From 

Some Lies and Errors of History by the Rev. Reuben Parsons, D.D.; Notre Dame,
Indiana: The Ave Maria; 7th edition; 1893; pp. 52-63.
52

ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA AND THE

MURDER OF HYPATIA.
A FEW years ago the Rev. Charles Kingsley, an English writer of some
reputation, saw fit to revive an ancient but often exploded calumny against one
of God’s saints. This author was a clergyman of the English Establishment, and
being presumably as well as pretendedly a man of education, one would have
expected from his pen at least a moderately appreciative treatment of the grand
characters whom he selected to illustrate an important, though little understood,
period of history. But, according to him, the great Patriarch of Alexandria “has
gone to his own place. What that place is in history, is but too well known; what
it is in the sight of Him unto whom all live forever, is no concern of ours. May He
whose mercy is over all His works have mercy upon all, whether orthodox or
unorthodox, Papist, or Protestant, who, like Cyril, begin by lying for the cause of
truth; and, setting off upon that evil road, arrive surely, with the Scribes and
Pharisees of old, sooner or later, at their own place. True, 53he and his monks
had conquered; but Hypatia did not die unavenged. In the hour of that
unrighteous victory the Church of Alexandria received a deadly wound. It had
admitted and sanctioned those habits of doing evil that good may come, of pious
intrigue, and at last of open persecution, which are certain to creep in
wheresoever men attempt to set up a merely religious empire, independent of
human relationships and civil laws; to establish, in short, a ‘theocracy,’ and by
that very act confess a secret disbelief that God is ruling already.”
Such was not the judgment of Kingsley’s fellow-sectarian, Cave,1, nor of the
Lutheran, John Albert Fabricius,2 than whom Protestants have produced no
critics more erudite. But it is the opinion expressed by many Protestant
polemics; for St. Cyril presided, in the name of the Roman Pontiff, at the
Council of Ephesus (431), which confirmed to the Blessed Virgin the title of
Mother of God.3 54It is also the judgment of Voltaire and the entire school of
incredulists; for St. Cyril triumphantly refuted the work of the Emperor Julian
against Christianity.
In the early part of the fifth century the great city of Alexandria in Egypt was
still nearly one half pagan, and the Jewish population also was very large. No
populace in the Empire was so turbulent and seditious, and therefore the
emperors had invested the patriarchs with extensive civil authority, although the
force at the prelates’ disposal was not always sufficient to repress the disorders
of the mob. In the year 413 St. Cyril was raised to the patriarchate, and was
almost 55immediately involved in difficulty with Orestes, the imperial prefect.
Often he conjured this officer on the Gospels to put an end to this enmity for the
good of the city.
At this time the chief school of pagan philosophy in Alexandria was taught by
Hypatia, a beautiful woman, and of irreproachable morals. Among her hearers
were many of the élite of paganism. The celebrated Synesius had been her pupil,
and his letters show that, although he had become a Christian bishop in 410 he
still gloried in her friendship. But her most important scholar was the prefect
Orestes. It is difficult to determine what was the religion of this man. He himself,
on the occasion of an attack on his life by some monks from St. Nitria, had
proclaimed his Christianity, but his general conduct would inspire doubt of his
sincerity; and we may safely accept as probable the conjecture of the English
novelist, that he was ready to renew the attempt of Julian the Apostate. The
obstinacy of Orestes in refusing a reconciliation with their patriarch was
ascribed by the whole Christian community to the influence of Hypatia; and one
day in the Lent of 415 a number of parabolani4 and laics, led 56by one Peter the
Reader and some Nitrian monks fell upon the unfortunate philosopher as she
was proceeding to her lecture hall, dragged her from her litter, hurried her to
the great church of the Cæsareum, and there literally tore her to pieces.
Such, in a few words, is the substance of the account of this horrible event as
given by the historian Socrates5 a writer contemporary with the great St. Cyril,
and whom Kingsley professes to have scrupulously followed. But Socrates,
hostile though he ever shows himself to the holy patriarch, does not once
insinuate that this prelate was the instigator of the crime; while the Anglican
minister does imply that charge, and openly lays all responsibility for the foul
deed on St. Cyril.
Voltaire, the prince of incredulists, naturally gloats over one of the most
delicious morsels ever furnished to his school. Having 57compared Hypatia to
Madame Dacier, a learned classicist of his day, he asks us to imagine the French
Carmelites contending that the poem of “Magdalen,” composed in 1668 by Peter
de Saint-Louis, one of their Order, was superior to the “Iliad” of Homer, and
insisting that it is impious to prefer the work of a pagan to that of a religious. Let
us fancy, then, continues the Sage of Ferney, that the Archbishop of Paris takes
the part of the Carmelites against the governor of the city, a partisan of Madame
Dacier, who prefers Homer to F. Peter. Finally, let us suppose the Archbishop
inciting the Carmelites to slaughter this talented woman in the Cathedral of
Notre Dame. “Such precisely,” concludes Voltaire, “is the history of Hypatia. She
taught Homer and Plato in Alexandria during the reign of Theodosius II. St.
Cyril unleashed the Christian populace against her, as we are told by Damascius
and Suidas, and as is satisfactorily proved by the most learned moderns, such as
