Talk:Library of Alexandria/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Article doesn't go far enough

It is well known that the library was largely destroyed through a fire by the early Christians. The head librarian, whose name escapes me at the moment, tried to prevent this from happening but was killed by the angry mob who used seashells to cut his body to pieces. Those who try to hide this are apparently on the side of the mob and want not only the library to have been destroyed but the story of how it happened to be destroyed. See a Cantacle for Liebowitz for wonderful rendition of the story of early christians, although it is about a nuclear holocaust in the 1950s and the new religion that springs up, and what they do with the past.

According to Sagan at least, whose name I have seen smeared here and there in this debate (not saying Sagan didn't have an agenda), her name was Hypatia, and she was pulled from her chariot and cut to pieces by a Christian mob at the urging of the Bishop of Alexandria. Whether this is true or not, I have no way of knowing.

I find it quite curious that Walter M. Miller's, A Canticle for Leibowitz is mentioned in this regard. Though the book generally seems to parallel some of early Chistian history, I certainly wouldn't recommend it as a guide to early Christian history.

Finally, as you say, the Library was largely destroyed through a fire by the early Christians, but other sources I have seen have stated that the final Library was destroyed much later by Musliums in retaliation for the City of Alexandria revolting against Islamic rule (I think it would have been the second or third such revolt--unlike the Vandals and the Monguls, the followers of Islam were not inherently anti-intellectual). If this is so, this argues for destruction by degrees, and places the final destruction sometime after 700 A.D. GestaltG 15:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree the article doesn't go far enough, but in the sense that it doesn't actually have very much information about the library. It's almost entirely about the library's destruction; the account of the founding is kind of weird, without any sources, and no mention of Ptolemy Soter; only one ancient source is cited first-hand, and that not very well (where in Socrates Scholasticus?); there's no mention of the "big names" associated with the library (e.g. Zenodotos? Eratosthenes? Aristarchos??? -- and Hypatia is mentioned only in a quotation?). Basically the article needs more useful information. Can this be fixed? As things stand I don't feel comfortable linking other articles to this one, but am putting in external links. Petrouchka 02:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"POV check"

It seems to have become common practice to slap templates on articles instead of arguing or editing. It's well known that Mr. Hannam, who runs a site called Reasonable Apologetics under the pseudonym of a medieval Christian monk, objects to the neutrality of this article and has resorted to considerable name-calling in doing so, but so far he has been unable to cite any specific factual errors in it. If there will be no substantial arguments as to the neutrality of this article within the next 7 days, I will remove this newly added "POV check" template.--Eloquence* 20:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The article has a section called Conclusions, which does indeed draw the conclusions you favor. There's no need of supplimenting that with "substantial arguments", it's conclusive proof in its own right. A.J.A. 22:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The conclusion section is as ambiguous as it needs to be to remain NPOV. Having such a section does not in itself constitute POV. Within historical scholarship, the claim that Caesar alone was responsible for the destruction of the library is entirely discredited. This can be seen in the cited sources and in virtually every other contemporary work on the history of the library. As for what happened after Caesar, the article does explicitly avoid making a definitive statement. It does very much not "draw the conclusions I favor". Indeed, the conclusion I favor is not mentioned in the article at all (that the contents of the library were transferred and survived for some time), because there is very little evidence for it. The article is based on the current state of scholarship and historical evidence on the matter. We should give substantial space to the Christian apologist POV only if it is shared by notable historians, and I see no evidence of that. Otherwise, assumptions derived from theological dogma ("The Church cannot have done wrong, therefore ..") do not belong here.--Eloquence* 23:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I enter your own comment as further proof. You think you've succeeded to in pushing your view ambiguously enough to skate just this side of NPOV. You haven't. A.J.A. 01:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself. I will remove the template unless there are actionable objections on the discussion page.--Eloquence* 04:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

So now I need new and persuasive arguments that structuring an entire argument as an argument with explicitly so-labeled conclusions, directed against arguments you personally admit to knowing of and argue are unworthy of inclusion because you disagree with them is POV. But no more conclusive proof is needed, or for that matter possible. A.J.A. 07:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, particularly the sections on pseudoscience and minority views. Not every person with a website has a right to have their opinion presented in great detail in Wikipedia. This article should primarily rely on historical scholarship. I'm not opposed to including Bede's views in a sentence or two, but they are certainly not representative of the current state of science. James is not a published historian and starts from a religious rather than a scientific perspective. You would not seriously argue to include peculiar views of, say, a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints in the article on gravity, would you?--Eloquence* 09:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You really do believe that no Mormon, or rather no religious person, can ever have a valid view about anything. And you demand the article be writen with that POV. A.J.A. 16:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I only encountered this article for the first time today, but the whole POV thing would dissolve instantly with a few references to ancient sources. Currently there is not much here that is substantiated: I don't put much stock in "One story holds", "Another story concerns", "the Royal Library is believed to have held" (by whom?), "Carlton Welch provides the following description" (where?), "Socrates Scholasticus provides the following account" (where?), "Paulus Orosius admitted in his History against the pagans" (where in his history?), and I know no reason why Mostafa El-Abbadi is a reliable source for events that occurred 1600 years before his birth. Petrouchka 02:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Do PLEASE remove the POV tag. This so-called "controversy" is repellant. What will these apologists do next? They are trying to discredit Darwin in the most absurd way; they assert the Holocaust didn't happen. But what is most disturbing is that they are trying to cloak these biased views with the mantle of scholarship. I am disgusted by it. Come to think of it, what is being suggested is somewhat akin to saying that bin Laden perpetrated the Holocaust. Find a convenient bogey and perseverate in your insistence about its provenance. Any reasonable person can see that Alexandria in the late centuries of the Empire was a very dangerous place for any "pagan" scholar. There are many accounts of cruel persecutions and the Christian state itself forbade the teachings of Plato's Academy. Antiquity was antiquity. Terrible cruelty and what appears to us to be short-sighted stupidity were not restricted to Roman proconsuls. We cannot be certain of what happened exactly, but as it stands, this article gives a reasoned, scholarly and balanced view of the likelihoods, and I applaud it. I think labeling it a "biased" report is an underhanded Inquisition tactic. Why not just write "HERETIC" over the top in red letters? If you had something scholarly to say, you would have made a contribution instead, and been content. --NaySay N. Harris, 1/5/05, 17:30 UTC (--PS, that's "smear," by the way. I suppose a "smeer" is someone who shoots ducks in a barrel.)

• • One of the problems I have had with this whole discussion is the vitriol from certain individuals, who have used the term "anti-Christian" four times in this discussion, once against historian Edward Gibbon and three times against Eloquence, who seems to be coming under attack more than the article itself (including in more than one case a deliberate misreading of his statements). Many of those who this past Christmas season argued that there was a "war against Christmas" used this same term to describe those who say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas".

Remove the tag. It is there for much the same reason states are being told to teach Intelligent design. -- Couillaud 19:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• I would add that it would helpful if attributions were given for the opinion that the Library was finally destroyed, over several onslaughts, by Muslim mobs. Perhaps it was, but who says it, and based upon what? Weasely words. I was told last year by a friend that Jews destroyed the Library. I was fairly puzzled by this asserveration, but my friend simply could not provide the details. She'd seen it on TV "or something," but nevertheless resisted any attempt to suggest it might not have been so. POV. Dangerous. I was creeped out. NaySay--N. Harris 1/5/05 20:20 UTC.

