Talk:Library of Alexandria/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

40k or 400k burned by Julius Caesar Comment

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

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

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

Unattributed and overcited claim

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

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

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

Blanked subsidiary article

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

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

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

GA Review

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

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

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

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advice

@A. Parrot:, I want to ask you for advice about how my source can be used on this article. Shahanshah5 (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Shahanshah5: Well, I'm not sure it needs to be used in this article. The book's discussion of the story is pretty brief: "This story is not true, as has been known since the time of Gibbon. The Alexandrian Library was already in decline at the time of the Roman conquest in the first century B.C.E., when Caesar's army accidentally burned part of it, and the suppression of paganism in the fourth century seems to have led to the loss of whatever was left." This article already describes the burning during Caesar's presence in Alexandria, as well as the burnings of Alexandria under Aurelian and Diocletian (which Walbridge doesn't mention), and the possible destruction of the remnants in the fourth century. And after relating the story about Omar's destructive order, the article says "Later scholars, including Father Eusèbe Renaudot in 1793, are skeptical of these stories, given the range of time that had passed before they were written down and the political motivations of the various writers." What else needs to be said? A. Parrot (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@A. Parrot:, I see, thank for explaining. Shahanshah5 (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Destruction of the Serapeum

As I said during the GAN in November, a 2008 study by Johannes Hahn argues that Rufinus's account of the destruction (and thus those of Sozomen and Theodoret, which are dependent on it) is less reliable than historians have generally thought and that Socrates of Constantinople's account may be superior. The account of the destruction in this article, based mainly on Watts 2008, seems to be derived from Rufinus's version. If Socrates is more correct than Rufinus, the sequence of events was different and the siege of the pagans inside the temple may not have even happened. As Hahn says:

It is significant that Socrates knows nothing of a retreat by the pagans into the Serapeum or of the siege under which it was laid. Indeed, he does provide a clear sequence of events, one that outlines a totally different development with regard to chronology and correlation of events as the crisis in Alexandria escalated. According to his account, the turbulence that arose followed immediately after the uncovering of the Mithraeum along with the exposure of the sacred artefacts and after a first destruction or plundering of the Serapeum during which similar sacred objects, in fact phallic symbols, were set out in the forum for all to see. The subsequent ambush-style attacks of the pagans escalated thereafter to open street battles between pagans and Christians. Indeed, though the latter may have suffered heavier casualties, many on both sides were injured. After this bloodbath and without either a retreat into the Serapeum or even an attempt at its defense, the pagan agitation by itself came to a standstill. Indeed, many participants in the street battles, fearing the vengeance of the emperor, fled from Alexandria and went to other cities, including Constantinople.

Based on Hahn, I think the section of this article on the Serapeum should be modified. Hahn's argument isn't definitive by itself, but it's plausible, for reasons I mentioned during the GAN, and at least one other source I have (Luke Lavan's introduction to The Archaeology of Late Antique 'Paganism', 2011) treats it as a viable hypothesis. In this case I think the best approach would be to reduce the text in the article. User:Katolophyromai, who is mostly responsible for the current text of the article, has expressed concern that he spent too much space on the Library's successors, including the Serapeum-connected Mouseion. For the most part I think he struck the right balance, but given the somewhat tangential nature of this section it's better not to delve into detail about the differences between the primary sources (and the modern scholars).

The destruction was certainly the product of pagan-versus-Christian conflict in 391 or 392, and as Lavan says,"Although the sequence of events is perhaps less clear than it once was (if we follow Hahn's harsh critique of Rufinus), we can be sure that this destruction was backed by the local imperial authorities, and that the bishop Theophilus provoked the conflict." We may not need to say much more than those main points here; the Serapeum of Alexandria article can address the details. A. Parrot (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: Thank you for the reminder. I was going to trim some of the information in the part where I talked about the Serapeum, but I got distracted and forgot about it. I have now trimmed the section with this edit. Let me know if you think I did not go far enough. (By the way, I am working on those passages you asked me to translate; I have translated about half of the first one and I plan to email you the passages as I finish with them.) —Katolophyromai (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, and for the translation help. Unfortunately, Socrates's account (in Book V, ch. 16), says Theophilus's attack on the Serapeum preceded and provoked the rioting, rather than being the culmination of it as Rufinus and the text of the article state. I'm not sure how to word the text to avoid that disagreement. A. Parrot (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Aristophanes of Byzantium

The article attributes his promotion to the librarianship in 200 BC to Ptolemy III, but Ptolemy III died in 222 BC... Furius (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Carl Sagan's *Cosmos*

@Katolophyromai:, about your edit [1], do you know a reference mentioning how Cosmos was "propagating all kinds of misconceptions about the Library of Alexandria"? This might be relevant enough to include in the article. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

BernardoSulzbach, of course we can't use a Reddit post as a reference, but there is a very thorough point-by-point evisceration of Sagan's bad history in that Cosmos episode here. Carl Sagan has a reputation as a great explicator of scientific ideas, and his presentation technique was very effective in the series, but his history, at least on this subject, was grossly inaccurate. I'm looking for reliable sources now. Carlstak (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Great. I agree with Reddit not being useful as a reference for this, but thanks for the link. We might get something under "Legacy" or a small section about misconceptions, as I doubt Cosmos will be the only misrepresentation of the library. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Somehow I missed your reply, BernardoSulzbach. I still haven't found any suitable sources, academic or otherwise. Mysteriously, Sagan's terrible history seems to have escaped critical commentary by academe for the misinformation it propagated. Sadly, as one blogger commented, "Because Sagan was a scientist with an established reputation, though, many people have assumed that everything he says in the miniseries must be correct and, as a result, these misconceptions have spread and become embedded in popular culture." I agree that the article could use a section about such misconceptions. Carlstak (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Still, if we cannot provide a single somewhat reliable source it is difficult to write such a section. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "Later schools and libraries in Alexandria"

In the article it is stated: In AD 642, Alexandria was captured by the Muslim army of 'Amr ibn al-'As. Several later Arabic sources describe the library's destruction by the order of Caliph Omar.[118][119] Bar-Hebraeus, writing in the thirteenth century, quotes Omar as saying to Yaḥyā al-Naḥwī: "If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them."[120] Later scholars, including Father Eusèbe Renaudot in 1793, are skeptical of these stories, given the range of time that had passed before they were written down and the political motivations of the various writers.

The original source for this dialogue can be found in the Muqaddimah of Ibn Chaldun. It's a discussion between the Caliph Omar (Umar) and Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas in regard of the Arab-Muslim conquest of Persia and captured books (maybe from the Academy of Gondishapur), and not from a library in Egypt from the conquest there. So if ones is to believe historical Muslim sources, then the dialogue is authentic. But was falsely assigned to Egypt in later times.--46.125.249.102 (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Paragraphs 3 and 4 have no citations

Paragraphs 3 and 4 make have no citations. Could the editors please provide the relevant citations. Darylprasad (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Lead sections are supposed to summarize the body of the article. Thus, they don't require citations, as long as what they say is stated and cited in the body of the article. A. Parrot (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)