Reactions to the Movie Agora?

I quite enjoyed the movie Agora, although it is nothing one would expect from a period movie. I was going to post this elsewhere, but it is clearly a film about belief and I thought that some religious viewpoints (or history-related viewpoints) on it would be more interesting.

From wikipedia:

The gist: Rachel Weisz is great as the philosopher Hypatia. The Alexandrian Serapeum is destroyed by Christians, and Christians, Jews and Pagans fight it out (not family fare). The movie seems to be an interesting little pic warning against fundamentalist religion and everybody religious seems pretty nasty. It resonates today: science and questioning versus blind faith.

I think this was a bold movie for Alejandro Amenábar, but seeing as evidence for the history of the time (including that with regards to Hypatia and the destruction of the Serapeum) is so scant, I was wondering how Christians (or others) who had seen the movie had felt? For you, is it just a warning against extremism or insulting to the faith?

I’m really just asking how people felt about this movie.

Artistically it’s great, and it was obviously an excellent PR move to cast 41 year old English woman Rachel Weisz as the 60 year old Greek woman Hypatia. In terms of historical accuracy of course, it’s trash. Historically, Hypatia has been depicted by various interest groups as a revolutionary woman scientist,[1] the last of the ancient pagan scientists,[2] a representative of feminist values,[3] and the designer of the astrolabe and hydrometer.[4] [5] Her death has been considered exemplary of the intolerance of religion,[6] and the death of Greek science.[7] [8] This movie takes a slice from each of these pies, to present the viewer with a wonderfully inaccurate depiction of Hypatia.

The fact is, Hypatia was a neo-Platonist lecturer and scholar in 4th century Alexandria (Egypt), who taught mathematics and astronomy to members of the privileged elite[9] as part of the mysteries of Neoplatonism.[10] She was not the first woman ‘scientist’[11] or mathematician.[12] [13] [14] Her position as a teacher of men did not threaten the existing social or religious order.[15] She did not invent the astrolabe,[16] [17] and there is no evidence she invented the hydrometer.[18]

Her brutal murder by a Christian mob was due to political power play, not conflict between Christianity and paganism or science.[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] Her earliest historian (a Christian), praised her and condemned her murderers.[25] She is quoted as having expressed many rationalist ideals,[26] [27] [28] [29] [30] but these are all fictional. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]

You can read two scathing reviews of the movie by rationalist skeptic and atheist Tim O’Neill, here and here.


[1] ‘Hypatia of Alexandria (ca. 370–415) Egyptian astronomer, philosopher, teacher, and mathematician regarded as the first woman scientist, and the first woman to contribute to the study of mathematics.’. Todd, ‘The Facts on File Algebra Handbook’, p. 66 (2003).

[2] ‘Alic, Margaret. Hypatia’s Heritage: A History of women in Science from Antiquity Through the Nineteenth Century. Boston: Beacon and London: Women’s Press, 1986. Examines biographical and scientific evidence to reveal the lives and accomplishments of women in natural and physical sciences and mathematics. The material dealing with Hypatia claims for her the roles of the last important pagan scientist in the western world, and the representative of end [sic] of ancient science.’, Magill, Moose, & Aves (eds.), ‘Dictionary of World Biography: The ancient world’, p. 583 (1998).

[3] ‘Little known for centuries, Hypatia emerged in the nineteenth century as a symbol for feminists of the historical suppression of women’s accomplishments.’, McIntyre, ‘Hypatia’, in Traver (ed.), ‘From polis to empire, the ancient world, c. 800 B.C.-A.D. 500: A Biographical Dictionary’, The Great Cultural Eras of the Western World, p. 205 (2001).

[4] ‘Synesius refers to two mechanical devices, a hydrometer and a silver astrolabe, that he and Hypatia invented‘. Rosser, ‘Women, Science, and Myth: Gender beliefs from antiquity to the present’, p. 13 (2008).

[5] ‘Synesius of Cyrene (North Africa) a student of Hypatia, credited her with the invention of apparatus for distilling water and measuring the level of liquids.’, Lumpkin, ‘Hypatia and Women’s Rights in Ancient Egypt’, in Van Sertima (ed.), ‘Black Women in Antiquity’, p. 155 (1984).

