This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Is the library an institution or the collection of books? The article switches meanings in such a way as to allow the library to survive up to 400 so it can be destroyed by Christians. The last chief librarian of the Royal Library was Aristarchus of Samothrace (fl. 150 BC). If "Library of Alexandria" means the Royal Library, there wouldn't have been a library of this name in Roman times since Egypt was no longer a kingdom. But the Athenaeus quote from 200 AD and other sources suggest that Alexandria was still famous for "libraries," the best-known of which was at the Sarapeum (Temple of Saraphis). Several ancient sources describe the destruction of Sarapeum in 391, but none mention books. If the books disappeared sometime between 200 and 391, the massive fire of 272 is the obvious culprit.
The story of Christians ransacking the library is from _History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ by Edward Gibbon. There is nothing in ancient sources to support the details he gives. He seems to have just invented it as an anti-Christian smeer.
I find this sentence to be a non sequitur: "As noted above, it is generally accepted that the Museum of Alexandria existed until c. AD 400, and if the Museum and the Library are considered to be largely identical or attached to one another, earlier accounts of destruction could only concern a small number of books stored elsewhere."
If the book collection and museum buildings were destroyed in the fire of 272, the museum could be rebuilt and continue to function as a research institution, although persumably its collection of books was much smaller from that point on. The article does not even mention this fire, yet it is the most common explanation of what happened to the library.
In the conclusion of the article, the author's highly questionable opinions are presented as a "growing consensus among historians" -- now that's bullheaded arrogance for you! Kauffner 01:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the first sentence of this article is vague...was once the largest in the world? So would the first library of 2 scrolls be the 'largest in the world' at its time. And the sentence about the reason so little is known about its destruction is that is happened so long after the founding? I don't see the logic. But from the ridiculous discussion below I imagine that any changes I might make would automatically be deleted because some people feel a sense of ownership over this page.
This article has very little mention of the sacking of the Brucheion quarter (where the museum was located) by Aurelian in 272 A.D. It is likely the greater part of the remaining library was destroyed at this time. Indeed there is mention that the museum existed in the 4th Century--so did the temple of Serapis--but in what condition did it exist? Judging from the lack of specific mention of the library in any significant terms by the 4th Century its likely that it was only a shadow of its former glory by that time. Thus, far from being the majority opinion, it is unlikely that the "most severe" destruction of the library was done under Flavius Theodosius.
Carl Sagan's book Cosmos has a redition of the burning of the Library of Alexandria which I always found a little fishy. Could someone talk about that?
Carl Sagan reported, if I remember correctly, the Caliph Omar story (though he didn't provide names) as his idea of what really happened. I'll be updating that last section on how it was destroyed later on...or not at all if someone gets there before me, I guess. That particular version is perhaps the most romantic (the broader term, not the specific) of any, but the history points elsewhere. Ravenscraft
"desert city"? It is rather hot and dry, but not really a desert.
In his book Sagan did name names although probably the wrong ones.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2606/hypatia.htm
quotes from the Cosmos.
In a world of manuscript production burning a single library was more significant than burning a single library in the Gutenberg world - but please! The only 2 copies of Euclid were NOT in Alexandria and Constantinople! The only copy of Aristotle on Comedy wasn't there! Anything that survives from the classical world survived many, many accidents - not just that one. Remember - even the story about seizing books to copy them implies that the original was given back. MichaelTinkler
Hello, this is a first so forgive me if I screw up. As has been pointed out Sagan gets mixed up about the library of Alex. There's nothing to connect Hypatia to the Library at all. We have ancient sources that say Caesar burnt it down by accident (Plutarch, Ammianus Marcellinus, Aulus Gellus and a few others) but none for either the Christians or Moslems. Christians under Theophilus did pull down a great Roman temple called the Serapeum where there had been a smaller library but the evidence suggests it had already gone by the time of the sack. Finally, the numbers given for the Great Library's holdings (up to 700,000) are massive exaggerations. The biggest library in Rome could hold 20,000 or so scrolls according to the extant remains but the ancients always exaggerated figures.
This article was extremely POV and did not properly attribute views to those who hold them. This is especially egregious as the main source used for the false claims about the LoA is a Christian apologist who writes webpages under a pseudonym. I find it sad that Wikipedians are quick to fix NPOV violations from extremists, but hardly do so when they are committed by Christian apologists -- apologetics infest many of the historical WP articles.
