Hypatia: The Life and Legend of an Ancient Philosopher by Edward J. Watts
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
170 PHOENIX Hypatia: The Life and Legend of an Ancient Philosopher. By Edward J. Watts. New York: Oxford University Press (Women in Antiquity). 2017. Pp. xii, 205. Edward Watts's monograph on the Alexandrian philosopher Hypatia, one of antiquity ’s most fascinating but most elusive figures, is a timely addition to OUP’s “Women in Antiquity” series. The first biography of Hypatia available in English in over two decades,1 it appears not long after the sixteenth centenary of Hypatia’s death (415 c.e.), which has sparked interest well beyond specialist circles. The aim of the series is to provide “compact and accessible introductions to the life and historical times of women from the ancient world” (unpag. [II]) and Watts fulfills this admirably by painting a vivid picture of Hypatia and late antique Alexandria without glossing over the precarious nature of the evidence on which he draws. The ancient texts that bear witness to Hypatia’s life are few, many of them fragmentary and doubtful and most of them highly biased, while her own work is almost entirely lost. The biographer, then, not only needs to have an exceptional grasp of the nature and agenda of the sources but also an impeccable sense for context and conjecture. Watts, who has published widely on the social history of late antiquity, has both. The seventh chapter is a case in point: it offers a concise account of what we know of four other female intellectuals of the time—Pandrosion, Sosipatra, Asclepigenia and the anonymous wife of Maximus of Ephesus—to stake out the gender dynamics and expectations in the intellectual life of late antiquity. Despite the somewhat fanciful chapter title (“Hypatia’s Sisters”), Watts is not interested in crude analogies but engages in nuanced comparison to tease out what is unique in depictions of Hypatia. More than any other study to date, Watts’s book aims to place Hypatia in the social, economic, and cultural milieu of Alexandria at the turn of the fourth and fifth centuries. His Hypatia is an outstanding woman, a towering intellectual and a well-connected public figure, but her life is firmly rooted in, and conditioned by, the circumstances in which it was lived. There is a certain revisionist impetus behind Watts’s historicising account. First, he takes issue with the tradition indulging in the retelling of Hypatia’s gruesome murder and refuses to let her death define the record of her life. His Hypatia did not become a martyr on one fateful day, but lived her life heroically (5). Secondly, he revisits the entrenched view that Hypatia was caught up in, and eventually fell victim to, religious factionalism and strife. While Watts does not downplay the importance of the religious and ecclesiastical dynamics shaping Hypatia’s Alexandria, he vehemently insists on reading them against its socio-economic divisions. Here, Watts tells an important story about extremism. When he touches on Hypatia’s murder (Chapter Eight), he plausibly suggests that she did not perish in an act of pre-meditated murder but in an eruption of mob violence—killed not by religious fanatics but by the disenfranchised and poor of the port city, who suffered disproportionately from the slowing of the economy outside the Mediterranean sailing season (114–117). For Watts, Hypatia’s murder is a symptom of long-standing dislocations in the power structures and social fabric of her city. In consequence, this is where Watts starts his 1 M. Dzielska, Hypatia of Alexandria (tr. F. Lyra; Cambridge MA and London 1995)—originally published in Polish as M.D., Hypatia z Aleksandrii (Krakow 1993). M. B. Deakin (Hypatia of Alexandria: Mathematician and Martyr [Amherst, NY 2007]) offers an accessible introduction to Hypatia’s mathematics and science. Among non-English publications, S. Ronchey, Ipazia: la vera storia (Milan 2010) and H. Harich-Schwarzbauer, Hypatia. Die spätantiken Quellen. Eingeleitet, kommentiert und interpretiert (Bern 2011) stand out. BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 171 account. The first chapter (“Alexandria”) sets the scene with an admirably dense and informative portrayal of late antique Alexandria. Programmatically, it juxtaposes a standard account of the city’s foundation, history, and institutions with a vivid sketch of the often dire living and working conditions...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».