• After reading the section, I have spotted no trace of POV in it. The fact that the library may have been destroyed for religious reasons is a commonly accepted one and, most importantly, a very probable one. But this fact shouldn't be regarded by anyone as a personal attack towards himself or his beliefs. An act shouldn't be judged for the person who commits it, but for the meaning of the act itself. A person shouldn't be judged for his beliefs, but for his acts alone. If this was the only reason for POV-checking this, I would remove the POV-tag as well. CharlesDexterWard 18:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Getting a Grip

Consider me for this moment as an outside observer. I have not much been involved in this editoral war, I only made a minor comment a couple of days ago in the Article Doesn't Go Far Enough section. Reading this editorial war, I offer the following outside observations:

• It is utterly fascinating that an event that occurred, at the least, well over a thousand years ago still generates so much heated controversy. It seems that the destruction of the Library or Libraries of Alexandria is a magnet, or symbol, of a sense of collective guilt, regret, and pessamism for the educated portions of Western civilization. It carries with it the sense of the fall.
• Ninety percent of all of the debates about the destruction of the Library of Alexandria (we use the collective term either out of convenience or ignorance, hard to say) or anything remotely connected to it, center on the "blame game," we want to blame someone for it. And when someone is to be blamed for something, especially something as historically vague as this, the door is opened for POV and agendas. The essence of this debate is really no different than a bunch of Christian theologians arguing over the infamous event in the Garden of Eden; who do we blame for it? Do we blame the Serpent for inducing Eve? Do we blame man for being so easily tempted and fallable? Or do we blame God for making man imperfect? The difference between the two is that while the latter might be regarded as a pointless metaphysical debate (which has lost meaning for most of the population), the former (the arguments about the destruction of the Library) we feel is more accessible because humans did it. Our ancestors did it, people that we feel we might identify with; though it is most unlikely that we share much worldview in common with those people. This suggests that we do not feel that we are significantly different from our ancestors; unlike for example, if you were reminded of something you did as a child, you might respond, "Oh but I was a child! I would never do something like that now."
• The main problem with the blame game in this particular instance is that there is likely no sigular event that we can call "The Destruction of the Library of Alexandria." If we assume for a moment (as seems reasonable given the history) that the destruction of the Library occurred over several centuries, then potentially every group that was in the area during those centuries could be blamed. Which is exactly what we seem to be doing here. The fallacies of the blame game is that it makes two sorts of unsupportable assumptions: First that the act of the destruction of the Library was deliberate, and second that the motives for the destruction are attributable to the agendas of one of the groups being blamed. Take a moment to examine these assumptions. For example, I have never seen anyone suggest that perhaps the fire (or any of the possible fires) might have been accidental. I am put to mind of the Fire of London, which modern investigation shows likely started in a bakery from flour dust, but which the people of the time needed to blame on someone, and hence they executed a Dutch immigrant (if I recall correctly). There is also the possibility of arson, just a plain old "fire bug" type of deranged person. Such a person's only agenda (though they may state otherwise) is to burn things because they feel the need to do so. The problem is that in the mileu of the time, even if one of the fires that destroyed the Library was an accident, or if it was just plain old arson by a pyromaniac, there would have been accuasations and blaming, and propaganda, by the competing sides. And apparently, we haven't learned any better and see fit here in Wikipedia to continue doing exactly what our ancestors did so many centries ago. The only difference is that we are all a safe enough distance from each other that nobody is going to pull out a sword and start hacking.

The key to resolving this issue, and all similar issues that might arise in other Wikiarticles, is to recognize first what it is that drives these arguments, and then put it in its proper place (not to eliminate it, but don't let it overtake us, to where we are now, arguing over blame games and POV), and to simply present the historical facts as best they are known, and a reasonably neutral paragraph on each major point of view. GestaltG 05:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Gestalt. Thank you for weighing in. You're quite right, but the little trouble with what you suggest is that it may not provide the truth. If we cannot know the truth, that must of course be stated--and it has been. But I'm sure you would not propose that the article on "evolution" in Wiki include two paragraphs on natural selection and then two paragraphs on "intelligent design." Sadly, this is the battlefield. The issue here is not entirely one of blame; it is trying to sort the truth from what might quite possibly be arbitrary revisionism, akin to Henry Tudor rewriting the chronicles to eliminate a record of his rather unscrupulous history. In that case too, famous mysteries still remain which probably never will be sorted out. Historians do actually have a point of view; they do often come to conclusions. That is what we pay them to do. Sometimes the conclusions appear in time to be skewed: the Beards seem dogmatic, however lively, for example. But they have their place in the circular hunt for the truth, since their revisionism was an attempt to refresh and review earlier biases. Hopefully, one can, by arguing in this way, sort out some more. Actually, that is probably what has been happening in this tiring, contentious process on the Alexandrian Library, despite my own impatient remarks about it. But what I canNOT see as reasonable is the neutrality cops tagging this article! because to me it seems balanced and the conclusions reached seem reasonable and given authority, if you read the whole article. Perhaps Eloquence could re-state those authorities in his Conclusion paragraph to avoid the appearance of weaselism in the phrase "There is a growing consensus among historians...". Because we take on and reasonably answer objections does not mean we must be persuaded by them. He certainly gives a fine bibliography of works available to the layman. As you said earlier, if anything, perhaps he has been too accommodating. But I applaud his patience. An undefended position won't be true for long. --NaySay 1/6/05 16:43 UTC

Interestingly, although St. John the Chrysostom was present at the burning of the Library by Theophilus and urged the mob to destroy this buildings, because... "demons lived there", this is not written here. Maybe it's time for an update? Elp gr 11:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that is a version of the story even I haven't heard before. Please could you give us a reference and I'll update my own work at least! --James Hannam 16:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I had read it in a Greek orthodox church book, with texts written by Chrysostom himself. I can't remember the title right now, as it was about 6 years ago and never came back to it again. I'll try to find the reference. Elp gr 08:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably this is to do with the destruction of the library in the Serapeion, rather than the Great Library itself. Petrouchka 01:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Article is awful and totally POV

This article is awful. It squarely blames Theophilus for something that NONE of the ancient sources mention that he did. It has no section for Caesar, no mention of the other sackings of the city. It gives fantasy as fact (like the ridiculous quote from Welch). I've drafted an accurate article which I will initially post below. Comments please. I will then move it to the frontpage and fill in the references to the sources and scholarly literature. I have noted Eloquence's efforts above to poison the well with regard to my scholarship. I find it insulting that he assumes because I am a Christian I have no professional intergrity. I urge him not to repeat the accusation. --James Hannam 23:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The Great Library of Alexandria is the name usually reserved for the Royal Library of the Ptolemies founded, according to later sources, by Ptolemy II Philadelphus in the middle of the third century BCE. The earliest source for the story of the library’s foundation and for its enormous size is a fictional document from Alexandria’s Jewish community, dated with difficulty to about 100BCE, called the Letter of Aristeas. The author of the letter poses as a gentile and intends to provide reassurance to the Greek-speaking Jewish community that their translation of the Bible, known as the Septuagint, was accurate and even divinely inspired. It tells the famous story about the seventy-two scholars who were summoned from Judea to effect the translation work on the instructions of the Royal Library’s first administrator, Demetrius of Phalerum. This fictional letter has the distinction of being the only ancient source we possess that unambiguously mentions the library while it certainly still existed. However, its religious polemical nature and the fact it dates from well after the events it describes, means cannot be relied upon in any way at all.

However, later and more reliable sources have enabled scholars to glean some information on the library. It had a librarian whose names up until 130BCE were discovered on a much later papyrus scrap at Oxyrynchus although this does not fully reconcile with other sources. The library contained a lot of scrolls although the figures given by much later sources varying from 400,000 to 700,000 are certainly an order of magnitude too great (such a library would require 40 km of shelving!). There was also a catalogue called the Pinakes put together by the poet Callimachus. These catalogues took up 120 scrolls and listed, with biographical and critical summaries, all the works of Greek literature which Callimachus thought were important. Textual scholars also place the editing of Homer and other ancient authors in the hands of Alexandrian scholars. There the evidence ends and speculation takes over. We know nothing about the physical appearance, the location or the relationship of the library to the other institutions of ancient Alexandria. One thing is for certain – the Great Library of Alexandria whose loss set back human development by centuries - is a romantic myth.