I have, in correction, added the summary from Parsons and changed many wordings as well as removed some unattributed opinions. Parsons, and many other serious historians, regard the Caesar theory as nothing but a persistent myth. There may have been a small fire by accident, but nothing even close to the destruction that likely happened centuries later. This is, however, a controversial issue, and all sides should be given proper exposure with proper attribution, and not the apodictic treatment originally given in this article where the opinions of the authors clearly shine through.
I would suggest that those advocating the Caesar theory find better supporters to cite than "The Venerable Bede". I would also suggest that they all read the Parsons excerpt I linked to which analyzes the different historical accounts in much detail, were it not for copyright, we should incorporate it completely. -- Eloquence 10:46 Nov 5, 2002 (UTC)
This is Bede here. Eloquence has launched into a well-poisoning exercise to push theories in a book that is 50 years old. I will be elimiating disapraging remarks about myself from the article and restating the case for Caesar.
Yours
Bede (bede@bede.org.uk)
Funny that you should say that, since even the 2003 Britannica does not blame Caesar anymore. In fact, the Britannica article about Hypatia flat out states that the Christians destroyed the Library, and the article about the Library of Alexandria states that the main library was lost in the civil wars, and the daughter library destroyed by Christians. Regardless, I'll be on vacation in the next few days, but I will correct your violations of our NPOV policy as soon as I am back. Wikipedia is not a resource for Christian apologetics, as your site is. -- Eloquence 23:47 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Well, I do hope you have higher standards than the EB. One of my fellow MA students was marked down viciously for even referencing it as it is not considered a reliable academic source. My amendments to the article contain no apologetics whatsoever or anything else against the NPOV, but simply state facts that you don't like. I think you should drop the matter right now - or else produce an ancient source that actually says Christians destroyed the Library of Alexandria. All you have managed to show is that a lot of modern people, following Gibbons error (he was an influencial chap), think they did.
Yours
Bede (bede@bede.org.uk)
Is the article quoting The Venerable Bede (wikipedia contributor) or the real Bede? Instead of quotes, his name should be wikified to disambiguate. And should a wikipedia contributor really be cited as a source? "According to me, ..."
I have changed the link from my popular to my scholarly article and also changed to my real name. The last paragraph, a piece of blatant anti-Christian special pleading has been deleted.
Rubbish. It reflects your opinion. As your website shows, you are an anti-Christian polemicist. Also, calling me an apologist is poisoning the well. My paper is NOT intended as apologetics but is a piece of scholarship. I have removed your bias again. I will continue to do so whenever you put it up again.
Again, I have removed your biased last passage and the desciption of me as an apologist. Also, note that the paper, a cool 9000 words long, does not make much mention of the museum as it is not about the museum. Also, we do not know for a fact it survived to the fourth century.
We think it probably did. Finally, you (now delered) last paragraph stated that Christians destroyed the evidence that you accept is lacking about their alleged destruction of the library.
This is a conspiracy theory - the lack of evidence is the evidence.
Besides, as these self same Christians mention the murder of Hypatia (which we know was unpopular)
the loss of the library of Antioch and many other things that we might think they'd rather avoid, your point is untenable.
Furthermore, why do you think that destroying a pagan library would be SO embarressing that someone would eliminate it from all the sources.
The only embarrassment is your own at the lack of evidence.
James Hannam, Pembroke College, Cambridge (bede@bede.org.uk)
You are beginning to bore me. First, Plutarch would not have said Caesar destroyed the library if it was still standing. Nor would Aulus Gellius or even Marcellinus. I don't know if Caesar did it but as we know the library no longer existed when Plutarch told the story in about 100AD he is the prime suspect.
Second, the Great Library is a myth. It never contained 500,000 scrolls and all knowledge. We have no information about it dating to when it was in existance apart from an apocyphal Jewish work intended to sanctify the septuagint. Read my paper and start acting like a critical historian and not an apologist. You seem to swallow anything that makes Christianity look bad and downplay the stuff that makes it look good.
Third, Orosius refers to book chests that Christians emptied. This is inconsistant with a rampaging mob destroying the library. We know Christians emptying the temples but we have no evidence whatsoever that they destroyed what they removed. Read my paper and you will find out that the Serapeum was saacked decades earlier and after that event the (Christian) sacker suddenly was in possession of such a large library the emperor himself took an interest. You might also like to speculate about what happened to that library. I think you'll find my paper is not entirely against what you would like to believe.
Anyway, shall we label the rest of the article as being by a libertarian atheist? That's what you are by your own admission but I don't see a health warning attached to all your work.
