6 ms·

Probably because I've never heard anyone contradict it until just now. If you have some reliable references, I'd be happy to learn from them!

wl 7y ago
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/pluginfile.php/437863/mod_resource/content/1/Bagnall%20article.pdf https://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/pluginfile.php/437863/mod...
- throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
  That's not great. A quick skim says that the number of books were probably (edit typo: overestimated) by a fair bit: "The actual numbers were probably lower, perhaps by as much as one order of magnitude" Reference to this says "a library that was a tenth of this size [sc. the 500,000 in Ps.-Aristeas] would still have been very large in antiquity") so it was a large library. I have to say, claims of hundreds of thousand weren't really plausible anyway. Second it doesn't say it was dwarfed elsewhere at the time. It does say "The Library of Alexandria, however comprehensive for its time, was not on a scale comparable with the great research libraries of the twentieth century[0]". Which is fair, but doesn't support what you say. finally it doesn't say (that I can see) that it was empty when destroyed. The guy does say there's now way it would have survived a long time due to the humidity and climate it was in, but doesn't suggest (AFAIKS) that it was nearly empty when it was destroyed. [0] well duh So I'm going to go with the more common view for now. Thanks anyway.
ashtonkem 7y ago
Alexandria also mostly had copies, they were famous for stealing books from arriving ships in order to make copies for a while there.
- CyreneOfCyrene 7y ago
  Incoming ships got searched for books because there was a law in place made by one of the Ptolemies that any ships coming in would be required by law to lend any books on board to the library to make copies. Sometimes, the scribes would keep the original and give the copy back because they would be hard to distinguish.
  - indigochill 7y ago
    Since we can probably assume the copies of these books were made without the consent of the original author or publisher, would that make these pirate ships?
    - IIAOPSW 7y ago
      No, but it would make Alexandria the pirate bay.
  - josefx 7y ago
    > Sometimes, the scribes would keep the original and give the copy back because they would be hard to distinguish. Copying books back when you had to do everything by hand and doing so fast enough that you could return the book in time? I would expect less "hard to distinguish" and more "barely legible".
- wl 7y ago
  Galen is the only source for this practice. Most scholars in the relevant areas find his claim dubious.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 7y ago
    Considering how few people could read and how expensive books would have been, I would expect that those books would have been valuable cargo (as opposed to personal items) and not willingly released anyway.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
idoubtit 7y ago
> If you have some reliable references, I'd be happy to learn from them! The problem is that we have no reliable references on the destruction of this library. Written sources contradict each other, and archaeology has nothing. - According to 3 Roman authors, Julius Caesar burned it. But other Roman authors vigorously deny it. - Even if no book did burn at this time, centuries of decline followed. The town's activity went down, and other libraries had greater fame. - When Aurelian took the city (anno 272, thanks Wikipedia), the building was certainly destroyed (among many others) if it still existed. - There were very late claims that the library was destroyed be the Arab invasion, but this is extremely unlikely since the written sources on the library's activity stopped just before the probable destruction by Aurelian. In France most people believe in an Arab destruction. For instance, this well known newspaper had to write an justification[^1] after many readers denied the destruction by the Romans mentioned in a previous article. I suppose it is not a mere coincidence that the prejudice against Arabs is very common in this country. [^1]: https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/1990/02/10/qui-a-brule-la-bibliotheque-d-alexandrie_3963014_1819218.html https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/1990/02/10/qui-a-bru...

wl 7y ago

https://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/pluginfile.php/437863/mod_resource/content/1/Bagnall%20article.pdf https://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/pluginfile.php/437863/mod...

throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
That's not great. A quick skim says that the number of books were probably (edit typo: overestimated) by a fair bit: "The actual numbers were probably lower, perhaps by as much as one order of magnitude" Reference to this says "a library that was a tenth of this size [sc. the 500,000 in Ps.-Aristeas] would still have been very large in antiquity") so it was a large library. I have to say, claims of hundreds of thousand weren't really plausible anyway. Second it doesn't say it was dwarfed elsewhere at the time. It does say "The Library of Alexandria, however comprehensive for its time, was not on a scale comparable with the great research libraries of the twentieth century[0]". Which is fair, but doesn't support what you say. finally it doesn't say (that I can see) that it was empty when destroyed. The guy does say there's now way it would have survived a long time due to the humidity and climate it was in, but doesn't suggest (AFAIKS) that it was nearly empty when it was destroyed. [0] well duh So I'm going to go with the more common view for now. Thanks anyway.

ashtonkem 7y ago

Alexandria also mostly had copies, they were famous for stealing books from arriving ships in order to make copies for a while there.

CyreneOfCyrene 7y ago
Incoming ships got searched for books because there was a law in place made by one of the Ptolemies that any ships coming in would be required by law to lend any books on board to the library to make copies. Sometimes, the scribes would keep the original and give the copy back because they would be hard to distinguish.
- indigochill 7y ago
  Since we can probably assume the copies of these books were made without the consent of the original author or publisher, would that make these pirate ships?
  - IIAOPSW 7y ago
    No, but it would make Alexandria the pirate bay.
- josefx 7y ago
  > Sometimes, the scribes would keep the original and give the copy back because they would be hard to distinguish. Copying books back when you had to do everything by hand and doing so fast enough that you could return the book in time? I would expect less "hard to distinguish" and more "barely legible".
wl 7y ago
Galen is the only source for this practice. Most scholars in the relevant areas find his claim dubious.
- HeyLaughingBoy 7y ago
  Considering how few people could read and how expensive books would have been, I would expect that those books would have been valuable cargo (as opposed to personal items) and not willingly released anyway.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

idoubtit 7y ago

> If you have some reliable references, I'd be happy to learn from them! The problem is that we have no reliable references on the destruction of this library. Written sources contradict each other, and archaeology has nothing. - According to 3 Roman authors, Julius Caesar burned it. But other Roman authors vigorously deny it. - Even if no book did burn at this time, centuries of decline followed. The town's activity went down, and other libraries had greater fame. - When Aurelian took the city (anno 272, thanks Wikipedia), the building was certainly destroyed (among many others) if it still existed. - There were very late claims that the library was destroyed be the Arab invasion, but this is extremely unlikely since the written sources on the library's activity stopped just before the probable destruction by Aurelian. In France most people believe in an Arab destruction. For instance, this well known newspaper had to write an justification[^1] after many readers denied the destruction by the Romans mentioned in a previous article. I suppose it is not a mere coincidence that the prejudice against Arabs is very common in this country. [^1]: https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/1990/02/10/qui-a-brule-la-bibliotheque-d-alexandrie_3963014_1819218.html https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/1990/02/10/qui-a-bru...