The fate of the library has generated more discussion and heat than almost any other ancient mystery. The three parties accused, Julius Caesar, an early Christian bishop called Theophilus and the Caliph Omar have enjoyed as fine a group of advocates and prosecutors as any historical figure could aspire to. In fact, the accusation against Omar is not first heard until the thirteenth century and that against Theophilus until the eighteenth century. The only solid source we have is Plutarch saying in his Life of Caesar in c.100CE that Caesar had accidentally burnt the library down. Even that is problematic because contemporary sources, even those opposed to Caesar, are silent. What we can be certain of is that Plutarch, who was familiar with Alexandria, knew that the Great Library was no more. Thus the accusations against the other two suspects become moot even if we cannot rule out an earlier loss due to Ptolemy VII Psychon who launched a purge against the Greek population in the mid second century BCE, a hundred years before Caesar arrived.

Part of the confusion is down to there being several other libraries in Alexandria. There is also a tendency to conflate the Royal Library with the Museum although there is very little in the sources to suggest they were more than loosely related. The Museum may have survived to the fourth century but the only reason to think it did is a to Theon being its head at this time. This reference is extremely late but may be reliable. The most notorious misunderstanding about the library involves the alleged gift by Mark Antony to Cleopatra of 200,000 books from Pergamum. This is mentioned only in Plutarch's 'Life of Antony' but Plutarch himself says the story was being spread around by Antony's political enemies. This means that it is almost certainly Roman propaganda and historians should give it no currency.

Omar and Theophilus can more plausibly be suspected of the loss of the library at the Temple of Serapis in Alexandria which was sacked by Christians in 356CE and more famously in 391AD. Edward Gibbon was the first to make the leap associating the second of these sackings (although interestingly, not the first) with the loss of the Serapeum library. However, none of the five near contemporary ancient sources for the 391CE sacking make mention of the library, even Eunapius, an emphatically anti-Christian one. The suspicion that the library was lost earlier is confirmed by the fact that a close reading shows it was absent during the visit of the historian Ammianus Marcellinus in the 370s. The assumption that the Serapeum had also been founded by the Ptolemies was already current in the fourth century CE, no doubt due to the lack of the actual Royal Library to hook the old stories on. However, archaeology shows that the late antique structure of the Serapeum to have been built in the second century CE by Roman occupiers and it is more likely that the library was installed at this date and given a legendary Ptolemaic foundation by later writers.

Modern scholars have concluded in the main that the ancient sources concerning the library are too late and too garbled to be good evidence. The Great Library has become a myth and symbol, both for the lost knowledge of the ancients and the barbarity of destroying books. One lesson from the story has not been learned. We continue to leave the legacy of the future in jeopardy by insisting on keeping all our most valuable books and manuscripts in huge repositories where any disaster would lead to irreparable loss.

Ownership

This is a free site and those constantly deleting people's work are no more intitled to posting then those being deleting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paranoiapenguins (talk • contribs) .

You will need to provide a credible source for the "Paul Nezypour" claim. The name doesn't google. --BorgQueen 19:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Applying those {{Fact}} tags!

When the furious editors were applying {{Fact}} tags, it is worth noting the edit of 21 February 2006 in which User:Petrouchka— not to be outdone— applied {{Fact}} tags to a sourced quote! Bravo! Bravo! It's not easy to stand out, among so much competition! --Wetman 08:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not applying more {{Fact}} tags, but they're warranted--the article's citation habits blow. No quoted material is cited properly. Where are we supposed to find that Carlton Welch quote? Which passage in the fifth book of Historia Ecclesiastica should we look at to find that Socrates Scholasticus quote? Where in the sixth book of Orosius? Why doesn't this article direct us to specific passages of Plutarch and Gibbon? --Akhilleus 08:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No one is laughing at the perfectly sensible and thoughtful use of {{Fact}} tags. Many Wikipedia aricles might be improved with a generous handful of them, to be sure. --Wetman 20:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether we're disagreeing or not, Wetman, but almost every quote or attribution in this article could use a {{fact}} tag. Just to focus on the Carlton Welch quote, no page number is given, and nothing appears in the "references" section--how are we supposed to verify this? And take a look at a google search on Carlton Welch: while I'm really happy I found out about the "Thugz & Thongz" CD, I didn't discover anything about the Library through that search. --Akhilleus 21:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The citation tags are kind of getting out of hand. The article now has a few of them each sentance. If every article cited every single fact from another website...that would get ridiculous. —This unsigned comment was added by Strawberryfire (talk • contribs) .

Actually, every fact in the article does need a citation. See WP:CITE. They don't need to be links to external websites, though: inline citations or footnotes will be fine. This article is sorely lacking in citations: where does the story that Demetrius of Phaleron started the library come from? There needs to be a citation of the exact ancient author and passage where this information comes from, e.g. (Diogenes Laertius 5.37). For quotes from modern works, like this Carlton Welch quote I've complained about already, we need to know what book this came from, and what page(s) it came from, e.g. C. Welch, A Bunch of Stuff I Made Up about the Library of Alexandria, 55. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Getting Focus

This article is one of the worst in Wikipedia, most people who edited it have no sense of classical texts whatsoever and try to ridiculously push an anti-Christian agenda which is a shame to all Wikipedia. It says nothing about the shifting centres of scholarship in Antiquity (Alexandria was very strong in 3rd-1st BCE, it lost this proeminence later to regain it in the 3rd CE), it says nothing about the Library of Pergamum, nothing about the Ptolemaion of Athens which was perhaps even more important to the actual textual transmission, nothing about the Imperial collection, nothing about the changing media of late antiquity (pergamin, codex instead of papyrus and scroll). It is just a diatribe against the "mean Christians".

To put it clear, the fire on the Library caused by Ceasar is easily found in Plut. Caes. 49, and I even got its translation in the following link: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Plut.+Phoc.+49.1

After that, Antonius brought the Library of Pergamum to Alexandria and was perhaps installed later in the Serapaeum, but quoting Alphonse Dain "la primautè d'Alexandrie en matière de livres était définitivement atteinte". Because the Ptolemaion of Athens became the greatest center of scholarship, it was there that the editions of the 2nd Century were made and later the collection was brought to Constantinople by Constantine and the medieval history began. But, on the Serapaeum, it is sure that Christians destroyed the temple in 391, but it is absolutely nonsense to imagine "mean Christians" burning tousends of scrolls or codices in a sort of Alexandrinian bonfire, paper (or more properly papyrus) was too expensive to be burned, and Christians, constantly in need of papyrus at that time (all the heated 5th century controversies were beginning) would rather re-use it to other ends. I don't have ancient quotes for all these facts I quoted, but they are all in A. Dain (Les Manuscripts, "Le Belles Lettres", 1964), one of the greatest specialists in textual transmission, please use credible sources and neither popular science nor biased historians. Bruno Gripp 07:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for providing sources, something that few editors of this page have done. But of course everything you say is in dispute: the ancient testimony about Caesar's fire in Alexandria does not unanimously say that it caused the destruction of the Library. Note also that a footnote in the translation you linked to says "The destruction of the library can have been only partial"--whether this note is right or wrong, it shows that there is scholarly dispute about the destruction of the Library, so we can't take the Plutarch quote at face value.

