Talk:Library of Alexandria

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)

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)

Unattributed and overcited claim

Later scholars are skeptical of these stories, given the range of time that had passed before they were written down and the political motivations of the various writers.^{[5 references]}

Who are those scholars? And can we remove at least 3 of those refs? I think we should name one of those scholars (and possibly the title of their work), then mention the others in a footnote. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Attributed to one scholar, covered by a reference there. --the eloquent peasant (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

40k or 400k burned by Julius Caesar Comment

According to this site a scribe could have meant 400k but written 40000 by mistake. Lots of detail on this site. http://nabataea.net/alex.html --the eloquent peasant (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Level C: Unfortunately, that site appears to be someone's personal blog. It certainly appears to be self-published. Here on Wikipedia, though, we never supposed to use self-published sources, except under certain very specific circumstances if the author is a known and widely respected expert in the field. I cannot even find any information about the author (or authors) of the articles on this website, not even a single name. Furthermore, the article you link here also contains a number of obvious errors; for instance, it conflates Aristarchus of Samothrace, a literary scholar who served as head librarian of the Library of Alexandria in the second century BC and who is not known to have done any work in astronomy, with Aristarchus of Samos, an astronomer who died in the third century BC at least a decade before Aristarchus of Samothrace was even born and who probably never even lived in Alexandria for any extended amount of time. (There are stories of Aristarchus of Samos having visited the Library, but these may be apocryphal ones intended to link him to a place already well known as a major center of learning.) In light of the probably self-published nature of this site and the anonymity of its articles, compounded by errors such as this one, I do not think it qualifies as a reliable source, according to Wikipedia's standards, which means we are not allowed to use it in the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you have studied this a lot. Thanks! the eloquent peasant (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Blanked subsidiary article

Standalone article on Destruction of the Library was blanked here. Missing information might be retrieved. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Katolophyromai: Are you planning to add any of the material from the redirected page to this article? If significant changes are on the way, I'd rather not start the GA review until after those additions are made. A. Parrot (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: I currently have no plans to move any more material from that article into this one. Most of the information of importance has already been moved here and most of the remaining portion of the blanked article was just lengthy blockquotes of descriptions by ancient writers, including Plutarch, Ammianus Marcellinus, Socrates Scholasticus, and Orosius, a list of references to the burning of the Library by late classical authors, and a very lengthy quotation of a description of the alleged destruction of the Library by Theodore Vrettos. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Library of Alexandria/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: A. Parrot (talk · contribs) 18:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

So I'm starting work on the review today, but I'll probably take a few days to work through it and get familiar with the sources. A. Parrot (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Just to start with: the images are all appropriate, and most look properly licensed. (I'm not sure if GA copyright-status reviews are supposed to be as stringent as those at FAC, but there might be hitches with the copyright status of a few—yes, I can hear you groaning already.) But I'm not entirely comfortable with the lead image. Partly, I can't find anything about its origins and thus can't peg it or its author to a date, which might complicate its copyright status even though it looks like a public-domain 19th-century engraving. Perhaps more significantly, it looks implausible to my eyes. I can't imagine that an institution as Greek as the Library, built in Alexandria the early years of Ptolemaic rule, would be built with Hathoric columns; for that matter, I don't know if Hathoric columns were ever used outside temples or chapels dedicated to Hathor or Hathor-like goddesses. I'd rather see a different illustration of what the Library might have looked like, but having looked around myself, I don't see anything else on Commons and not much on Google Images, and probably nothing that's public domain. A. Parrot (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, all the sources I have identify it as a nineteenth-century engraving. The classicist Robert Garland uses the image on page 61 of his book Ancient Greece: Everyday Life in the Cradle of Western Civilization with the caption "The Great Library of Alexandria O. van Corven (German), nineteenth century. This artistic rendering of the Library of Alexandria, or Mouseion, is partly based on archaeological evidence." I am not currently aware of any sources that identify the image as anything other than a nineteenth-century engraving, so, in my view, there is no reason to doubt that it is what all the sources say it is unless we have solid evidence to doubt that identification. It seems to me that the artist is simply obscure, which is hardly evidence that the image is some kind of hoax.

