Talk:Library of Alexandria

World's oldest and biggest library
Dear authors, Thank you for this great information about the world's biggest library in ancient world, but it seems The library of Alexandria was not world's biggest library. It was Takshila (that time in Bharat(India)) followed by two more libraries which had at least 9 times the collections as that possessed by Alexandria. I just wanted to share this information. Please feel free to share the feedbacks.

Best

Poor Writing Editing Suggestions.
In reading this article I found that a fair is poorly written. Not that the information is by any means incorrect but that the structure in which information is being told is less then optimal. A major problem is that there are constant digressions in which a claim is made and then partially rebutted. It would be easier if the original claim was just simplified. I had a few simple suggestions of my own but would also suggest someone go back and rewrite a fair portion of this. When reviewing these suggested changes please do not review them as one whole thing but instead on an individual bases.

Suggested Edits: -Collections Original: "It is not possible to determine the collection's size in any era with certainty. Papyrus scrolls constituted the collection, and although codices were used after 300 BC, the Alexandrian Library is never documented as having switched to parchment, perhaps because of its strong links to the papyrus trade. The Library of Alexandria in fact was indirectly causal in the creation of writing on parchment, as the Egyptians refused to export papyrus to their competitor in the Library of Pergamum. Consequently, the Library of Pergamum developed parchment as its own writing material. A single piece of writing might occupy several scrolls, and this division into self-contained "books" was a major aspect of editorial work. King Ptolemy II Philadelphus (309–246 BC) is said to have set 500,000 scrolls as an objective for the library.[128] The library's index, Callimachus' Pinakes, has only survived in the form of a few fragments, and it is not possible to know with certainty how large and how diverse the collection may have been. At its height, the library was said to possess nearly half a million scrolls, and, although historians debate the precise number, the highest estimates claim 400,000 scrolls while the most conservative estimates are as low as 40,000,[6] which is still an enormous collection that required vast storage space. As a research institution, the library filled its stacks with new works in mathematics, astronomy, physics, natural sciences and other subjects. Its empirical standards were applied in one of the first and certainly strongest homes for serious textual criticism. As the same text often existed in several different versions, comparative textual criticism was crucial for ensuring their veracity. Once ascertained, canonical copies would then be made for scholars, royalty, and wealthy bibliophiles the world over, this commerce bringing income to the library."

Proposed: "At its height, the library was said to possess nearly half a million scrolls though historians today debate the precise number with estimates ranging from 400,000 scrolls to estimates as low as 40,000.[6] A single piece of writing might occupy several scrolls, and this division into self-contained "books" was a major aspect of editorial work. King Ptolemy II Philadelphus (309–246 BC) is said to have set 500,000 scrolls as an objective for the library.[128] The library's index, Callimachus' Pinakes, has only survived in the form of a few fragments, and it is not possible to know with certainty how large and how diverse the collection may have been. Papyrus scrolls constituted the collection, and although codices were used after 300 BC, the Alexandrian Library is never documented as having switched to parchment, perhaps because of its strong links to the papyrus trade. As a research institution, the library filled its stacks with new works in mathematics, astronomy, physics, natural sciences and other subjects. Its empirical standards were applied in one of the first and certainly strongest homes for serious textual criticism. As the same text often existed in several different versions, comparative textual criticism was crucial for ensuring their veracity. Once ascertained, canonical copies would then be made for scholars, royalty, and wealthy bibliophiles the world over, this commerce bringing income to the library." Reasoning: First I removed the first sentence as the information was stated later in the paragraph thus the sentence was unnecessary. Next I moved the second paragraph to the beginning, and rearranged the sentences within this paragraph to help with flow. I then removed a fair amount of what was originally the first paragraph removing information on the libraries use of papyrus effect on the creation of parchment. Though I see the library's use of papyrus as being a feature of its collection I do not see how those effects on parchment are a feature of the collection. It might make sense to move its effects on the creation of parchment to the Historical or Legacy section instead as this information does not directly relate to the collection.

