Jihadists bomb Gaza YMCA library

YMCA in Gaza - don't they have Young Men's Islamic Associations (YMIA)? (We know Muslimahs don't need anything - they are just there as breeding machines.)

I'm still angry about the Library at Alexandria.

I'm still angry about the Library at Alexandria.

Posted by: tanstaafl at February 15, 2008 12:01 PM

I thought of that, too. Was it Mohammedans that destroyed it?

What do you expect, after all the Koran is the final word of god.

Who needs anything else ?

The YMCA is a threat to Islam.

Libraries are a threat to Islam.

Ideas are a threat to Islam.

Thinking is a threat to Islam.

The truth is a threat to Islam.

What was the value of Islam again? This is "one of the great religions"? Tell me another story. Try to sell me another bridge.

The library in Alexandria was not destroyed by Muslims and it would be best if false accusations were not mixed with, and thereby tended to undercut, the true ones. There is so much more -- 1350 years of much more -- why confuse things, why give the enemy, always keenly aware of what can be used to depict itself as the victim of baseless charges, this kind of ammunition, by making a false (if widely-repeated) charge?

Being an islamochristian is not all it was once cut out to be. Even among the Slow Jihadists of Fatah, some of those who have most diligently been working to promote the Lesser Jihad against Israel -- not least by denying that it ever was a Lesser Jihad, or had a thing to do with Islam, or that Christian Arabs were "ever" harmed in any way, except of course by the terrible Israelis -- must be having second thoughts. Oh, not Naim Ateek. He'll never stop being an islamochristian. Not Hanan Ashrawi, who is a bit more alarmed, but doesn't have any idea how to deal with this, and knows that she herself is too useful to the cause (even without Peter Jennings around to give her a sympathetic hearing, and possibly something more) to be in trouble herself. Not sly Michel Sabbag of the Anglican hierarchy. Not all the "Palestinian" Christians used to getting their way in world-council-of-churches settings, or as they work their will, along with local anti-Israel (i.e., antisemitic) "Christian activists" in the hierarchy of this or that church in the West. Not the hysterical Mazin Qumsiyeh, a "Palestinian" Jordanian islamochristian, that is to say, a western palestinain Eastern Palestinian islamochristian, ready to appear at a "Peace and Justice" rally or church gathering -preferably at one of those churches that has nothing to do with Christianity, and everything to do with defending the faith, the faith of Islam, as its highest and best mission. But others. Yes, others who once thought that if they played the game the Muslims would leave them alone, and might even -- that was Michel Aflag's dream, that was why he came up with Ba'athism as an ideology that might, he thought, provide political space for Christian Arabs trying to stay afloat, and not pulled under, in a Muslim sea. He was wrong. Ateek, Ashrawi, Sabag, Qumsiyeh -- they all are terribly wrong.

There were farseeing Christians, such as Moubarac, the Bishop of Beirut, who back in 1947 openly declared his support for the Zionists, and saw precisely the link between the survival of Christians in the Middle East and the success of the Jews in withstanding Islam. [You can find his words in an appendix to Bat Ye'or's "Islam and Dhimmitude"]. And there are more now, and that includes not only the old-time Maronites, who always understood that Islam was the problem, and consequently always understood their natural commonality of interest, or even affinity for, the Jews of Israel, but also newer Christian arrivals from the Muslim Arab lands. And of course, Christians from Pakistan, or Indonesia, who are unburdened by the Arab ethnic identity that reinforces, rather than works against, Islam, have had no trouble in understanding Islam, and no trouble, consequently, in showing not the slightest hostility toward Israel. That is why there is such a noticeable differeence between Christians from Muslim, but non-Arab lands, and many Christians from Arab lands, those at least who keep thinking that they have to placate the circumambient Muslims, but those who belong to communities of Arabic-speaking, but non-Arab Christians -- the Copts, the Maronites -- have, to the extent that they are sure of themselves, and to the extent that they recognize and are indignant about their treatment at the hands of Muslims, are far less likely to exhibit hostility to Israel and may even, intelligently, recognize that their own peoples -- the Copts, the Maronites, the Assyrians, the Chaldeans -- like the Jews all were in the Middle East before Islam came, the "gift of the Arabs" that keeps on, keeps on, keeps on, alas, giving.

Actually, I thought the library at Alexandria was burned down by Octavian, and if it was not him I thought the Romans burned it down.

