for the logical priority of Metaphysics over science and practicality? Of course, if Aristotle supported that, note that the specific Metaphyics he supported, could logically, historically, NOT been Christianity; which did not exist yet, c. 320 BCE. Rather than supporting our "God," Aristotle sought the "Good." Those who are interested in this slightly divergent topic, note that it is now being taken up on this blog, under another rubric: "Metaphysics...."
For now, if Freeman is going to opt out, I'd like to simply cite once again, but now foreground, the really central piece of historical evidence, that Hart suppresses: the quotation by Orosius (f. 410 AD). Who, regarding the possiblity of books having been destroyed in the 391 demolition of Alexandrian temples, said, first person, in the sixth book of his History:
'[T]oday there exist in temples book chests which we ourselves have seen, and, when these temples were plundered, these, we are told, were emptied by our own men in our time, which, indeed, is a true statement.' (Orosius, History).
Hart selectively, does not quote Orosius, a first-person witness from the times of Hypatia; and Hart asserts but does not prove that Gibbons "misunderstood" this first person witness, from the times. But in fact it's clear enough; there HAD been significant books/libraries in Alexadandria; until they were lost, in the destruction of all pagan templesthere, as ordered and carried out by Christians, in 391.
Thanks again for everyone's participation; especially the renowned author, Charles Freeman.
It's been a pleasure interfacing with you, Charles; hope I've helped you; we're on the same side. If you like, send me an occasional update to my blog, Brettongarcia's blog on Wordpress, or Brettongarcia@Yahoo.com.
Others: As for the logical priority of Metaphysics over science and practicality? Of course, if Aristotle supported that, note that the specific Metaphyics he supported, could logically, historically, NOT been Christianity; which did not exist yet, c. 320 BCE. Rather than supporting our "God," Aristotle sought the "Good." Those who are interested in this slightly divergent topic, note that it is now being taken up on this blog, under another rubric: "Metaphysics...."
For now, if Freeman is going to opt out, I'd like to simply cite once again, but now foreground, the really central piece of historical evidence, that Hart suppresses: the quotation by Orosius (f. 410 AD). Who, regarding the possiblity of books having been destroyed in the 391 demolition of Alexandrian temples, said, first person, in the sixth book of his History:
'[T]oday there exist in temples book chests which we ourselves have seen, and, when these temples were plundered, these, we are told, were emptied by our own men in our time, which, indeed, is a true statement.' (Orosius, History).
Hart selectively, does not quote Orosius, a first-person witness from the times of Hypatia; and Hart asserts but does not prove that Gibbons "misunderstood" this first person witness, from the times. But in fact it's clear enough; there HAD been significant books/libraries in Alexadandria; until they were lost, in the destruction of all pagan templesthere, as ordered and carried out by Christians, in 391.
Thanks again for everyone's participation; especially the renowned author, Charles Freeman.
6.19.2010 | 7:50am
William Oak says:
Brettongarcia:
You keep brandishing Orosius even when it is shown that nothing you have pontificated on so far is supported by his statement.
In fact, you seem to have done that throughout this entire discussion. Repeating something over and over does not make it true, regardless of what you or the honorable Mr. Freeman might think.
You keep brandishing Orosius even when it is shown that nothing you have pontificated on so far is supported by his statement.
In fact, you seem to have done that throughout this entire discussion. Repeating something over and over does not make it true, regardless of what you or the honorable Mr. Freeman might think.
6.20.2010 | 8:19pm
Brettongarcia says:
The statement by Orosius, c. 410 AD, is important. Because it is what historians call a PRIMARY SOURCE: a statement from the time we are considering, or from a useful early authority. While this statement of Orosius, confirms that there were signficant numbers of books - in effect, libraries - in the pagan temples looted in 391.
Does this contradict some other historians? In effect, I am presenting evidence that one school of historians - that held there was no library to be destroyed in 391 - is simply, wrong. While I am showing here, that a once-thought "secondary" tradition - that there was a significant Alexandrian library again destroyed, c. 391 - is right.
While in addition to quoting Orosius, the primary source that Hart and others slighted, I offer literally DOZENS of other bits of evidence, to support that, above.
There are a fair number of books that try to state the opposite. But I am showing that they are a Christian revisionist historian's account of this era; and their account is simply, biased and wrong. What they said, depended on the suppression of too much, critical evidence.
