The destruction of a Library: myths and facts

This thread will deal about the destruction of the famous library of Alexandria. It will contain some laaarge texts, so in case you are not interested in this history part but only in coins I will suggest you to jump down directly to post number 4 (now number 6).

Be aware that English is not my mother tongue and neither my second language, so bear with me.

I am doing this because I experience that some users in cointalk sporadically and unintentionally are spreading some hoary myths that have nothing to do with actual history.

A little disclaimer: there might be one or two details I might get wrong but the overall conclusion is solid and academically accepted by the vast historians.

With regard to this history lesson about the library I will answer 6 relevant questions and at the end I will give an overall conclusion to summarize the whole picture. Question number 7 in post number 2 is optional to read as it is completely off topic and deals about other things but perhaps some might find it informative as I am only presenting what the academia is suggesting these days in the 21th century.

Here is my disposition:

(1)What was the background for the establishment of the Library in Alexandria?

(2)How is the map of Alexandria and where is the Library located?

(3)Did Caesar destroy the Library in Alexandria in 47 BCE?

(4)Was the Library rebuilt after the death of Caesar?

(5)Did Theophilus destroy the Library in Alexandria in 391 CE?

(6)Did Caliph Umar destroy the Library in Alexandria in 641 CE?

OPTIONAL: (7)Did Roman Empire collapse because of Christianity, and did Christians have a habit of destroying classical works and libraries in Late Antiquity and Middle Ages?




(1)What was the background for the establishment of the Library in Alexandria?

Alexander the Great inherited the army of his father, and started a successful campaign against the Persians with that result that he created a vast empire. The city Alexandria was indeed founded and named after Alexander the Great. However, Alexander the Great died very young and it was not clear who should be the successor. After the death of Alexander the Great a civil war broke up and the empire was shattered between his generals. One of Alexander’s general, Ptolemy(don’t confuse with the astronomer), entrenched himself in Egypt and created an Egyptian-Mecedonian Kingdom in Egypt called the Ptolemaic Kingdom. Ptolemy also did something remarkable: he hijacked the corpse of Alexander the Great and brought it to Alexandria, and made a mausoleum for him in order to attracts people to his kingdom. It was in Ptolemaic Egypt that the famous library was created.



However the Library was destroyed later by someone. In popular culture, there are 3 suspects who are said to have destroyed it:



1 of these 3 persons is guilty in the destruction of the Library, and 2 are obviously innocents.




(2)How is the map of Alexandria and where is the Library located?

I have made a very simple map over Alexandria for you:


The anchor is the harbor of the city.

Close to the harbor is the Bruchion which is a district in Alexandria pretty much as Manhattan in New York. In Bruchion in the left side you will find the famous Library.

A distant place long away from the Library you will find Serapeum, which is a Pagan temple, in the south-eastern part of the city. Be aware that the Library and the Serapeum are NOT the same building.

I repeat once again: the Library(house with books) and the Serapeum(a Pagan temple) are NOT the same building. A lot of people often confuse it, so be aware.




(3)Did Caesar destroy the Library in Alexandria in 47 BCE?

Yes he did. The source materials suggest that he was in trouble when he intended to conquer Alexandria, and thus ordered to set a fire on the harbor. However, the harbor is close to the Bruchion where the Library is located. So the fire spread from the harbor into Bruchion and ultimately reached to the Library and destroyed it:



We know it because the sources materials say so both indirectly and directly. Let’s see here:

Caesar: In one of his works he is saying that he was in trouble and thus set fire to the harbor. The Library is close to harbor, so whether the fire reached the Library Caesar is silence about it. He is silence because he is ashamed of it and don’t want to admit it.

Hirtius(death 43 BCE): He is a friend and a subordinate of Caesar. He confirms that Caesar burnt the harbor. But otherwise he mentions nothing of a burning Library. He does not because he wants to portray his friend Caesar in good light. But we still don’t have evidence that Caesar burnt the library yet.

Strabo(death after 24 CE): He is a geographer and visited Alexandria after the death of Caesar, and gave an elaborated description of the city and mentioned the various buildings. However, he mentions nothing of a Library. It is disturbing. It is like I should go to New York and grab a tourist brochure where the Statue of Liberty is not mentioned. Why does Strabo not mention a famous library? Was it a overlook?. The best explanation for his omission is because the Library is gone now. However, a close relative of Caesar, Tiberius, is an Emperor. So Strabo cannot write that Caesar destroyed a great Library. He is risking his life if he does so.

Seneca(death 65 CE): He is saying that the books and the Library was destroyed by a fire and that it was done by Julius Caesar due to the harbor-fire. Nero is the emperor now, and since he is not a close relative of Caesar, Seneca can safely state who burnt the Library unlike Strabo. But is Seneca alone with his view? If one person can confirm Seneca’s assertion we would be more safe that Caesar was to blame.

