Talk:Library of Alexandria/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

page protected due to edit warring

I have protected the article from editing for a period of one day, because there has been edit warring going on without constructive discussion on the talk page. Hopefully while the page is protected the editors in the dispute can work things out here on the talk page. If edit warring continues after the protection expires, editors who continue to engage in edit warring may find themselves blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

the language in this section related to christains burning the library seem bias towards a some what prochristain anti muslim view

A modern myth (no older than the late eighteenth century) attributes the destruction to Coptic Christian Archbishop Theophilus of Alexandria in 391, who called for the destruction of the Serapeum; but in fact there was no connection between the library and the Serapeum, and no good historian of late antiquity takes the claim seriously. A more credible version of the story, not recorded till the thirteenth century, blames the Muslim sacking of Alexandria in 642.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.122.237 (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The Largest

Is there any serious doubt that it was THE largest library of the ancient world (as opposed to "one of the largest")? It is widely believed to have been easily the largest, and unless there are strong reasons to believe that there were other larger ones then the opening sentence is downright misleading. .... Ok I am going to edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treharne (talk • contribs) 03:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Pergamon was the number two library of the ancient world with 200,000 scrolls, according to Plutarch. Kauffner (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Free Copts - Who Burned the Historic Bibliotheca Alexandrina?

This reference (The Free Copts - Who Burned the Historic Bibliotheca Alexandrina?) makes the following claim:

"[...] When the Arab armies invaded Alexandria under the command of Amr Ibn Al Aas in December 22nd 640 AD, they destroyed Alexandria’s walls and looted the city. Then Ibn Al Aas made the acquaintance of an old Christian theologian with the name of John Philoponus (also known as John Grammaticus). Philoponus, who is the disciple of the Alexandrian philosopher Ammonius mentioned above, is known to the Arabs as Yehia Al Nahawi. [...]"

However a quick check of the Wikipedia entry on John Philoponus shows that he lived from AD. 490–AD. 570 . Other sources confirm this or something very close to this. So how could Amr Ibn Al Aas have met up with him in 640 AD? The 640 AD date is not in question since that is in fact when the Arabs invaded Egypt (and Alexandria) and Amr Ibn Al Aas lived ca. 583 - 664. So I think the connection between John Philoponus and this Arab conquest is a fabrication.

I suggest we throw out this reference as probably invalid. And any further linkage to freecopts.net should be eyed with suspicion.

--Qed (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I will try checking the claims later. I would like an answer about who burned and destroyed the library. Both Roman and Muslim conquest is likely to burn it, maybe both did. Not an expert on the title so I cannot verify for sure. Historians should also get some wiki accounts. Kasaalan (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Historians will not contribute to something that makes them obsolete. OTOH, I have no problem reading their material and updating wikipedia as needed. When I get more time I will be providing two very important data points from Fernando Baez's book "The Universal Destruction of Books". In it he cites the muslim destruction claim and breaks it in pretty much the exact same way that I did. But he follows it up with further support to show that everything that the Arabs conquered was considered part of their loot -- it would unthinkable for them to destroy what they worked so hard to win in the first place. Its actually quite illogical for the Muslims to have destroyed the library, since at the time they were collectors of culture, not destroyers of it. (Remember that from the very start, their conquests were highly successful; i.e., they did not feel threatened by anything, least of all other people's books.) Qed (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The "free Copts" web page is clearly not a reliable source to the required standards. The massive blunder regarding John Philoponus is just the start of it. This story is studied by real historians, let's use them. Zero^talk 06:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What perhaps people do not realise is that the Copts have preserved a tradition of the destruction of the library down to our own day (see Butler's book). Their stuff is actually quite valuable (which does not mean that scholars always agree with it). They're using Bar Hebraeus, actually, which does NOT say that John Philoponus was involved, but John Grammaticus. I think we need to be careful when we use the term "reliable source", lest we find ourselves meaning "people I agree with". Few webpages are reliable sources. I think we can use websites as quick ways to access reliable sources, but we ought to use the published opinions of professional scholars. And ... I suggest that we just state what these scholars and their opinions are (and ideally quote their exact words in the footnote). We don't say whether we agree with them, or not. We don't say "most scholars"; we say "Dr X says that most scholars" and add a reference to where Dr. X says so. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Carl Sagan

" Carl Sagan, in his series Cosmos, states that the library contained nearly one million scrolls, though other experts have estimated a smaller number (he also gives a speculative description of its destruction, linking it to the death of Hypatia, again without corroboration)."

