Talk:Decline of the Library of Alexandria

Parallel tales of multiple events

First: "Hats off!" to the community for this fabulous article.
But I have to say that I found no chunk in it that resonated with what I "know" of the event[s]. (see below, "tradition" and "mythology". I'm sure you've worked your way around historiography.)
Long/short: When I followed a twig over to Library of Pergamum I almost immediately found something that energetically resonated with what I "know" of this. Here's the key sentence:

• "In 43 BC Mark Antony seized the collection of 200,000 rolls and presented them as a gift to his new wife Cleopatra, presumably in an effort to restock the Library of Alexandria, which had been destroyed by Ptolemaic raiders in 47 BC."
  

That about "raiders" coincides with what I think to be perhaps the most rapacious moments of the Library's life. And what I found? "Raiders" does not appear in this main article. So evidently there's a disconnect. --BenTrem (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
p.s. I've never really engaged any WP material. Maybe I'll lean into this one. --ben

It's those darned storytellers again. The cited source says "Ptolemaic forces fighting Caesar", not "raiders". 24.7.14.87 (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"Tradition" contra "Mythology"

I changed the word mythology in the intro to tradition. The word mythology in this context implies that the burning isn't true. Tradition communicates the same idea without any bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.32.17 (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Disputed

This article had a few inline editorial comments as superscript text; I've replaced them with {{disputed}} tags and moved them here. They are:-

• "again, there is no account of a map in Strabo's writing - where did it come from?" after "is possible that since his last visit to the library, the map he was referencing"
• "this person just made that up" after "considering his expertise and the vast collection of the library"
• "hearsay, by all accounts the libraries were well funded and dedicated most of their labour to transcription" after "simply a victim of a library that didn't have the funds to recopy and preserve its collection"
• "Strabo does not mention the library but he also does not mention a city map, I searched all of section 1 and 2, I don't know why this person said that Strabo mentions this" after "on an earlier trip to Alexandria, before the fire"

--McGeddon (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what happened here, but thanks for cleaning that up, McGeddon! – Quadell ^(talk) 15:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Pertaining to the last point, "searched all of section 1 and 2" ... this doesn't call on any negative hypothesis. If it was mentioned then chapter and verse should easily enough be cited. --BenTrem (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Quote from Gibbon

Edward Gibbon, recounts the story in Chapter LI: Conquests By The Arabs -- Part VII of his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire [ibiblio.org]:

"I should deceive the expectation of the reader, if I passed in silence the fate of the Alexandrian library, as it is described by the learned Abulpharagius.

"The spirit of Amrou was more curious and liberal than that of his brethren, and in his leisure hours, the Arabian chief was pleased with the conversation of John, the last disciple of Ammonius, and who derived the surname of Philoponus from his laborious studies of grammar and philosophy. Emboldened by this familiar intercourse, Philoponus presumed to solicit a gift, inestimable in his opinion, contemptible in that of the Barbarians -- the royal library, which alone, among the spoils of Alexandria, had not been appropriated by the visit and the seal of the conqueror. Amrou was inclined to gratify the wish of the grammarian, but his rigid integrity refused to alienate the minutest object without the consent of the caliph; and the well-known answer of Omar was inspired by the ignorance of a fanatic. "If these writings of the Greeks agree with the book of God, they are useless, and need not be preserved: if they disagree, they are pernicious, and ought to be destroyed." The sentence was executed with blind obedience: the volumes of paper or parchment were distributed to the four thousand baths of the city; and such was their incredible multitude, that six months were barely sufficient for the consumption of this precious fuel.

"Since the "Dynasties" of Abulpharagius have been given to the world in a Latin version, the tale has been repeatedly transcribed; and every scholar, with pious indignation, has deplored the irreparable shipwreck of the learning, the arts, and the genius, of antiquity.

"For my own part, I am strongly tempted to deny both the fact and the consequences. The fact is indeed marvelous. "Read and wonder!" says the historian himself: and the solitary report of a stranger who wrote at the end of six hundred years on the confines of Media, is overbalanced by the silence of two annalist of a more early date, both Christians, both natives of Egypt, and the most ancient of whom, the patriarch Eutychius, has amply described the conquest of Alexandria. The rigid sentence of Omar is repugnant to the sound and orthodox precept of the Mohammedan casuists, they expressly declare, that the religious books of the Jews and Christians, which are acquired by the right of war, should never be committed to the flames; and that the works of profane science, historians or poets, physicians or philosophers, may be lawfully applied to the use of the faithful. A more destructive zeal may perhaps be attributed to the first successors of Mohammed; yet in this instance, the conflagration would have speedily expired in the deficiency of materials.