It was the Afrocentric lie merchants who obsess over the Library of Alexandria. They claim the Greeks (who started the city and library) stole all their knowledge from Afro(sic)-Egyptians' library, which the Greeks built. Figure that out!

Talking about books, well we all know there is a lot to be learnt

Well while looking for information about Ćele Kula or The Skull Tower I came across this interesting snippets from some very old books, which I doubt very few people know about.

These erections are known by the Persians as Kellarh i Minar corresponding exactly to the Arabic name of Burj er Roos, a tower built entirely of skulls.

Makes for some very insightful reading about islam
and maybe why moslems don't like books

http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2008/02/five-pillars-of-islam.html

Where they burn books, so too will they in the end burn human beings. (Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen.)

DrMack; whoa! That caught my attention. Talk about your ugly prophecies...
(thanks; bookmarked THAT one)

Well, who did burn down the Library in Alexandria?

And why?

Reading is obviously an infidel conspiracy to stifle pious Koranists-good Koranists need to engage in useful tasks such as demonstrating, bomb making and Jew killing. Therefore, it is necessary to burn down libraries that lack the only thing worth reading-the Koran.

stendec -

you wrote:

"Libraries are a threat to Islam.

Ideas are a threat to Islam.

Thinking is a threat to Islam.

The truth is a threat to Islam."

Too terribly true.

For a devastating summary of traditional Islam's inculcated rejection of ideas and thinking as such, see the following two paragraphs, from Tawfiq Hamid's article "The development of a jihadist's mind", first written in April 6 2007 and reprinted in the Jerusalem Post 17.1.2008.

I've posted this passage a number of times, but it is so starkly terrifying that it bears posting again, particularly in this context. It says it all.

Hamid writes: "During my first year of medical school [in Egypt], a Jamaah Islamiyah member named Muchtar Muchtar invited me to join the organization. Muchtar was in his fourth year, and Jamaah had given him the title amir (prince or caliph) - a designation taken from early Islamic writings that is associated with the Islamic caliphate or amir almomenin (prince of the believers). I accepted his invitation, and we walked together to Jamaah's mosque for noon prayers.

"On the way there Muchtar emphasized the central importance in Islam of the concept of al-fikr kufr, the idea that the very act of thinking (fikr) makes one become an infidel (kufr). (In Arabic both words are derived from the same three root letters but have different meanings.) "

"He told me, 'Your brain is just like a donkey [a symbol of inferiority in the Arab culture] that can get you only to the palace door of the king [Allah]. To enter the palace once you have reached the door, you should leave the donkey [your inferior mind] outside.'

"By this parable, Muchtar meant that a truly dedicated Muslim NO LONGER THINKS but AUTOMATICALLY OBEYS THE TEACHINGS OF ISLAM."[my emphasis added].

Got that? - the proverb cited by Mukhtar implies that for a pious Muslim thinking - indeed, thinking considered broadly as 'any independent brain activity at all' - must be regarded as tantamount to Unbelief, or to becoming an Unbeliever. The ideal seems to be that a person absorbs the program - Quran-Sira-Hadith - by rote, and then slavishly, without question, reproduces it; they BECOME the program, with nothing left over at all that is not the program.

(Shudder).

This explains, perhaps, a few of the avowedly Muslim Disruptors with whom we have attempted to argue on this comments board. You can't get anywhere with them, because all that there is, is the program - Quran-Sira-Hadith.

If anyone here has read Madeline L'engle's children's book, A Wrinkle In Time, you may recall the darkened planet Camazotz, dominated by an entity called 'It'. Well: the overall 'feel' of that Quran-Sira-Hadith 'program' reminds me strongly of 'It'.

Did some research on the library at Alexandria and came up with this - don't know if its true or not but it seems to fit with the Muslim "intelect"

Who destroyed Alexandria Library?
By VA Mohamad Ashrof

Ptolemy II, who became the ruler of Egypt after Alexander the Great in the third century BC, was a great patron of learning, and founded a library in Alexandria, Egypt, which contained about 5,00,000 books on different subjects. It is this collection which is known in history as the great library in Alexandria.