Yours
James Hannam, Pembroke College, Cambridge (bede@bede.org.uk)
Eloquence, please grow up.
The last paragraph of the article is pure speculation.
You have no evidence to support it. If Christians wanted to show they couldn't have destroyed the library they would just have added a passage to Caesar's account admitting guilt. Or added it to one of Cicero's Phillippics or something.
You are alleging a campaign to remove references to the Christian destruction of the library from all records
.. but for some reason these people didn't take the obvious step of providing some evidence Caesar did it.
A paragraph that alleges the records were tampered with
.. when you have no evidence for that at all is NPOV. Anybody can see that. You yourself say that this is no place for specualtion so you yourself should support the removal of this paragraph.
You fail to answer the point about Plutarch saying a library that you claim existed in his time was destroyed earlier. Nor why Aulus Gellius says the same thing.
You think this library was massive beyond belief and yet at least two authors could say it was already destroyed. That is a ridiculous conclusion and something has got to give. Either the library was destroyed earlier or it wasn't up to much when P and AG were writing.
However, I am not arguing for Caesar doing the deed as the evidence is too slim. But you say he could not have done it which goes too far.
Finally, your touching faith in the figures given by ancient sources is noted.
Sadly it is not something a critical historian can ever believe as we learn with ancient battle accounts etc. There is no evidence for further works in the Villa of the Papyri (more specualtion, though a tempting thought)
.. we have unearthed the Pergamon library and many others.
None come close to the size you allege for Alex. The Pinakes are further evidence for a smaller figure as I explain in my paper.
So, my point the numbers are probably exaggerations is very well grounded in comparitive archaeology and other surving clues.
Now just accept that you lost the argument and I am leaving most of your article intact even though I don't think it deserves it. Note I have not changed your exoneration of Caesar either.
Yours
James Hannam Pembroke College, Cambridge
Based on the above discussions, I have rephrased the last paragraph slightly. —Eloquence 19:37, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
I'll accept your compromise on the last paragraph. I note you conceed your sources for the total number of scrolls are misprints from AG and Sen.
We also have the Letter of Aristeas(sp?) which says 500,000 but that is a peice of Jewish religious writing intended to validate the Septugint.
We don't accept the figures in other ancient Jewish writing of the period (ie. the Old Testament) do we? :). The other sources are simply too late to be valuable so the numbers game is basically a castle built in the air.
I must insist on the removal of the Christian apologist reference. This is simply a question of courtesy. I am a professional scholar and it is extremely rude for my motives in a particular work are impuned in this way. The fact that my site shows where I am coming from is sufficient and others should be allowed to make their decision on the basis of my work.
BTW, I will be adding the inscription in this Wiki article to my paper and would like to supply a link to your copy of it. I presume this is OK.
Yours
James Hannam Pembroke College, Cambridge
this could use a mention of the modern day library at Alexandria, as well as modern libraries 'carrying on the tradition of' the library at alexandria, such as archive.org http://www.archive.org/about/about.php Pedant 19:16, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
bede needs to work on his spelling. Anyway, what's wrong with using Encyclopædia Britannica as a source? lysdexia 06:18, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I consider this article to be POV because it pushes the idea of destruction by Theophilus with neither proof nor the undivided agreement of scholarship. If I find some time, I will be reworking the article to reflect that there are at least two, possibly three, points of view on the destruction of the library. I would state the arguments but not slant it so that one appears more clearly favored by Wikipedia. -- Peter Kirby 09:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
There should be an entry under "Biblothica Alexandrina" to redirect to this one under "Library of Alexandria". (anon)
A Greek user has sent the following e-mail to the Help Desk.
"It fell to my attention that, in the Greek-language Wikipedia website, the destruction of Alexandria Library is presented quite differently than in the English-language one. I noticed that in the former account its destruction by the Christians is presented as rather questionable and controversial an issue, compared with the the latter. According to the English-language website, the role of the Christians in its destruction is, indeed, undeniable. I wonder, is there an explanation for this striking difference between the two accounts?"
In my reply, I stated that the most likely version is that different editors worked on each version.
Capitalistroadster 05:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I apologise. In my defence, I spent some time serching for an IP, or a tag for the comment in question but couldn't seem to locate when and by whom it was created. It frustrated me - Welshy 00:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I received a request on my talk page from Bede to add this tag as follows.