Plutarch(death 120 CE): He confirms the assertion of Seneca. Plutarch is also saying that Caesar was to blame for the destruction of Library. Hadrian is the Emperor now, just like Nero, he is not a close relative of Caesar. That is the reason why Seneca and Plutarch could state freely that Caesar brunt it while Strabo could not. Now we have sufficient source materials that suggest that Caesar burnt the Library.

Ammianus(death around 400 CE): He is a very late source, and is confirming that Caesar was the one who burnt the Library. It is a late source, and tells nothing new and is what we may call a “secondhand source” since he probably has his information from Seneca/Plutarch. But Ammianus shows us that people around year 400 CE knew that Caesar was the man who burnt a legendary Library in Alexandria.

CONCLUSION: Caesar burnt the famous library by an accident. He set fire to the harbor, and the fire spread to the Library and destroyed it. He was ashamed of it, that is the reason why he and his friend Hirtus do not mention anything about a burning library. After the death of Caesar a geographer named Strabo visited Alexandria and wrote about the city but he mentioned nothing of library. Probably because it was gone but the family of Caesar occupied the throne so Strabo could not blame it on Caesar yet. Later when the close relatives of Caesar were no longer emperors it became common knowledge that it was Caesar who was to blame for the destruction of the Library as Seneca and Plutarch suggested. We can safely state that Julius Caesar destroyed the famous Library.




(4)Was the Library rebuilt after the death of Caesar?

That is indeed a good question. Because even if Caesar destroyed the Library it could had been rebuilt. It is complicated to answer that question as the source materials don’t give much information. Let me tell you why:



Plutarch(death 120 CE) is telling us a story that the Roman general Mark Antony gave his girlfriend Cleopatra many books as a gift and that the Library was thus rebuilt.

But Strabo(death after 24 CE) is contradicting Plutarch’s account indirectly: As mentioned earlier he visited Alexandria after the death of Caesar(and as well of Antony and Cleoptra), but Strabo mentions nothing of a (rebuilt) Library.

It is basically only from the writing of Plutarch that we hear that the Library was rebuilt. For that reason, it is not convincing since no other sources are backing him up.

If Colosseum was destroyed in year 500 CE we would still know today that it has existed because MANY sources from DIFFERENT persons are mentioning that famous amphitheatre in Rome. But a rebuilt Library in Alexandria is ONLY mentioned by Plutarch.

So it is very unlikely that the library was rebuilt after the death of Caesar, but we cannot be 100% sure. But IF the fantastic romantic story of Plutarch is true then the library was certainly destroyed BEFORE the event of Theophilus because two things happened:



215 CE: The maniacal rule of Emperor Caracalla where he punished Alexandria and its population after an insult from the population of the city.

272 CE: Empress Zenobia of Palmyra rebelled against the Roman Empire and created the Palmyrene Empire. Emperor Aurelian fought back and conquered Alexandria in a very bloody war where the city was destroyed.

Ammianus(death around 400 CE) is stating that a library no longer existed in Alexandria and that it was Caesar who destroyed it. He stated it BEFORE the event of Theophilus in 391 CE.

CONCLUSION: We do not know whether the famous Library was rebuilt or not after the death of Caesar. It is ONLY from Plutarch we hear that it was rebuilt, but he is contradicted by Strabo. We have NONE sources from other persons who are backing up the assertion of Plutarch. So the story that the library was rebuilt is unlikely, but not impossible. But IF the library was rebuilt it was certainly destroyed BEFORE 391 CE giving the reign of Caracalla and giving Aurelian’s war with Zenobia over Alexandria. Ammianus is stating that it was Caesar who destroyed it and that it no longer existed. That was BEFORE 391 CE.




(5)Did Theophilus destroy the Library in Alexandria in 391 CE?

No, he did not. The library was already gone, so how could he destroy it? Furthermore we have whole 7 sources and they are not mentioning anything about a burning library as what they are referring to is the destruction of Serapeum which is NOT the famous library:



Let see what the 7 sources are stating:

Ammianua (death around 400 CE): He is Pagan. BEFORE 391 CE he is stating that a famous Library was destroyed by Caesar and that it did not exist anymore due to Caesar. Ask a very logic question: “How can Theophilus destroy a library that did not exist in 391 CE?”

Sophronius(death 638 CE), Socrates of Constantinople(death around 415 CE), Sezemen(death around 415 CE), Theodoret(death around 415 CE) and Oresius(death after 415 CE.): We have 5 church fathers here and all lived during the event of 391 CE apart from the first mentioned Sophronius who lived over 200 years later. Each of these 5 are mentioning something about the event of 391 CE. They mention nothing about a burning library as what they are referring to is the destruction of Serapeum. They only mention that Pagan temples were destroyed and Pagan statues were demolished. They mention nothing about a burning Library or burning books. But these 5 church fathers are Christians, and perhaps they are ashamed to admit that their co-religionists burnt a library, so it will be worth to listen to what a Pagan is saying, and this bring us Eunapius of Sardis.