It has been alleged that this library was burned down by Amr bin Aas at the behest of the Second Caliph, Umar. The story goes to state that Amr fed the numerous bath furnaces of the city with the volumes of the Alexandrian library. The story also relates the oft-quoted remark allegedly made by Caliph Umar (ruled: 634-644) when he consented to the destruction of the library, "If these writing of the Greeks agree with the book of God, they are useless and need not be preserved; if they disagree, they are pernicious and ought to be destroyed". It was, the story continues, thereupon, decided that the books were contrary to the Quran and the whole library was burned down without even opening the books.

I'm sorry to start all this - but no matter who burned down the library in Alexandria - I'm still mad about it.

As for the Nazi book burnings - Still pissed.

And for the YMCA library in Gaza - Yeah, I hate the maggots who did that, too.

There is a special place in hell for people who burn books and people who talk in the theater.

Here's a account on the library at Alexandria -

The Library at Alexandria

From Cosmos, Carl Sagan:

Only once before in our history was there the promise of a brilliant scientific civilization. Beneficiary of the Ionian Awakening, it had its citadel at the Library of Alexandria, where 2,000 years ago the best minds of antiquity established the foundations for the systematic study of mathematics, physics, biology, astronomy, literature, geography and medicine. We build on those foundations still. The Library was constructed and supported by the Ptolemys, the Greek kings who inherited the Egyptian portion of the empire of Alexander the Great. From the time of its creation in the third century B.C. until its destruction seven centuries later, it was the brain and heart of the ancient world.

Alexandria was the publishing capital of the planet. Of course, there were no printing presses then. Books were expensive; every one of them was copied by hand. The Library was the repository of the most accurate copies in the world. The art of critical editing was invented there. The Old Testament comes down to us mainly from the Greek translations made in the Alexandrian Library. The Ptolemys devoted much of their enormous wealth to the acquisition of every Greek book, as well as works from Africa, Persia, India, Israel and other parts of the world. Ptolemy III Euergetes wished to borrow from Athens the original manuscripts or official state copies of the great ancient tragedies of Sophocles, Aeschylus and Euripides. To the Athenians, these were a kind of cultural patrimony -- something like the original handwritten copies and first folios of Shakespeare might be in England. They were reluctant to let the manuscripts out of their hands even for a moment Only after Ptolemy guaranteed their return with an enormous cash deposit did they agree to lend the plays. But Ptolemy valued those scrolls more than gold or silver. He forfeited the deposit gladly and enshrined, as well he might, the originals in the Library. The outraged Athenians had to content themselves with the copies that Ptolemy, only a little shamefacedly, presented to them. Rarely has a state so avidly supported the pursuit of knowledge.

The Ptolemys did not merely collect established knowledge; they encouraged and financed scientific research and so generated new knowledge. The results were amazing: Eratosthenes accurately calculated the size of the Earth, mapped it, and argued that India could be reached by sailing westward from Spain. Hipparchus anticipated that stars come into being, slowly move during the course of centuries, and eventually perish; it was he who first catalogued the positions and magnitudes of the stars to detect such changes. Euclid produced a textbook on geometry from which humans learned for twenty-three centuries, a work that was to help awaken the scientific interest of Kepler, Newton and Einstein. Galen wrote basic works on healing and anatomy which dominated medicine until the Renaissance. There were, as we have noted, many others.

Alexandria was the greatest city the Western world had ever seen. People of all nations came there to live, to trade, to learn. On any given day, its harbors were thronged with merchants, scholars and tourists. This was a city where Greeks, Egyptians, Arabs, Syrians, Hebrews, Persians, Nubians, Phoenicians, Italians, Gauls and Iberians exchanged merchandise and ideas. It is probably here that the word cosmopolitan realized its true meaning -- citizen, not just of a nation, but of the Cosmos. To be a citizen of the Cosmos...

Here clearly were the seeds of the modern world. What prevented them from taking root and flourishing? Why instead did the West slumber through a thousand years of darkness until Columbus and Copernicus and their contemporaries rediscovered the work done in Alexandria? I cannot give you a simple answer. But I do know this: there is no record, in the entire history of the Library, that any of its illustrious scientists and scholars ever seriously challenged the political, economic and religious assumptions of their society. The permanence of the stars was questioned; the justice of slavery was not. Science and learning in general were the preserve of a privileged few. The vast population of the city had not the vaguest notion of the great discoveries taking place within the Library. New findings were not explained or popularized. The research benefited them little. Discoveries in mechanics and steam technology were applied mainly to the perfection of weapons, the encouragement of superstition, the amusement of kings. The scientists never grasped the potential of machines to free people. The great intellectual achievements of antiquity had few immediate practical applications. Science never captured the imagination of the multitude. There was no counterbalance to stagnation, to pessimism, to the most abject surrenders to mysticism. When, at long last, the mob came to burn the Library down, there was nobody to stop them.