Evidently, Christians are not eager to face and confess their early sins; like the 1) murder of Hyptia by Christians; and likely, I now add here, the 2) destruction of a second major library, in Alexandria.
Does this contradict some other historians? In effect, I am presenting evidence that one school of historians - that held there was no library to be destroyed in 391 - is simply, wrong. While I am showing here, that a once-thought "secondary" tradition - that there was a significant Alexandrian library again destroyed, c. 391 - is right.
While in addition to quoting Orosius, the primary source that Hart and others slighted, I offer literally DOZENS of other bits of evidence, to support that, above.
There are a fair number of books that try to state the opposite. But I am showing that they are a Christian revisionist historian's account of this era; and their account is simply, biased and wrong. What they said, depended on the suppression of too much, critical evidence.
Evidently, Christians are not eager to face and confess their early sins; like the 1) murder of Hyptia by Christians; and likely, I now add here, the 2) destruction of a second major library, in Alexandria.
7.20.2010 | 3:14am
Stone says:
I've just seen AGORA. Unfortunately, AGORA may be on its way to becoming the BIRTH OF A NATION (BOAN) of our day. BOAN helped revive the Klan and revive lynching in the 1920s, and AGORA may ...............
I shudder to guess.
Stone
I shudder to guess.
Stone
7.21.2010 | 7:54pm
James Harris says:
The film you can't be paid to see does NOT depict Christians destroying the Great Library of Alexandria. As one who has seen it, I can tell you that it does not even depict Christians destroying the Serapeum -- they storm and take it over, as the Emperor has given them permission to do. Although we do see the pagan scholars trying to save some of the books from the Serapeum's "daughter library" and the Christians burning books from it, we later see the Christians occupying the building as a headquarters, and it is not made explicit that they have destroyed all the remaining books. Earlier they were destroying "pagan filth," and it's possible that not all the books in the library, even to them, matched this description. There are pitfalls in reviewing movies one has not seen.
8.1.2010 | 7:30pm
brettongarcia says:
James:
Thanks for your clarification, showing Hart got the film simply wrong. Here indeed, the film seems fairly accurate: the building itself was not destroyed for some time, but the contents were partially disseminated/destroyed/looted.
The movie seems accurate enough historically in that respect, you seem to show.
Finally though, the movie 1) notes an attack on a library. And 2) does not rule out, leaves open the possiblity that in fact, among the "pagan filth" cleaned out, were pagan books; and a collection of books is sometimes called a "library" in itself, buiilding or no building to house it in.
The film is not inconsistent therefore, with the true historical record, based on primary sources of the time, like Orosius: who clearly said that many temple buildings HAD contained chests full of books, but that in effect after Theolphilus' and others destruction of pagan temples, those books - a library in effect - was gone.
So that the key fact remains: there may have been a destruction of a "Great," even larger, "Library of Alexandria" in the time of one of the Caesars or later; but there were still many books, another collection - another "library" - that was lost, c. 391. According to historical sources that Hart simply fails to adequately note.
Hart seems to fail as a reliable "witness," therefore, and is not therefore a reliable Christian, in two major facts: 1) he misreports the movie; he is not a reliable "witness" here; while 2) he misreports the best accounts of the History of the time.
The fact remains: though one "Great" Library at Alexandria may have been destroyed earlier, there was still a significant, perhaps rebuild library, which was destroyed c. 391 AD. By Christians. While by all accounts - even Hart's - Christians murdered Hypatia, as well.
Can Christians face and confess their sins? Or will they always go into Denial and deception? Re-writing History itself, to flatter their own Vanity and Pride, that they are perfect?
Thanks for your clarification, showing Hart got the film simply wrong. Here indeed, the film seems fairly accurate: the building itself was not destroyed for some time, but the contents were partially disseminated/destroyed/looted.
The movie seems accurate enough historically in that respect, you seem to show.
Finally though, the movie 1) notes an attack on a library. And 2) does not rule out, leaves open the possiblity that in fact, among the "pagan filth" cleaned out, were pagan books; and a collection of books is sometimes called a "library" in itself, buiilding or no building to house it in.