I completely agree that the article should say more about the nature and operation of the Library before its destruction, whenever that happened. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course we can't take Plutarch at face value, he is clearly biased against Caesar in several other points, and is even more clear that Gibbon was well biased against Christians. But it must clearly be mantained that it is sure that the bulk of ancient literature was not lost due to distruction of the LA, but for several other reasons, more complex and less Romantic. Bruno Gripp 03:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

But wasn't Gibbon a Christian himself? From the look of his Wikipedia entry, he took religion rather seriously, converting to Catholicism at one point and converting back to Protestantism later. These do not sound like the actions of a man who has a bias against Christians per se. Ionesco 17:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Gibbon was a Christian, The Decline and Fall has often been accused of anti-Christian bias. Frankly, I don't really care whether it's biased or not--for the purposes of this article, Gibbon should be cited as an example of a popular story about how the library was destroyed, because Decline is such a famous account of the (alleged) destruction. Otherwise, Gibbon's methods and conclusions aren't representative of modern scholarship, and so we should turn to more recent sources for the bulk of this article.

Totally Uncredible

Articles like these are the reasons people have ammo with which to attack wikipedia... Christ, half the article is a child's story tale told as truth. Theophilus?! Try asking a historian versed in the subject about that folk tale and they will laugh until snot shoots out their nose. 68.52.56.111 05:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree... It is not just 'childish'(rather diplomatic of you) but rather manipulated rubbish to make appear as the Catholic Church and present day christianity would not have any responsibility in the burning of the Library... all of a sudden the Coptics have popes.. Wiki history and philosophy appears to be ruled by the deformations of Christainity and Islam, it isn't even funny. LostLanguages (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes - Coptics have "popes". If you'd taken half a second to follow the links (see Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and List of Coptic Orthodox Popes of Alexandria), you'd see that this is an actual title and it continues to this day. Before you cast stones, make sure you are correct... Ckruschke (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Not a historian but this looks completely biased. I wouldn't trust a word of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.32.17 (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have something specific that is "biased"? Because comments like "this page sucks" are usually ignored since they have nothing to do with improving the page and are usually biased themselves. Happy to help make the page better, even though I have written none of the content on it, but can't work blindly. So if you have background knowledge and references that contradict content on the page or would improve it, please post them here and we'll work on fixing the page. Ckruschke (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

A little bit of everything...

Greetings,

I'm an undergraduate of history at North Idaho College. It has come to my attention that many of you have gotten quite brutal and accusatory in your discussion of this subject. I have just a few recommendations to avoid this kind of thing in the future.

1) CITE YOUR SOURCES

2) WATCH FOR PLAGERISM!!!!! ( I know for a fact that at least one ENTIRE paragraph is plagerised from the eHistory page provided by the University of Ohio- http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=9. Even if you site your sources in the bibliography, if you use more than a few words from someone elses work without quoting them, you are PLAGERIZING. Take a look at the www.e-riginalworks.com's link page for some help correctly citing sources)

3) KNOW YOUR OWN BIASES! (Almost all of you obviouslly had some)

4) WATCH FOR THE BIASES OF OTHERS!

5) While searching for sources, I recommend using your local college or university's library or watching for an .edu or .gov web address. These are excellent places to start as they are related to education and government. You can usually find a links page with creditable information from there.)

6) Last but not least, avoid the use of fallacies!

If you truely respect the integrity of this project you will go through the effort of educating yourselves in the use of critical thinking, research and the writing of an essay.

Lady Syntria 16:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Lady Syntria, I applaud your sentiments. Your heart seems to be in the right place. But...I tried to find a way to contact you privately so as not to make you feel bad but coudln't, so I have to say it here: you need to spell check your stuff, especially if you are announcing to the world that you are a scholar. "plagiarism", "truly", etc. Dveej 22:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why I can't get my comment just previous to this one to start on a different line than Lady Syntria's signature. Guess they'll have to take away my geek card now... Dveej 23:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

(Fixed it for you; just put colons in front of your paragraphs). Well I don't have any serious biases here ... because I just want to KNOW the answer. I don't really care what it is, I just want it to be accurate. I was very disappointed to find out that it seems nobody knows the real story, and we just have a situation where people are making nonsensical unsourced and clearly invalid claims. It sad that we can't even form a reasonable theory about it without falling into some sort of contradiction. Can we not just say that we don't know, and there are many popular claims, all of which are made by people with an axe to grind, and none of them being contradiction free? At least it would save the next person from spending hours on the web searching in vain before realizing this. --Qed (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Magic: The Gathering

Magic: The Gathering has a famous card called Library of Alexandria Mathmo 05:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

With this in mind, are there enough pop culture references to include a section called, "Library of Alexandria in Popular Culture"? --Uncle screwtape 23:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A rewrite

I got bold. Ethan Mitchell 16:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources

There is not a single classical source for "Christians destroying Alexandrian library". Only Acts 19:19-20 and Orosius (History Against the Pagans VI, ch.15, 32) passage provide any prove on the "Christians against books" issue, but it doesn't follow that (a) Christians also set fire to books in Alexandria and (b) books depredated in Alexandria quoted by Orosius were burnt. And finally, if the books stored in the Alexandrian Library were burnt, we still would have some hundreads of libraries in the Ancient World that would have preserved Pagan literature. And this never happened.

By the way, the whole passage of Orosius seems never fully quoted, maybe due to some BIAS. There it goes:

unde quamlibet hodieque in templis extent, quae et nos uidimus, armaria librorum, quibus direptis exinanita ea a nostris hominibus nostris temporibus memorent - quod quidem uerum est -, tamen honestius creditur alios libros fuisse quaesitos, qui pristinas studiorum curas aemularentur, quam aliam ullam tunc fuisse bibliothecam, quae extra quadringenta milia librorum fuisse ac per hoc euasisse credatur.

"Regarding this matter, although today there exist in the temples book chests which we ourselves have seen and which we are told were emptied by our own men in our own time when these temples were plundered (and this is indeed the truth), nevertheless it is believed more honourably that books were collected to emulate the ancient interests in studies rather than that there was another library at that time which existed in addition to the four hundred thousand and for that reason escaped destruction." (Translation from http://www.bede.org.uk/library.htm)

Comparison and Myth

I'm currently adding info to the University of Timbuktu Articles (Sankore, Djinguereber and Sidi Yahya). I've run across several sources stating the city of Timbuktu had around 700,000 scrolls between the mosques and private residences. If this is true, it would put it on par with Alexandria especially since many of the scrolls still exist to this day in and outside of Timbuktu. Of course many may be copies like in alexandria (students were required to copy text). If anyone can find a definate or minimum number on Alexandria's text i'd appreciate it.

Also, I've heard the burning of Alexandria set humanity (or at least Europe) back almost a thousand years. any truth to this? just curious. holla back

No that's rediculous. The Romans weren't a great enlightened race, which flew UFO's around Atlantis. Technology/knowledge/culture (things that makes life bearable for the great unwashed masses) has progressed in a linear fashion, the Roman Empire wasn't even a blip, and neither was it's disappearance a blip. The God-hating Atheists just like to bring up the Library of Alexandria for their 3 minute hate sessions.98.165.6.225 (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The loss of Alexandria represents a massive loss of culture and an unknown amount of pre-science or philosophical thought. But the 1000 years of lost progress comes from the Christian domination of Europe during the middle ages (aka Dark Ages) not specifically the loss of Alexandria itself. The Arabs continued with whatever was recovered from the Greeks and Romans (from the remains of Alexandria's stores and elsewhere). Its unclear how far back the extensive loss of the Greek and Roman knowledge before the Arabs could recover it cost society, but 1000 years for that alone seems unlikely. Its the fact that all of Europe was now closed to either benefiting from or contributing to that progress, and the Arab golden age was somewhat short-lived (somewhere between 200 and 300 years?). You would have to take the 1000 years of darkness in Europe, subtract the progress generated by the Arabs (which the European enlightenment followed directly from), but then add however much was lost by the destruction of Greek and Roman materials to estimate how much we lost. Qed (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You're spreading untruths claiming that 1000 years of lost progress comes from Christian domination. The Dark Ages refers to the period after the fall of Rome when Roman culture, thought, knowledge, engineering, etc. were not maintained (or were destroyed) and were lost to Western Europe. This was due to barbarian (foreign) invasions and conquering of the Western Roman Empire. It has nothing to do with Christian domination, though there is a compelling case to make that Christians actually helped greatly during the subsequent Dark Ages by copying and preserving what remained of ancient sources of knowledge. Arabic progress also does not come into play here, nor does the Eastern Roman Empire which continued to flourish throughout the Middle Ages, because neither stemmed the loss of progress in Western Europe following the fall of the Roman Empire in the West.68.63.139.125 (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Site talking about the 700,000 scrolls http://www.timbuktufoundation.org/manuscripts.html --Scott Free 20:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the scroll count, the library at Timbuktu did not even exist in the era we are discussing, and no one is claiming that the LOA was the largest library in the history of the world. The Library of Congress (or, perhaps, the internet) gets that honor. Also, it is well established that the burning of the library of Alexandria, by the Dutch, only set us back 347.2 years. Ethan Mitchell 20:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

