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 4 | Archive 5 |
It is well known that the library was largely destroyed through a fire by the early Christians. The head librarian, whose name escapes me at the moment, tried to prevent this from happening but was killed by the angry mob who used seashells to cut his body to pieces. Those who try to hide this are apparently on the side of the mob and want not only the library to have been destroyed but the story of how it happened to be destroyed. See a Cantacle for Liebowitz for wonderful rendition of the story of early christians, although it is about a nuclear holocaust in the 1950s and the new religion that springs up, and what they do with the past.
I agree the article doesn't go far enough, but in the sense that it doesn't actually have very much information about the library. It's almost entirely about the library's destruction; the account of the founding is kind of weird, without any sources, and no mention of Ptolemy Soter; only one ancient source is cited first-hand, and that not very well (where in Socrates Scholasticus?); there's no mention of the "big names" associated with the library (e.g. Zenodotos? Eratosthenes? Aristarchos??? -- and Hypatia is mentioned only in a quotation?). Basically the article needs more useful information. Can this be fixed? As things stand I don't feel comfortable linking other articles to this one, but am putting in external links. Petrouchka 02:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems to have become common practice to slap templates on articles instead of arguing or editing. It's well known that Mr. Hannam, who runs a site called Reasonable Apologetics under the pseudonym of a medieval Christian monk, objects to the neutrality of this article and has resorted to considerable name-calling in doing so, but so far he has been unable to cite any specific factual errors in it. If there will be no substantial arguments as to the neutrality of this article within the next 7 days, I will remove this newly added "POV check" template.-- Eloquence * 20:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Remove the tag. It is there for much the same reason states are being told to teach Intelligent design. -- Couillaud 19:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Consider me for this moment as an outside observer. I have not much been involved in this editoral war, I only made a minor comment a couple of days ago in the Article Doesn't Go Far Enough section. Reading this editorial war, I offer the following outside observations:
The key to resolving this issue, and all similar issues that might arise in other Wikiarticles, is to recognize first what it is that drives these arguments, and then put it in its proper place (not to eliminate it, but don't let it overtake us, to where we are now, arguing over blame games and POV), and to simply present the historical facts as best they are known, and a reasonably neutral paragraph on each major point of view. GestaltG 05:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Gestalt. Thank you for weighing in. You're quite right, but the little trouble with what you suggest is that it may not provide the truth. If we cannot know the truth, that must of course be stated--and it has been. But I'm sure you would not propose that the article on "evolution" in Wiki include two paragraphs on natural selection and then two paragraphs on "intelligent design." Sadly, this is the battlefield. The issue here is not entirely one of blame; it is trying to sort the truth from what might quite possibly be arbitrary revisionism, akin to Henry Tudor rewriting the chronicles to eliminate a record of his rather unscrupulous history. In that case too, famous mysteries still remain which probably never will be sorted out. Historians do actually have a point of view; they do often come to conclusions. That is what we pay them to do. Sometimes the conclusions appear in time to be skewed: the Beards seem dogmatic, however lively, for example. But they have their place in the circular hunt for the truth, since their revisionism was an attempt to refresh and review earlier biases. Hopefully, one can, by arguing in this way, sort out some more. Actually, that is probably what has been happening in this tiring, contentious process on the Alexandrian Library, despite my own impatient remarks about it. But what I canNOT see as reasonable is the neutrality cops tagging this article! because to me it seems balanced and the conclusions reached seem reasonable and given authority, if you read the whole article. Perhaps Eloquence could re-state those authorities in his Conclusion paragraph to avoid the appearance of weaselism in the phrase "There is a growing consensus among historians...". Because we take on and reasonably answer objections does not mean we must be persuaded by them. He certainly gives a fine bibliography of works available to the layman. As you said earlier, if anything, perhaps he has been too accommodating. But I applaud his patience. An undefended position won't be true for long. -- NaySay 1/6/05 16:43 UTC
Interestingly, although St. John the Chrysostom was present at the burning of the Library by Theophilus and urged the mob to destroy this buildings, because... "demons lived there", this is not written here. Maybe it's time for an update? Elp gr 11:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is awful. It squarely blames Theophilus for something that NONE of the ancient sources mention that he did. It has no section for Caesar, no mention of the other sackings of the city. It gives fantasy as fact (like the ridiculous quote from Welch). I've drafted an accurate article which I will initially post below. Comments please. I will then move it to the frontpage and fill in the references to the sources and scholarly literature. I have noted Eloquence's efforts above to poison the well with regard to my scholarship. I find it insulting that he assumes because I am a Christian I have no professional intergrity. I urge him not to repeat the accusation. -- James Hannam 23:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a free site and those constantly deleting people's work are no more intitled to posting then those being deleting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paranoiapenguins ( talk • contribs) .
