Talk:Library of Alexandria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Architecture Portal
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Ancient Egypt
Ancient Egypt Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Greece Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Library of Alexandria, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
Mid This article has been rated as a Mid priority article
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] A rewrite

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)