Eunapius of Sardis(death after 400 CE): He is Pagan and witnessed the event in 391CE. He is very very very Anti-Christian in his work. He is literally saying something like “Christians are crazy sons of bitches, and their religion so stupid”. If a great famous Library filled with precious scrolls was burnt down by an angry mob of Christians then the Anti-Christian Eunapius 100% definitely would have mentioned it to give his argument more impact. Right?. – But he does not.

The bottom line is that we have whole 7 (SEVEN!) sources, both from Christians and from Pagans so the event in 391 CE is one of these events we have best sources about in Late Antiquity, and NONE of them are mentioning anything about a burning library or burning books as what they are saying is that there were persecution of the Pagans and that their temples were destroyed no more different from what earlier Pagan rulers did towards others. They are not saying that a great library was destroyed. Not at all.

One certain person with a dishonest agenda who lived in the 18th century have distorted the 7 sources above and forged a myth in order to pursue his agenda. I am of course talking about Edward Gibbon who is author to some (with today’s eyes now outdated) historical works, “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”. It is in this work that we find the story that an angry Christian mob guided by Theophilus destroyed a famous Library of Alexandria. Gibbon has exactly used the same sources as the above but came to a different conclusion. This happened because of two things: (1)Firstly Gibbon disliked organized religion and a story about an angry Christian mob destroying a legendary library fitted well with his agenda, so with abysmal source interpretation he managed to spun a myth despite the sources are not suggesting it. (2) The profession of history as we know it today did not exist during Gibbon’s time so there was no academia who could have scrutinized his suspicious work.

Gibbon’s works are from the 18th century, and are outdated as his theories and explanations have been soundly refuted by the scholars these days, and his works are not used to teach the students of history these days in the 21th century. But many casual readers outside the faculty of history in English-speaking countries do often that classic mistake of reading Gibbon without realizing his works are outdated. One who did it was Carl Sagan who made some TV-programs about astronomy in 1980’s and spread that myth in TV and exhibited his historical ignorance as he confused it even more in which I will address it in the section 7 in my post number 2 which is optional.

CONCLUSION: Theophilus did not destroy a library in 391 CE as it did not exist during this time as Caesar had already done that job and destroyed it 4-5 centuries earlier. We have whole 7 sources, both from Christians and from Pagans, and none of them are saying that a great library was destroyed. They only state that there was persecutions of the Pagans and that their temples were destroyed inclusive Serapeum which is a pagan temple, NOT a library. The whole myth of the destruction of a library in 391 CE was forged by Gibbon and his dishonest approach. Gibbon’s works are from the late 1700’s and outdated, but not all casual readers do think: “Hey hey, this work was made in 1776 in a time when the hair fashion was to have a wig filled with louse, so perhaps I should learn my history from modern scholars.”. One of them who read Gibbon uncritically was Carl Sagan. He spread that myth in some TV program in 1980’s… that was supposed to deal about…reason.

What can we learn about the historical ignorance of Carl Sagan? - Confine yourself into modern scholarships instead of learning your history from Gibbon, Voltaire or any other persons with louse on their wigs.




(6)Did Caliph Umar destroy the Library in Alexandria 641 CE?

No, it is extremely unlikely. The famous Library have already been destroyed by Julius Caesar for about 700 years when Caliph Umar conquered Alexandria, so how could he destroy it?. The source materials are only suggesting that some people around year 1200 CE held a belief that Caliph Umar had destroyed it. But they were wrong.

Let see what the source materials are saying:

Abd al-Latif (death 1231 CE): He is a Muslim and a scholar. He is saying that Caliph Umar ordered the destruction of the Library. He states that the source for his information was a rumor he heard. Also the source pops up 600 years after the alleged event found place so we have to be cautious.

Bar Hebraeus(death 1286 CE): One Bishop who live under the rule of Muslims. He confirms the assertion of Abd al-Latif and blame the destruction of Library on Caliph Umar. Once again: the source came first after about 600 years after the alleged event happened, so we have to be cautious as well here.

In the profession of history we are taught in a subject called “Source criticism”. One basic tenet of source criticism is that if a source pops up many centuries after an event have occurred then take it with caution. It is the same principle as if you find an article in New York Time from year 1990 that asserts that Christopher Columbus was a Devil-worshipper in secret, it would be suspicious.

What the two sources basically are telling us is that some people around year 1200 thought that Caliph Umar had destroyed a Library in 641 CE. It is not the same as it really happened.

CONCLUSION: Caliph Umar has not destroyed the Library in 641 CE as it was already destroyed many centuries earlier due to Julius Caesar. The two sources also pop up first 600 years later after the alleged event found place, so it is suspicious. It only shows that some people in 1200 CE believed that Caliph Umar did it. But he has not done it.