If this information is disputed, speculative, or otherwise not confirmed as fact, should it be in the article at all? 160.32.2.1 (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As I explained above, the freecopts reference is not even speculative, it is obviously in contradiction with reality. And yet, this reference remains in this article. Unfortunately, this article is not a good reflection on the quality of other material on wikipedia. I think this article needs some serious policing or something. Freecopts has idealogical biases, 'nuff said. --WittyMan1986 (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Carl Sagan's "speculation" probably represented the best known information at the time. The problem is that all these new theories are all obviously extremely problematic -- its almost all total garbage of no academic or scholarly quality whatsoever. In other words, the situation isn't any clearer or different from when Carl Sagan made COSMOS, its just that a lot of people are making specious nonsensical claims in the forms of alternate theories for some reason. So basically, since COSMOS, there have been a lot of specious alternate stories constructed as if for some reason there has been an active attempt to change the narrative regardless of the soundness for doing so.

In my own hunting on information on this, its clear that post 640 CE, the arabs were using medical texts that came from the library itself. That would be kind of hard if they burned them all. According to Albert Housaini, the scholars of Alexandria themselves transported to Syria and re-established their research there (though I don't know where he gets this information). Why would they do that (Syria was under Arab control as well) if the Arabs were intent on destroying their scholarship? Half of this early arab scholarship makes reference to or were commentaries upon greek texts. That seems an unlikely thing if they were bent on burning Alexandria for absolutely no reason whatsoever. --Qed (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sagan just made the story up, presumably to make an anti-Christian point. It is based somewhat on Edward Gibbon's account, but Sagan jazzed it up way more than even Gibbon did. The Library was destroyed long before Hypatia. The only connection between Hypatia and the Library is that her father, Theon, was described as "the man from the Mouseion". Perhaps this was metaphor, i.e. that he was learned, like a Mouseion professor of yore. It seems unlikely that the Mouseion was still functioning in Theon's time. After all, the entire section of the city that contained the Library and the Mouseion was burned to the ground under Aurelian in 272. (There is a good chance that both institutions were already defunct at this time -- and there is certainly no reason to think that either survived.) The best account of the Library's destruction The Arab Conquest of Egypt by Butler. (It's on Google books.) I suggest the account of the destruction in this article be rewritten with Butler's book as the main source. Kauffner (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Library of Alexandria Compared to Wikipedia

How much bigger is Wikipedia then the Library of Alexandria at the present time? Could someone possibly estimate this? One good thing is that Wikipedia won't burn, assuming of course strategic distribution of servers.--Oracleofottawa (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Assuming each scroll is equivalent to 1 book equivalent to 100,000 English words, assume the library had 500,000 scrolls; then the library had 50,000,000,000 / 50 billion words.

The Wikipedias have >2 billion words. So then the Library would have been bigger under these assumptions.

But papyrus and scrolls likely weren't 100k words. Papyrus 46 contains about 104 leaves of ~170 words, or ~18,000 words, or 1/5 the 100k guesstimate, bringing the Library count down to 10 billion - in spitting distance of the WPs, and possibly smaller if you lump in Wikisource etc. And then 500k scrolls may be unrealistically high. --Gwern (contribs) 20:48 2 February 2010 (GMT)

As did the library burned, the internet can also fail in several scenarios. Though it would be good to have a download option (with best archive methods).--DuKu (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The question is impossible to answer since there is no reliable data on how large the library was. All the claims in the ancient literature look like wild exaggerations. Zero^talk 21:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Archaeological Record

I've noticed a lot of information from the literary historical record in this article, but not much in the way of archaeological information, particularly on the destruction of the Great Library. Since the location of the Great Library should be known archaeologically, the destruction of the Great Library should be seen in the archaeological record so far as I gather. If anybody has any information on the archaeology of the Great Lbrary and its destruction, it would be greatly appreciated, to have this information in the article. - Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiansummermh (talk • contribs) 22:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you talking about? There are 3 versions about the destruction of Library of Alexandria. I would be intrested in any affords of archological digging around the sight. --DuKu (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Architecture

Isn't there anything known about its architecture? A groundplan, for example, would be nice, as would a CGI reconstruction of it... but, of course, only if those things are based on actual historical data. --88.78.212.157 (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately there have not been found enough remnants to even come close to make a reconstruction of the original groundplan. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Citations

User:Deipnosophista, it was brought to my attention that this edit changed the wording within a quote "The Mouseion, being..." to "The Museum", was this intentional? What does the original source say. I also noticed that Mithreum was changed to Mithraeum inside a quote, if that was not a mistake please add the source you used for that change.

