Editing Hypatia (section)

===Early modern period===
[[File:Hypatia - John Toland 1720.jpg|thumb|upright=1.3|The eighteenth-century English [[Deism|Deist]] scholar [[John Toland]] used Hypatia's death as the basis for an [[Anti-Catholicism|anti-Catholic]] [[polemic]], in which he changed the details of her murder and introduced new elements not found in any of his sources in order to portray Cyril in the worst possible light.{{sfn|Dzielska|1996|page=2}}{{sfn|Watts|2017|pages=135–136}}]]

Early eighteenth-century [[deism|Deist]] scholar [[John Toland]] used the murder of Hypatia as the basis for an [[anti-Catholicism|anti-Catholic]] tract,{{sfn|Dzielska|1996|page=2}}{{sfn|Watts|2017|pages=135–136}}<ref>Ogilvie, M. B. (1986). Women in science: Antiquity through the 19th century. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.</ref> portraying Hypatia's death in the worst possible light by changing the story and inventing elements not found in any of the ancient sources.{{sfn|Dzielska|1996|page=2}}{{sfn|Watts|2017|pages=135–136}} A 1721 response by [[Thomas Lewis (controversialist)|Thomas Lewis]] defended Cyril,{{sfn|Dzielska|1996|page=2}}{{sfn|Watts|2017|pages=136–137}} rejected Damascius's account as unreliable because its author was "a [[Paganism|heathen]]"{{sfn|Watts|2017|pages=136–137}} and argued that Socrates Scholasticus was "a [[Puritans|Puritan]]", who was consistently biased against Cyril.{{sfn|Watts|2017|pages=136–137}}

[[Voltaire]], in his ''Examen important de Milord Bolingbroke ou le tombeau de fanatisme'' (1736) interpreted Hypatia as a believer in "the laws of rational Nature" and "the capacities of the human mind free of [[dogma]]s"{{sfn|Castner|2010|page=50}}{{sfn|Dzielska|1996|page=2}} and described her death as "a bestial murder perpetrated by Cyril's tonsured hounds, with a fanatical gang at their heels".{{sfn|Dzielska|1996|page=2}} Later, in an entry for his ''[[Dictionnaire philosophique]]'' (1772), Voltaire again portrayed Hypatia as a freethinking deistic genius brutally murdered by ignorant and misunderstanding Christians.{{sfn|Castner|2010|page=50}}{{sfn|Dzielska|1996|page=3}}{{sfn|Watts|2017|page=139}} Most of the entry ignores Hypatia altogether and instead deals with the controversy over whether or not Cyril was responsible for her death.{{sfn|Watts|2017|page=139}} Voltaire concludes with the snide remark that "When one strips beautiful women naked, it is not to massacre them."{{sfn|Dzielska|1996|page=3}}{{sfn|Watts|2017|page=139}}

In his monumental work ''[[The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire]]'', the English historian [[Edward Gibbon]] expanded on Toland and Voltaire's misleading portrayals by declaring Cyril as the sole cause of all evil in Alexandria at the beginning of the fifth century{{sfn|Dzielska|1996|page=3}} and construing Hypatia's murder as evidence to support his thesis that the rise of Christianity hastened the decline of the Roman Empire.{{sfn|Dzielska|1996|pages=3–4}} He remarks on Cyril's continued veneration as a Christian saint, commenting that "superstition [Christianity] perhaps would more gently expiate the blood of a virgin, than the banishment of a saint."{{sfn|Dzielska|1996|page=4}} In response to these accusations, Catholic authors, as well as some French Protestants, insisted with increased vehemence that Cyril had absolutely no involvement in Hypatia's murder and that Peter the Lector was solely responsible. In the course of these heated debates, Hypatia tended to be cast aside and ignored, while the debates focused far more intently on the question of whether Peter the Lector had acted alone or under Cyril's orders.{{sfn|Watts|2017|page=139}}