When the furious editors were applying {{ Fact}} tags, it is worth noting the edit of 21 February 2006 in which User:Petrouchka— not to be outdone— applied {{ Fact}} tags to a sourced quote! Bravo! Bravo! It's not easy to stand out, among so much competition! -- Wetman 08:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is one of the worst in Wikipedia, most people who edited it have no sense of classical texts whatsoever and try to ridiculously push an anti-Christian agenda which is a shame to all Wikipedia. It says nothing about the shifting centres of scholarship in Antiquity (Alexandria was very strong in 3rd-1st BCE, it lost this proeminence later to regain it in the 3rd CE), it says nothing about the Library of Pergamum, nothing about the Ptolemaion of Athens which was perhaps even more important to the actual textual transmission, nothing about the Imperial collection, nothing about the changing media of late antiquity (pergamin, codex instead of papyrus and scroll). It is just a diatribe against the "mean Christians".
To put it clear, the fire on the Library caused by Ceasar is easily found in Plut. Caes. 49, and I even got its translation in the following link: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Plut.+Phoc.+49.1
After that, Antonius brought the Library of Pergamum to Alexandria and was perhaps installed later in the Serapaeum, but quoting Alphonse Dain "la primautè d'Alexandrie en matière de livres était définitivement atteinte". Because the Ptolemaion of Athens became the greatest center of scholarship, it was there that the editions of the 2nd Century were made and later the collection was brought to Constantinople by Constantine and the medieval history began. But, on the Serapaeum, it is sure that Christians destroyed the temple in 391, but it is absolutely nonsense to imagine "mean Christians" burning tousends of scrolls or codices in a sort of Alexandrinian bonfire, paper (or more properly papyrus) was too expensive to be burned, and Christians, constantly in need of papyrus at that time (all the heated 5th century controversies were beginning) would rather re-use it to other ends. I don't have ancient quotes for all these facts I quoted, but they are all in A. Dain (Les Manuscripts, "Le Belles Lettres", 1964), one of the greatest specialists in textual transmission, please use credible sources and neither popular science nor biased historians. Bruno Gripp 07:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course we can't take Plutarch at face value, he is clearly biased against Caesar in several other points, and is even more clear that Gibbon was well biased against Christians. But it must clearly be mantained that it is sure that the bulk of ancient literature was not lost due to distruction of the LA, but for several other reasons, more complex and less Romantic. Bruno Gripp 03:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I got bold. Ethan Mitchell 16:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
I'm currently adding info to the University of Timbuktu Articles (Sankore, Djinguereber and Sidi Yahya). I've run across several sources stating the city of Timbuktu had around 700,000 scrolls between the mosques and private residences. If this is true, it would put it on par with Alexandria especially since many of the scrolls still exist to this day in and outside of Timbuktu. Of course many may be copies like in alexandria (students were required to copy text). If anyone can find a definate or minimum number on Alexandria's text i'd appreciate it.