Brucker, La Croze, Basnage, etc.”6 And in another place7 Voltaire dares to ask:
“Can anything be more horrible or more cowardly than the conduct of the
priests 58of this Bishop Cyril, whom Christians style St. Cyril? . . . His tonsured
hounds, followed by a mob of fanatics, attack Hypatia in the street, drag her by
the hair, stone and burn her, and Cyril the Holy utters not the slightest
reprimand.” Again:8 “This Cyril was ambitious, factious, turbulent, knavish and
cruel. . . . He caused his priests and diocesans to massacre the young Hypatia, so
well known in the world of letters. . . . Cyril was jealous because of the
prodigious attendance at the lectures of Hypatia, and he incited against her the
murderers who assassinated her. . . . Such was Cyril of whom they have made a
saint.” And as late as 1777, when the octogenarian cynic was already in the
shadow of death, he wrote: “We know that St. Cyril caused the murder of
Hypatia, the heroine of philosophy.”9
Since such is the judgment expressed by Voltaire, at once the most shallow and
most influential of all modern writers on historical matters, it is not strange that
the masses have accepted the romance of Hypatia as recounted by most of those
fosterers of shallowness, the encyclopædias and dictionaries of the day. 60Even in
some of the least superficial of these presumed authorities, such as the “Nouvelle
Biographie Générale” (Didot, 1858), and the “Grand Dictionnaire
Encyclopédique du Dix-Neuvième Siècle” (1873), the accusation against St. Cyril
is clearly put forth. In the former work we read the following the pen of a
celebrated writer:10 “It is hard to believe that the hands of St. Cyril were not
stained in this bloody tragedy. The historian Socrates, who gives its details, adds
that the deed covered with infamy not only Cyril but the whole Church of
Alexandria.” In the latter we are told: “Hypatia was massacred by the Christian
populace, at the instigation of St. Cyril. . . . According to Damascius, St. Cyril,
passing one day before the residence of Hypatia, noted the crowd who were
waiting to hear the daughter of Theon, and he thereupon conceived such
jealousy of her fame that he resolved to procure the death of the noble and
learned girl.”11
Voltaire tells us that the guilt of St. Cyril has been proved by the most learned
men of the eighteenth century, “such as Brucker, La Croze, Basnage, etc, etc.”
Let us pass, with a doubting smile, this extravagant encomium on writers of very
ordinary calibre, and see how these Protestant authorities arrive at their
horrible conclusion. It is by adducing the testimony of Socrates, Suidas,
Damascius, and Nicephorus Callixtus. But in vain do they call on Socrates. This
historian, although very hostile to St. Cyril, as he constantly shows himself, and
although his Novatianism12 would render him very willing to incriminate
an 61orthodox prelate, does not charge the holy patriarch with either the
instigation or an approval of the murder. And, let it be noted, Philostorgius, also
contemporary with Hypatia, and an historian of as much reliability as Socrates,
narrates her death, but does not even mention the name of St. Cyril in
connection with it, although, indeed, he inculpates the Catholics. The same may
be said of Suidas. As for Nicephorus Callixtus, this schismatic author should not
be brought forward in the matter, as he lived nine centuries after the event, and
could know nothing whatever concerning it, unless from Socrates and
Philostorgius. Furthermore, the best critics of every school tax this writer with a
fondness for fables.
There remains, then, only Damascius, on whom Voltaire and his latest copyist,
Kingsley, can rely for justification in their ghoulish task. But Damascius was a
pagan, a declared enemy of Christianity, and it was the interest of his cause to
besmirch the fair fame of Alexandria’s patriarch. And of what value is his
assertion, made a century and a half after the death of Hypatia, when compared
with the silence of her contemporaries, Socrates and Philostorgius? Again, the
very passage of Damascius adduced by the foes of St. Cyril 62betrays the
shallowness of this author’s information. He represents the patriarch as
surprised at the numbers awaiting the coming forth of Hypatia, and as asking
who it was that could attract such a concourse. Is it possible that St. Cyril, the
best informed man in Alexandria concerning even its most trivial affairs, the all-
powerful patriarch whose spies were everywhere (according to Kingsley), did
not know the residence of the woman who disputed with him the intellectual
empire of the city? And Damascius makes still more exorbitant demands on our
credulity; for he gives us to understand that until St. Cyril saw that crowd of her
enthusiastic disciples, he had not even heard a name which for years had been
renowned in Egypt.
We are not writing a life of St. Cyril, still less a hagiological essay; but we must
remark that the general tenor of this prelate’s career, his exhibition of constant
zeal and virtue of a strikingly heroic character, which caused his enrollment
among the canonized saints, would prevent us from supposing that he could ever
have been a murderer. Of course, absolutely speaking no metaphysical
impossibility is invoked in the supposition of Voltaire, Kingsley, etc.; but if it
were accepted, we should expect to discover some trace of heroic repentance
in 63the after-life of the patriarch. Now, in the remaining thirty years of his
career, active and open to inspection though it as, we can find neither the
slightest trace of such repentance nor even any avowal of the crime. But we need
say no more. The charge is as gratuitous as it is malicious, and will thus be
considered by all fair minds until at least one contemporary or quasi-
contemporary authority can be adduced in its support.

