www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology "AGORA" AND CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

A recently released film ("Agora") deals with the turmoil in Alexandria in the fifth century. The film portrays Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), Patriarch of Alexandria and Doctor of the Church, in a rather negative way, focusing particularly on his hostility toward pagans and Jews, and his involvement in or sanctioning of violence toward them. Biographical sources I have consulted thus far, while perhaps more temperate or cautious in their characterizations of Cyril's conduct and policies, seem to corroborate at least some of the negative views expressed in the film. Has anyone else seen the film? Can anyone suggest sources that might place Cyril's conduct towards non-Christians in a clearer context?

With Cyril, what you see is what you get. He's a saint because of his theological insights and defense of orthodoxy, not his personality or the methods he employed to get his way. Cyril was a ruthless adversary when crossed. His treatment of Nestorius and others who disagreed with his (obviously correct) interpretation of doctrine were odious and did indeed extend to the use of gangs of monks to intimidate through violence or the threat of violence. However, he is probably innocent of plotting the death of Hyapatia, who was simply caught up in the class violence for which Alexandria was famous. Also, she was neither young at the time of her death, nor a particularly original philosopher, so you can discount those aspects of the story.

Here is a brief review from a friend of mine:

An unhistorical but slaveholding pagan Hypatia is portrayed as a kind of saintly philosophical protagonist in this thin historical drama. The film is attempting to make a point about the effect of religion on scientific inquiry by showing the implausible Hypatia discovering the eliptical orbit of the Earth around the ...Sun. (We should all know that's wrong anyway) Get it? Christianity obscures our knowledge of the world around us and breeds intolerance. Expect the usual cliches about Christianity from this intolerably convoluted art film. If you want an accurate portrayal of human persons, I suggest you stay home and watch the Jettsons.

Gabriel's assessment is true enough, but so is my assessment of St. Cyril of Alexandria. It is important to place historical persons in the context of their times.

Gabriel's friend seems to have access to sources that differ from those I was able to find in a rather hurried search. He also seems to have seen a different film. I think Stuart's post is more to the point on the problem of Cyril's actions (as contrasted with his theology). It seems we look for different qualites in our saints today than they did in the fifth century.

None of the sources I found suggested that Hypatia did not exist. In fact, some of the sources seemed to suggest that the film may have treated her execution/murder more delicately than the facts might have justified (flayed and burned according to some). As for her being a slaveholder, I wonder what the relevance of that would be, given the fact that Christians, too, including leaders of our holy churches, have been slaveholders throughout history.

It seemed to me that the Hypatia story in the film is a sort of counterpoint to the film's treatment of the conflicts among Christians, Jews and pagans and the tensions between the emerging Church and the power of the Empire.

Hyapatia did indeed exist, and she was one of the prominent neo-platonist philosophers of the 5th century--but that isn't saying much, as it was an era in which there was much imitation and derivation, and little original thinking.

Hyapatia was caught up in a riot and beaten to death. There is no evidence she was deliberately targeted either because she was (a) a pagan or (b) a woman. In fact, Hyapatia was on good terms with many of the leading Christians of Alexandria--and this coexistence of Christians and pagans was common throughout the Empire at the time. Because Christians probably accounted for not much more than half the population, it was absolutely unavoidable. One should remember that the pagan Academy in Athens was still in business, and ambitious Christian parents (like those of Basil the Great and Gregory Nanzianzen) lined up to get their sons into it, the way yuppies line up to get their kids into prestigious colleges today.

If Hyapatia owned slaves, she would not be unusual. Everybody did, even Christians, though slavery was slowly dying out, with serfdom taking its place. Ah, progress!

Relations between Christians and Jews in the 4th-5th centuries were certainly much more complex than contemporary Christians and Jews care to admit. The Jews, for one thing, were an aggressively proselytizing religion, real competition for the Christians of the day. And Christians found the Jews to be admirable in the way they led their lives, which prompted imitation. And that imitation lies behind the condemnations of "Judaizing" emanating from the pens of the Fathers, including most notoriously John Chrysostom. Note that the Judaizers are never condemned for their beliefs, only for their behavior, which copied that of the Jews. Philosemitism, not antisemitism, was the dominant characteristic of the Christian community of the time.

Reviewer's replies (whose given name is Cyril):

PFFFFT!! I never said Hypatia didn't exist, but the woman portrayed in the film certainly didn't exist. She's the composite of a modern doctoral student. The sexy Hypatia suffering over the earth's cycles is a thing of complete propaganda. She was 60-some years old when she died.

Some of the Monks defended her as well, something lost on the filmmakers, and she wasn't blameless either. She was trying to alienate Cyril at the time and Cyril was even willing to make concessions but she urged Orestes not to accept them.

You are quite right. Hypatia was at least sixty five when she died, while Rachel Weisz most certainly is not. Moreover, Hypatia was on very good terms with quite a number of Christians. Whether Cyril had a direct role in her death is doubtful (which doesn't make Cyril a nice guy, though), and whether Hypatia had anything to do with the tiff between him and the Praefect Orestes is highly unlikely.

It's ironic that later Christians held up Hypatia as a paragon of feminine virtue, much in the same way that Marcus Aurelius went from being an evil persecutor to an enlightened philosopher-king.