The film is not inconsistent therefore, with the true historical record, based on primary sources of the time, like Orosius: who clearly said that many temple buildings HAD contained chests full of books, but that in effect after Theolphilus' and others destruction of pagan temples, those books - a library in effect - was gone.
So that the key fact remains: there may have been a destruction of a "Great," even larger, "Library of Alexandria" in the time of one of the Caesars or later; but there were still many books, another collection - another "library" - that was lost, c. 391. According to historical sources that Hart simply fails to adequately note.
Hart seems to fail as a reliable "witness," therefore, and is not therefore a reliable Christian, in two major facts: 1) he misreports the movie; he is not a reliable "witness" here; while 2) he misreports the best accounts of the History of the time.
The fact remains: though one "Great" Library at Alexandria may have been destroyed earlier, there was still a significant, perhaps rebuild library, which was destroyed c. 391 AD. By Christians. While by all accounts - even Hart's - Christians murdered Hypatia, as well.
Can Christians face and confess their sins? Or will they always go into Denial and deception? Re-writing History itself, to flatter their own Vanity and Pride, that they are perfect?
8.1.2010 | 9:38pm
JR says:
I am disturbed that the author has not and would not watch the movie. Perhaps it would be a good first thing to do before criticizing it. Anyone who is ironclad in their Faith, as you apparently are, should not have the slightest fear in watching it. The point of the movie is that Faith is at odds with Reason, which of course is a point to be disputed, but it does seem quite apparent to me that science progresses much better in democratic than in theocratic regimes.
Nitpicking on the details does not exonerate Christianity for the brutal massacres and book burning which did occur in the 4th century AD. Let us be thankful that the Byzantines saved ancient Greek philosophy from the flame, otherwise St. Thomas Aquinas would most likely never have emerged.
Nitpicking on the details does not exonerate Christianity for the brutal massacres and book burning which did occur in the 4th century AD. Let us be thankful that the Byzantines saved ancient Greek philosophy from the flame, otherwise St. Thomas Aquinas would most likely never have emerged.
8.15.2010 | 11:44am
Michael says:
Two points stuck me that it seemed were overlooked by most of the commentators:
A) It's a movie, not a documentary. Historical accuracy is therefore not to be expected. The makers are aiming for entertainment. "Ten Commandments" anyone?
B) It is hardly objective to review a film's "historical facts" without actually seeing the film. "Monty Python's Life of Brian" whose underlying message was 'think for yourself' was heavily protested by various (religious) groups when it first came out. Two cardinals appeared on tv with Cleese and Palin to complain about the film, while admitting that they had not actually seen the film.
A) It's a movie, not a documentary. Historical accuracy is therefore not to be expected. The makers are aiming for entertainment. "Ten Commandments" anyone?
B) It is hardly objective to review a film's "historical facts" without actually seeing the film. "Monty Python's Life of Brian" whose underlying message was 'think for yourself' was heavily protested by various (religious) groups when it first came out. Two cardinals appeared on tv with Cleese and Palin to complain about the film, while admitting that they had not actually seen the film.
10.18.2010 | 10:11am
thedrummer says:
@Brettongarcia
I like what you have to say - it makes more sense to me than the counter. Keep it up champ.
I like what you have to say - it makes more sense to me than the counter. Keep it up champ.
10.20.2010 | 11:27am
Dennis says:
You are apparently unaware that St. Augustine wrote several letters to Rome complaining about his neighbor to his east, Cyril.
10.20.2010 | 4:15pm
Lary Nine says:
Touchy. Touchy. I'm sure all you indignant messiah-club history-poobahs would've risen up to correct the record on D.W. Griffith's 'Birth Of A Nation' too. A pox on all your medievally fixated houses!
10.27.2010 | 9:34pm
ED Roberts says:
The film rather absurdly depicts 5th century Christian zealots being caught in the acts of burning pagans alive and of the genocidal destruction of Alexandria's Jewish population, including the mass burning of the murdered bodies. Couple these depictions with the historically impossible portrayal of Christians burning the library and you have all the high points of the perennial accusations against the Christian religion.
The film also manages to trot out the accusation of forced conversion of pagans and of the mythical hostility of Christianity toward science. One should view the film in order to get a true sense of its inaccuracy.
The film also manages to trot out the accusation of forced conversion of pagans and of the mythical hostility of Christianity toward science. One should view the film in order to get a true sense of its inaccuracy.