OVERRALL CONCLUSION: Alexander the Great defeated the Persians and founded the city of Alexandria, and created a vast empire. He died very young and as result his generals squabbled, and one of his general named Ptolemy took resort in Egypt and created the Ptolemaic Empire. It was there that The Great Library was founded. It was destroyed later. In the popular culture there have been 3 culprits: Julius Caesar in 47 BCE, Theophilus in 391 CE, or Caliph Umar in 641 CE. The real culprit was Julius Caesar as he in 47 BCE intended to conquer Alexandria, and set fire to the harbor, and the fire reached the Library and burnt it. However, Plutarch is telling us an incredible story about a romance between Marc Antony and Cleopatra, and state that the Library was rebuilt, but it is extremely unlikely as the evidence is not strong. But if it was rebuilt it was certainly gone before 391 CE. In 391 CE Theophilus destroyed Serapeum which is not the library but a pagan temple. But some outdated work of a historian named Gibbon have clearly misinterpreted the source to pursue a dishonest agenda and confused Serapeum with the Library. In 1980’s a guy named Carl Sagan spread that myth in TV unintentionally without realizing he had consulted outdated materials. Caliph Umar has certainly not destroyed the library in 641 CE, but some people around year 1200 CE began to speculate that Caliph Umar did it, but in reality there are no source materials to believe so.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

(7)(Optional)Did Roman Empire collapse because of Christianity, and did Christians have a habit of destroying classical works and libraries in Late Antiquity and Middle Ages?

The vast scholars of Roman Empire and Middle Ages would easily refute it as these two thoughts are disproven myths with origin in a time when the profession of history was not established yet.



About Christianity being the reason for the fall of Roman Empire and why it is refuted by the scholars:

The idea that Roman Empire collapse because of Christianity was popularized in 1700’s by some intellectuals because it would serve their agenda. In the Age of Enlightenment many people began to question the authority of the Church, and the idea that (Western) Roman Empire collapsed because of Christianity was perfect tailored for their agenda.

For example the massage in Gibbon’s work in a nutshell is as following: Pagan Roman Empire was smart and rational and loved science so much. But one day a military hero named Constantine the Great decided to convert into Christianity in which corrupted his mind and the Empire. The Christians did not care for the state affair of Rome as they were only interested in theological stuff, and the Christians hated science so much and were some crazy book-burners and thus Roman Empire collapsed and Europe went into a dark age.

This narrative above is no longer accepted in the academia among the scholars today. The reason for the collapse of The (Western) Roman Empire was related to that fact that the “Barbarians” in Germania somehow united around 200 CE and increased the amount of attacks toward the Roman cities to plunder its wealth, and then escaped into the dense forest of Germania in which the Roman legions could not do much. At the same time the weak Parthian Empire was succeeded by the more vigorous Sassanid Empire which used siege equipment in a way its predecessor state did not do, and thus attacked Roman Empire more effective in Middle East. Now Roman Empire was attacked both from barbarians from Germania and from the Persians. If an emperor dealt with the Sassanids for long time he had to hurry back close to Germania if a problem popped up there. And if an emperor dealt with the Barbarians for a long time he had to hurry back to the eastern front to solve a Persian problem. That was the reason why Diocletian decided to split the empire into two as he realized it was too big to be ruled by a single person. All this started around year 200 CE, that is 100 years BEFORE Constantine the Great and his Christianity so he and his religion cannot be the reason for the decline of the empire.

There is also another reason why the vast historians don’t believe that Christianity caused the Roman Empire to collapse: When Roman Empire was split into two states for the last time in 395 CE the two parts were not equally Christian. Eastern Roman Empire(Byzantine) was almost fully Christian while its Western counterpart was not. If Christianity really was to blame for the collapse of the empire then the Eastern part should have collapsed early and Western part should have flourished for 1000 years. That did not happen as it was the reverse: the lesser Christian Western part collapsed after just 70-80 years while the fully or almost fully Christian Eastern Byzantium part survived for 1000 years. And flourished.

That is the main reason why the vast scholars of Roman history today do not believe that Christianity was to blame for the collapse of (Western) Roman Empire.



About the supposed habit of destroying classical works and library and why it is flawed:

The classical works we have access to today such of Aristoteles’s philosophy or Galen’s medical works, have survived today simple because they were studied and recopied throughout Middle Ages by monasteries and Byzantine libraries.

Papyrus is very fragile and it will not survive the moisture of Europe. So if a papyrus was left it would be destroyed by the nature of Europe. An exception is the dry sand of Egypt in which some papyrus actually can survive for many centuries with some damage but still legible. Aristotle’s “The Constitution of the Athenians” was indeed discovered in the sand of Egypt. But that was exception rather than the rule: the vast majority of the classical texts we have access to today is as result of the efforts of the monks who used energy and ink in studying and recopying classical texts for generation for generation…until Gutenberg’s invention of printing press in the 1400’s was invented. The cost of producing books sunk dramatically and onwards it became cheap to mass produce the classical works and thus were saved for the posterity.