Also, I've heard the burning of Alexandria set humanity (or at least Europe) back almost a thousand years. any truth to this? just curious. holla back
Site talking about the 700,000 scrolls http://www.timbuktufoundation.org/manuscripts.html -- Scott Free 20:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
____________
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
The article as it currently stands says:
And later:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
-- Lanternix ( talk) 04:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- Lanternix ( talk) 11:39, 4 June 2009 (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 4 | Archive 5 |
It is well known that the library was largely destroyed through a fire by the early Christians. The head librarian, whose name escapes me at the moment, tried to prevent this from happening but was killed by the angry mob who used seashells to cut his body to pieces. Those who try to hide this are apparently on the side of the mob and want not only the library to have been destroyed but the story of how it happened to be destroyed. See a Cantacle for Liebowitz for wonderful rendition of the story of early christians, although it is about a nuclear holocaust in the 1950s and the new religion that springs up, and what they do with the past.
I agree the article doesn't go far enough, but in the sense that it doesn't actually have very much information about the library. It's almost entirely about the library's destruction; the account of the founding is kind of weird, without any sources, and no mention of Ptolemy Soter; only one ancient source is cited first-hand, and that not very well (where in Socrates Scholasticus?); there's no mention of the "big names" associated with the library (e.g. Zenodotos? Eratosthenes? Aristarchos??? -- and Hypatia is mentioned only in a quotation?). Basically the article needs more useful information. Can this be fixed? As things stand I don't feel comfortable linking other articles to this one, but am putting in external links. Petrouchka 02:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems to have become common practice to slap templates on articles instead of arguing or editing. It's well known that Mr. Hannam, who runs a site called Reasonable Apologetics under the pseudonym of a medieval Christian monk, objects to the neutrality of this article and has resorted to considerable name-calling in doing so, but so far he has been unable to cite any specific factual errors in it. If there will be no substantial arguments as to the neutrality of this article within the next 7 days, I will remove this newly added "POV check" template.-- Eloquence * 20:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Remove the tag. It is there for much the same reason states are being told to teach Intelligent design. -- Couillaud 19:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Consider me for this moment as an outside observer. I have not much been involved in this editoral war, I only made a minor comment a couple of days ago in the Article Doesn't Go Far Enough section. Reading this editorial war, I offer the following outside observations:
The key to resolving this issue, and all similar issues that might arise in other Wikiarticles, is to recognize first what it is that drives these arguments, and then put it in its proper place (not to eliminate it, but don't let it overtake us, to where we are now, arguing over blame games and POV), and to simply present the historical facts as best they are known, and a reasonably neutral paragraph on each major point of view. GestaltG 05:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Gestalt. Thank you for weighing in. You're quite right, but the little trouble with what you suggest is that it may not provide the truth. If we cannot know the truth, that must of course be stated--and it has been. But I'm sure you would not propose that the article on "evolution" in Wiki include two paragraphs on natural selection and then two paragraphs on "intelligent design." Sadly, this is the battlefield. The issue here is not entirely one of blame; it is trying to sort the truth from what might quite possibly be arbitrary revisionism, akin to Henry Tudor rewriting the chronicles to eliminate a record of his rather unscrupulous history. In that case too, famous mysteries still remain which probably never will be sorted out. Historians do actually have a point of view; they do often come to conclusions. That is what we pay them to do. Sometimes the conclusions appear in time to be skewed: the Beards seem dogmatic, however lively, for example. But they have their place in the circular hunt for the truth, since their revisionism was an attempt to refresh and review earlier biases. Hopefully, one can, by arguing in this way, sort out some more. Actually, that is probably what has been happening in this tiring, contentious process on the Alexandrian Library, despite my own impatient remarks about it. But what I canNOT see as reasonable is the neutrality cops tagging this article! because to me it seems balanced and the conclusions reached seem reasonable and given authority, if you read the whole article. Perhaps Eloquence could re-state those authorities in his Conclusion paragraph to avoid the appearance of weaselism in the phrase "There is a growing consensus among historians...". Because we take on and reasonably answer objections does not mean we must be persuaded by them. He certainly gives a fine bibliography of works available to the layman. As you said earlier, if anything, perhaps he has been too accommodating. But I applaud his patience. An undefended position won't be true for long. -- NaySay 1/6/05 16:43 UTC
Interestingly, although St. John the Chrysostom was present at the burning of the Library by Theophilus and urged the mob to destroy this buildings, because... "demons lived there", this is not written here. Maybe it's time for an update? Elp gr 11:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is awful. It squarely blames Theophilus for something that NONE of the ancient sources mention that he did. It has no section for Caesar, no mention of the other sackings of the city. It gives fantasy as fact (like the ridiculous quote from Welch). I've drafted an accurate article which I will initially post below. Comments please. I will then move it to the frontpage and fill in the references to the sources and scholarly literature. I have noted Eloquence's efforts above to poison the well with regard to my scholarship. I find it insulting that he assumes because I am a Christian I have no professional intergrity. I urge him not to repeat the accusation. -- James Hannam 23:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a free site and those constantly deleting people's work are no more intitled to posting then those being deleting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paranoiapenguins ( talk • contribs) .