-Legacy Original: The Library of Alexandria was one of the largest and most prestigious libraries of the ancient world, but it was far from the only one.[7][130][131] By the end of the Hellenistic Period, almost every city in the Eastern Mediterranean had a public library and so did many medium-sized towns.[7][4] During the Roman Period, the number of libraries only proliferated.[132] By the fourth century AD, there were at least two dozen public libraries in the city of Rome itself alone.[132] In late antiquity, as the Roman Empire became Christianized, Christian libraries modeled directly on the Library of Alexandria and other great libraries of earlier pagan times began to be founded all across the Greek-speaking eastern part of the empire.[132] Among the largest and most prominent of these libraries were the Theological Library of Caesarea Maritima, the Library of Jerusalem, and a Christian library in Alexandria.[132] These libraries held both pagan and Christian writings side-by-side[132] and Christian scholars applied to the Christian scriptures the same philological techniques that the scholars of the Library of Alexandria had used for analyzing the Greek classics.[132] Nonetheless, the study of pagan authors remained secondary to the study of the Christian scriptures until the Renaissance.[132]

Proposed: "The Library of Alexandria was one of the largest and most prestigious libraries of the ancient world.[7][130][131] In late antiquity, as the Roman Empire became Christianized, Christian libraries modeled directly on the great libraries of earlier pagan times began to be founded all across the Greek-speaking eastern part of the empire with the library of Alexandria being one of these influencers.[132] Among the largest and most prominent of these libraries were the Theological Library of Caesarea Maritima, the Library of Jerusalem, and a Christian library in Alexandria.[132] These libraries held both pagan and Christian writings side-by-side[132] and Christian scholars applied to the Christian scriptures the same philological techniques that the scholars of the Library of Alexandria had used for analyzing the Greek classics.[132] Nonetheless, the study of pagan authors remained secondary to the study of the Christian scriptures until the Renaissance.[132]"

Reasoning: For the first sentence everything after the but is just a digression. The Library of Alexandria "was one of the largest" implies that there were other important library thus the second part of the sentence is not needed. I would then suggest removing the rest of this paragraph as well. This is an article about the Library of Alexandria not ancient libraries. This information would be better suited for an article on Library's in the Ancient World. Second I rearrange the second sentence a bit. It just feels weird to me saying that library's were based off of the library of Alexandria and others, so I just moved the wording around a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyb603 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

BCE and CE, surely?
BC and AD are very outdated. 2A01:4B00:E20C:6A00:D158:72E2:5BBC:727C (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * So is the Library of Alexandria. 147.226.205.119 (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Arab Invasion Section
Hello @A. Parrot, I don't think that in my revision, we were patently stating that Theodosius was the one who destroyed the library. Instead, we presented a historian's perspective on what he considered probable. Additionally, the sources seemed appropriate to me.

Regarding the section title "Arabic sources on Muslim invasion," I find it somewhat inaccurate since many of the sources did not seem to be exclusively Arabic. The term "Arab invasion" would be more relevant and accurate. Therefore, I am considering updating the section name and the associated wikilink accordingly, if that’s alright. StarkReport (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Regarding sourcing, I was mostly concerned about the Arab News source; its statement about Theodosius relied on D. P. Singhal, whose qualifications I'm uncertain of. In any case, a mention of Theodosius seems to be misplaced here. The existing article text treats it as the consensus that the library no longer existed in its original location in Theodosius' time, so the case for blaming him rests on the idea that 1. some of the library's collection was relocated to the Serapeum and 2. Theodosius was to blame for the Serapeum's destruction. Those topics are already extensively discussed in the section that follows the one where you were adding your text.
 * If we were to add anything more about why scholars disbelieve the story about the Arab conquest, I would favor elaborating on the reasons for their skepticism—e.g., that John Philoponus was almost certainly dead by the time of the conquest. A. Parrot (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so would this work: "Additionally, Roy MacLeod notes that the story first appears 500 years after the conquest, and John Philoponus was likely deceased by then, indicating that the tale lacks historical credibility." right after the quote of Diana Delia.  @A. Parrot? StarkReport (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've edited in a tweaked version of your suggestion. A. Parrot (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)