In Pagan Roman Empire the classical works were preserved by being studied and recopied. After Constantine the Great and Christianity the habit of preserving classical works still continued. But in the 400’s the Western Roman Empire collapsed as it was overrun by (Pagan) barbarians: many Roman institutions collapsed, and the barbarians saw no interest in classical texts. In 500’s a philosopher named Boethius intended to translate Classical Greek texts into Latin but he was killed by Theodoric the Great who suspected him of collaborating with the Byzantine Emperor. So a lot damaged was done in the aftermath of the collapse of Western Roman Empire. But across the western Europe laid various Christian monasteries who studied and recopied some classical texts, but a lot of damage was done by the Barbarians. The Christian monasteries functioned as learning centers and had the ability of written system(important if wanting an effective state) and access to Greco-Romano features. Ultimately the various Barbarian Kings would convert into Christianity and by doing this they would gain access to Greco-Romano features they otherwise might not have received. It peaked under Charlemagne and his court when he initiated the Carolingian Renaissance around year 800 CE.

In the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire the things were completely different: They repelled the barbarians successfully and a vibrant Greco-Romano world persisted where classical texts were studied. In the second half of 600’s Byzantine’s Middle East was lost to the Arabs, and the Arabs showed interest in the classical works. In the House of Wisdom in Baghdad(capital of Abbasid Caliphate) a translation from Greek into Arabic occurred. The majority of the translators in the House of Wisdom that translated from Greek into Arabic were carried out by Christians whose ancestors had lived under Byzantium for about 250 years. Later the Arabic texts were transmitted into Spain. Under the reign of Alfonso X in Spain in 1200’s a process of translation of Arabic texts into Latin found place in Toledo and was later canalized in Western Europe. But not only from Arabic texts, as the Byzantines also contributed to it around year 1000-1200 or so. Before or after the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 many Greek scholars flee to North Italia and with them they brought more classical texts, and thus fueled The Renaissance. So the classical texts never ever went into oblivion as it was always preserved by Byzantines, and the Arabs also gained access to it from Byzantines, so the popular misconception that classical works went into oblivion in Europe and the Arabs saved them from getting into oblivion is false. There are very few things that the Byzantines have not preserved that the Arabs have preserved. Without the Arabic texts, not much would be gone today as Byzantium already had preserved them in Greek.

So the bottom line is that the classical works were preserved by Monasteries in western part of Europe and by the Byzantines in the eastern part. They certainly did not destroy classical works.

However, there are some element of truth in asserting that classical works were destroyed, but not in the way as propagated by Gibbon. Philosophical works that attacked Christianity would not be tolerated. Let me give you an example: Plato’s idealistic philosophy argued that the knowledge was in the heaven and that when we die our soul went up and became one with the truth. The Christians liked it very much because it resembled very much Christianity, and that was the reason why Plato was admired by the Christians. But one another philosopher named Epicurus had a different philosophy where he emphasized materialism and denounced life after death and suggested that people should enjoy the earthly pleasure. Obviously the Christians did not like it. So his works were destroyed, If not then they were neglected and the monks did not use energy and ink on preserving his works. That was nothing new as the Pagans rulers also did it if they did not like some certain philosophical doctrine, so it is not like the censorship was invented by the Christian rulers.

Works that dealt with magic, or pagan religious chants were destroyed, but it was impractical works that was destroyed. Let me provide some examples: Hippocrates’ and Galen’s medical works was practical so they were preserved, but the healing cult such of Asclepius was destroyed. Ptolemy’s astronomic work was also preserved as the Christians were interested in it, but other magical astrology part such of mathessis that contained magic was destroyed. - So it was specific magic works, astrology(mathesis), Pagan chant songs, and specific materialistic philosophy that attacked Christianity that was destroyed. No more different from when Diocletian persecuted the Christians and Manicheans and destroyed their religious works, but we don’t say that Diocletian destroyed science.

Another classic myth that sporadically is repeated is that the Byzantine emperor Justinian closed down Plato’s school in Athene. That was not what actually happened: Plato’s school was already destroyed in the first century BCE by the Roman general and later dictator, Sulla. However, it was “rebuilt” 500 years later by Neo-Platonists whose philosophy attacked Christianity. There is no institutional connection between the school of Plato and this new “rebuilt” Neo-Platonic school 500 years later. So the idea that a school of Plato outside the wall of Athene existed throughout 800 years and survived various wars, plagues and pillages, and then just to be shut down by Justinian is simple not correct.