"I should not recapitulate the disasters of the Alexandrian library, the involuntary flame that was kindled by Caesar in his own defense, or the mischievous bigotry of the Christians, who studied to destroy the monuments of idolatry. But if we gradually descend from the age of the Antonines to that of Theodosius, we shall learn from a chain of contemporary witnesses, that the royal palace and the temple of Serapis no longer contained the four, or the seven, hundred thousand volumes, which had been assembled by the curiosity and magnificence of the Ptolemies. Perhaps the church and seat of the patriarchs might be enriched with a repository of books; but if the ponderous mass of Arian and Monophysite controversy were indeed consumed in the public baths, a philosopher may allow, with a smile, that it was ultimately devoted to the benefit of mankind."

--76.181.166.41 (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Lol! Or you could just realize that John Philoponus died in 570 CE; over 70 years before the Arabs entered Alexandria. When *I* bring this up, people tell me I am conducting "original research". Nevertheless, we need some "expert" to assess the validity of sources. Whatever. Qed (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

An "expert" won't help. On Wikipedia, having a degree in a subject is considered cheating. It insults the editors, and they pounce.Profhum (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Impact

Would it be appropriate to add an 'Impact' section, that points out that while its loss was in no way a good thing, the library's loss didn't have nearly the impact that some people think it did? --Hirsutism (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello hello. The whole issue is so speculative it's hard to know how to address the "impact" precisely. It's not even certain when or if the books were destroyed! At the same time, the library was associated with the leading university of the ancient world, and a multicultural university at that, with Hellenistic and Egyptian scholars. Thus I'm not sure if there is a strong basis to say its loss wasn't a big deal. (Relative to a counterfactual world in which it still existed? Relative to what some people think?) However if you have available some quality sources, the main articles Library of Alexandria and Musaeum still need improvement. (Notice the "Legacy" section in each.) Best, groupuscule (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead states that is was unknown how many if any articles were in the serapium at the time it was destroyed by Christian mobs IAW/ papal decree

Swore to myself I wouldn't edit articles that touch in religion so just wanted to leave this here for all to see if interested in making this article veer towards academic consensus ....

"In AD 392 Epiphanius, too, wrote of the Septuagint. "And so the Scriptures, when they had been transferred to the Greek language, were placed in the first library, which was built in the Bruchion, as I have already said. And there arose in addition to this library a second up in the Serapeum, called its daughter" (On Weights and Measures, III.48c, XI.53c). Johannes Tzetzes, writing in the twelfth century AD, speaks of two libraries as well, one "inside the palace" (the Bruchion or royal quarter) and a smaller one "outside" (the Serapeum), which he says, contained 42,800 scrolls (Prolegomena on Comedy, XX).

The Serapeum, then, had a library located in the colonnaded stoa that enclosed the sacred precinct (temenos) of the temple itself. A public annex or "daughter" to the Great Library of Alexandria, the Serapeum would have taken its place (in Fraser's words) "as the main repository of books and rolls" after the larger library was destroyed. And these scrolls (or at least the Septuagint) were in the Serapeum just five years prior to its own destruction.

On June 16, AD 391, Theodosius I reiterated from Milan his prohibition against pagan worship (a similar decree had been directed to the urban prefect in Rome four months earlier). In a rescript addressed to the prefect and military governor in Egypt, he commanded that no person perform sacrifices, go to the temples, or revere the shrines (Codex Theodosianus, XVI.10.11). Socrates Scholasticus further claims that, in response to the solicitation of Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria, Theodosius issued an order that the temples themselves be destroyed (Ecclesiastical History, V.16). Riots were provoked by Theophilus and the Temple of Serapis was torn down by a Christian mob, to be replaced by a lofty martyrium (John of Nikiu, Chronicle, LXXVIII.42) and church (Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, VII.15.10) beside the old temple enclosure."

48,000 scrolls according to multiple contemporary sources.

Source: U CHICAGO http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/greece/paganism/daughter.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satendresse (talk • contribs) 19:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The quote here from Epiphanius of Salamis is talking about the translation of the Septuagint in the third century BC, roughly 700 years before his own time. Also, Epiphanius does not say that the Septuagint was ever placed in the Serapeum; he just says that the Serapeum held a daughter library of the Great Library during the Ptolemaic Period. The only reason he mentions the Serapeum is to distinguish that it is not the library he is talking about. Nothing he says here has any bearing on whether the Serapeum still had scrolls in 391 AD. The quote from John Tzetes is also talking about the Serapeum at its height during the Ptolemaic Period. He does not say anything about how many scrolls the Serapeum might have held at the time of its destruction in 391 AD. Furthermore, even if he did, he would have been writing roughly 750 years or so after the destruction of the Serapeum, which would make him a very late, unreliable source. Socrates Scholasticus, John of Nikiû, Sozomen, and the other sources you cite in the last paragraph of your response above all talk about the destruction of the Serapeum, but not a single one of them mentions anything about scrolls. They talk a great deal about Christians tearing down idols and destroying the temples themselves, but nothing at all about them destroying texts. The 48,000 scrolls is how many scrolls the Serapeum is said to have possessed during Ptolemaic times, not in the late fourth century. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Article moved