As a general comment all the citation needs a page number as the book title is not enough (So I would suggest that a footnote is added where that has not been provided in-line). Also other citations that involve translation need a full footnoted citation to the source of the translation. -- PBS (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In relation to Museum, you ask what the original source says. I have not consulted Mostafa El-Abbadi. How a name transliterates into our alphabet is an editorial decision, which may vary from one edition of a work, or one reproduction of a work, to another. My view is that it is potentially confusing to uninformed readers to use one form in the preamble to the quote and another in the quote itself, since they may ask themselves whether the same thing is meant; and that the job of the editor is to remove such uncertainties. In addition, "Museum" is the commonest form of the word in English usage (even though this is not the most common meaning of the word), and if we aim to write what will be most clearly understood we should follow common usage where possible. In fact I think that there is nothing very special about this quote, and that it would be better not quoted but paraphrased and shortened; but that is another matter.

In relation to the passage of Socrates, I do not have a copy to hand and cannot firmly point you to the Loeb translation which I think follows the English spelling I have used. I think this quote is more helpful than the other, as it gives a flavour of the ancient sources. But essentially, my view here is the same. I believe that "Mithraeum" is a more common usage than "Mithreum" as a transliteration of μιθραῖον (see Salway, Roman Britain, 1981, p 733, for one among tens of thousands of examples). It also has the virtue that, sitting here near references to the Serapeum, it communicates the linguistic difference between the two, in that "Mithraeum" retains the "a" representing the hard-vowel α-ending stem of the name of the god Mithras (originally Iranian but μίθρας in Greek), while "Serapeum" does not, since the name of the god Serapis (originally Egyptian but σάραπις in Greek) has a consonantal or soft-vowel stem.

Hence I believe that the changes I made are in the best interests of the encyclopedia. However, I have no further time for this, and if you wish to revert them I shall not pursue the matter. Deipnosophista (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we have to go with the sources and assume with good faith that the person who put the quotes in place copied them accurately, until it is show to be false by checking the sources. I would put it more strongly than "Mithraeum" is a more common usage than "Mithreum" and would support changes to the spelling outside of quotes. If you think that the translations can be improved on by using other versions then I certainly will not stand in your way. But I do not think we should be editing quotations to improve on the wording used by the original authors: "Paint me as I am, warts and all!". I am sorry that you have no time for this as agreement on issues such as this tends to be in he best interests of the encyclopaedia -- -- PBS (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Original research

The section titled "Decree of Theodosius, destruction of the Serapeum in 391" seems to consist mainly of original research based on primary sources. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The material is valuable, but the section does not work as a whole. It is fine to start by referencing the closure of the temples by Theodosius (although we need a reliable reference, which Gibbon is not). Then we need to discuss the question of whether the library of the Serapeum was the same as that of the "library of Alexandria", with scholars referenced either way. Then we need to state that the Serapeum was destroyed by Theophilus, and reference Socrates (and quote him verbatim in the footnote, I suggest). That would make a useful section. I would do it, but I do not have the materials on the Serapeum question to hand. We need some reliable sources for this. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Arabic sources

I have reworked the section on the Moslem conquest, based on Butler, Gibbon etc. I've listed the sources, without evaluation, given the wording in the note whereby I reference them, and then listed scholarly opinion (with references where I had them; leaving stuff previously referenced; removing unreferenced). It doesn't express any opinion, but gives the facts as far as I can find them. There must be more opinions by scholars that could be contributed here, which would be helpful. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. Every one of those sources are no less than 300 years after the supposed events of the Arabic conquest of Alexandria. Is there no standard for "sources" on Wikipedia? The Bernard Lewis and other debunks of this claim are straight forward and compelling. Finding more sources who want to claim this garbage doesn't help the case. Qed (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

BC/AD

There is really no need to convert dates to the old AD/BC system since the common era dating system is already used consistently through the article. I have therefore reverted your edits.--Wlmg (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That was not necessary, since

1. you are incorrect, BC/AD was being used most frequently in the article when I found it,

2. you are incorrect, BC/AD is not "old", it is "current", "correct", and "appropriate", and

3. we are using the Gregorian calendar in this country, which does not have confusing terms like CB and ECB or whatever you are propounding, it has terms that have been in use for considerably longer than you can imagine, and are and will continue to be used on any official governmental paperwork.

Thank you for restoring the article to its proper dating system so we can stop pretending we're somehow better because we attack a religion that is now in vogue to attack. If you want to attack a religios group, may I suggest either Jews or Muslims, as doing so makes you look like much less of a "me too" sheep.

I'm not going to start an edit-war, but your distasteful agenda to change history requires comment. Good day.