The last scientist who worked in the Library was a mathematician, astronomer, physicist and the head of the Neoplatonic school of philosophy -- an extraordinary range of accomplishments for any individual in any age. Her name was Hypatia. She was born in Alexandria in 370. At a time when women had few options and were treated as property, Hypatia moved freely and unselfconsciously through traditional male domains. By all accounts she was a great beauty. She had many suitors but rejected all offers of marriage. The Alexandria of Hypatia's time -- by then long under Roman rule -- was a city under grave strain. Slavery had sapped classical civilization of its vitality. The growing Christian Church was consolidating its power and attempting to eradicate pagan influence and culture. Hypatia stood at the epicenter of these mighty social forces. Cyril, the Archbishop of Alexandria, despised her because of her close friendship with the Roman governor, and because she was a symbol of learning and science, which were largely identified by the early Church with paganism In great personal danger, she continued to teach and publish, until, in the year 415, on her way to work she was set upon by a fanatical mob of Cyril's parishioners. They dragged her from her chariot, tore off her clothes, and armed with abalone shells, flayed her flesh from her bones. Her remains were burned, her works obliterated, her name forgotten. Cyril was made a saint.

The glory of the Alexandrian Library is a dim memory. Its last remnants were destroyed soon after Hypatia's death. It was as if the entire civilization had undergone some self-inflicted brain surgery, and most of its memories, discoveries, ideas and passions were extinguished irrevocably. The loss was incalculable. In some cases, we know only the tantalizing titles of the works that were destroyed. In most cases, we know neither the titles nor the authors. We do know that of the 123 plays of Sophocles in the Library, only seven survived. One of those seven is Oedipus Rex. Similar numbers apply to the works of Aeschylus and Euripides. It is a little as if the only surviving works of a man named William Shakespeare were Coriolanus and A Winter's Tale, but we had heard that he had written certain other plays, unknown to us but apparently prized in his time, works entitled Hamlet, Macbeth, Julius Caesar, King Lear, Romeo and Juliet.

What happened to the Library's half-million scrolls? Accounts of the details vary; this is taken from The Vanished Library by Luciano Canfora:

The books were distributed to the public baths of Alexandria, where they were used to feed the stoves which kept the baths so comfortably warm. Ibn al-Kifti writes that 'the number of baths was well known, but I have forgotten it' (we have Eutychius's word that there were in fact four thousand). 'They say,' continues Ibn al-Kifti, 'that it took six months to burn all that mass of material.'

Aristotle's books were the only ones spared.

Return to Honors 1500 home page

Last modified on Thursday January 27, 2005.

And another internet posting -

The Mysterious Fate of the Great Library of Alexandria

Other articles of interest:

The Decline and End of Witch Trials in Europe
The Myth of Conflict in the History of Science and Religion
Medieval Science and the Church
Christianity and the Rise of Science
Copernicus and his Revolutions
Christianity and the Loss of Pagan Literature
Contents

Introduction

Julius Caesar

Theophilus

Omar

A much more detailed and heavily footnoted paper about the libraries of Alexandria, their foundation and their fate is available here.

Note: When a reference is given in Green then holding your mouse over it will cause a note to appear that gives the text of the reference. Longer references, given in Red, will appear in a new window as long as your brower supports Javascript. I believe that giving ready access to the original sources should be one of the primary aims of scholarship on the Internet.

Introduction

What happened to the Royal Library of Alexandria? We can be certain it was there once, founded by Ptolomy II Soter, and we can be equally certain it is not there now. It formed part of the Museum which was located in the Bruchion or palace quarter of the city of Alexandria. This great ancient city, occupying a spit of land on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea, had been founded by Alexander the Great in his flying visit to Egypt and became the capital of the last dynasty of Pharaohs descended from Alexander's general Ptolemy. The Great or more properly Royal Library formed a part of the Museum but whether or not it was a separate building is unclear.