12.6.2010 | 9:59pm
Ye Olde Statistician says:
Ah, welladay. We actually do have a near-contemporary account of Hypatia's murder: Socrates Scholasticus. He makes it very clear that the motive was that Hypatia had chosen sides in the bloody sport of Alexandrian politics. Namely, she supported the upper class Christians around the Prefect Orestes as opposed to the proletarian Christian masses represented by Patriarch Cyril. There is no suggestion that it had anything to do with Hypatia's interest in astrology or numerology or even her neo-Platonic mysticism. (Reading the works of her student, as well as his letters, gives us some insight to her teachings. She herself wrote nothing philosophical -- but that was traditional. Neither did Plotinus, whose school she followed.) It had nothing to do with her being a woman. The Neoplatonic pagan philosopher Aedesia also taught in Alexandria in the generation after and no ill befell her. (Not to mention other female philosophers elsewhere.)
Socrates Scholasticus had studied in Constantinople under two of the pagan scholars who had led the anti-Christian riots and had taken refuge in the fortress-like Serapeum (where they executed their Christian captives). So he was likely getting his info on Hypatia from first hand (if somewhat biased) accounts. He also appears sympathetic to the Novatian schismatics, and so hostile to Cyril.
The next most recent account is by Damascius (who studied under Aedesia), but this was two generations later. Damascius had taught in Athens, but the Emperor had closed his school and he and some of his friends went to Persia, which they soon found rube and hick. Damascius returned, taught in Athens again but got in a big fight with the other philosophers there. He taught in Alexandria for a time. His account differs from Socrates Scholasticus' in when and where the killing took place. He also hints that Cyril instigated it, but stops short of saying he ordered it. [Socrates only says that the incident brought scandal on Cyril and the whole Alexandrian church. They had allowed a rancorous situation to spiral out of control. In Socrates we can read the whole sequence of events by which Cyril and Orestes grew mutually hostile.] It is Damascius who tells the story of the menstrual rags.
All other accounts are later. Some supply details, like the titles of some mathematical works like "Diophantus for Dummies" [OK, that wasn't the title; but that was the essence: "Commentaries on..."] A Coptic account, which we have through a double translation into Arabic and Ethiopic, states that she was a pagan. This is the only account that states Hypatia a pagan, and was written several centuries after the events.
Except for one apparent error in the unreliable Suda Lexicon, Hypatia was a virgin all her life. Where mr. brettongarcia gets the idea that she was "having an affair" is a mystery. If she followed the Neoplatonism of Plotinus, as the sources tell us, then she would have been committed to (among other things) a Triune God, as rationally established by Plotinus himself. (She is beginning to sound a lot like a Christian nun.) She is widely held to have been a philosophical pagan, but not the old-time religion sort who worshiped giant phalluses or killed fetuses to forecast the future. But a minority position holds that she was a Christian. Why take sides in an argument between two Christian factions? Why were most of her students Christians? (Including at least two, maybe three future bishops.)
There is an extended summary of the events posted here:
http://m-francis.livejournal.com/159500.html
Socrates Scholasticus had studied in Constantinople under two of the pagan scholars who had led the anti-Christian riots and had taken refuge in the fortress-like Serapeum (where they executed their Christian captives). So he was likely getting his info on Hypatia from first hand (if somewhat biased) accounts. He also appears sympathetic to the Novatian schismatics, and so hostile to Cyril.
The next most recent account is by Damascius (who studied under Aedesia), but this was two generations later. Damascius had taught in Athens, but the Emperor had closed his school and he and some of his friends went to Persia, which they soon found rube and hick. Damascius returned, taught in Athens again but got in a big fight with the other philosophers there. He taught in Alexandria for a time. His account differs from Socrates Scholasticus' in when and where the killing took place. He also hints that Cyril instigated it, but stops short of saying he ordered it. [Socrates only says that the incident brought scandal on Cyril and the whole Alexandrian church. They had allowed a rancorous situation to spiral out of control. In Socrates we can read the whole sequence of events by which Cyril and Orestes grew mutually hostile.] It is Damascius who tells the story of the menstrual rags.
All other accounts are later. Some supply details, like the titles of some mathematical works like "Diophantus for Dummies" [OK, that wasn't the title; but that was the essence: "Commentaries on..."] A Coptic account, which we have through a double translation into Arabic and Ethiopic, states that she was a pagan. This is the only account that states Hypatia a pagan, and was written several centuries after the events.