24.110.198.160 (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No need to edit war. Wikipedia has no preference for it being either way or the other with the only proviso it is kept consistent throughout the whole article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Dates --Wlmg (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's /not/ being used consistently in this article. BC and CE are used right alongside each other, even. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What is "this country? You know this is the internet and the internet exists outside of your particular country, right? Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Scientific Method conceived at Library of Alexandria?!?

The article states:

  "It was at the Library of Alexandria that the scientific method was first conceived and put into practice, ..."

This is an extraordinary claim, unsupported by any references, unattested by its link to the scientific Method article (indeed, I would say, extensively contradicted by it), and absent from any credible history of science or the scientific method that I am aware of. And yet it is posted as accepted fact instead of the unverified and outrageously overstated claim that it is.

I would be most grateful if someone more experienced at Wikipedia editing than I could correct this.

--RBarryYoung (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This article, as has been pointed out time and time again above, has numerous problems with original research and other issues, so I am frankly not surprised about this error. I deleted the claim about scientific method, and added a "citation needed" tag on the claim about being the home of empirical textual criticism. However, if you are interested, you are more than welcome to give the article a much needed once over yourself. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Saddhiyama. I know something about the scientific method and the history of science, but not so much about the rest of the article's subject matter. --RBarryYoung (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Invention of Parchment

I can provide two citations for "(The Library of Alexandria in fact had an indirect cause in the creation of writing parchment — due to the library's critical need for papyrus, little was exported and thus an alternate source of copy material became essential.)." However, I thought I would come in here to present the two sources I found before trying to cite them--largely because I didn't write the line in the article and I'd like to have agreement about the appropriateness of these sources before putting anything in. Nicholas A. Basbanes, on pages 64-5 in A Gentle Madness (ISBN 0805061762), describes how Alexandria's restriction of papyrus export caused the library in Pergamum to invent--or at least perfect--parchment (Basbanes notes that "scholars challenge" the invention of parchment belonging to Pergamum). Matthew Battels on p. 29 of Library: An Unquiet History (ISBN 0393325644) states, a bit more briefly, "The move [to ban the export of papyrus] backfired, however, spurring the Pergamenes to invent parchment (charta pergamenum)." --Teh fontmaster (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Discovery in 2004

In 2004, an excavation team announced they had discovered the Library of Alexandria. That isn't mentioned here, either in the affirmative or negative. Was that discovery legitimate? In either case, shouldn't there should be some mention of it here? — Epastore (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Whitehouse, Dr David. science editor (May 12, 2004). "Library of Alexandria discovered". BBC News Online. Retrieved May 6, 2012. {{cite news}}: |first1= has generic name (help) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference

A helpful IP posted this reference at Talk: Pinakes (Callimachus): BAGNALL, Roger S. Alexandria: Library of Dreams. In: Proceedings of the Ameri-can Philosophical Society. New York: New York University. n. 146, 2002. p. 348-362. full text: < http://archive.nyu.edu/bitstream/2451/28263/2/D172-Alexandria%20Library%20of%20Dreams.pdf > Looks like it could help with this article. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the most important modern discussion of the Library and the fact that it is not cited in the article shows clearly that the article is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC9F:CD90:81CF:6C2C:6C30:14F8 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Primary Sources

Are there any extant primary quotations about the Library, i.e. people actually visiting the Library and talking about its books? There's a lot of "according to so-and-so" accounts, which give a kind of detached feel. I think a quotation including an eyewitness description would make the article more vivid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.46.197 (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

There is not much to speak-of, most of what is know is legend based on reports and stories recorded by people that had no direct knowledge of the library. Hardyplants (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Problems with the article

This article is filled with original research, conflicting statements, unreferenced facts and unencyclopedic wording. Some examples:

• Lead: "The library was conceived and opened either during the reign of Ptolemy I Soter (323–283 BC) or during the reign of his son Ptolemy II (283–246 BC)."
• Text: "Furthermore, while the Royal Library was founded by Ptolemy II Philadelphus".

Do we know who really founded the library?

• "The certainty of this conclusion diminishes when one considers the context. The adjacent Museion was, according to the same account, fully functional—which requires the assumption that one building could be perfectly intact while another next door completely destroyed. Also, we do know that at this time the Daughter Library at the Serapeum was thriving and untouched by the fire, and as Strabo does not mention the library by name, we can assert that for Strabo omission does not necessarily denote absence."

This paragraph smells WP:OR a long way. And if it was to be sourced, it is still written in a very unencyclopedic tone.

