The destruction of a Library: myths and facts

Very interesting post, thank you! I had wondered very much about how good the evidence was concerning the library and Caesar's alleged destruction of it. (Still pretty sketchy, but not as bad as I thought.) The biggest surprise to me, however, was that the preservation of ancient literature did not much depend on the Arab --> Alfonso X route. I suppose this route did play some role in fueling the Renaissance, just not so much a work-preservation role; more a fostering-interest role.

I think we can all regret the suppression of scholarship in most any form, also the loss of Epicurus etc. due to the neglect of Christian scholars. It struck me that your laudatory efforts to rehabilitate the Christians from Gibbon's and Sagan's smears went perhaps a bit too far.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thanks for your interesting write up , Herberto Food for thought.

Nice to know the Biblioteca Alexandria was finally rebuild in 2003 for a mere $220 million USD.

Here are 2 AR Tetradrachma's from Father and son Ptolemy :



*That Cleopatra VII coin is awsome TIF , congrats.

 

Is that the master Celator's Delta behind Ptolemy I's ear? Very nice Tet!

 

Is Herberto disputing Plutarch's entire account about Antony plundering the library of Pergamon, or only that Antony's purpose was specifically to replace at least part of what was lost to Caesar's fire? Where did the Pergamon scrolls go, if there was no library at Alexandria to receive them? Patently, the library continued after Antony's gift to Cleopatra, no matter how thoroughly it had been destroyed, unless one rejects Plutarch's account entirely. Rejecting an inconvenient ancient account that fails to conform to a predetermined argument is at best sloppy thinking. I'd much rather rely on what Plutarch does say than resort to an argument from silence regarding Strabo.

Another point regarding Caesar, though not as easy to demonstrate: after the magic name Caesar had served its purpose and Antony was duly defeated, Octavian didn't hesitate to throw Caesar's memory under the bus and assert that Pompey's had after all been the "better cause." This isn't as contradictory as it seems at a glance, since Octavian had a continuing need for optimate support after Actium, whereas Caesar's populare supporters had served their purpose and become largely a political embarrassment. Strabo would have had no political reason to suppress the account of Caesar's destruction of the library, if that destruction were as extensive and permanent as Herberto maintains.

The edges of the author's hidden agendas are showing. Not a good look.

Phil Davis

 

Nice article Herberto! You present a lot of interesting things to think about!

I do want to take up one point about the Library's destruction.

Luciano Canfora in 'The Vanished Library' asserts it was warehouses of stored books (and grain) waiting for export near the port which were accidentally burned by Caesar, not the library itself.

Strabo mentions the Museum was still in existence in his day. The Library was attached to the Museum - would Strabo make a distinction between the two or assume the reader knew they were part of the same entity?

Canfora believes the Library was destroyed not by one single event but a series of mishaps and abuse over the centuries. I think this is a sounder way to go than following in the footsteps of an ancient writer with a Caesarean axe to grind.

Heather Phillips wrote this very poignant paragraph about the Library's end: 'Though it seems fitting that the destruction of so mythic an institution as the Great Library of Alexandria must have required some cataclysmic event . . . in reality, the fortunes of the Great Library waxed and waned with those of Alexandria itself. Much of its downfall was gradual, often bureaucratic, and by comparison to our cultural imaginings, somewhat petty.'

I'm not trying to take anything away from your article Herberto, but just wanted to add another perspective about the Library's end.

 

Ptolemy I
Egypt Ptolemy I Soter Tet Delta bankers marks CELATOR DELTA called out

Ptolemy II

Egypt Ptolemy II 285-274 BC AE Obol 20mm 6.7g Alex III Eagle Tbolt SV 601

SULLA:

RR Manlius Torquatus L. Cornelius Sulla 82 BCE (Sulla was Dictator for Life) AR Denarius 17mm 3.7g Military mint with Sulla. Roma - Sulla triumphal quadriga victictory wreath Cr 367/3 Syd 759 Sear 286

Octavian and Antony:

RImp Antony-Octavian AR Denarius 41 BCE 3.65g 18.7mm Military mint Syria star Craw 528-2a Sear 1507

Cleopatra WANNABE:

Egypt Cleopatra VII Cyprus AE 11 1.8g obol Paphos mint as Isis dbl-corunc SNG Cop 649 (Disputed as a coin minted under Cleo)

Theodosius:

RI Theodosius I 379-395 CE AE 18mm Concordia

Theodosius II:

RI Theodosius II 402-450 CE AE4 11mm Cross in Wreath

Justinian:

BZ Justinian I 527-565 CE AE Folles 30mm 17g 40 Nummi M monogram

CARL SAGAN:

 

@Alegandron , There is an A behind Ptolemy's I ear, behind the Ptolemy II tet there's a Delta.
and I think the bankers mark on the Ptolemy I is a little owl.

 

Here's Augustus...a coin I don't get to post much of.

 

[edit- I meant to quote orfew but messed up! @Orfew ]

No, but it is still an interesting assessment that seems worth sharing. I wish I knew more about the debate- Then it would be easier for me to determine whether or not it is a reasonable case.

 

interesting write up, but c'mon... there's no way anyone can blame any one for it's destruction.. it was done over time by several and many.. you might be able to maybe pinpoint who was the last, but that's about it.. and i have my doubts about that even..

 

hahaha! no.. just every 2nd and 4th day of the week (jk)

 

Nothing more fun than watching peer review. It almost makes me miss grad school.........................................not.

When someone has a definitive answer, please let us know. A very long and fun thread/read.............did I mention very long?

 

@Sallent you're the lawyer of the group here.. what do think about that evidence?

 

I see.

You(and two others) are certainly 100% right that I should not be so sure about the depiction of the event of the Alexandria I have portrait. Antiquity and Middle Ages were part of my curriculum but we did not cover the Library part, and I relied much on these two internet account to fill a hole in which I surely should not have done.

The academia do no longer accept the outdated notion that Roman Empire collapsed because of Constantine and his religion, or that the early Christians despised the works of Plato, Galen or Ptolemy for the reasons I already have explained.

But that part about Library I obviously have made a big mistake as it appears that there are many gaps and loose ends.

You were right about the library.

 

Expecting the Christian scholars to use energy and ink in preserving subversive thoughts/materials is not quite logical. Pagan scholars surely neither would use energy and ink in preserving works that attacked their morale.

Anyway, you have misunderstood my point about Justinian I think as it was not what I was saying.

It was of course wrong what Justinian did with today’s eye without doubt. But we have to see what the contemporary ethical context it was doing in. Suppressing subversive thoughts or the concept of censorships already existed back during the time of Plato, so it was not like Justinian did something Pagan emperors did not do.

 

Now THAT is cool! Nice!

 

me & ..i found out last night, my son, dig Carl,as does Neil DeGrasse Tyson

 

When in doubt... I ALWAYS blame Clem Kaddlehopper...