NOTES

1  “Lit. Hist.,” article “Cyrillus.”

2  “Bibl. Græca,” pt. iv, b. 5.
3  Writing to the clergy and people of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine said:
“We have deemed it proper that in so important a matter we ourselves should be
in some sort present among you, and therefore we have appointed our brother
Cyril as our representative.” And, writing to St. Cyril, the Pontiff says: “You will
proclaim this sentence by our authority, acting in our place by virtue of our
power; so that if Nestorius, within ten days after his admonition, does not
anathematize his impious doctrine, you will declare him deprived of communion
with us, and you will at once provide for the needs of the Constantinopolitan
Church.” It is quite natural that Protestant polemics should be hostile to the
memory of the great “Doctor of the Incarnation,” who thus apostrophized the
Blessed Virgin in the Council of Ephesus: “I salute thee, Mother of God,
venerable treasure of the entire universe! I salute thee, who didst enclose the
Immense, the Incomprehensible, in thy virginal womb! I salute thee, by whose
means heaven triumphs, angels rejoice, demons are put to flight, the tempter is
vanquished, the culpable creature is raised to heaven, a knowledge of truth is
based on the ruins of idolatry! I salute thee, through whom all the churches of
the earth have been founded, and all nations led to penance! I salute thee, in
fine, by whom the only Son of God, the Light of the world, has enlightened those
who were seated in the shadow of death! Can any man worthily laud the
incomparable Mary?”
4  These were an order of minor clerics, probably only tonsured, who were
deputed to the service of the sick both in hospitals and at home. Their name was
derived from their constant exposure to danger. The first mention of them in a
public document occurs in an ordinance of Theodosius II., in 416; but they are
here spoken of as having been in existence many years, and probably they were
instituted in the time of Constantine. In course of time they became arrogant
and seditious, and were finally abolished. At Alexandria they numbered six
hundred, and were all appointed by the patriarch.
5  “Hist. Eccl.,” b. vii, § 15.
6  In his “Dictionnaire Philosophique;” article “Hypatia.”
7  “Examen Important de Milord Bolingbroke,” chap. 34, “Des Chrétiens
jusqu’à Theodose.”
8  “Discours de Julien contre la Secte des Galiléens.”
9  “L’Etablissement du Christianisme,” chap. 24, “Excés de Fanatisme.”
10  M. Aubé, in vol. xxv, p. 712.
11  Vol.ix., p. 505 — Cantù does not touch the question of St. Cyril’s
responsibility for this crime. This is all that the great historian says concerning
Hypatia: “Theon, a professor in Alexandria, commentated on Euclid and
Ptolemy, but became more famous on account of his beautiful daughter Hypatia.
Taught mathematics by him, and perfected at Athens, she was invited to teach
philosophy in her native city. She followed the eclectics, but based her system on
the exact sciences, and introduced demonstrations into the speculative, thus
reducing them to a more rigorous method than they had hitherto known. Bishop
Synesius was her scholar, and always venerated her. Orestes, Prefect of Egypt,
admired and loved her, and followed her counsels in his contest with the fiery
Archbishop, St. Cyril. It was said that it was owing to Hypatia’s enthusiasm for
paganism that Orestes became unfavorable to the Christians. Hence certain
imprudent persons so excited the people against her that one day, while she was
going to her school, she was dragged from her litter, stripped and killed, and her
members thrown into the flames.” (Storia Universale,” b. vii, c. 23. Edit. Ital. 10;
Turin, 1862.)
12  This
heresy was an outgrowth of the schism of Novatian, who, instigated by
Novatus, a Carthaginian priest, tried to usurp the pontifical throne of St.
Cornelius in 251. Its cardinal doctrine was that there were some sins which the
Church can not forgive. It subsisted in the East until the seventh century, and in
the West until the eighth.