Stories about its demise have been circulating for centuries and date back to at least the first century AD. These stories continue to be told and embellished today by those who wish to make a moral attack against the alleged vandals. We find that three parties are blamed for the destruction and they correspond to the three occupying powers that ruled Alexandria after it had been lost by the Greeks. Let me first tell those stories as we hear them today - without references, largely inaccurate and used as polemic. Then I will try and establish what, if anything we can know before finally and rather indulgently making my own suggestions.

The suspects respectively are a Roman, a Christian and a Moslem - Julius Caesar, Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria and Caliph Omar of Damascus. It is clear that the Royal Library could not have been burnt down or otherwise destroyed by all three of these characters and so we find we have too many sources for the event of the destruction rather than a paucity. As scholars of the Gospels will vouch, this too can be an embarrassment. How we decide to reconcile the stories will depend almost entirely on how we criticise the sources and which of them we choose to consider most reliable.

Archaeology can be a help with ancient history although it tends to be silent about the things in which we are most interested leading the more foolish archaeologists to claim they never happened. In the case of Alexandria a series of earthquakes and floods in the middle ages mean that the entire palace quarter in the North East of the city is now underwater and largely inaccessible. Recent work in underwater archaeology has revealed more but we will probably never be able to dig around in the foundations of the Museum. The Great Temple of Serapis, to which we will later return, was in the south-western quarter and parts of its foundations have been excavated.

Julius Caesar

First, let us read the legendary account:

It is often said that the Romans were civilised but their most famous general was responsible for the greatest act of vandalism during antiquity. Julius Caesar was attacking Alexandria in pursuit of his archrival Pompey when he found himself about to be cut off by the Egyptian fleet. Realising that this would leave him in a desperate predicament, he took decisive action and sent fire ships into the harbour. His plan was a success and the enemy fleet was quickly aflame. But the fire did not stop these and jumped onto the dockside which was laden with flammable materials ready for export. Next it spread in land and before anyone could stop it, the Great Library itself was blazing brightly as 400,000 priceless scrolls were reduced to ashes. As for Caesar himself, did not think it important enough to mention in his memoirs.

The accused was indeed in Alexandria in 47 - 48 BC after arriving in pursuit of his rival Pompey. Caesar was able to occupy the city without any trouble after destroying the Egyptian fleet and was residing in the palace with Cleopatra when more trouble started. Some henchmen of the Pharaoh attacked with a sizable force and Caesar suddenly found himself stuck in a hostile city with very few forces. That he still won out is a tribute to his luck and powers of leadership. This much is uncontested but to unravel the fate of the Royal Library we must examine the ancient sources.

Julius Caesar - The Civil Wars

The earliest account we have of this these events is in The Civil Wars penned by Caesar (died 44BC) himself. In it he explains how he had to set the dockyards and Alexandrine fleet alight for his own safety as he was in dire straits. As to whether the fire spread away from the shore and also damaged the Royal Library, he is silent. The narrative in The Civil Wars break off at the start of the campaign in Egypt and the story is taken up by one of his lieutenant's called Hirtius (died 43BC) in The Alexandrine War. It does not include any mention of setting fire to Alexandria but instead states that in fact the city would not burn as it was made purely of stone.

We can log this as a Not Guilty plea by the accused but note that a reason he might have mentioned that Alexandria does not burn would be to hide his own action of burning it. Future history demonstrated many times that Alexandria burns just as well as any other city. The fire is also not mentioned by Cicero in his philippics against Caesar's ally Mark Anthony. This is a valuable witness for the defence, as Cicero did not like Caesar at all. Unfortunately it is also an argument from silence and it is very possible that Cicero either did not know about everything that happened, saw no need to mention this particular event or mentioned it in the quarter of his works no longer extant.

Strabo - Geography

The great scholar, Strabo (died after 24AD) was in Alexandria in 20BC and in all his detailed description of the palace and Museum does not mention the library at all. This omission is often explained by scholars claiming that the library was inside the Museum or annexed to it. But even so, not breathing a word about this famous institution is very suspicious. Can we conclude that the library was no longer there but that political constraints meant that its fate still could not be mentioned?

Modern writer, Mostafa El-Abbadi, comes up with a more subtle point. He shows how Strabo mentions the body of research available to one of the earlier librarians was much greater than Strabo himself had access to. He concludes that this shows that Strabo did not have access to the wisdom of the Royal Library that his illustrious predecessor had. The point is small but potentially significant.

