S K, to have mentored at least 15 students, most of them Christians, all
socially and politically elite (Dzielska 27–46). Since Sunesios studied under her until 398 and
she probably collaborated with her father, she was probably born ca 355. Already elderly
when she was murdered, she was the victim of a political conflict between the bishop Cyril
(cf. K) and the augustal prefect Oreste ̄s (see Dzielska 83–100 and 1–26 for literary
and historical fictions derived from this episode).
Several sources describe her proficiency in mathematics (astronomy and astrology
included), as surpassing her father’s. The (notoriously unreliable) Souda, in particular, credits
her with The astronomical canon, commentaries on D ( perhaps his Arithme ̄tika) and
A’ Ko ̄nika, all of which, if they ever existed, are lost or at best survive as
anonymous fragments (Cameron 44–48). The heading of Theo ̄n’s commentary on the 3rd
book of P’s Almagest (2.807 Rome) only shows that Hupatia proofread it for her
father (see Jones 1999: 170–172, contra Cameron 1993). Cameron 1993 conjectured, on
weak evidence, that her “astronomical canon” refers to an edition of Ptolemy’s Handy Tables
and that she is responsible for some interpolations found in the MSS of the Almagest.
Qusta’s Arabic translation of Books 4–7 of Diophantos’ Arithme ̄tika may have been based on
a Greek text that already included interpolated commentaries perhaps due to Hupatia,
but this point is again disputed. Moreover, the study of the direct transmission does not
allow positive conclusions on scholia to Diophantos written before the 13th c. Knorr (1989:
765 – 770) plausibly argued that part of Hupatia’s hypothetical commentary on Apollo ̄nios
may be found in the material used for E’ commented edition of the Ko ̄nika. But
Knorr’s own attempt to circumscribe part of it is weak. His attribution to her of a rework-
ing of A’ De dim. circ., likewise, is highly conjectural (ibid. 771–780).
The Souda notice is partly based on D’ Life of Isidore, in which Hupatia’s reputa-
tion in mathematics is used to belittle her proficiency in philosophy (Cameron 41–43),
somewhat contradicting the well-informed and enthusiastic testimony of her student
Sunesios, whose letters, although deliberately allusive regarding the content of Hupatia’s
teaching, clearly show that she considered astronomy “a divine science” leading to
philosophy (Ad Paeonium de dono, 310c-311a), and one of E’s common notions liable
to an ethical interpretation (Epist. 93). She therefore probably considered mathematics
one stage in a philosophical and “psychagogic” curriculum (Dzielska 54–56). This does
not imply that she was not competent in mathematics (cf. Sunesios’ letter to Paeonius), nor
that her philosophical obedience was to Iamblikhean Neo-Platonism (Dzielska 62– 64
contra Cameron 49–58). But it may bring her teaching close to what is found some decades
later in P’ Hupotuposis. Probably following her father’s interests, she also taught
astrology (see Sunesios’ allusion to an astrological hydroscope in Epist. 15, Dzielska 74–79).
She also showed interest in music and musical instruments (Cameron 60). These aspects
of her teaching may have contributed to Alexandrian hostility leading up to her death
(Dzielska 91).
A. Cameron, Barbarians and Politics at the Court of Arcadius (1993) 42–60; M. Dzielska, Hypatia of Alexandria
(1995); BNP 6 (2005) 627–628, P. Hadot; NDSB 3.435–437, F. Acerbi.
Alain Bernard
Hupatos (1000 – 1250 CE?)
Some MSS contain a lexicon of terms designating the parts of the body, the title
of which includes the word hupatos, traditionally interpreted as the author’s name, a
HUPATOS