What Justinian shut down was Neo-platonic philosophy that attacked Christianity. Other philosophical schools in Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria, that did not attack Christianity continued to exist. It is also from John Malalas that we hear Justinian closed down that Neo-Platonist activity and he is not saying that Justinian closed down the entire philosophy and all schools. Euclid’s geometry, Hippocrates’ and Galen’s medical works, Ptolemy’s astronomical works, Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, Thucydides’ historical works, Demosthene’s rhetorical speeches, Plato’s and Aristotle’s philosophical and natural philosophical works were studied and recopied throughout whole Byzantine timeline inclusive during Justinian’s reign.

Note that closing down institution or thoughts that were subversive or attacked the morale of the state is nothing new indeed: Socrates was killed by the Athenians who felt the goods might have punish them if they did not take actions towards Socrates since he questioned their morale. Augustus ordered the destruction of the Sibylline Books because he realized they could be dangerous for his reign. Emperor Kangxi of China expelled the Christian Jesuits because some of them began to criticize the concept of Chinese ancestor veneration where people honored their death forefather.

Emperor Justinian did not do anything wrong in shutting down an institution that made subversive thoughts. If you went to a Pagan Roman Emperor and questioned the imperial cult and said that it was crap, then the rulers surely would kill you too.

There is also the legend about Hypatia. This story was popularized by an astronomer named Carl Sagan who made some TV about astronomy and science in 1980’s. People who are 40 years most likely have heard about him and his program I assume. I did not as I was not born yet, but the only reason I have heard about him is because I have realized that he was responsible for spreading hoary myths on television.

In that program called “Cosmos”, Sagan told a story about a famous library in Alexandria named after the God Serapis labelled like Serapeum being destroyed in 415 CE and within one year a female scientist associated to the library was murdered because she taught science, in which the early Church did not like because it was linked with Paganism Sagan asserted. Sagan then portrayed Hypatia as a martyr for science who was killed by Bishop Cyril and his followers who hated science according to Sagan. “Cyril was made a Saint“ Sagan stated at the end, and thought he had made a valid point.

But actually, poor Carl Sagan exhibited his historical ignorance on TV and got everything wrong:

Serapeum is not the famous Library of Alexandria. It was a pagan temple. And the famous Library was already destroyed by Julius Caesar in 47 BCE. And it was not Cyril who destroyed Serapeum, but Theophilus.

To make it easier:

It was Theophilus who destroyed a pagan temple called “Serapeum” in 391 CE.

In 415 CE, 24 years later, Cyril killed Hypatia due to some pollical squabbling with the prefect Orestes.

Carl Sagan intermingled these two different events with a gap of 24 years into one single event, and confused it even more:

Hypatia was not killed because she was a philosopher and loved science, but because she made an alliance with Orestes and thus came in conflict with Cyril. She was killed because of political reason, not because she was a scientist.

Athenians killed Socrates and expelled Aristotle, that does not mean Athenians hate philosophy. Roman soldiers killed Archimedes, that does not mean the Romans hate science. Marc Antony was responsible for the death of Cicero, that does not mean the Romans hate rhetorical art. British Empire killed indirectly Alan Turing because of his sexual preference, that does not mean the Britons hate mathematic and logic.

Carl Sagan have once stated a beautiful quote: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

If the early Christians really destroyed a great library filled scrolls and killed a woman because she was a scientist as Sagan asserted then he really needs extraordinary evidence. And a person with a wig filled with lousy on his head who had a dishonest agenda and obviously misinterpreted the sources and wrote some suspicious materials in 1700’s named Edward Gibbon is hardly an extraordinary evidence as his works and theories are rejected by the scholars.

But the historical ignorance of Carl Sagan where he relied on such outdated work without doubt should serve a perfect reminder to the rest of people why they should stick to modern scholarships.



CONCLUSION: The ideas that Roman Empire and science collapsed because of Christianity is a long dead outdated teaching and a discourse made in 1700’s in a time when the profession of history did not exist as we know it today. It is debunked and rejected by vast scholars of Roman history, Middle Ages and History of science across the wide universities. The (Western) Roman Empire collapsed to some structural issues dated around 200 CE over 100 years before Constantine and his Christianity. The church fathers and monasteries in western Europe, and the Byzantines in Eastern Europe preserved the science and legacy of classical civilization just as best as they could. It was rather the Pagan barbarians who was to blame for the collapsed. In 1980’s an astronomer named Carl Sagan did that mistake of reading some outdated materials and thought he had gained insight in actual history, and unintentionally spread that myth in a TV program.

 

Academic sources:

Rome in the Ancient World: From Romulus to Justinian, David Potter

The Inheritance of Rome: Illuminating the Dark Ages, Chris Wickham

Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean, Chris Wickham

The world of Late Antiquity, Peter Brown

The Beginnings of Western Science, David C. Lindberg

Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion, Ronald L. Numbers

The Dynamic Middle Ages, Michael Nordberg


David Potter is a scholar of Ancient world. Chris Wickham and Peter Brown are experts in late antiquity and both are the two most influential scholars for us who study (early) Middle Ages. David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Number are heavyweighters and are regarded as the highest authority on the expertise of history of science with focus on Antiquity and Middle Ages. Michael Nordberg is not a big fish but he is a famous name for us students of history because his work, “The Dynamic Middle Ages”, was a work that was aimed to the casual readers where Nordberg debunks various myths in an amusing way.