Livy and Florus - Epitome of the History of Rome

The first mention of the fire at Alexandria would seem to come from Livy (died 17AD) in his History of Rome. The book that it was included in is lost and the surviving Summaries are too brief to include it. However, a second century Epitome written by Florus survives and it says that the fire was started by Caesar to clear the area around his position so the enemy had no cover from which to fire arrows. The library itself is not mentioned by Florus although it was in the same area of the city as Caesar who was occupying the palace at the time.

The Younger Seneca - On Tranquillity of the Mind

In fact we do know that the Royal Library is mentioned by Livy because he is later quoted by Seneca (died 65AD) in his dialogue On the Tranquillity of the Mind where he also says that a great number of books were destroyed. It has been asserted that Seneca must have got his knowledge about the destruction of the books from Livy but a close reading of the dialogue does not bear this out. Seneca actually only states that Livy thought the library was "the most distinguished achievement of the good taste and solicitude of kings" and then only so as he can disagree.

The actual number of books destroyed that Seneca gives is matter of some controversy that we will need to briefly address. In ancient manuscripts it is common for large numbers to be expressed as a dot placed above the numeral for each power of ten. Clearly in copying it is easy to make a mistake with the number of dots and errors by a factor of ten are frequent. That may have happened in the case of On the Tranquillity of the Mind. The manuscript from Monte Cassino actually reads 40,000 books but this is usually corrected to 400,000 by editors as other sources such as Orosius give this figure for the number of scrolls destroyed. I have not seen the manuscript, of course, so do not know if this way the number is expressed. However, even if it was given in words the difference between 40,000 and 400,000 is also pretty small. I propose therefore that the number given by Seneca, and indeed all other ancient sources, should be ruled as inadmissible as evidence because we cannot be sure of what it was originally.

Plutarch and Dio Cassius - Life of Caesar and Roman History

After this, the references become more explicit. Plutarch (died 120AD), in his Life of Caesar throws in a reference to the destruction of the library almost casually. Now Plutarch does not seem to carry a brief against Caesar, although he is happy to criticise him, so we should take this reference seriously. Additionally, he had visited Alexandria and presumably might have noticed if the library was still in existence. Dio Cassius (died 235AD) tells us that warehouses of books near the docks were accidentally burnt by Caesar's men. His words are difficult to pin down and have led some scholars to suggest that only books waiting for export were destroyed. This reads far more into the text than it allows and I do not think that Dio saying that the books 'happened' to be in the path of the flames means that usually they were kept somewhere else.

Aulus Gellius - Attic Nights

Gellius (died 180 AD) included in his Attic Nights contain a brief passage about libraries where the destruction of the Royal Library is mentioned as taking place by accident during our first war against Alexandria when auxiliary soldiers started a fire. This first war was Caesar's campaign and the second was when Octavian took Egypt from Mark Anthony and Cleopatra. In The Vanished Library, Luciano Canfora claims that this passage is an interpolation on the strength that the introduction does not mention it but again the evidence for this seems flimsy. Gellius claims 700,000 books went up in smoke.

Ammianus Marcellinus and Orosius - Roman History and History against the Pagans

One of the final pagan Roman historians, Ammianus Marcellinus (died 395AD), tells us about the fate of the library during an aside about the city of Alexandria in his Roman History. He relates the story of the fire started by Julius Caesar is 'the unanimous belief of the ancient authors' but confuses the library building with the Serapeum and increases the number of scrolls destroyed to 700,000 (perhaps Gellius is his source). The story is repeated with the figure of 400,000 scrolls destroyed by Orosius (died after 415AD), an early Christian historian, in his History against the Pagans. Both these writers are far too late to be accurate sources on their own but they do tell us that by the fourth century the Royal Library was widely believed to have been destroyed by Julius Caesar. We will be discussing them further below with regard to the destruction of the Serapeum which occurred in their own time.