Except for one apparent error in the unreliable Suda Lexicon, Hypatia was a virgin all her life. Where mr. brettongarcia gets the idea that she was "having an affair" is a mystery. If she followed the Neoplatonism of Plotinus, as the sources tell us, then she would have been committed to (among other things) a Triune God, as rationally established by Plotinus himself. (She is beginning to sound a lot like a Christian nun.) She is widely held to have been a philosophical pagan, but not the old-time religion sort who worshiped giant phalluses or killed fetuses to forecast the future. But a minority position holds that she was a Christian. Why take sides in an argument between two Christian factions? Why were most of her students Christians? (Including at least two, maybe three future bishops.)
There is an extended summary of the events posted here:
http://m-francis.livejournal.com/159500.html
2.1.2011 | 6:59pm
gospel light says:
I completely agree with you. This movie does sound like utter nonsense. There is so much in the bible that will contradict what the movie is trying to prove. If anything, this movie, is yet another test to see if one really believes in Jesus and God. All you can do is continue to have faith. Someone once said, "Being a Christian isn't easy". I believe that God throws hurdles like this out there as a starting point of discussion on why you believe in Jesus. What a perfect opportunity to show someone Christianity.
4.9.2011 | 3:18am
Peter says:
Had the author watched the film in question first, he would have noticed that it shows Hypatia trapped in a struggle for power between Cyril and the Prefect, instead of complaining that it oversimplifies this issue, not having viewed it before contributing a review of sorts.
It shows, as he admits, a gang of Christians murdering Hypatia.
It also shows Cyril responding to tensions with the jews by ordering their exile or extermination, a point which Hart does not sufficiently address in his defense of the patriarch's behavior.
Perhaps Christians destroyed a great library. Perhaps one book or two. But the library here is a red herring in a pattern of behavior that makes me crack an ironic smile every time I hear Christians call Islam a violent religion.
It shows, as he admits, a gang of Christians murdering Hypatia.
It also shows Cyril responding to tensions with the jews by ordering their exile or extermination, a point which Hart does not sufficiently address in his defense of the patriarch's behavior.
Perhaps Christians destroyed a great library. Perhaps one book or two. But the library here is a red herring in a pattern of behavior that makes me crack an ironic smile every time I hear Christians call Islam a violent religion.
4.12.2011 | 3:36pm
Dick says:
I just watched the movie and kinda liked it. Loved the sets and the atmosphere. I wasn’t really expecting a documentary, so the historical precession of every detail wasn’t as important to me as it seems to be to others posting here. It caused me to read some real history and that’s a good thing, right?
The main thing I took away from the movie was the overall sense and feel of Christianity in that time period. When Christianity became the official Roman religion, it started down the path of deep involvement in political power. By the time of this movie’s setting, the nature ‘the church’ was very far removed from whatever it might have been originally, over 300 years before.
The transformation of the essence of Christianity over those first few hundred years, to me, would be a really interesting discussion here. There was one brief moment when a younger (perhaps naive) Christian confronts Ammonious about how Jesus had forgiven the Jews and yet the mob was now persecuting them.
Christianity as practiced by Christ, compared and contrasted to the politically motivated and often violent religion it became … that would be a fascinating discussion. Also, way more valuable than debating whether Hypathia was Hollywood young and pretty or 60 years old at the time of her death. Hey, what if she was in her 60’s but looked like Helen Miren?
The main thing I took away from the movie was the overall sense and feel of Christianity in that time period. When Christianity became the official Roman religion, it started down the path of deep involvement in political power. By the time of this movie’s setting, the nature ‘the church’ was very far removed from whatever it might have been originally, over 300 years before.
The transformation of the essence of Christianity over those first few hundred years, to me, would be a really interesting discussion here. There was one brief moment when a younger (perhaps naive) Christian confronts Ammonious about how Jesus had forgiven the Jews and yet the mob was now persecuting them.
Christianity as practiced by Christ, compared and contrasted to the politically motivated and often violent religion it became … that would be a fascinating discussion. Also, way more valuable than debating whether Hypathia was Hollywood young and pretty or 60 years old at the time of her death. Hey, what if she was in her 60’s but looked like Helen Miren?