Please could you flag this article as POV. I understand there is a special flag you use for such articles and this is certainly one. Best wishes. Capitalistroadster 18:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Is the library an institution or the collection of books? The article switches meanings in such a way as to allow the library to survive up to 400 so it can be destroyed by Christians. The last chief librarian of the Royal Library was Aristarchus of Samothrace (fl. 150 BC). If "Library of Alexandria" means the Royal Library, there wouldn't have been a library of this name in Roman times since Egypt was no longer a kingdom. But the Athenaeus quote from 200 AD and other sources suggest that Alexandria was still famous for "libraries," the best-known of which was at the Sarapeum (Temple of Saraphis). Several ancient sources describe the destruction of Sarapeum in 391, but none mention books. If the books disappeared sometime between 200 and 391, the massive fire of 272 is the obvious culprit.
The story of Christians ransacking the library is from _History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ by Edward Gibbon. There is nothing in ancient sources to support the details he gives. He seems to have just invented it as an anti-Christian smeer.
I find this sentence to be a non sequitur: "As noted above, it is generally accepted that the Museum of Alexandria existed until c. AD 400, and if the Museum and the Library are considered to be largely identical or attached to one another, earlier accounts of destruction could only concern a small number of books stored elsewhere."
If the book collection and museum buildings were destroyed in the fire of 272, the museum could be rebuilt and continue to function as a research institution, although persumably its collection of books was much smaller from that point on. The article does not even mention this fire, yet it is the most common explanation of what happened to the library.
In the conclusion of the article, the author's highly questionable opinions are presented as a "growing consensus among historians" -- now that's bullheaded arrogance for you! Kauffner 01:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the first sentence of this article is vague...was once the largest in the world? So would the first library of 2 scrolls be the 'largest in the world' at its time. And the sentence about the reason so little is known about its destruction is that is happened so long after the founding? I don't see the logic. But from the ridiculous discussion below I imagine that any changes I might make would automatically be deleted because some people feel a sense of ownership over this page.
This article has very little mention of the sacking of the Brucheion quarter (where the museum was located) by Aurelian in 272 A.D. It is likely the greater part of the remaining library was destroyed at this time. Indeed there is mention that the museum existed in the 4th Century--so did the temple of Serapis--but in what condition did it exist? Judging from the lack of specific mention of the library in any significant terms by the 4th Century its likely that it was only a shadow of its former glory by that time. Thus, far from being the majority opinion, it is unlikely that the "most severe" destruction of the library was done under Flavius Theodosius.
Carl Sagan's book Cosmos has a redition of the burning of the Library of Alexandria which I always found a little fishy. Could someone talk about that?
Carl Sagan reported, if I remember correctly, the Caliph Omar story (though he didn't provide names) as his idea of what really happened. I'll be updating that last section on how it was destroyed later on...or not at all if someone gets there before me, I guess. That particular version is perhaps the most romantic (the broader term, not the specific) of any, but the history points elsewhere. Ravenscraft
"desert city"? It is rather hot and dry, but not really a desert.
In his book Sagan did name names although probably the wrong ones.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2606/hypatia.htm
quotes from the Cosmos.
In a world of manuscript production burning a single library was more significant than burning a single library in the Gutenberg world - but please! The only 2 copies of Euclid were NOT in Alexandria and Constantinople! The only copy of Aristotle on Comedy wasn't there! Anything that survives from the classical world survived many, many accidents - not just that one. Remember - even the story about seizing books to copy them implies that the original was given back. MichaelTinkler
Hello, this is a first so forgive me if I screw up. As has been pointed out Sagan gets mixed up about the library of Alex. There's nothing to connect Hypatia to the Library at all. We have ancient sources that say Caesar burnt it down by accident (Plutarch, Ammianus Marcellinus, Aulus Gellus and a few others) but none for either the Christians or Moslems. Christians under Theophilus did pull down a great Roman temple called the Serapeum where there had been a smaller library but the evidence suggests it had already gone by the time of the sack. Finally, the numbers given for the Great Library's holdings (up to 700,000) are massive exaggerations. The biggest library in Rome could hold 20,000 or so scrolls according to the extant remains but the ancients always exaggerated figures.
This article was extremely POV and did not properly attribute views to those who hold them. This is especially egregious as the main source used for the false claims about the LoA is a Christian apologist who writes webpages under a pseudonym. I find it sad that Wikipedians are quick to fix NPOV violations from extremists, but hardly do so when they are committed by Christian apologists -- apologetics infest many of the historical WP articles.