[6] ‘Usually interpreted as an illustration of barbaric religious fanaticism and intolerance for humanistic inquiry,’, Naylor, ‘North Africa: a history from antiquity to the present’, p. 51 (2009).

[7] ‘Her death presents the perfect symbol of the end of the classical world, the end for a long time of the possibility of disinterested scientific inquiry.’, Whaley, ‘Women’s history as scientists: a guide to the debates’, p. 19 (2003).

[8] ‘Van der Waerden reiterates the theme that Alexandrian science ceased with her death:’, Dzielska, ‘Hypatia of Alexandría’, p. 25 (1995).

[9] ‘They were from wealthy and influential families; in time they attained posts of state and ecclesiastical eminence. Around their teacher these students formed a community based on the Platonic system of thought and interpersonal ties. They called the knowledge passed on to them by their ‘divine guide’ mysteries. They held it secret, refusing to share it with people of lower social rank, whom they regarded as incapable of comprehending divine and cosmic matters.’, ibid., p. 105.

[10] To her disciples Hypatia was a medium of divinely revealed truths.

[11] In Hypatia’s day there was actually no such thing as a ‘scientist’ in the modern sense of the term, only the ‘natural philosopher’, who studied the natural world and typically combined observations with religious and philosophical commentary.

[12] ‘She [Dzielska] also unearths a number of references to women in the late Greek philosophical world, which show Hypatia’s example to be not so unusual as had been thought.’, Hodgkin, ‘A history of mathematics: from Mesopotamia to modernity’, p. 72 (2005).

[13] ‘(Incidentally, Hypatia is not the earliest known woman mathematician; Pappus had directed a polemic against a female teacher of mathematics named Pandrosion, and a certain Ptolemais is quoted in Porphyry’s commentary on Ptolemy’s Harmonics.)’, Jones, ‘Later Greek and Byzantime mathematics’, in Grattan-Guinness (ed.), ‘Companion Encyclopedia of the History and Philosophy of the Mathematicla Sciences’, volume 1, p. 65 (2003).

[14] ‘Hypatia, after all, wasn’t the first woman philosopher. The Project on the History of Women in Philosophy amply documented that there were many women philosophers before Hypatia; she didn’t come along unti lafter the fourth century A.D. Among those who preceded her were numbers of Pythagorean women philosophers from the sixth to the third or second century B.C. and others -’, McAlister, ‘Hypatia’s Daughters: fifteen hundred years of women philosophers’, p. x (1996).

[15] ‘The highly public nature of Hypatia’s career was consistent with the African tradition of Egyptian women,’, Lumpkin, ‘Hypatia and Women’s Rights in Ancient Egypt’, in Van Sertima (ed.), ‘Black Women in Antiquity’, pp. 155-156 (1984).

[16] ‘The invention of the astrolabe is usually attributed to Hipparchus of the second century BC. But there is no firm evidence to support this view. It is however certain that the instrument was well known to the Greeks before the beginning of the Christian era.’, Sarma, ‘The Archaic and the Exotic: studies in the history of Indian astronomical instruments’, p. 241 (2008).

[17] ‘It is generally accepted that Greek astrologers, in either the 1st or 2nd centuries BCE, invented the astrolabe‘, Krebs, ‘Groundbreaking Scientific Experiments, Inventions, and Discoveries of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance’, p. 196 (2004).

[18] *In fact her student Synesius wrote her a letter telling her how to make one for him, and explaining how to use it; ‘I am in such evil fortune that I need a hydroscope. See that one is cast in brass for me and put together. The instrument in question is a cylindrical tube, which has the shape of a flute and is about the same size. It has notches in a perpendicular line, by means of which we are able to test the weight of the waters. A cone forms a lid at one of the extremities, closely fitted to the tube. The cone and the tube have one base only. This is called the baryllium. Whenever you place the tube in water, it remains erect. You can then count the notches at your ease, and in this way ascertain the weight of the water.’ Fitzgerald, ‘The Letters of Synesius of Cyrene’, p. 99 (1926).