____________

Even our civilization is losing historical records, remember that it is virtually impossible to maintain hundreds of miles of shelves of the state archives of Italian cities, especially when the state has no money. I saw parchments eaten by insects. However they are eating from centuries slowly and inexorably. I remember the fanaticism of the Nazis resulted in the deliberate destruction of the Archives of Angevin Court of Naples responsible for the fall of the dynasty of the Swabians (XIII c).

Around the fall of the Roman Empire, the standard of living for the free citizens were comparable to the contemporary. Houses with central heating, running water with pipes, valves, pumps. There were schools for free peoples. Western Europe was completely deforested and the urban network was linked by paved roads. The rivers such as the plain of the Po were regulated. In two centuries we went back to illiteracy. And our civilization with the exception of the monasteries had fallen in prehistory. If you come to visit Italy you can still touch the consequences of that fall. You can see the "centuriazioni" and the fantastic archeological sites. You don't immagine that lagoon of Venice in roman period was cultivated land. Indeed the Gran Canal was Brenta river. Also our modern civilisation can to live in the illusion of being eternal, the barbarians may be into us.

Canfora argues that only the texts stored in suburban centers survives, in fact the large institutions in big cities of antiquity as Alexandria near the power institution are been destroy from civil wars, state economy crisis, roman or germanic barbarians ecc..

P.S. Have you seen, how can happen to a Museum when the state is in crisis ? I remember Cairo and Baghdad, Kabul, Sarajevo... Malipiero —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.72.231 (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "complete rewrite" and "citecheck" tags

The article has improved a lot recently, most notably due to the work of User:Ethan Mitchell. The article needs more work, but I think it's progressed far enough to take off the "rewrite" and "citecheck" templates. Any objections? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've taken them off. There are still {{fact}} tags in the body of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Aristotle's library

I have deleted the mention of Aristotle's library. "According to a well-known story, first told by Strabo and repeated by Plutarch and Suidas, Aristotle's library, including the manuscripts of his own works, was willed by him to Theophrastus, his successor as head of the Peripatetic School. By Theophrastus it was bequeathed to his heir, Neleus of Scepsis. After Neleus's death the manuscripts were hidden in a cellar or pit in order to avoid confiscation at the hands of royal book collectors, and there they remained for almost two centuries, until in Sulla's time they were discovered and brought to Rome. At Rome they were copied by a grammarian named Tyrannion and edited (about 70 B.C.) by Andronicus of Rhodes." -Catholic Encyclopedia. --Wetman 03:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Ethan Mitchell 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why remove this? Bizarre. It is certainly a relevant anecdote. But what do I know.

E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.143.216.247 (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I also think that a mention of the story that Aristotle's personal library was the original nucleus of the Alexandrian library deserves a mention, although it should be qualified as very possibly legendary (as are many of the other stories in the article). I have always understood Strabo's story to concern Aristotle's own writings, not his extensive collection of books by others (said to be the largest library of the classical world before the Alexandria library was founded). The Aristotelian connections with the founding of the library were certainly strong. Not only was Aristotle's former student Demetrius Phaleron the original organizer, but Strato (different guy from Strabo), who was the third head (Theophrastus being number two) of Aristotle's school, the Lyceum, served for a while as tutor to the Ptolemy princes. Indeed, it would have made much more sense for Theophrastus to have bequeathed any of Aristotle's books that he had to Strato rather than to the otherwise unknown Neleus. (Alternatively, Demetrius Phaleron might well have got his hands on the books during the period, before he came to Alexandria, when he was tyrant[i.e. dictator] of Athens.)

In any case, I would not dismiss this legend about the library solely on the authority of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. That is hardly an up-to-date source, and I know for a fact that many scholars today are very skeptical of Strabo's story. Treharne (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

WOW!

This article sure has changed! Whenever I used to talk about the downsides of getting information from Wikipedia, I sum up all my arguments by saying..."just look up the article on Library of Alexandria, and you'll see what I mean."

A verse I will utter no more! --161.45.249.108 21:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid to confess the same. Bravo, bravo, and once again bravo to those responsible (especially, it seems to me, the individual at 68.142.42.250 who did the major re-write on 12 June), but also the numerous individuals who, it seems, keep a very close eye indeed on the article for vandalism. The animosity and religious warfare that used to surround the article kept many people away, myself included: well done, very well done, and thanks.

On another note, does anyone have access to the text of P.Oxy. 1241? - the one that preserves a list of the librarians? I'm trying to tidy up the article on Apollonius at the moment, and could really use that text. (I don't think it's online anywhere -- it isn't on the Duke Databank at Perseus, nor the Oxford Oxyrhynchus project, and they're not likely to be adding it anytime soon, since they can't scan it as the papyrus is kept in Dublin.)

I believe it was published in volume 10 of the Oxyrhynchus papyri. If someone can get access to that book, even if they can't read Greek, if you can e.g. scan it -- it was published in 1914 or 1915 so copyright shouldn't be a problem -- and make it available online or else e-mail it to me (temporary e-mail address available on request), I could translate it, and then this article and all the articles for the librarians could benefit. Petrouchka 01:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Petrouchka, I'd like to help you, but that isn't a lot of information to go on - I checked Worldcat, and couldn't find much in the specified years. --Gwern (contribs) 03:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Beg pardon. I'm also hunting around for other sources, but most books I've looked at seem to assume everyone has that volume of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri in their local suburban library! :-(

More detail, then: each book in the series is actually titled "The Oxyrhynchus Papyri", with a volume number. There are about 80 volumes in the series; like I said, I think papyrus number 1241 is in volume 10. (PS. not to be confused with a book called "Fifty Oxyrhynchus Papyri".) Since it's a series a lot of catalogues list it by the data of the first volume, which was published in 1898 by Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt. After hunting around some university libraries overseas, I think the Library of Congress callmark is PA 3315.O8.

Hold it, I just found it in a library in my country. I'll have to order it by interloan. Give me a couple of weeks ... Petrouchka 04:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Petrouchka, I can get this volume fairly quickly, but I don't have access to a scanner. I could type in the text, I think, but could not provide any images. Let me know if you'd like me to pursue it. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Akhilleus, thanks for the offer, but I'm sure you have better uses for your time. Since this isn't about correcting faulty information in articles, but rather about adding new information, I think there's no real rush. Petrouchka 22:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Muslim conquest?

The article as it currently stands says:

According to a legend, the last destruction of its books was initiated by Amr ibn al-A'as and its papers were used as fuel to the central stoves of the great city, with the approval of Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab.

And later:

Ancient and modern sources identify four possible occasions for the destruction of the Library:

...

4. the Muslim conquest in 642 AD or thereafter.

