Talk:Imperial Library of Constantinople

Greece Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Libraries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Talk

hi, I created this page, but anyone is welcome to add/change things (within reason). Hope you all aprove:). Tom

Nice article, Tom. Almost wish I could get a library card. Please sign your posts on Talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). --Wloveral (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article?

I don't know a lot about the libraries of Constantinople, but this article should be deleted. It is of too poor quality to be here, and involves a mis-statement in its existence. Not that it contains no real information about any actual library. I suspect the "library of Constantinople" meant is the *imperial* library. The sole link refers to that institution, overseen by the chartophylax. But of course there were several libraries in Constantinople; the patriarchal library and the imperial library spring to mind at once, and there were probably others. So this whole idea of a single library is wrong. No offence intended, but we need something better, under a better title, and referenced to something solid. Roger Pearse (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain further? I cannot see anything which calls for its deletion. It is obviously a very important ancient landmark, and although it is poorly referenced it is still worthy of inclusion; not by structure but by title. Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 20:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer of texts from papyrus to parchment

"Man hat vermutet, dass zu dieser Zeit in Konstantinopel die Papyrusrollen auf Pergamentkodizes umgeschrieben wurden, wie es für die theologische Bibliothek von Caesarea Maritima (in Judäa) bezeugt ist." is included in the German WP: de:Antike Bibliotheken. "It has been supposed, that at this time in Constantinople, papyrus scrolls were copied into parchment codices, as it had been done with the theological scrolls of the library of Caesarea Maritima (in Judea). This converting of texts in the library of Caesarea Maritima (in Judea) has been attested". If anyone knows the evidence for this it might be included in the two articles.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful accuracy

This article is missing citations and there are many statements here of questionable accuracy. Was there really an Imperial Library at all? This source says "We can find no evidence, however, to support David Nicholas's statement that 'the crusaders burned the entire city, including the imperial library and its irreplaceable manuscripts.' The Evolution of the Medieval World: Society and Thought in Europe, 312-1500 (Londong and New York: Longmans, 1992), p. 270. They, in fact, burned only one-sixth of the city and, to the best of our knowledge, there was no formal imperial library in Constantinople." And this source says that Emperor Constantius II founded a public library. It doesn't says imperial.

I see Agathon described as "librarian of the church". Is there any reason to think that this is the same library that is associated with Constantius and Themistius?

I see a couple of 19th century sources say that Leo III ordered the library at Constantinople be burned in 741. Not sure which library.

—KHirsch (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to question the reliability & accuracy of this article;

Donald E. Queller, Thomas F. Madden, The Fourth Crusade: the conquest of Constantinople, 1201-1204, p291; "We can find no evidence, however, to support David Nicholas' statements that "the Crusaders burned the entire city, including the imperial library and its irreplaceable manuscripts". "They, in fact burned only one-sixth of the city and, to the best of our knowledge, there was no formal imperial library in Constantinople."
William M. Johnston, Encyclopedia of Monasticism, Volume 1, p759;"The library of Constantinople is reported to have been burned twice, in 457 and again in the eighth century. From the ninth century revival on, no trace of this library exists.". --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Destroyed by?

There's an impression that Turks destroyed the libaray. It's a fact that it was already sacked http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=279 by Latin. With the siege and fall of the city, all important contents of the library were already stolen or moved to Europe. Also, Turks took care of the books. Not destroying.http://blog.andrewhastie.com/book/library-of-constantinople--Kafkasmurat (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox church and libraries - is this a joke ?!

This article, as well as entire notion that such library ever existed in Orthodox Christian Constantinople (or at least from fifth century onward), is pure fiction, deliberately propagated by myth-makers since 19th century onward, as well as certain western scholars of today like Peter Frankopan, and certain others. It serves only to contemporary ideological and political aims, mainly to rewrite history of Renascence and to connect Europe to classical period. Meanwhile, incriminating Muslims in attempt to remove once and for all uncomfortable truth about Islamic influence, since Muslims were actually main culprits in the Renascence, and for plunder and destruction of invaluable Western and European cultural treasure in form of "Imperial Library of Constantinople".

Orthodox church and libraries ?! Well, proving this would be "the day" for both science and religion ! Article should be removed or treated as pseudo-historical, or simply as myth !--Santasa99 (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since historical sources point to the existence under Constantius II and Valens, your Original Research w/o mentioning a RS/pg# cannot be taken seriously.50.111.51.247 (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

verification failed-Runciman

There is nothing on p.82 of the 1933, 1956 nor 1975 edition about a library. There IS a quote on p.179: " (the capitol) Attached to the school was a public library founded by (emperor) Julian, containing 120,000 volumes. This was burnt during Basilicus's reign in 476. " The editor's summary does not reflect what is actually said here. Nor does it imply that there wasn't an Imperial Library. I will remove the passage from the article in 48 hours if someone does not address this properly. -HammerFilmFan 50.111.51.247 (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why/How was the library burnt in 473CE?

"The library was burnt in the year 473 and about 120,000 volumes were lost."

Burnt why? how?

The reference says "[2], pp 72–73". How is that to be read exactly?

Misty MH (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]