The verdict on Caesar

Taken together we can conclude a number of things from these sources:

The earliest descriptions of the Alexandrine War, written by Caesar or his crony, deliberately cover up anything that reflects badly on the great man. Their silence about burning down the world's greatest library, even by accident, is not surprising.
The library as a separate building did not exist by the time of Strabo's visit in 20BC.
The belief that Caesar had destroyed the library was widespread by the time his family no longer occupied the throne of the emperors in the late first century AD. Plutarch, Gellius and Seneca are all evidence for this. We must therefore assume that the library did not exist at this time. Plutarch, a Greek, would certainly have known if it did.
Although we cannot prove his guilt with first hand evidence, it seems justified to claim that the book stacks of the Royal Library were burnt down by Julius Caesar. Perhaps the reading rooms, which in any case were part of the Museum, survived but, as Seneca and all the other sources tell us, the books themselves perished. That scholarship continued in Alexandria after this time cannot be doubted but I can find no explicit mention of the Royal Library after Caesar's ill-fated visit. Indeed as Athenaeus of Naucratis (died after 200AD) mournfully wrote in the Deipnosophistai "And concerning the number of books and the establishment of libraries and the collection in the Museum, why need I even speak when they are all the the memory of men."

Theophilus

Again, the legendary story first:

Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, is also the patron saint of arsonists. As Christianity slowly strangled the life out of classical culture in the fourth century it became more and more difficult to be a pagan. There stood in Alexandria the great temple of Serapis called the Serapeum and attached to it was the Great Library of Alexandria where all the wisdom of the ancients was preserved. Now Theophilus knew that as long as this knowledge existed people would be less inclined to believe the bible so he set about destroying the pagan temples. But the Serapeum was a huge structure, high on a mound and beyond the abilities of the raging Christian fanatics to assault. Faced with this edifice, the Patriarch sent word to Rome. There the Emperor Theodosius the Great, who had ordered that paganism be annihilated, gave his permission for the destruction of the Serapeum. Realising they had no chance, the priests and priestesses fled their temple and the mob moved in. The vast structure was razed to it foundations and the scrolls from the library were burnt in huge pyres in the streets of Alexandria.

Theophilus was indeed the Patriarch of Alexandria at the time that the Serapeum was converted into a Christian church although he has never been made a saint! The date for the events recorded is usually given as 391AD when Theodosius was emperor and energetically converting all his subjects to Christianity. The contention made is that there was another library in the Serapeum temple that a Christian mob destroyed during their sacking of the temple. We need to establish if there really was a library there and also if Theophilus destroyed it.

The intervening years

About the library the sources are reasonably silent but this is not a surprise because we know already that we cannot be talking about the Royal Library itself. However, Alexandria remained a centre of scholarship and other libraries existed. The Emperor Claudius set up the eponymous named Claudian to be a centre for the study of history and Hadrian founded a library at the Caesarean temple during his visit. Less reliably, Plutarch informs us that Mark Anthony gave Cleopatra the entire contents - some 200,000 rolls - of the Pergamon library as a gift.

The 12th century Byzantine scholar, John Tzetzes, in his Prolegomena to Aristophanes preserves some details about the catalogue of the poet Callimachus (died after 250BC) who said there were nearly 500,000 scrolls in the Royal Library and another 42,000 odd in the outer or public library. Note that Callimachus is not known to have referred to the Serapeum Library although he is often assumed to be doing so. The fourth century Bishop Epiphanius of Cyprus (died 402AD) in his Weights and Measures (actually a biblical commentary!) says that there were over 50,000 volumes in the 'daughter' library that he places in the Serapeum. Our previous observations about numbers fully apply here even if it seems fair to say that there were many fewer scrolls in the daughter than in the Royal Library. Epiphanius also tells us that by his day the entire Bruchion quarter of Alexandria was laid waste, no doubt due to the actions of Aurelian or Diocletian. There is a detailed report of the acropolis of Alexandria in a Progymnasmata by Aphthonius of Ephesus (died after 400AD) which he presents as an example of how to give a description. He speaks of book repositories open to the public and we can assume this refers to the Serapeum. Unfortunately the date of the description is impossible to determine and nor can we tell if it is an eyewitness account. However, we do have enough evidence in total to assert that there was once a library at the Serapeum even if it is not the same as the 'outer library' attached to the Royal Library.

Despite the continuation of academic activity, Alexandria suffered much in the years up to 391AD. Augustus reduced it, Caracalla massacred many of its citizens over a perceived insult and Aurelian also sacked the city and the palace quarter in which the Museum was situated. Finally, the city was taken with great destruction by Diocletian at the start of the fourth century.

Ammianus Marcellinus - Roman History

In the Roman History, Ammianus waxes lyrical about the Serapeum but he then gets a bit confused and says that the libraries it held were those burnt by Caesar in the Alexandrine War. The point is perhaps vital though because he had visited Alexandria and yet says of the Serapeum "in it have been valuable libraries" in the perfect tense. This was before 391AD when Theophilus and his gang set to work and very strongly suggests there were no books present in the temple at the time of its destruction.