There are more examples. Lots of statements in the article is unreferenced. Also, should we really give coordinates for the library at the top of the page?? There are no reliable sources in the article to support that. If it is the coordinates for the place in "Possible discovery", has it been confirmed that this really is the actual library? In that case, why is there no sources in that section since a 2004 article by BBC? The User 567 (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The section referencing Strabo has numerous problems. It dates the reference to 28 BC, but Geographia was begun no earlier than 20 BC. Strabo's extended visit to Alexandria was 25-20 BC according to the article on Geographia. There is no mention of city maps or library fires in Geographia. The text says Strabo doesn't mention the library specifically, but refers to the "adjacent Museum." Other references cited in this article say that in Strabo's time the library was called a Museum -- a house of the Muses. All in all, the source does not support the statements in this section. 98.248.42.250 (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove copyedit tags?

The content of the article will always be debated but the grammar, spelling, and tone are passable. I'd like to remove the copyedit tags. Khballin (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As a nutbar wiki copy editor , I agree with you - the copy editing is no longer the big problem... go for it!

I am thinking of cruising through and putting the theories proposed in the article into context.

With stuff that far back in history, it is very difficult to state definitively what happened. All we can do is present the knowledge fragments as they are. I really dislike the sections where some modern historian re-tells the story, gets his book published, then quotes extensively from his own book as if it were fact. It is a weak point in the Wiki ideal that takes a proper citation for fact.

Still a beautiful thing, but this article is surely still a disaster! cheers Billyshiverstick (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

summary section edit

I just had a run at the summary, to set the tone for readers that we are dealing with historical fragments, not documented facts and a consistent story.

Whatcha all think? I might run through with this concept and stick some "this author thinks" and "that author claims" into the text to follow this through.

Then the wild theories don't need to be argued over, if they are not presented as incontrovertible truth.

Hope its ok I took out the weasel words citation in the summary because I eliminated the weasel words from the sentence. I'm with ya, bud.

peace and love Billyshiverstick (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ammianus and Gibbon

Hello, I'm Saddhiyama. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Library of Alexandria, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Saddhiyama (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the revision process in Wikipedia but was invited to respond to the reply above, which was prompted by my noting a correction to the article on the Library of Alexandria. That note, which indicated that Ammianus has confused the Serapeum with the Library (and that Gibbon repeated the error) was removed pending the addition of "a reliable source," which I am providing now.

Two sources are cited in the Wikipedia article itself. Canfora (The Vanished Library) states that Ammianus made "a crass blunder" when "he had copied down his sources without understanding them, with the result that he had made Julius Caesar the author both of the sack of Alexandria and of the destruction of the Serapeum" (p. 92). Later, in remarking that Gibbon depended here upon Ammianus, Canfora repeats what I had said in my original note: "Ammianus confuses the royal library with the Library in the Serapeum" (p. 123). MacLeod (The Library of Alexandria), who also is cited in the article, says the same thing: "Ammianus here clearly confuses the library of the Serapeum with the main library in the Brucheion district, which renders his whole story suspect" (p. 71).

I commented, too, on the sentence "It is also most probable that the library was destroyed by someone other than Caesar, although the [sic] later generations linked the fire that took place in Alexandria during Caesar's time to the burning of the Bibliotheca." Whether it is correct or not, such a definite statement needs qualification. It also is an exact quote and either should be put in quotation marks or paraphrased. Although Empereur is cited as the source, the same sentence appears verbatim in The Independent Copt (October 2006) in an online article by "Fanous," which itself uses fallacious reasoning.

Because Cicero does not mention the fire in his Philippics (which are directed against Antony, not Caesar), Fanous concludes that "This in itself constitutes one more proof of Caesar’s innocence of this accusation [that he was responsible for the destruction of the Library]." This is an argument a silentio or what Fischer (Historians' Falacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought) calls "the fallacy of the negative proof." That the fire is not mentioned is no proof that it did not occur. For example, Cicero might have been silent about the fire because he felt some obligation to Caesar, who had pardoned him after the Battle of Pharsalus.

I am offering these remarks in the spirit of improving the article, and they can be utilized or ignored as the editor chooses. In any event, the topic is contentious enough without my arguing it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.195.199 (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Stating the obvious

From the lead: "though it is unknown how many such scrolls were housed at any given time, their combined value was incalculable." That is rather stating the obvious, since you would need to know how many scrolls there were in order to calculate their value. Perhaps what was intended was "their combined value was immense"? 86.41.33.150 (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

SCROLLS UNDER THE SPINX

MANY OF THE SCROLLS WERE SAVED FROM FIRE AND THEY ARE UNDER SPINX IN EGIPT. 24.51.217.118 (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)