Talk:Library of Alexandria/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)
 * 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
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Advice
, 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)


 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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*
, about your edit, 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)