Now, in the "destruction" section of this article, sources are given for the three other "possible occasions," but none are given for this one. I realize there has been a lot of rancor over "finger pointing" and the "blame game" here, but I really don't have an agenda here: I just want to know where this story originated. What are the earliest sources that attribute this destruction to the Muslims (in general) and/or ibn-al-A`as and Calif Omar (in particular)?

Thanks, Iustinus 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Amr conquered Egypt on 642 AD and that fact was documented and commentated by Byzantine, Coptic and Arab contemporary historians, none of whom mentions a destruction of a library or the legendary dilemma about the books being irrelevant because they equalled the Koran or heretic because they differed from it. During the following five centuries, there's no document or source mentioning the purported episode. Only during the XIII century the legend came along, during the VII Crusade and was apparently fabricated and then spread to fit several agendas. Ibn al-Qifti (a name which seems to mean "son of the Coptic") AD, says that John Philopon (490-566 AD), a Coptic sage who befriended Amr, asked for his permission to access the Library, so the latter sent a letter to Umar seeking for his approval before granting such permission. According to al-Qifti, Umar replied with the dilemma and the order of destruction. One of the problems with this is that John Philopon died on 566 AD, i.e. almost 80 years before Amr conquered Egypt… There are many other contradictions and non verisimilar claims. A very thorough commentary, with a lot of sources, references and analysis, is here but it's sadly in Spanish.

@Iustinus: I see in your user page that you can do intermediate Spanish; since I'm a Spanish native speaker, I offer my help to translate some parts of the article you may find interesting (and difficult). Not the whole article, for it's very long and complicated! --Filius Rosadis 15:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, Filius Rosadis = Ibn Rushd = Averroes? ;) I believe I've seen that Latinization before, actually.

In any case, thank you for that answer. Now is a bad time for me to tackle that link you provide, but I'll have to take a look at it. But in the meantime, perhaps you could add the information you just gave me to the article? I mean, even if the story is entirely false, surely it is worth discussing. --Iustinus 08:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Canfora in The Vanished Library does not "maintain that the library was destroyed at this time". He mentions the myth, and quotes a source in an appendix, but blames it on Crusader black propaganda. I'm not sure why this section was missing when I came here, but it deserves to be mentioned, if only to be discounted. --Freethinker666 22:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know if any of the texts/books/scrolls are extant, or are they all lost? It doesn't say definitively in the article. Sewnmouthsecret 19:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This section has apparently been revised somewhat and is internally inconsistant. It starts off starting there are 3 stories about the destruction and listing 3, but in the next paragraph the alleged Muslim destruction is referenced as a fourth. I'm thinking someone feels that the alleged Muslim destruction does not rank the same as the other 3 listed and removed it from the list, but did not edit the later reference to it as a 4th. I am not expert enough in this matter to determine if this should be a 4th or not, but this section should be editted one way or the other consistantly. Wschart 15:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it said four with explanation, then someone changed that incompletely and incorrectly, and then it was reverted to the original as of this edit : [1] It now says there are four stories, lists four and then says this: "The fourth episode was not documented by any contemporary source, although some maintain that the final destruction of the Library took place at this time.[8]" and then further down in this section says: The tale of the Muslim destruction of the library comes from several Alexandrian historians, writing several hundred years later...." and goes on to explain it. So perhaps you posted your note here before I made the reversion yesterday - I had not seen it. Tvoz | talk 01:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

oh, please, which explanation ?

"The story of the Muslim destruction of the Library is to be found in the works of several Alexandrian historians." whom ? no reference!

then, state an assumed (referenced) scenario between the state and army commanders, the funny thing is that the reference itself [2] is against this myth, also the joke of "The burning of the greatest collection of the wisdom of antiquity fueled the heating of the city's bath-houses for the next six months." taken from the same source !, looks like whom made the reference didn't read the source!

the most common is that after Caesar's fire, the main library lost most of its books and papers, then came the serapium destruction by Theophilus (as a temple), the library was no longer able to survive or reconstruct; then finished by the Roman-Persian wars, where Alexandria took the most important place in the war 618-628 (Alexandria was conquered by Persian empire 619-628 and became the main battle field). during this time and even after (Heraclius gave Alexandria little attention as a punish, because Egyptians preferred Persian for their religion tolerance), most of Alexandria's main features were stolen and/or abused, and no reason to say that the remains of library was excluded. and most likely there were no bath-house still working 641, (the Arabs wasn't able to repair or build new ones as they were aliens to such technology/lifestyle).

no doubt the subsection needs to be rewritten, but as a myth, or as a possible cause, that differs

Khaled.khalil 09:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Computer Game

The well known and award winning computer game Civilization 2 by Sid Meir gives the player the option of building "The Great Library". Clearly, this was a reference to the library in Alexandria. The benefit was gaining any knowledge advancement discovered by two rival civilizations Canking 22:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia once again repeating Islamophobic lies???

To say that Muslims could have possibly burned collections of the Library of Alexandria (and used them to fuel their "Turkish baths" for "six months" is not only false but preposterous. Not only did the Prophet instruct his followers (by quoting the Prophet Luqman) to "Sit with the learned men and keep close to them" saying that "Allah gives life to the hearts with the light of wisdom as Allah gives life to the dead earth with the abundant rain of the sky" but it is a well-known historical fact that Muslims were responsible for copying down and preserving the works of Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Ptolemy of Alexandria and a whole host of other Greek Philosophers. On the other hand, it is also a well-known fact that the ones responsible for burning the complete works of Sappho, Epicurus, Democritus, Heraclitus, as well as Aristotle's Dialogues (to name only a very few) were fanatics who claimed to be Christians and considered such knowledge as the "doctrine of demons" (to quote the fanatic Tertullian.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazallen (talk • contribs)

The article clearly and fairly represents this matter with citations. Tvoz | talk 08:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

sorry, i didn't note this section when writing the same in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Library_of_Alexandria#Muslim_conquest.3F , which citation ? please if you can clarify by citing more serious citations (for not against what is wrote like the existent) put it/them, i plan to clean up the section.Khaled.khalil 00:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

