Hypatia was murdered in March 415 or March 416. The prehistory formed a primarily political and personal conflict with religious aspects, with which she probably originally had nothing to do.
Previous story
Already in the second half of the 4th century there had been strong tensions in Alexandria between parts of the Christian majority and followers of the old cults, which led to violent riots with fatalities. In the course of these conflicts the minority was increasingly pushed back. The patriarch Theophilos of Alexandria had places of worship destroyed, especially the famous Serapeum, but pagan teaching was only temporarily affected, if at all.
The religious-philosophical worldview of the educated, who held to the old religion, was a syncretistic Neoplatonism, which also integrated parts of Aristotelianism and Stoic thoughts into its worldview. These pagan Neoplatonists attempted to bridge the disparities of the traditional philosophical systems through a coherent synthesis of the philosophical traditions, thus striving for a unified doctrine as philosophical and religious truth par excellence. The only exception to the synthesis was Epicureanism, which the Neoplatonists rejected as a whole and did not regard as a legitimate variant of Greek philosophy.
Between pagan Neoplatonism and Christianity there was a contrast in content that was difficult to bridge. Only Synesius, who was both a Christian and a Neoplatonist, attempted a harmonization. In questions of conflict, however, he ultimately gave preference to Platonic philosophy over the doctrines of faith. The religiously oriented non-Christian Platonists, who created the intellectual basis for a continuation of pagan religiosity in educated circles, appeared to the Christians as prominent and persistent opponents.
However, people from this pagan milieu became victims of persecution and expulsion not because of their adherence to their religious-philosophical worldview - for example, in the teaching of conventional educational content to schoolchildren - but because of their cult practice. Since Iamblichos of Chalcis, many Neoplatonists valued and practiced theurgy, a ritual contact with the gods for the purpose of interacting with them. From the Christian point of view, this was sorcery, idolatry, and conjuring up devilish demons. Radical Christians were not willing to tolerate such practices, especially since they assumed that it was a malicious use of magic powers.
Besides the conflicts between pagans and Christian inhabitants of Alexandria, there were at the same time also among the Christians serious quarrels between followers of different theological directions as well as disputes between Jews and Christians. With it political antagonisms as well as power struggles were mixed, to whose background also personal enmities belonged.
The starting point of the events that eventually led to Hypatia's death were violent clashes between Jews and Christians that escalated and claimed many lives. Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria, who had been in office since October 412, was the nephew and successor of Theophilos, whose course of religious militancy he continued. Cyril distinguished himself at the beginning of his tenure as a radical opponent of the Jews. An agitator named Hierax, working on his behalf, fomented religious hatred. When he appeared at an event held by the prefect Orestes in the theatre, the Jews present accused him of having come only to incite a riot. Orestes, who was a Christian, but who as the highest representative of the state power had to see to internal peace, had Hierax arrested and immediately interrogated publicly under torture. Thereupon Cyril threatened the leaders of the Jews. After a night attack by the Jews, who killed many Christians in the process, Cyril organized a full-scale counterattack. His followers destroyed the synagogues and looted the houses of the Jews. Jewish residents were dispossessed and expelled from the city. However, Socrates of Constantinople's claim that all Jews living in Alexandria were affected seems to be exaggerated. There was also later a Jewish community in Alexandria. Some of the exiles returned.
John of Niciu, who describes the events from the point of view of the Patriarch's partisans, accuses Orestes of taking sides with the Jews. The latter were ready to attack and massacre Christians because they could rely on the support of the prefect.