4.22.2011 | 3:16pm
Spiva Piper says:
I think that when your defence of 'Classical Rationalism' has to resort to maligning the 'vagueness of the philosophers' and recommending to us the Roman Engineers as its only true bearers it is almost time to give up the game.. 7) Was she killed in part for being an early feminist? This seems so obvious as to scarcely need comment. To be sure, a) SOME Christian intellectuals got along well enough with female intellectuals. But a) by 391, there is no doubt that a very patriarchial Christian Church was on the rise. In that church, b) God himself was called our "Father"; the c) priests were exclusively male, and d) also called "fathers"; while e) St. Paul in the New Testament suggested that proper women might well wear hair-covers, scarves, or veils. Paul f) also adding that for a woman to speak prominently in a Church, was an abomination.
4.25.2011 | 12:15pm
Alexander Aston says:
What I think is sad is that there is condemnation of the film without having ever watched it, which shows with the mention of the non-existant veil scene. Agora is one of the most elegant and philosophically profound films on the human condition that I have ever seen. So much so that I show it in my philosophy of history class. It is visually capable of putting our humanity into a context that transcends our ideologies and dogmas. It is a film that I have now watched a dozen times and one that reveals ever broader levels of subtext. It is true that there are some narrative liberties and inconsistencies that take place. It is important that they are pointed out and in my class we use the film as a basis for discussion on both the philosophy of History and its mythologizing. I point out the inconstancies and inaccuracies to my class so that we might more thoroughly explore the way in which we understand and communicate history. That being said, I feel that it has a very balanced and powerful understanding of our humanity. It is no more an anti-christian film than it is pro-pagan, it is a film about the nuance and complexity of our existence. It shows quite eloquently the value and logic behind the success of the ancient church as well as its transgressions, along with those of the other major groups and players in the story. Ultimately it is, in my opinion, one of the finest pieces of art I have ever had the privilege to watch. It is a shame for one to dismiss something they have not seen out of a pre-existing prejudice.
4.26.2011 | 11:30am
Kate Lea says:
One of the major reasons I chose to leave the church was its tendency to reject, out of hand, the experiences or understanding of others based on ancient texts whose relation to our modern reality may in fact be quite small. Though the author is clearly an intelligent and thoughtful individual - one who has written several articles that I have enjoyed - I detect with sadness a bit of that tendency in this piece. Hart rejects out of hand a beautiful and artistic portrayal of life in the Alexandria region during the early days of the church based on an account he read in an ancient text whose relation to reality is rather sadly tenuous (the New York Times, that is to say).
I have several objections to the claims Hart makes in relation to the film. First, the film does not at any point depict Hypatia being forced to wear a veil; how the Times' reviewer could have possibly have drawn that conclusion escapes me -- unless, of course, he was drunk, which would be entirely plausible [and forgivable] given his miserable place of employment. Second, the building that is destroyed in the film is not the library of Alexandria, it is the Serapeum, after a series of riots between the pagan and Christian communities of Alexandria, at the bidding of the Emperor. Only a few scrolls are shown being removed at the time of the sacking (really, a few, not forty thousand), and the one scene depicting the removal of the scrolls plays a forgettably minor role in an otherwise much larger film. Third, the film does depict, quite movingly, the class struggles that plagued the region at that time, and through those struggles clearly demonstrates the appeal of early Christianity. One of the film's main characters, Hypatia's slave Darius, is depicted as being shown charity in a church and encouraged to show such charity to others less fortunate than he. Darius, though a brimming, bright intellectual himself, chooses to leave his mistress and join the Christians - a decision which is clearly made, not out of some sniveling or simmering hate for intellectuals, but out of a recognition that Christianity, in its early instantiations, presented a much fairer and more equal alternative to the Pagan social structure. Finally, the film does insinuate that Hypatia's death - which in the film is carried out by a group of parabalani who, recognizing disunion between the political and religious factions, decide to take matters into their own hands - may have had something to do with the distrust of the early Christian; according to Hart, this may have exaggerated the truth, and that point I concede. At the same time, is it stretching the truth so far to insinuate that, at some point, members of the Christian faith may have placed themselves in opposition to intellectuals and scientists? Hart objects to this notion with dismayed innocence that seems out of place in one so learned. I have neither the time nor the patience to list the myriad of massive (and massively destructive) instances in which the church has taken it upon itself to oppose, omit, excommunicate, torture, burn, bury alive or otherwise force the exit of those who would, through their open minds and curious hearts, advance this human race. In saying that, I don't deny that there are many, many good- hearted, curious, intellectual, philosophizing Christians - I was raised among many of them and I have a deep and abiding respect for them. But there have certainly been many long periods in history in which they were not in the majority, nor were they in power, and the powerful anti-intellectual strain that was borne by the church continues today, in my own life as a female philosopher, in a Koran-burning church in Florida, and - I'm sad to see - in this one, luckily incongruous, article.