I have, in correction, added the summary from Parsons and changed many wordings as well as removed some unattributed opinions. Parsons, and many other serious historians, regard the Caesar theory as nothing but a persistent myth. There may have been a small fire by accident, but nothing even close to the destruction that likely happened centuries later. This is, however, a controversial issue, and all sides should be given proper exposure with proper attribution, and not the apodictic treatment originally given in this article where the opinions of the authors clearly shine through.
I would suggest that those advocating the Caesar theory find better supporters to cite than "The Venerable Bede". I would also suggest that they all read the Parsons excerpt I linked to which analyzes the different historical accounts in much detail, were it not for copyright, we should incorporate it completely. -- Eloquence 10:46 Nov 5, 2002 (UTC)
This is Bede here. Eloquence has launched into a well-poisoning exercise to push theories in a book that is 50 years old. I will be elimiating disapraging remarks about myself from the article and restating the case for Caesar.
Yours
Bede (bede@bede.org.uk)
Funny that you should say that, since even the 2003 Britannica does not blame Caesar anymore. In fact, the Britannica article about Hypatia flat out states that the Christians destroyed the Library, and the article about the Library of Alexandria states that the main library was lost in the civil wars, and the daughter library destroyed by Christians. Regardless, I'll be on vacation in the next few days, but I will correct your violations of our NPOV policy as soon as I am back. Wikipedia is not a resource for Christian apologetics, as your site is. -- Eloquence 23:47 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Well, I do hope you have higher standards than the EB. One of my fellow MA students was marked down viciously for even referencing it as it is not considered a reliable academic source. My amendments to the article contain no apologetics whatsoever or anything else against the NPOV, but simply state facts that you don't like. I think you should drop the matter right now - or else produce an ancient source that actually says Christians destroyed the Library of Alexandria. All you have managed to show is that a lot of modern people, following Gibbons error (he was an influencial chap), think they did.
Yours
Bede (bede@bede.org.uk)
Is the article quoting The Venerable Bede (wikipedia contributor) or the real Bede? Instead of quotes, his name should be wikified to disambiguate. And should a wikipedia contributor really be cited as a source? "According to me, ..."
I have changed the link from my popular to my scholarly article and also changed to my real name. The last paragraph, a piece of blatant anti-Christian special pleading has been deleted.
Rubbish. It reflects your opinion. As your website shows, you are an anti-Christian polemicist. Also, calling me an apologist is poisoning the well. My paper is NOT intended as apologetics but is a piece of scholarship. I have removed your bias again. I will continue to do so whenever you put it up again.
Again, I have removed your biased last passage and the desciption of me as an apologist. Also, note that the paper, a cool 9000 words long, does not make much mention of the museum as it is not about the museum. Also, we do not know for a fact it survived to the fourth century.
We think it probably did. Finally, you (now delered) last paragraph stated that Christians destroyed the evidence that you accept is lacking about their alleged destruction of the library.
This is a conspiracy theory - the lack of evidence is the evidence.
Besides, as these self same Christians mention the murder of Hypatia (which we know was unpopular)
the loss of the library of Antioch and many other things that we might think they'd rather avoid, your point is untenable.
Furthermore, why do you think that destroying a pagan library would be SO embarressing that someone would eliminate it from all the sources.
The only embarrassment is your own at the lack of evidence.
James Hannam, Pembroke College, Cambridge (bede@bede.org.uk)
You are beginning to bore me. First, Plutarch would not have said Caesar destroyed the library if it was still standing. Nor would Aulus Gellius or even Marcellinus. I don't know if Caesar did it but as we know the library no longer existed when Plutarch told the story in about 100AD he is the prime suspect.
Second, the Great Library is a myth. It never contained 500,000 scrolls and all knowledge. We have no information about it dating to when it was in existance apart from an apocyphal Jewish work intended to sanctify the septuagint. Read my paper and start acting like a critical historian and not an apologist. You seem to swallow anything that makes Christianity look bad and downplay the stuff that makes it look good.
Third, Orosius refers to book chests that Christians emptied. This is inconsistant with a rampaging mob destroying the library. We know Christians emptying the temples but we have no evidence whatsoever that they destroyed what they removed. Read my paper and you will find out that the Serapeum was saacked decades earlier and after that event the (Christian) sacker suddenly was in possession of such a large library the emperor himself took an interest. You might also like to speculate about what happened to that library. I think you'll find my paper is not entirely against what you would like to believe.
Anyway, shall we label the rest of the article as being by a libertarian atheist? That's what you are by your own admission but I don't see a health warning attached to all your work.