[19] ‘As the Czech historian Maria Dzielska documents in a recent biography, Hypatia got caught up in a political struggle between Cyril, an ambitious and ruthless churchman eager to extend his authority, and Hypatia’s friend Orestes, the imperial prefect who represented the Roman Empire.’, Lindberg, ‘Myth 1: That the Rise of Christianity Was Responsible For the Demise of Ancient Science’, in Numbers (ed.), ‘Galileo Goes to Jail: and other myths about science and religion’, p. 9 (2009).

[20] ‘her death had everything to do with local politics and virtually nothing to do with science. Cyril’s crusade against pagans came later. Alexandrian science and mathematics prospered for decades to come.’, ibid., p. 9.

[21] ‘That Synesius, a Christian, maintained such close ties with the Greek intellectual traditions and with his teacher Hypatia, suggests that a hybrid amalgam existed between the intellectual pagan and intellectual Christian traditions.’, Wessel, ‘Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian controversy: the making of a’, p. 54 (2004).

[22] ‘Among Christian intellectual elites, this Neoplatonic variety of paganism posed no real threat to their theological views. Such easy coexistence between certain pagan and Christian intellectuals suggests that Hypatia’s paganism per se may not have angered Cyril as much as John of Nikiu claimed.’, ibid., p. 54.

[23] ‘Hypatia was a pagan, but she had a lot of students who were Christians and maybe even a few Jewish students.’, Moore & Bruder, ‘Philosophy: the power of ideas’, p. 85 (2001).

[24] ‘Pagan religiosity did not expire with Hypatia, and neither did mathematics and Greek philosophy. (Dzielska 1995, p. 105).’, Hodgkin, ‘A history of mathematics: from Mesopotamia to modernity’, p. 72 (2005).

[25] Socrates Scholasticus, ‘Historia Ecclesiastica’ (c. 439).

[26] ‘Hypatia was unimpressed with what she called religious superstition. She once described how she felt “truth” was different from religious beliefs: “Men will fight for superstition as quickly as for the living truth – even more so, since superstition is intangible, you can’t get at it to refute it, but truth is a point of view, and so is changeable.”‘, Donovan, ‘Hypatia: Mathematician, Inventor, and Philosopher’, p. 43 (2008).

[27] ‘Making matters even worse, Hypatia made public statements against organized religion: All formal… religions are delusive [able to easily mislead people] and must never be accepted by self-respecting persons as final.’, p. 48.

[28] ‘As Hypatia explained, “Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all.”‘, p. 43.

[29] ‘She also warned about the dangers of teaching children myths and fairy tales: Fables should be taught as fables, myths as myths, and miracles as poetic fancies. To teach superstitions as truth is a most terrible thing. The mind of a child accepts them, and only through great pain, perhaps even tragedy, can the child be relieved of them.’, ibid., p. 42; this is sometimes understood as advice against teaching religion to children.

[30] This has derived support from Lynn Osen’s ‘Women in Mathematics’ (1975), which ironically does not attribute these statements to her at all, but to her father Theon; ‘”All formal dogmatic religions are fallacious and must never be accepted by self-respecting persons as final,” he told her. “Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all” (Hubbard 1908, p. 82).’, Osen, ‘Women in Mathematics’, p. 24 (1975).

[31] ‘The most creative is the exciting account of Hypatia’s educational training and life composed by Elbert Hubbard in 1908, who made up most of it to compensate for the lack of historical evidence. He even invented quotations that he attributed to Hypatia, and had a suitably ‘ancient’-looking picture of her in profile drawn to illustrate the piece.’, Cohen, ‘Philosophical Tales: being an alternative history revealing the characters, the plots, and the hidden scenes that make up the True Story of Philosophy’, p. 47 (2008); all quotations attributed to Hypatia or her father are the invention of Hubbard, who had no historical training.

[32] ‘”All formal dogmatic religions are fallacious and must never be accepted by self-respecting persons as final,” said Theon to Hypatia. “Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all.”‘, Hubbard, ‘Little journeys to the Homes of Great Teachers: Hypatia’, pp. 82-83 (1908).