I have several objections to the claims Hart makes in relation to the film. First, the film does not at any point depict Hypatia being forced to wear a veil; how the Times' reviewer could have possibly have drawn that conclusion escapes me -- unless, of course, he was drunk, which would be entirely plausible [and forgivable] given his miserable place of employment. Second, the building that is destroyed in the film is not the library of Alexandria, it is the Serapeum, after a series of riots between the pagan and Christian communities of Alexandria, at the bidding of the Emperor. Only a few scrolls are shown being removed at the time of the sacking (really, a few, not forty thousand), and the one scene depicting the removal of the scrolls plays a forgettably minor role in an otherwise much larger film. Third, the film does depict, quite movingly, the class struggles that plagued the region at that time, and through those struggles clearly demonstrates the appeal of early Christianity. One of the film's main characters, Hypatia's slave Darius, is depicted as being shown charity in a church and encouraged to show such charity to others less fortunate than he. Darius, though a brimming, bright intellectual himself, chooses to leave his mistress and join the Christians - a decision which is clearly made, not out of some sniveling or simmering hate for intellectuals, but out of a recognition that Christianity, in its early instantiations, presented a much fairer and more equal alternative to the Pagan social structure. Finally, the film does insinuate that Hypatia's death - which in the film is carried out by a group of parabalani who, recognizing disunion between the political and religious factions, decide to take matters into their own hands - may have had something to do with the distrust of the early Christian; according to Hart, this may have exaggerated the truth, and that point I concede. At the same time, is it stretching the truth so far to insinuate that, at some point, members of the Christian faith may have placed themselves in opposition to intellectuals and scientists? Hart objects to this notion with dismayed innocence that seems out of place in one so learned. I have neither the time nor the patience to list the myriad of massive (and massively destructive) instances in which the church has taken it upon itself to oppose, omit, excommunicate, torture, burn, bury alive or otherwise force the exit of those who would, through their open minds and curious hearts, advance this human race. In saying that, I don't deny that there are many, many good- hearted, curious, intellectual, philosophizing Christians - I was raised among many of them and I have a deep and abiding respect for them. But there have certainly been many long periods in history in which they were not in the majority, nor were they in power, and the powerful anti-intellectual strain that was borne by the church continues today, in my own life as a female philosopher, in a Koran-burning church in Florida, and - I'm sad to see - in this one, luckily incongruous, article.
6.11.2011 | 8:42pm
jagora says:
Wow wondering how much did His Holiness and the Vatican paid Mr. Hart to write this article. And BTW I am a Catholic. But I'm also a realist and someone with a brain. Once they became a majority instead of the outlaw minority, Christians became just as guilty of religious injustices against people that didn't prescribe to their way of thinking as any other religion that came into power in any other region and that included within their own ranks such as the Gnostics, Cathars to name a few. And yes there always was a deep seated anti-intellectualism within the Church... anything seen as a threat to their power which up until 1950 was anything that would force man or heaven forbid a woman to think for themselves was a threat. Look how it took them to admit that excommunicating Gallileo was a mistake. And of course anything that paints them in a bad light brings the dirty laundry out brings forth a stream of denials and discreditations from bishops and catholic anti-defamation leagues and just makes people like me want to know more.
7.24.2011 | 1:28pm
Victor says:
It was the Serapium, not the Library of Alexandria and it was destroyed under decree of Theodosius I. Hart seems to have an odd straw man concept of Hypatia that he is "refuting"; she wasn't beautiful, she was sixty? She didn't make any significant contributions? She was a public lecturer, that's enough. It seems he wrote his whole article out of a need to be antagonistic and debunk something, whether anyone believes it or not. Do yourself a favor and read something factual about Hypatia and ignore this guy.