When the furious editors were applying {{ Fact}} tags, it is worth noting the edit of 21 February 2006 in which User:Petrouchka— not to be outdone— applied {{ Fact}} tags to a sourced quote! Bravo! Bravo! It's not easy to stand out, among so much competition! -- Wetman 08:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is one of the worst in Wikipedia, most people who edited it have no sense of classical texts whatsoever and try to ridiculously push an anti-Christian agenda which is a shame to all Wikipedia. It says nothing about the shifting centres of scholarship in Antiquity (Alexandria was very strong in 3rd-1st BCE, it lost this proeminence later to regain it in the 3rd CE), it says nothing about the Library of Pergamum, nothing about the Ptolemaion of Athens which was perhaps even more important to the actual textual transmission, nothing about the Imperial collection, nothing about the changing media of late antiquity (pergamin, codex instead of papyrus and scroll). It is just a diatribe against the "mean Christians".
To put it clear, the fire on the Library caused by Ceasar is easily found in Plut. Caes. 49, and I even got its translation in the following link: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Plut.+Phoc.+49.1
After that, Antonius brought the Library of Pergamum to Alexandria and was perhaps installed later in the Serapaeum, but quoting Alphonse Dain "la primautè d'Alexandrie en matière de livres était définitivement atteinte". Because the Ptolemaion of Athens became the greatest center of scholarship, it was there that the editions of the 2nd Century were made and later the collection was brought to Constantinople by Constantine and the medieval history began. But, on the Serapaeum, it is sure that Christians destroyed the temple in 391, but it is absolutely nonsense to imagine "mean Christians" burning tousends of scrolls or codices in a sort of Alexandrinian bonfire, paper (or more properly papyrus) was too expensive to be burned, and Christians, constantly in need of papyrus at that time (all the heated 5th century controversies were beginning) would rather re-use it to other ends. I don't have ancient quotes for all these facts I quoted, but they are all in A. Dain (Les Manuscripts, "Le Belles Lettres", 1964), one of the greatest specialists in textual transmission, please use credible sources and neither popular science nor biased historians. Bruno Gripp 07:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course we can't take Plutarch at face value, he is clearly biased against Caesar in several other points, and is even more clear that Gibbon was well biased against Christians. But it must clearly be mantained that it is sure that the bulk of ancient literature was not lost due to distruction of the LA, but for several other reasons, more complex and less Romantic. Bruno Gripp 03:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I got bold. Ethan Mitchell 16:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
I'm currently adding info to the University of Timbuktu Articles (Sankore, Djinguereber and Sidi Yahya). I've run across several sources stating the city of Timbuktu had around 700,000 scrolls between the mosques and private residences. If this is true, it would put it on par with Alexandria especially since many of the scrolls still exist to this day in and outside of Timbuktu. Of course many may be copies like in alexandria (students were required to copy text). If anyone can find a definate or minimum number on Alexandria's text i'd appreciate it.
Also, I've heard the burning of Alexandria set humanity (or at least Europe) back almost a thousand years. any truth to this? just curious. holla back
Site talking about the 700,000 scrolls http://www.timbuktufoundation.org/manuscripts.html -- Scott Free 20:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
____________
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
The article as it currently stands says:
And later:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
-- Lanternix ( talk) 04:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- Lanternix ( talk) 11:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)