Yours
James Hannam, Pembroke College, Cambridge (bede@bede.org.uk)
Eloquence, please grow up.
The last paragraph of the article is pure speculation.
You have no evidence to support it. If Christians wanted to show they couldn't have destroyed the library they would just have added a passage to Caesar's account admitting guilt. Or added it to one of Cicero's Phillippics or something.
You are alleging a campaign to remove references to the Christian destruction of the library from all records
.. but for some reason these people didn't take the obvious step of providing some evidence Caesar did it.
A paragraph that alleges the records were tampered with
.. when you have no evidence for that at all is NPOV. Anybody can see that. You yourself say that this is no place for specualtion so you yourself should support the removal of this paragraph.
You fail to answer the point about Plutarch saying a library that you claim existed in his time was destroyed earlier. Nor why Aulus Gellius says the same thing.
You think this library was massive beyond belief and yet at least two authors could say it was already destroyed. That is a ridiculous conclusion and something has got to give. Either the library was destroyed earlier or it wasn't up to much when P and AG were writing.
However, I am not arguing for Caesar doing the deed as the evidence is too slim. But you say he could not have done it which goes too far.
Finally, your touching faith in the figures given by ancient sources is noted.
Sadly it is not something a critical historian can ever believe as we learn with ancient battle accounts etc. There is no evidence for further works in the Villa of the Papyri (more specualtion, though a tempting thought)
.. we have unearthed the Pergamon library and many others.
None come close to the size you allege for Alex. The Pinakes are further evidence for a smaller figure as I explain in my paper.
So, my point the numbers are probably exaggerations is very well grounded in comparitive archaeology and other surving clues.
Now just accept that you lost the argument and I am leaving most of your article intact even though I don't think it deserves it. Note I have not changed your exoneration of Caesar either.
Yours
James Hannam Pembroke College, Cambridge
Based on the above discussions, I have rephrased the last paragraph slightly. —Eloquence 19:37, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
I'll accept your compromise on the last paragraph. I note you conceed your sources for the total number of scrolls are misprints from AG and Sen.
We also have the Letter of Aristeas(sp?) which says 500,000 but that is a peice of Jewish religious writing intended to validate the Septugint.
We don't accept the figures in other ancient Jewish writing of the period (ie. the Old Testament) do we? :). The other sources are simply too late to be valuable so the numbers game is basically a castle built in the air.
I must insist on the removal of the Christian apologist reference. This is simply a question of courtesy. I am a professional scholar and it is extremely rude for my motives in a particular work are impuned in this way. The fact that my site shows where I am coming from is sufficient and others should be allowed to make their decision on the basis of my work.
BTW, I will be adding the inscription in this Wiki article to my paper and would like to supply a link to your copy of it. I presume this is OK.
Yours
James Hannam Pembroke College, Cambridge
this could use a mention of the modern day library at Alexandria, as well as modern libraries 'carrying on the tradition of' the library at alexandria, such as archive.org http://www.archive.org/about/about.php Pedant 19:16, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
bede needs to work on his spelling. Anyway, what's wrong with using Encyclopædia Britannica as a source? lysdexia 06:18, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I consider this article to be POV because it pushes the idea of destruction by Theophilus with neither proof nor the undivided agreement of scholarship. If I find some time, I will be reworking the article to reflect that there are at least two, possibly three, points of view on the destruction of the library. I would state the arguments but not slant it so that one appears more clearly favored by Wikipedia. -- Peter Kirby 09:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
There should be an entry under "Biblothica Alexandrina" to redirect to this one under "Library of Alexandria". (anon)
A Greek user has sent the following e-mail to the Help Desk.
"It fell to my attention that, in the Greek-language Wikipedia website, the destruction of Alexandria Library is presented quite differently than in the English-language one. I noticed that in the former account its destruction by the Christians is presented as rather questionable and controversial an issue, compared with the the latter. According to the English-language website, the role of the Christians in its destruction is, indeed, undeniable. I wonder, is there an explanation for this striking difference between the two accounts?"
In my reply, I stated that the most likely version is that different editors worked on each version.
Capitalistroadster 05:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I apologise. In my defence, I spent some time serching for an IP, or a tag for the comment in question but couldn't seem to locate when and by whom it was created. It frustrated me - Welshy 00:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I received a request on my talk page from Bede to add this tag as follows.
Please could you flag this article as POV. I understand there is a special flag you use for such articles and this is certainly one. Best wishes. Capitalistroadster 18:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)