By the same logic, wikipedia should not say that the English army resisted Germany during World War II, since Jesus told his followers to "turn the other cheek." Intent is not action. And how on earth are you commenting without either a username or an IP address? Ethan Mitchell 21:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not "repeating islamophic lies", thank you very much. The article presents the matter as one of the four possibilities, and then proceeds to show evidence AGAINST each of the possibilities. There were no statements of fact, only of possibility, so none of it can be considered a lie or even remotely "Islamophobic". Please don't overreact. The article is dealt with in an objective and mature fashion. ~Zac --68.183.50.114 23:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I think that the story that the final destruction of the library came at the hands of the Muslims does deserve to be mentioned, I agree with Mazallen in that is given far too much emphasis, and the qualification that it may be a false legend (actually it is very likely indeed to be false) is far too weak. We get lots of lurid and memorable details about the alleged destruction, and just a tentative, unmemorable, and highly qualified mention of the fact that some believe it to be legendary. The overall, highly misleading, message is that the story is, true (quite the opposite impression to that given by the source, the Straight Dope article, from which the story is mostly drawn). I am pretty sure that few experts today give much credence to the story, but people who read this article will remember the vivid story and forget the stuffy and equivocal qualifications. Obviously the original story reeks of Christian propoganda. Mazallen is quite right that this just was not the sort of way Muslim conquerors behaved. These people were highly cultured patrons of learning; they were NOT the Taliban! Giving the story this sort of prominence in Wikipedia does indeed look like Islamophobia. Treharne (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't Islamophobia to suggest that perhaps the muslim conquerers were anything less than the "highly cultured patrons of learning" you laud them as. It is a false choice to say that muslims must either be placed on a pedestal and esteemed as noble or else they are the Taliban. They were not always benevolent, they were conquerers. Conquest is not charity. The OP states that certain parts of the koran encourage support of science, but that presumes that all parts of the koran are always followed by muslim authorities, which clearly isn't true, and even if it was the koran is highly open to interpretation. So just because part of the koran encourages respect for science and learning has nothing to do with whether Omar decided to burn the library, any more than Christian doctrine determines whether Theoplilus did. All conquerers, Omar, Theoplilus, Caesar, were asserting control over their empire and would have sought to squash any dissent that exceeded what could be tolerated.Walterego (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand this completely. It's not a question of respect, or attitudes, or what it means to conquer. The Arabs would have recognized the value of the books from the beginning. A reasonably sized book had the same value as a house. The purpose of the conquest was also to acquire the treasures of Alexandria, and any library and its contents within would have been considered exactly that; treasure. That's why it is easy to find 5 sources in the current article that all debunk this story on completely independent grounds: the story is a very lazy lie. Qed (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You sir are an ignoramous. Defend your religioin all you want, but to make as bold a statement as to infer that Muslims would "sit next to learned men who were not also Muslim" is absolutely erroneus. Radical Islam has on many, many, many occasions burned(library of Alexandria), destroyed(Giant Buddha in Afghanistan), mutilated(their own women), or killed(Anyone not "of the book") anything that was contrary in any way to that of the Quran. More historical artifacts, and writings have been destroyed by Islam than another other empire or religioin. Dont try to blame Wikipedia, instead accept what Islam has done, and if it is things you dislike, work to change those behaviours for the future. The caliph alone, and what it did to the Byzantine Empire is confirmation of its willingness and indeed its true action in burning the library of Alexandria. If your inferring that the Muslim leaders of the Ottoman Caliph were, as you say "not the sort of way Muslim conquerors behaved" you will have to take note of how the ottoman Turks treated Arab muslims during their reign within the empire, and there purging of armenian Christians, and their deportation of Jews. When you take a religion, and within that religion, put down in writing from the holy words of Muhammed himself, to Tax only those of the book and to treat as dhimmis, but those not off the book must become muslin or to be eliminated with Jihad. Well what kind of religioin are you trying to sell as "peaceful" and "learned". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.74.163.114 (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Empire Earth

Is it worth mentioning in the Fiction section that the Library is a buildable Wonder in the game "Empire Earth"? If I remember correctly, it enabled the builder to see all the buildings built on the map. TheTrojanHought 10:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

SERAPIS

It might be worth noting in the article that Serapis was an artificial deity more or less invented for the library in Alexandria. I saw details in a Project Gutenburg book whose title I've forgotten. Another PG book, Alexandria and her Schools by Kingsley, says:

"But, as Ptolemy felt, people (women especially) must have something wherein to believe. The 'Religious Sentiment' in man must be satisfied. But, how to do it? How to find a deity who would meet the aspirations of conquerors as well as conquered--of his most irreligious Macedonians, as well as of his most religious Egyptians? It was a great problem: but Ptolemy solved it. He seems to have taken the same method which Brindley the engineer used in his perplexities, for he went to bed. And there he had a dream: How the foreign god Serapis, of Pontus (somewhere near this present hapless Sinope), appeared to him, and expressed his wish to come to Alexandria, and there try his influence on the Religious Sentiment. So Serapis was sent for, and came--at least the idol of him, and--accommodating personage!--he actually fitted."

Sentence about Carl Sagan's penchant for words ending in -llion has "is" instead of "his." Sagan also mentioned lost works in the Cosmos television show and book, specifically an ante-deluvian history of the world by Borrelos or someone, supposedly a priest in modern-day Iraq who copied an older manuscript. That would be an interesting discovery. Hypatea 11:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

but the article didn't mention to something like "Serapis was an artificial deity more or less invented for the library", just that the "daughter library in the younger Serapeum, which was also a temple dedicated to the god Serapis.", no less no more.

p.s. i am proud to contact the eternal Hypatia, thanks for mentioning PG i just knew about from you now.Khaled.khalil 00:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag?

Why is there a neutrality tag above the "conclusion" section? I can see people disputing other parts of the destruction tales, but the last bit says nothing more than "the story of the Library ends sometime before the 8th century ends" and gives some reasoning to back that conclusion up. If there is bias (IF), it is in the sections above the conclusion (dealing with who was responsible for the destruction), not the end paragraph (stating that it was, in fact, destroyed before this point in history).

With that in mind, I am removing the neutrality tag. If people feel there is bias in the finger-pointing section, place the neutrality tag over the part that has the bias so people read the warning before reading the compromised text, or at the top of the whole section if you feel the entire section is potentially biased. Davethehorrible 15:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rights for a Picture of the Ancient Library of Alexandria

This article could benefit from a picture of any credible recreations/models of the ancient library available online. There are computer models and physical models (Of both the main building and various rooms within) that have been created by historians based on the best available evidence. Many of these pictures can be found online. Does anyone know the proper procedure for obtaining proper rights/permission to use such a picture on Wikipedia? GoldenMean 09:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I expect people will take pictures at wikimania? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

I have restored part of the conclusion. It seems perfectly reasonable to me. I have added a citation tag though. I actually think the rest of the conclusion was ok too, but clearly a couple of people have issues with it. I think without it the article seems to stop suddenly. Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

With Morgan's change and the removal of the useless discussion of the Al-Azhar Mosque I think the discussion is better but still deeply flawed. Rastov 18:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The conclusion should note that Plutarch's claim that the Library burned down during Caesar's visit is the only account in ancient literature as to what happened to the library. Even if we reject his specific claims, this is good evidence that the Library was a thing of the past when Plutarch was writing (about AD120). The Serapeum, burned down under Aurelian, rebuilt, and destroyed-for-good by Theophilus, was a different institution. The Musaeum where Hypatia was a lecturer was the city's university -- also a separate institution than the library. Kauffner (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There are 4 proposed theories and none of them weighs more than the others. Either all of them should be included and summarized in the conclusion, or the generic current version that states the following should be kept: Although the actual circumstances and timing of the physical destruction of the Library remain uncertain, it is however clear that by the Eighth century A.D., the Library was no longer a significant institution and had ceased to function in any important capacity.

--Lanternix (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The conclusion should be expanded, but there is no reason to give all four accounts equal weight. Who thinks that the library was still functioning in the seventh century? This is only in the medieval legend that the Muslims destroyed it. This is not serious history. Plutarch is by far the best existing source. He was scholar who lived in Alexandria. He would certainly have known about the Library if it still existed in his time. Kauffner (talk) 09:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Quote check

Does the quoted passage really contain the word "contarry" (search the article for it, you'll see what I mean), or is that a typo for "contrary"? If there is some word "contarry" that I don't know about, and the passage really does use it, that's fine...if it's a typo in the original it should be noted as such with "[sic]", but if it's a typo introduced in the replication of the passage here, it should be fixed... I don't have access to the original, so I can't check it for myself... Tomer^talk 01:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly "contrary". Why the article needs sizable blockquotes from this source, I'm not sure. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"This account"?

Does the phrase "This account was dismissed..." refer to the story of the bathwater or of the entire account of muslims burning/destroying the library? 192.114.91.226 (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

RS

Is the Straight Dope counted as RS? There's also a Coptic website quoted that looks a little dubious. I would have thought Google Books to the rescue for this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.233.249 (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Size of library

The article currently states "King Ptolemy II Philadelphus (309–246 BC) is said to have set 500,000 scrolls as an objective for the library" , and cites a 1928 paper by W.W. Tarn for this admirably specific figure. The article cited does not in fact support this claim, and does not offer any verifiable facts to suggest it. The closest the paper gets is to say (p. 253) "tradition speaks of 200,000 rolls in this reign, 700,000 ultimately". Tarn does not offer any supporting evidence; "tradition speaks of" is not an adequate source.