But I do know that a lot of you just don’t have time for that. Some of these works contains about 700 pages. You have job and perhaps families to take care so you don’t have time for that. For that reason I will suggest an easy way through the internet:

Not academic, but otherwise correct information:

http://jameshannam.com/library.htm

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.dk/2009/05/agora-and-hypatia-hollywood-strikes.html

http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=dynamic_middle_ages

The first one deals about the Library of Alexandria, it is obvious I have relied very much or almost copy pasted his texts about the Library and made some adjustments and made some maps. The second also deal about it in another way. The third link is a solid summarize of the work of the aforementioned Michael Nordberg, and you can trust the information he is providing. It does correspond with what I read from Nordberg’s work.

 

Really nice information. I say you put it all together very well. Thanks for sharing.

 

Thanks for such an extensive evaluation of the evidence. I was an impressionable, science-loving teen in the late 1970's/early 1980's when Cosmos aired (erred?) and Carl Sagan's tale made quite an impression on me. Thank you for clearing up decades of misinformation about Hypatia, Cyril, and the Library of Alexandria.

 

I want you to post any coins related to the legends of the Library or anything relation to these myths about supposedly destruction of library or school.

Let me try:


Theodosius, nummus, size the same as little fingernail.


The myth says that Theodosius ordered the destruction of the Famous Library of Alexandria, and thus Bishop Theophilus of Alexandria destroyed a gwait gwait gwait library in 391 CE. – The reality is that the famous Library was already destroyed by Julius Caesar in 47 BCE. What Theophilus destroyed was Serapeum, which is a pagan temple and not the famous library.



Theodosius II, Solidus.


The myth says that his reign marked the destruction of the Library and that Hypatia was killed because she loved science in which the early Christians despised. It was Carl Sagan, a non-historian, who spread this myth on the TV program called “Cosmos”. – The reality is that the library was already destroyed 400-500 years earlier by Pagan Julius Caesar. Hypatia was killed simple because of political reason as she allied herself with prefect Orestes. She was not a martyr for science. The science pretty much continued in the hands of Christians such in Byzantine Empire or within the monasteries in western Europe that was overrun by Pagan Barbarians. These pagan Barbarians in contrary showed almost no interests in science until they converted into Christianity, in which just underlines how flawed it is to assert that the early Christians despised science.



Justinian, 16-nummi of Thessaloniki(size as Solidus), Decanummi of Ravenna(lesser than Solidus), and a Solidus:




The myth says that Justinian ordered the shutdown of the school of Plato after 800 years continuity because he was Christian and thus hate science. – The reality is that the school of Plato was already destroyed by Sulla in the first centuries BCC. It was “rebuilt” 500 years later by Neoplatonists who attacked Christianity, which was the reason why Justinian shut it down (of course, what should he do?). Other schools in Constantinople and Alexandria, that did not attack Christianity, continued. Furthermore there is no institutional continuity between Plato’s school and that later “rebuilt” school of Neoplatonist.




Manuel II Paleologus, third last Byzantine emperor. A follaro small as little fingernail, and a half Stavraton 22mm:




It is said that before or after the Fall of Constantinople many Greek scholars flee to North Italy, and thus fueled the Renaissance. – This is fully true. It happened because they did not destroy classical works and burnt libraries. If they were some crazy book-burners with despise for culture I would surely not have indulgenced myself into Byzantine numismatic hobby.





If any has coins of Ptolemy Soter or his son, or Cleopatra and Antony I would gladly see how they are. – Otherwise post any coins related to the topic and it is optional whether you can link it or not to the actual history.

 

Well, it's not pretty, but here's a Cleopatra:



Cleopatra VII, Queen of Egypt, 51-30 BCE
AE 40 drachmai; 21.0 mm; 7.32 gm
Alexandria mint, 51-30 BCE
Obv: Diademed head of Cleopatra, hair in bun at back of head, facing right
Rev: [ΚΛΕΟΠΑΤΡΑΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΗΣ], eagle standing left on thunderbolt, double cornucopiae in field to left, M (for 40) to right
Refs: Sear Greek 7956; Svoronos 1872; BMC 6; Vagi 212; Forrer 110

 

Herberto, thank you for these posts! I haven't finished reading all of them but so far it is very good-- even more impressive since English isn't your first or second language!

Ptolemy I, as satrap of Tyre:

As satrap of Tyre. Dated RY 32 of king Azemilkos (318/7 BCE). AR tetradrachm

Ptolemy I, as satrap of Egypt:

Ptolemy I. AR tetradrachm, earlier style, Attic standard. 313/12 BCE

Ptolemy I as king or pharaoh of Egypt:

Ptolemy I Soter. AR tetradrachm, c. 300-285 BCE. Alexandreia mint.