[33] ‘Said Hypatia, “Fables should be taught as fables, myths as myths, and miracles as poetic fancies. To teach superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing. The child-mind accepts and believes them, and only through great pain and perhaps tragedy can he be in after-years relieved of them. In fact, men will fight for a superstition quite as quickly as for a living truth – often more so, since a superstition is so intangible you can not get at it to refute it, but truth is a point of view, and so is changeable.”’, ibid., pp. 84-85.

[34] ‘In his ability to see the good in all things Hypatia placed Plotinus ahead of Plato, but then she says, “Had there been no Plato there would have been no Plotinus, and although Plotinus surpassed Plato, yet it is plain that Plato, the inspirer of Plotinus and so many more, is the one man whom philosophy cannot spare. Hail Plato!!”‘, ibid., p. 93

[35] ‘”To rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world, is just as base as to use force,” said Hypatia in one of her lectures.’, ibid., p. 99.

So you liked it? Me too. [1]

It’s been a long time since I took anything named a biopic seriously, but we do have to admit that Hypatia probably wasn’t always 60 and the story is set over a number of years. [2]

If she was born between A.D. 350 and 370, as far as I can see, her age at death could have been anywhere between 45 and 65.

I’m just thankful they sanitized her slaying for the movie.

(I apologize – this is only the Wikipedian version.)

I get that the movie is riddled with inaccuracies and that would peeve me if it was set in this century. I, however, admire Amenabar for making a period movie about ideas, and those kinds of movie are rare. It’s just a warning of how the battle between the light of reason and the light of religion can turn nasty.

[1] ThreadKiller
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageing

Excellent footnoting, guys. Keep it up!

I preferred ‘I Clavdivs’, personally.

I haven’t actually seen it, only parts of it. Artistically it was beautiful, but it wasn’t history in any meaningful sense of the word.

But she was around 60 when she was murdered, so casting Meryl Streep would have made more sense.

There’s general scholarly agreement on the age of around 60.

Quite. Her brutal murder was censured (not censored), by her earliest biographer (a Christian), and undoubtedly shocked her many Christian admirers and disciples.

But that’s just it; the history has nothing to do with ‘the battle between the light of reason and the light of religion’. That’s Amenabar’s personal diatribe, and he’s hijacking the history to push it. Hypatia could be called a champion of the light of reason if you think mathematics consists of divinely revealed truths of spiritual value, that astrology is a reputable science, and that the purpose of life is to rehabilitate our pre-existent immortal soul via magical rituals in order to gain mystical union with the One. This would however involve a definition of ‘reason’ which is unlikely to be recognized by any rational skeptic, not to mention any standard dictionary.

There’s buckets of history with which to make movies about ‘how the battle between the light of reason and the light of religion can turn nasty’. It’s just that many such events aren’t very interesting, and most of them are confined to the recent history of the US, a country of supreme disinterest to most of the world’s population. There are also some cracking good historical events about how valuable religious beliefs led to advances in science, or how secular interests suppressed history favourable to Christian involvement in the advancement of science, but that’s a story which is much less popular today, so we’re not likely to see movies called ‘Philoponus’ or ‘The Sarton Affair’ any time soon.

I agree. Like ‘Rome’ (the recent BBC/HBO collaboration), it was authentic if not entirely accurate (and it was still pretty accurate).

Shock:

Ignore my rant about age below (as you may well be right on that issue). The main point I’d like to make is that I’m truly taken aback that anyone has so much to say about a movie that hasn’t been seen in its entirety.

The Age Thing:

I’m going to trust that you (as I don’t think anyone can doubt that you research things more than I do) are suggesting that newer criticism says she was older, but I’ll point out that more references find her to be younger. It is very far from being a decided point:

If this woman was older than sixty at her unnatural death, I’d posit that she might have had her finger on the pulse of some sort of truth. Surely sixty is rather an advanced age for somebody of that time period?

If there is a question of her age, surely we can’t exactly bash the director for choosing a younger version? And let me mention again (I - after all - watched the whole movie), that it takes place over a number of years and her death only takes place in the last part (there is a clear and shocking break in action between time periods). The movie takes place over a considerable period of time.