As for the image's accuracy, there is not really anything I can see that we can do. No one knows what the Library actually looked like and no one has ever turned up its archaeological remains, although, on page 150, Watts does mention a stone statue base inscribed with the name of the orator Aelius Demetrios that probably originally came from the Mouseion being reused during the reign of Diocletian. That is probably closest thing anyone has ever found to the actual, physical remains of the Library. Furthermore, as far as I am aware, there are no other illustrations of what the Library might have looked like that are in the public domain or freely licensed. There are other illustrations, but they are all recent and copyrighted. Unless someone turns up an image that I do not currently know about, we are stuck with either this image or no image at all. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I figured as much. I'll register my unhappiness with the image, but whether to remove it, thus leaving us with no image of what the Library would have looked like, is up to you. As for the others I had copyright doubts about, I was worried about the reconstructed elements of the Ti. Claudius Balbillus inscription and the Alexandrian World Chronicle papyrus. The former is from a book published in 1923, which might not be public domain in the US, but the odds are very good that it is. (It's about copyright renewal, which many copyright holders didn't bother with, and would an Austrian publisher go through the rigamarole?) The website to which the World Chronicle page is sourced is a book-scan widget, which glitches when I try to page through it. But the book is from 1905, it must surely be public domain, and if the reconstructed portions of the text are in the book, they're public domain too. So I'm checking off the image criteria. A. Parrot (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• I have one point about content so far, which is based on the sources I have on hand rather than examination of the ones cited here. The claim that the pagans barricaded themselves within the Serapeum during the struggle that led to its destruction comes from the account of Rufinus. A study of the destruction of the Serapeum by Johannes Hahn ("The Conversion of the Cult Statues: The Destruction of the Serapeum 392 A.D. and the Transformation of Alexandria into the 'Christ-Loving' City", in From Temple to Church, Brill, 2008) argues that Rufinus's account is much too hagiographical to be trustworthy and points out that Socrates of Constantinople, who knew two eyewitnesses to the events, gives a different sequence of events. A single paper is of limited significance in changing the scholarly consensus, but the introduction to the most authoritative recent book on the destruction of temples during the Christianization of the empire (The Archaeology of Late Antique 'Paganism', Brill, 2011) treats Hahn's as a solid though not definitive argument. Moreover, Hahn's argument is part of a pattern in recent scholarship: skepticism toward accounts of temple destruction that describe a grand struggle between pagans and Christians in which the Christians emerge triumphant. All that is tangential to the article on the Library, so I suggest eliding the contentious details about the Serapeum struggle. Thoughts? A. Parrot (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. I have not read that paper. I myself was concerned about the "Successors to the Mouseion" section, but for a different reason, which is that none of the entries in this section are technically about the actual Great Library of Alexandria and, indeed, not all of them are even about libraries in Alexandria, since some of them, such as the school of Theon and Hypatia and the fifth-century "Mouseion", are schools, not libraries. Nonetheless, I felt that I needed to include this section since all these later institutions have gotten so bundled up with the original Library in popular culture and even in popular books and writings on the subject that I felt it was necessary to at least say something about them, or else people would feel something important was being left out.

I particularly felt it was necessary to talk about the destruction of the Serapeum and the death of Hypatia. Carl Sagan conflated the Serapeum with the Library of Alexandria in his Cosmos: A Personal Voyage series back in 1980 and claimed that Hypatia was a scholar there and ever since then the whole story about Hypatia being murdered and the Library being deliberately destroyed by obscurantist Christians has somehow become the one thing that most people "know" it for, even though that whole story has almost no basis in historical fact. It is all over the internet and they even made a movie about it (which actually, in fairness, did do better on the historical accuracy than Sagan did, although it is still massively inaccurate). Indeed, it is truly tragic that more people have heard this fictional story than have heard about Eratosthenes's almost-accurate calculation of the circumference of the earth in the third century BC!

I was kind of hoping you might have something to say about whether or not I should keep so much information. My view was that it was probably better to give too much information and have no one complain than give too little information and have everyone complain about how the article is so inadequate because it does not talk about Hypatia's murder or the destruction of the Library by Christians. I also wanted to include the information about the fifth-century "Mouseion" to counter the widespread misconception that the end of the Library of Alexandria meant the end of Alexandrian intellectual life, which it certainly did not. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think most of what you have about the destruction of the Library's successors should stay, for all the reasons you state. I only meant to elide the parts of the Serapeum story that Hahn disagrees with, so as to remain neutral while avoiding getting into details like "X author says this/Hahn says that", which belong in the Serapeum of Alexandria article and not here. I know you don't have access to Hahn's study, but from what I'm reading it looks safe enough to limit the text to the points on which Rufinus and Socrates agree. (The other authors who write about the event don't seem to be at issue here; I'm assuming that's because Eunapius's account is vague about the sequence of events and Sozomen and Theodoret were basing their work on the earlier accounts.) A. Parrot (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• I've begun checking the text against the sources, though I won't be able to finish over the weekend as I hoped—sorry about that. I've found and thought I'd point out a few hitches in the citations, although fixing them isn't necessary for GA status. Canfora and Empereur aren't cited, so my citation-checking script gives me error messages for them. If you don't intend to cite them, I suggest moving them to the further-reading section or simply deleting them. The citation of Gibbon in citation 121 doesn't have an SFN template and thus doesn't connect with the entry for Gibbon in the bibliography. And citation 125 doesn't connect to the entry for McLeod because it uses a different date, seemingly because there are different editions or printings of the book from 2000 and 2004.

More tomorrow... A. Parrot (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I fixed citation 125. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry I took so long to finish up, but I've now looked at the sources enough to be confident that the last few criteria are met. I have no reservations about passing the article as long as the hitch with the details about the Serapeum is addressed, which I expect it will be whether I pass the article or not. (Feel free to ask me if you want any more details about Hahn's argument).

A very good job, once again. A. Parrot (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Advice

@A. Parrot:, I want to ask you for advice about how my source can be used on this article.