Queen of the Nile:

Cleopatra VII Theo Neotera, AE 40 drachmae, 51-30 BCE

 

deleted

 

What specific?

If you have academic sources made by scholars with relevant expertise and who are employed at university that contradict it i will gladly see them.

 

deleted

 

Employed as what? As a historian?

You can safely contradict me as it will not derail the thread just as long we do it civilized

I am very sure my assertion are academically well founded.

 

PM sent.

 

That is the main problem...how sure you are. Academics are very rarely sure of anything. In fact the more I learn the less certain I become.

 

@Herberto It seems you have made a strong case for your arguments and I hope @Orfew will specify what he believes are incorrect assumptions. I feel like a jury member waiting for instructions from the presiding judge

Anyway, I'll post a denarius of Sulla:


"The moneyer of the coin was the son of the Dictator Sulla. The reverse commemorates one of the most important events of his fathers early career---the capture of Jugurtha.


AR denarius of Faustus Cornelius Sulla, Rome mint 56 BC
18-19 mm, 3.44 grams; Crawford 426/1
FAVSTVS, Diademed and draped bust of Diana. crescent above, lituus behind.
FELIX Sulla seated left on raised platform between Bocchus left presenting him a wreath, Jugurtha hands bound behind him, both kneeling


And, Ill jump the gun a bit and post a MA/JC denarius I just won

Mark Antony & Julius Caesar. 43 B.C. AR denarius (17 mm, 3.44 g, 5 h). Mint traveling with Antony in Cisalpine Gaul. CAESAR [DIC], bare head of Julius Caesar right; behind, capis / M A[NT]O IMP R P C, bare head of Marc Antony right; behind, lituus. Crawford 488/1; HCRI 118; Sydenham 1165; RSC 2. Lightly toned.

 

Quite an impressive and informative read @Herberto given that English is not your first language. Well done.

 

I did not destroy the library...the fire I ordered did that accidentally. A small technicality, I know, but I am freaking Caesar, conqueror of Gaul, a Consul of Rome, and Dictator for Life...and you are? That's what I thought.



And here is a gippo coin courtesy of one of my legionaries, Titus Pullo of the glorious 13th Legion. (Couldn't help the reference to HBO's Rome )

 

I, too, would like to see a civilized discussion of Herberto's post and learn about those points that are not well supported, or more speculative, etc.

This is not an area in which I have any expertise, nor is it an area where I have the knowledge or patience to find pertinent research and facts. So others who are more knowledgeable can have a lively debate about some of the suppositions and conclusions that exist in Herberto's posts, and I'll become more educated via that process.

Some areas that be open to discussion/disagreement might be:

(1) The reliability and accuracy of the sources cited by Herberto.
(2) The existence of contradictory facts or opinions to those sources.
(3) Whether the conclusions drawn from the information seem to be logical or a bit tenuous.
(4) The evolution over time of scholarly thinking on some of these points.

I'd like to think that, in this forum, we can have disagreements and discussion of those disagreements without rancor and incivility. We're not Washington politicians here.

 

The vast scholars of Antiquity, Middle Ages and Science of History pretty much suggest what I have written.

My text here about Late Antiquity and Middle Ages is heavily based on the works of Chris Wickham and Peter Brown who basically are the greatest giants of (early) Middle Ages in the profession of history. Any student of history and all historians know who they are.

My texts about how the science pretty much continued in the hand of Christians, are based on the works of David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers who are regarded as the highest authority in the history of science.

I do not know of any scholars who contradicts the basic tenets of these four heavyweighters mentioned above. So if you have some academic sources made of a scholar with relevant expertise and employed at university and teach in his field, I would gladly appreciate it.

 

I was not going to respond, but your latest post forced me to because of the lack of sound argumentation. The same qualities I saw in your original post.

This is a logical fallacy. 50, 000,000 frenchmen can in fact be mistaken. This is called the bandwagon approach. Just because most people think so does not make it so. Many people believed that the sun rotated around the earth rather than the reverse. Did that make it true?

Just because you do not know them does not mean that they do not exist. I did a quick search on google and found scholars who disagree with your premise concerning Hypatia and Alexandria. You can find this information yourself with the same quick search. Your reasoning is faulty. One should always assume that someone else know more than oneself. You needed much more thorough research for this paper. I am not going to do it for you.

Who says your experts are actually experts? Even if they are, experts are often wrong. What makes them experts is not that they are correct, it is that they continually search for those who might demonstrate that they are incorrect. Doubt is key to good scholarship.

I hope you will rewrite your paper keeping these things in mind. In my opinion, worth little as it may be, this would greatly improve the paper.

To other reading this post, reread the OPs post and apply some of the metrics I have outlined. Do you honestly think the arguments stand up to critical scrutiny?