I moved this article back from Decline of the Library of Alexandria. The mover made some good points in their move summary, but I think it's a major enough change that it should be proposed at WP:RM. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 23 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move as proposed AND bold convert to redirect to decline section of main article. Consensus is not quite as clearly strong for the latter part, but that can be easily reverted and discussed separately per WP:BRD if there is objection to it. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 21:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Destruction of the Library of Alexandria → Decline of the Library of Alexandria – It wasn't one event that destroyed the Library of Alexandria so I think "decline" is the correct word for the the article on the fall of the Library of Alexandria. the eloquent peasant (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support I was the one who originally moved the article before Good Olfactory moved it back. I was going to wait to request a move, though, until I had a chance to finish rewriting and expanding the sections on the decline of the Library in the main article, Library of Alexandria, so that I could copy the much more thorough and well-cited sections of that article over here as a starting point for this article, to replace the general mess that most of this article is currently. I think Level C has reiterated my main reason for moving the article, which is that, despite the still popular impression among the general public that the Library was "burned" once and cataclysmically destroyed, the Library's decline was, in fact, a long, gradual process, resulting to a large extent from the fact that the later Ptolemies and eventually the Romans did not provide much patronage, support, or funding for it. The decline of the Library was also tied to the gradual decline in prominence of the city of Alexandria in general. Over the course of the Library's decline, it suffered many setback and calamities and it is impossible to say which event truly "destroyed" the Library. "Decline" is therefore a much more appropriate word to use here. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Lean Oppose. "Decline" seems unintuitive; nobody is likely to search for the article under that title. And it's clear that the library was destroyed at some point in history (or partially at multiple points, according to the article), in the sense that it clearly existed at one time and did not at a later period. A long, steady decline may have preceded its final destruction, but the documentary evidence of both is sparse; we can prove that it ceased to exist, and thus was "destroyed", but the same logic doesn't apply to a gradual decline, which has to be inferred. But even assuming that some sort of decline occurred, the primary significance of a decline would be that it led to the final destruction of the library. And that's the more natural title for the article, even if the bulk of the article concerns the period before that event. We want articles to have titles that readers would expect to look under, even if sometimes a less-intuitive title would be technically more accurate. P Aculeius (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

But its wikidata item name label would also list "Destruction ..." so that it would pull the article up upon a user's search.--the eloquent peasant (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Unsure There are articles that start with DECLINE OF .. DESTRUCTION OF... SACK OF... FALL OF... BOMBING OF... ATTACK ON... BURNING OF... END OF... so maybe the contents of this article refer more to several "sacks". Maybe Sack of Library of Alexandria or End of Library of Alexandria would be a more appropriate title. Oh, words.--the eloquent peasant (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Level C: The problem with that proposal is that the Library was never "sacked"; a "sack" is a deliberate burning or destruction, but none of the calamities that befell the Library were deliberate (at least as far as we know). The first burning, which probably only actually destroyed a portion of the Library's holdings stored in a separate warehouse near the harbor, was accidental, after the fire from Julius Caesar's burning ships spread from the docks and into the city. The final destruction of the Library (most likely during Aurelian's attack in 272 AD) is assumed on the basis that the entire part of the city in which the Library was located was destroyed in the fighting. In other words, it is highly improbable that anyone ever deliberately targeted the Library for destruction and much more likely that it was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Of course, we have no idea how much of the collection was even left by the early 270s, since it seems many of the books were probably moved to other libraries in Alexandria over the course of the early third century. Many others had probably been lost long before that to natural decay, since papyrus is extremely brittle and fragile and does not last very long, even when it is stored well and treated with care. A large part of the decline was due to loss of reputation and lack of patronage and funding. "Decline" is probably the most accurate word we can use here. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Decline of the Library... I like decline also--the eloquent peasant (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. If there is no clear event responsible for the destruction of the library, I support removing this page. The decline can be dealt with in the main article, no need to create a subsidiary article. T8612 (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

That's true. I honestly thought the same thing when Katolophyromai stated that he would be copying info from the main article to this one, because it's much better cited, etc.the eloquent peasant (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I would be fine with turning this article into a redirect to the "Decline" section of the article Library of Alexandria, although last time I did something like that by redirecting the article List of satyrs in popular culture to the "Twentieth and twenty-first centuries" section of the main article satyr, the GA reviewer for the main article reverted it, saying that it is always better to have subpages with more information in case the reader wants to learn more. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I suppose it's a bit different with lists. Should we propose it for deletion? T8612 (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

No. I think that a redirect would be a far better option than deletion. We do have a place where this information is covered and it would be good to redirect a reader searching for information on the subject to the place where that information is covered. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

a redirect sounds like a fine idea. Thank you!the eloquent peasant (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Hi! I'll let you do the redirect, if you want. I won't jump the gun, this time. the eloquent peasant (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Move to Decline per Katolophyromai's points. Better reflects actual events. 216.8.184.122 (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.