My True Opinion of the Flick:
I was truly surprised when I got round to watching it, as I had no idea of its topic. I saw Rachel Weisz on the cover (and love her in The Constant Gardener), and when I got home I saw it was the same director as the marvelous The Others). I expected great things. The movie didn’t satisfy me as much as I would have liked, as I was thinking throughout that liberties had probably been taken with the history. (Confirmed afterwards, when I googled Hypatia.) However, while I do prefer my movies “based in fact” (and I don’t remember any notification like that at the start of this one) to stick to the facts as far as possible, I’d hardly call an argument against religious extremism a “diatribe”. The director doesn’t seem to be pointing fingers at anyone, actually. The Pagans, Christians, and Jews - none of them seem to be particularly saintly. While I enjoyed it, the movie disappointed me a little. I thought it could have been less rambling and tighter. But I do admire Amenabar for taking on something like this. There are too many movies that suggest we are idiots if we do not accept the paranormal (Aarargh! - just watched the horrible “Rite” with Anthony Hopkins), so I was happy to get a different perspective.

Conclusion
Hypatia will continue to remain of interest to and be misrepresented by feminists and atheists due to her birth at a time when there weren’t many famous female minds and when Christianity was ascending to the detriment of other philosophies. And also because she was taken out by a Christian mob, whatever their reasons. Of course Hypatia was nothing like what she has come to represent, but I will continue to imagine her as the pioneering, rational Rachel Weisz, calling for reason and love before all else. I’m surprised she wasn’t appropriated for a movie before.

[1]http://www.agnesscott.edu/lriddle/women/hypatia.htm
[2]http://physics.ucsc.edu/~drip/7B/hypatia.pdf
[3]http://alexandria.cosmographica.com/hypatia.html
[4]http://www.enotes.com/topic/Hypatia
[5]http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hypatia

I never heard of that movie, but I’m glad Rachel Weisz dumped that Mummy crap. I Claudius ruled. A remake would be cool if done right, not Penthoused up like Caligula.

It’s not difficult to comment on the historical aspects of the plot when those historical aspects have been discussed in considerable detail all over the internet in the usual places. No one needs to see the movie in its entirety in order to reach the conclusion that the consensus of skeptical atheist and informed Christian viewers is that the historical aspects of the narrative (Hypatia’s age, her inventions, her position in the continuum of Greek science, the death of Greek science, the circumstances of her murder), were misrepresented. That’s all I’ve commented on, and all of that is easily verifiable. I didn’t even bother commenting on the destruction of the Library of Alexandria (also misrepresented in the movie).

Three of your sources interact with the relevant scholarly literature, but one of them is a student’s essay (written in 1998, without reference to the current scholarship), another doesn’t cite any scholarship later than 1986, and none of them actually refer to Dzielska’s study, which is considered the authoritative modern assessment. Your fifth footnote (which copies Wikipedia), is actually on the mark and cites Dzielska. Not that it’s a particularly important point.

She certainly had her finger on the pulse of some sort of truth; she inherited the lengthy and detailed mathematical tradition of the Greeks, which had plenty of good solid truths in it. On the other hand, as a neo-Platonist she was as devoted to what is referred derisively today as ‘woo woo’. It just goes to show that intelligent and rational people are entirely able to believe in complete junk. Sixty was a good age for someone of that era, though even in the first century it wasn’t uncommon.

Oh I wouldn’t bash the director for choosing a younger woman. As I said, it was clearly a PR exercise. The fact that the movie takes place over a considerable period, however, would mean that if she is still the ravishingly beautiful Rachel Wiesz at the end, then the director is taking liberties with the truth.

I wouldn’t call that a diatribe either. What I object to is the director making an argument not against religious extremism, but against Christianity, and depicting it as incurably extremist and responsible for the death of Greek science. Look at the tagline; ‘the world changed forever’.

None of them were particularly saintly, it’s true. But if you were familiar with the director’s personal views, his promotional statements, and the manner in which he described his own view of the history and his personal aim, you might understand where I’m coming from. I’ll edit these in later.

This is ironic, because the director’s aim was anything but the generation of sympathy towards those who do accept the paranormal.