The patriarch's high-handed action against the Jews challenged the authority of the prefect, especially since attacks on synagogues were forbidden by law. A bitter power struggle ensued between the two men, the highest representatives of the state and the church in Alexandria. In this, Cyril relied on his militia (the Parabolani). To reinforce his supporters, some five hundred violent monks arrived from the desert. Cyril had excellent relations with these militant monks, having previously lived among them for several years. In the milieu of the partly illiterate monks an anti-educational attitude and radical intolerance towards everything non-Christian prevailed; they had already actively supported the patriarch Theophilos in the persecution of religious minorities. The patriarch's partisans claimed that the prefect protected opponents of Christianity because he sympathized with them and was himself secretly a pagan. The fanatical monks openly confronted the prefect when he was out in the city and challenged him with insults. A monk named Ammonios injured Orestes by throwing a stone at his head. Thereupon almost all the prefect's companions took to flight, so that he found himself in a perilous situation. He was saved by citizens who rushed to the scene, chased away the monks and seized Ammonios. The prisoner was interrogated and died under torture. Thereupon Cyril publicly praised the courage of Ammonios, gave him the name "the admirable one" and wanted to introduce a martyr cult for him. But with this he found little approval among the Christian public, since the actual course of events of the confrontation was all too well known.
Assassination
Now Cyril or someone in his circle decided to take action against Hypatia, who was a suitable target because she was a high-profile pagan figure in the prefect's inner circle. According to the account of Socrates of Constantinople, the most credible source, the rumour was spread that Hypatia, as advisor to Orestes, was encouraging the latter to adopt an intransigent attitude and was thus thwarting a reconciliation between the spiritual and secular powers in the city. Incited by this, a band of Christian fanatics gathered under the leadership of a certain Petros, who held the rank of lector in the church, and lay in wait for Hypatia. The Christians seized the old philosopher, took her to the church of Kaisarion, stripped her naked there, and killed her with "shards" (another meaning of the word ostraka used in this context is "roof tiles"). Then they tore the body into pieces, took its parts to a place called Kinaron and burned them there.
John of Niciu presents a version which, with regard to the course of events, largely agrees with that of Socrates and only differs somewhat in detail. According to his account, Hypatia was indeed brought to the church Kaisarion, but not killed there, but dragged naked to death in the streets of the city. The result, he says, was a solidarization of the Christian population with the patriarch, since he had now exterminated the last remnant of paganism in the city. John of Niciu, whose report probably reflects the official position of the Church of Alexandria, justifies the murder by claiming that Hypatia had seduced the prefect and the city population by means of satanic sorcery. Under her influence, the prefect had stopped attending church services. John describes the lector Petros, the direct instigator of the murder, as an exemplary Christian.
Hardly credible is Damaskios' account of the antecedents, who claims that Cyril, passing by Hypatia's house by chance, noticed a crowd gathered in front of it, and thereupon, out of envy of Hypatia's popularity, decided to do away with her.
For Orestes, the murder meant a spectacular defeat and he lost much prestige in the city, since he could neither protect his philosopher friend nor punish the perpetrators. Although charges were brought against the murderers, they were without consequence. Damaskios claimed that judges and witnesses had been bribed. An envoy of the patriarch went to Constantinople to the court of the Eastern Roman Emperor Theodosius II in order to describe the events from Cyril's point of view. Somewhat later, however, a year and a half after Hypatia's death, the patriarch's opponents were able to deal him a severe blow, for they succeeded in gaining acceptance in Constantinople. Imperial decrees of September and October 416 stipulated that henceforth legations to the emperor bypassing the prefect would no longer be permitted, and that the patriarch's militia would be reduced in size and henceforth placed under the control of the prefect. Accordingly, this force lost the character of a militia, which the patriarch could use at will and even employ against the prefect. However, these imperial measures did not last long; already in 418 Cyril was able to regain command over his militia.
The question of whether Patriarch Kyrill instigated or at least approved the murder has long been disputed. A clear clarification is hardly possible. In any case, it can be assumed that the perpetrators could assume to act in the sense of the patriarch.
Edward Watts doubts that Petros planned Hypatia's death. Watts points out that in late antiquity there were often confrontations between prominent personalities and an angry mob, but that the mob rarely had the intention to kill. Even in Alexandria, where riots were frequent, targeted killings were rare; they had occurred twice in the 4th and 5th centuries, and both times (361 and 457) the victims were unpopular bishops. It is also possible that Petros wanted to intimidate the old philosopher into withdrawing from her advisory role to Orestes, but the situation then got out of hand.