In other words, this article is wrong both in (1) the figure it cites, and (2) the reliability of the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.86.38 (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Muslims & Christians

The ancient sources (Plutarch, Aulus Gellius, Ammianus Marcellinus, and Orosius) agree that Caesar accidently burned the library down. The alternative explanations don't arise until hundreds of years later. To conclude that it was destroyed by Christians, Muslims or whatever implies that the library existed all through ancient times, but none of these historians noticed. Kauffner (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is nonsense, and the referenced material you continue to remove simply proves that:

1. 25 years after the claimed burning of the library by Caesar, Strabo saw the Library and worked in it. In 25 BC Strabo used books located in the Library of Alexandria as sources and references for his book Geography Please cite the relevent passage in Strabo! Perhaps Strabo had access to one or two stray books, does NOT prove the entire library survived. --WittyMan1986 (talk) 06:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
2. Some believe that the most likely scenario was the destruction that accompanied the wars between Zenobia of Palmyra and the Roman Emperor Aurelian, in the second half of the 3rd century. (Jean-Yves Empereur, Alexandria - Jewel of Egypt, p.44)
3. Until the end of the sixth century AD, one finds many historical references to the existence of the Serapeum library in Alexandria. One of these references is the Alexandrian philosopher Ammonius’ description of this library and the books it contained, such as two copies of Aristotle’s the Categories. Many historical references? Then you shouldn't have a problem producing a citation to just one of them? Where in Ammonius's works can I find this reference? That there were books in Alexandria NO ONE doubts! However, THE Library of Alexandria no longer existed. --WittyMan1986 (talk) 06:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
4. Other accounts suggest that the library was functional until its destruction by the invading Arab Muslim armies in the 7th century.(Alfred J. Butler's Arab Conquest of Egypt.) His book was published by the Oxford Clarendon Press in 1902--scholarship has advanced light-years since then. Will Durant writes: "Against this story (Bar Hebraes's tale that Arab Muslims burnt it) it should be noted that (I) a large part of the library had been destroyed by Christian ardor under the Patriarch Theophilus in 392 ; 2) the remainder had suffered such hostility and neglect that "most of the collection had disappeared by 642"; and (3) in the 500 years between the

supposed event and its first reporter no Christian historian mentions it, though one of them, Eutychius, Archbishop of Alexandria in 933, described the Arab conquest of Alexandria in great detail. The story is now generally rejected as a fable." --WittyMan1986 (talk) 06:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

1. In his book History of the Wise Men, the Muslim historian Al Qifti mentions that the burning of these books continued for almost six months, and that the only books that were spared were some of Aristotle’s books, in addition to some of the writings of Euclid the mathematician and Ptolemy the geographer. Can you quote the original Arabic of Al-Qifti's book? If not, then HOW do you KNOW what was written? My point being that errors get repeated the further we stray from the original document. --WittyMan1986 (talk) 06:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
2. The story of burning the Serapeum’s library on the hands of the Arabs is further supported by the testimonies of many Arab and Muslim historians such as the father of Egyptian historians Al Makrizi in his Sermons and Lessons in the Mention of Plans and Monuments, Ibn Al Nadim’s The Index, and Georgy Zeidan’s History of Islamic Urbanization. See my point above. --WittyMan1986 (talk) 06:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
3. In his book Prolegomena, the Muslim historian Ibn Khaldun supports the story of the burning of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina by the Arabs in light of the Arabs’ behavior towards books in that era, such as throwing the Persians’ books in water and fire by the Arab leader Saad Ibn Abi Waqqas following the order of the Caliph Omar Ibn Al Khattab who told Ibn Abi Waqqas in a letter: “If these [books] included guidance, [know that] Allah has given us a better guidance. And If they contained deviation then may Allah protect us.”(http://freecopts.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=343) It seems to me that freecopts has an ideological axe to grind with Arab Muslims and he is using Wikipedia to vent his anger; sad that he thinks truth can be twisted in this manner. --WittyMan1986 (talk) 06:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, be mindful that you are deleting referenced material, and I will keep reverting your edits for as long as you continue to do so. --Lanternix (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The previous version represents longstanding consensus whereas your edits give WP:DUE emphasis on what is distinctly a minority view among scholars. "Library of Alexandria" is usually defined as the Royal Library. But even if you define it as including the Serapeum (destroyed 391) libraries, it is pretty clear from Orosius that Alexandria had no major library of any kind when he was writing (AD 416). Here is the what up-to-date, specialist scholarship has to say on the subject:

"Today most scholars have discredited the story of the story of the destruction of the Library by the Muslims" (The Library of Alexandria by Kelly Trumble, Robina MacIntyre Marshall, p. 51.)

"The story first appears 500 years after the Arab conquest of Alexandria. John the Grammarian appears to be John Philoponus, who must have been dead by the the time of the conquest. It seems, as shown above, that both of the Alexandrian libraries were destroyed by the end of the fourth century, and there is no mention of any library surviving at Alexandria in the Christian literature of the centuries following that date. It is also suspicious that Omar is recorded to have made the same remark about books found by the Arab during their conquest of Iran." (MacLeod, Roy, The Library of Alexandria: Centre of Learning, p. 71.)

Kauffner (talk) 05:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This is YOUR point of view, which is refuted as follows:

• Point 1 above prove that the library was not destroyed by Cesar, since Strabo mentions its existence and uses some of its books are refernces in 25 BC, 20 years after the death of Caesar.
• Point 2 above says that some historians believe the library was destroyed in the 3rd century. This is equally as important as a view point as your theory that it was destroyed by Caesar. I don't see why only your argument should be included in the article, while ignoring other arguments altogether?!
• Point 3 above says that many historical references point to the existence of the library until the 6th century AD. One of these is Ammonius Hermiae the Alexandrian philosopher (440 AD - 520 AD). In addition to description of this library, he also described some of the books it contained, such as two copies of Aristotle’s the Categories.
• Point 4 above says that Alfred Butler, one of the most important historians on the subject of the Arab invasion of Egypt, writes that many historians point to the destruction of the library by the invading Arabs.
• Points 5,6 and 7 above point out to the agreement of many prominent Muslim historians that it was the Arab Muslims who destroyed the library. These include Al-Qifti (1172-1248), Al-Maqrizi (1364 – 1442), and Ibn Khaldun (1332 - 1406). Their point of view is very much pertinent to this article and must be incorporated into it.

--Lanternix (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria#Amr_ibn_al_.27Aas_conquest_in_642

I will try to make a research on the subject, we should keep the section one way or another since this is a widely discussed title, whether it is true or rumour. I wasn't aware there is such a controversy about the subject, and I considered during Muslim conquest the burning was commited. There are some doubts, rumours and other proof about the case apparently. I will try to share links with all so we can have a discussion

• http://www.muhajabah.com/docstorage/alexandria.htm referenced yet unsigned
• http://www.nybooks.com/articles/3517

I will try to research the case, represent it neutrally, then add the relevant info under titles like Book burning, 'Amr ibn al-'As or Muslim conquest of Egypt whether it is true or not. Kasaalan (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Butler's Arab Conquest of Egypt (p. 401) is the classic account of what happened to the library. Kauffner (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read both of your statements, and both of you have some good points that cannot be ignored, I didn't check article history yet so I am not sure about who deleted what previously, yet we should mention the claims about the case one way or another, since they are widely printed. Yet I will try neutralising and including all views, if it is required. I will try reading more about the subject, and try asking all of your arguments to a history expert on the area, so maybe he can help about the case.

Yet both of you should remember, the early historians especially some of them are not always reliable, or partly reliable and lies for some particular cases for various reasons. So conflicting theories are likely to be. Kasaalan (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)