Hypatia of Alexandria: Proofs of a Conspiracy...pg. 123-126

 Robison's big worry is that women will no longer have the same place in society that they do in his time (18th century) if the Illuminati take over. He frames this as a concern that their place will get worse. Though I'm very puzzled as to how this would be possible. Short of making women literal slaves, there is not much "down" it can get. He's worried about their modesty, and how the French women are showing their arms (and presumably shoulders) at the opera. 

This entire section reminds me of Charlotte Perkins Gillman's book Herland. The book portrays three men who stumble upon a civilization of only women (they reproduce via magic--it's sci-fi the author gets to break one rule). The narrator is the "good" one, who thinks women are people; but the other two (Jeff and Terry) are misogynists. Terry is the obvious one, he thinks that women are incapable of doing the work that went into building the civilization, and he tries to force himself on one of the women after they have a marriage ceremony--only to find out that the women of this world are able to defend it and themselves. However, Jeff treats the women around him "great." He never lets them do work, opens doors for them, and only speaks of them in the highest praise. However, he's just as misogynistic as the other man--it's just that it presents in the opposite manner. He also doesn't think that they should work because they are too delicate and lithe to handle. He's the kind of guy that doesn't think women should vote because they shouldn't have to worry about things like that; whereas his compadre doesn't think women can worry about things like that. 

Robison is the type of misogyny of the latter person. He might even really believe that Christianity has been protecting women, but he's factually incorrect about this. Especially here, when he's going to compare his Christian Women with the women of ancient times. I'm not going to pretend that the ancient world's women had it much better than the 18th-century woman. I will say that because of the pantheon of religions in the Ancient Greek and Roman worlds; there was a slight chance that they could have it better. 

What's more puzzling is the example he trots out: Hypatia of Alexandria. Hypatia of Alexandria is a character in history that I've become a bit more familiar with in the last few months. The daughter of Theon of Alexandria--they were both philosophers, astronomers, and mathematicians in the city of Alexandria (long after the great library existed). Hypatia was known for being a great teacher who seamlessly took over her father's school and was well-liked and popular with the local ruling Roman government. Robison is using her as an example of a Greek Philosopher who personifies the qualities of Christian female virtue; but the trouble is, that she existed in Christian times. Here is what he says of her, "we read of Hypatia, daughter of Theon, the mathematician at Alexandria, who was a prodigy of excellence, and taught philosophy, i.e. the art of leading a good and happy life, with great applause in the famous Alexandrian school.--but she was also in times of Christianity, and was the intimate friend of Syncellus and other Christian Bishops."

That's the total of his commentary on her, we can't blame him for the succinctness--nothing of Hypatia's original works has survived and all we have are the glowing accounts of her intelligence and beauty from contemporaries. There are a couple of problems even in these few sentences though, first astronomy and math were the same at this period of time; ok, not a real problem but a little nit-picky for me the philosophy professor. Secondly, philosophy at this point means any kind of thing that isn't math or war. What Hypatia is teaching is Neoplatonism--a relatively obscure philosophical school that taught that physical reality was a shade of the One. There are some teachings within Neoplatonism that could lead you to believe that Hypatia taught the ways to a good and happy life, but that is all conjecture. We know, from contemporary accounts, that she was an astronomer/philosopher whose teachings of the natural world directly contradicted the various Christian doctrines at the time. No one cared though, because Alexandria was one of the most cosmopolitan cities at the time. 

Hypatia's role in Robison is difficult because of how she meets her end. It is due to a Christian Bishop in a power struggle with the Roman prefect of Alexandria, Orestes. Hypatia was an advisor to Orestes, and the Bishop, Cyril--was struggling to gain power. He disliked the pagans and Jews living in the city viewing them to be affronts to his religion; Orestes seemed to not care in the true Roman style of "believe what you want, but pay us our tax." Hypatia was not only an advisor but it is argued by some historians (Haas 2006) that the friendship was cultivated by Orestes in order to secure the Pagan block of citizens. No matter the case, the Bishop eventually gets tired of this philosopher and drums up a riot amongst his most fervent of followers led by a lector named Peter. They attacked her caravan, and butchered her with oyster shells (which are extremely sharp), taking her body parts, and burning them outside the city walls. 

Gibbon, in his "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," claims that her death was because she was a pagan and created the myth that she was a martyr of philosophy. This is partly true. In Alexandria, at the time, a philosopher was untouchable. The mobs left them alone but would harry their supporters. Her ideas got her killed, but only because she advised Orestes; had she not done that, it is likely that eventually she would have been exiled from the city as Cyril gains power. 

Modern feminist interpretations claim that she died because she was a woman with authority. Again, this is partly true. It was easier for Cyril to rile up his followers by claiming that she was a pagan witch who "beguiled" Orestes. However, she was able to teach in Alexandria as a woman and run her father's school by herself for a few years before her murder. The manner of her death--being stripped naked and then carved to pieces is probably influenced by her sex; but I'm willing to entertain that there is probably some meaning behind it that is lost to history. In some cases, the manner of the death is a message as well.

What matters is that a Christian Bishop upset at the influence a Pagan Philosopher had in Roman Alexandria--had her murdered after a long smear campaign calling her a witch; this is the example that Robison wants to use to explain how virtuous Christianity holds women. The rest of the chapter is about how women will lose their perfection if the Illuminati's teachings infect them. Like Jeff from Herland, the women are not people but delicate treasures to be appreciated and then put away. The Illuminati are seeking to end that, and Robison is appealing to the men (not the women) to shock them into action in the fear that women will start getting bad ideas like those bare-armed harlots attending the French Operas. 

And finally, this chapter ends. We start chapter III, and the German Union; and just maybe we will get our conspiracy.