8.4.2011 | 6:14pm
Blackwargraymon says:
To Brettongarcia:
"The admitted Christian murder of Hypatia, is all but simply ignored here. And almost no one objects to this. Almost no alleged Christian, here, objects to Christians murdering Hypatia. This is enough evidence in itself, of their hypocrisy and murderousness"
The tactic is distract and deflect. They would rather you argue over a peripheral issue of where were the books and forget all about the vicious, inhuman murder of an innocent woman because this Cyril (a "saint", a "doctor", a "father" of his church) wanted revenge for the execution of one of his supporters who tried to assassinate the prefect. Hart, the apologist, wants you to forget that.
"Despite the extravagant claims often made on her behalf, however, there is no reason to believe she made any particularly significant contributions to any of her fields of expertise". Hart also slanders the victim: she was a "nobody", not worth being concerned over.
As for me, I use the criterion laid down by Jesus Christ himself:
"16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit".
Mat 7 : 16-18
Was Cyril a good tree or a corrupt tree, based on his "fruits"?
Was the "church" that made this criminal a "saint" a good tree or a corrupt tree?
That's self evident.
"The admitted Christian murder of Hypatia, is all but simply ignored here. And almost no one objects to this. Almost no alleged Christian, here, objects to Christians murdering Hypatia. This is enough evidence in itself, of their hypocrisy and murderousness"
The tactic is distract and deflect. They would rather you argue over a peripheral issue of where were the books and forget all about the vicious, inhuman murder of an innocent woman because this Cyril (a "saint", a "doctor", a "father" of his church) wanted revenge for the execution of one of his supporters who tried to assassinate the prefect. Hart, the apologist, wants you to forget that.
"Despite the extravagant claims often made on her behalf, however, there is no reason to believe she made any particularly significant contributions to any of her fields of expertise". Hart also slanders the victim: she was a "nobody", not worth being concerned over.
As for me, I use the criterion laid down by Jesus Christ himself:
"16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit".
Mat 7 : 16-18
Was Cyril a good tree or a corrupt tree, based on his "fruits"?
Was the "church" that made this criminal a "saint" a good tree or a corrupt tree?
That's self evident.
9.11.2011 | 2:48am
Gume says:
Thanks to David Hart, for, as always, providing an intelligent, nuanced article. The Hypatia myth is one of many, historical whoppers out there. I would recommend an excellent book, published last year, by Harvard University Press, and edited by Ronald Numbers, called "twentifive myths about science and religon''. My personal favorite was that, the great middle age thinkers taught that the earth was flat! Of course, anyone even remotely familiar with Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologiae, will know that he explicitly states in it, that the earth is round!
1.6.2013 | 7:43pm
Vahan Setyan says:
One of the most ahistorical and intellectually dishonest articles I have read. This is what happens when bias and theistic thought becomes confounded with the attempt to present a historical material.
1.9.2013 | 7:42pm
Will Boyd says:
I just saw the "Alexandria" documentary, two years after seeing "Agora". It is striking that they made a documentary out of a movie - to do this with a Christian slanted movie would instantly be labeled as "pandering". The movie artist's conceptual shots of the early church was revealing; decapitated Egyptians gods are left to rub in the towering Cross erected in the center of Christian-consecrated pagan temple. Not only has a church of this nature not been found - the Ancient Temple of Luxor that housed a Christian Church was not in the central, cult space - but this juxtaposition is a classic work of propaganda. No better way to denigrate Christianity than to prove its roots to be rotten, and no better way to associate it with violence than to show a violent place of Christian worship. Aside from having a convenient source of graphics from a movie riddled with historical inaccuracies, what was the point of the documentary... the host tells us, in no uncertain terms - "The danger of Christianity meddling in politics." Hypatia's tragedy continues, in that she is used in a propagandistic way, without proper respect for her person or the fact that she was brutally murdered by "Christians." My question for all those that would condemn St. Cyril for his part in the situation is simple: "Was he there?"
Perhaps the film should be titled "The Hypatia Code"? It sounds as if it is yet another attempt at the backdoor denigration of Christian. I mean, if an author calls what he does fiction, or "based in a true story," he can lie like crazy with impunity.