Rufinus Tyrannius - Ecclesiastical History

The earliest description of the sack of the Serapeum was almost certainly one by Sophronius, a Christian scholar, called On the Overthrow of Serapis and now lost. Rufinus (died 410AD) was an orthodox Latin Christian who spent many years of his life in Alexandria. He arrived in 372AD and whether or not he was actually present when the Serapeum was demolished, he was certainly there at around the same time. He rather freely translated Eusebius's History of the Church into Latin and then added his own books X and XI taking the narrative up to his own time. It is in book XI that we find the best source for the events at the Serapeum which he describes in detail. His account largely agrees with the one given above except that he makes no mention of any library or books at all. He seems to regret the passing of the Serapeum but puts the blame squarely on the local pagans for inciting the Christian mob. The only English translation of his work is still very much in copyright so until I have produced another myself the reader will just have to take my word for it.

Eunapius - Lives of the Philosophers

The pagan writer Eunapius of Antioch (died after 400AD) included an account of the sack of the Serapeum in his Life of Antonius who, before he died in 390AD, had prophesied that all the pagan temples in Alexandria would be destroyed (not a desperately surprising contingency at the time). Eunapius wants to show how right he was. As well as being a pagan, Eunapius is vehemently anti-Christian and spares no effort in making Theophilus and his followers look as foolish as possible. His narrative is laced with venom and sarcasm as he describes the sack of the temple as a battle without an enemy. If a great library had been destroyed then Eunapius, the pagan scholar, would surely have mentioned it. He does not.

Socrates Scholasticus, Hermias Sozomen and Theodoret

Socrates (died after 450AD) also wrote a History of the Church that continued on from that of Eusebius. His was more detailed and in Greek rather than Latin. It contains a chapter about the destruction of the Serapeum which acknowledges that the deed was ordered by the Emperor, that the building was demolished and that it was later converted to a church. Again, no mention is made of any books that might have been in the Serapeum or what could have happened to them. His passage about the cross-shaped hieroglyphics found in the temple gives us some idea of how Christianity turned various pagan symbols to its advantage.

The histories of Sozomen (died 443AD) and Theodoret (died after 457AD) cover a similar period. Despite being pleased to report in detail the Serapeum's destruction they also make mention no books at all although Theodoret says that the wooden idols of Serapis were burnt. Both of these histories are heavily dependent on Socrates but do include details from other sources.

Paulus Orosius - History against the Pagans

Orosius (died after 415AD) was a friend of Saint Augustine who wrote a History against the Pagans that was fully intended to paint all non-Christians in a bad light. So as a historian he is useless but when he says something that suggests that his fellow Christians were not whiter than white, that is to say, against the grain of his usual bias, we have to take it seriously. In his aside on the Great Library, he says something of significance which is both an eyewitness detail and suggests that his fellow Christians are in the wrong. He says "…there exist in temples book chests which we ourselves have seen and when these temples were plundered these, we are told, were emptied by our own men in our own time." His statement that there was no other major library in Alexandria at the time of Caesar's expedition is interesting and would seem to count against there being a Serapeum library at that time. However, Orosius is too late a source to carry much weight in this matter.

From Orosius we can deduce that Christians did empty some temples of books but we cannot go much further. We cannot say the books were destroyed as this is not stated nor can we say which temples he is talking about or who was responsible. However, we can be sure he was not talking about the Serapeum as all sources agree it was razed to the ground and the temples Orosius visited are not only still standing but even have their internal furninshings. The most likely explanation is that the books were removed to Christian libraries or sold.

The verdict on Theophilus

It is hard enough to establish beyond doubt that there was a library in the Serapeum at all but if there was, Ammianus makes clear that it was no longer there by the mid-fourth century. This is confirmed by the silence of all the sources, including one that would be keen to report Christian atrocities, for the destruction of the temple in 391AD. Note that this is not an 'argument from silence' because there is no reason at all to expect a mention of books in the Serapeum when it was demolished. An invalid 'argument from silence' is when we claim something that is not mentioned did not happen, even though other evidence suggests it did. There is no positive evidence for the existence of the library and instead near conclusive eye witness evidence against.

The story that Theophilus destroyed a library is clearly a fiction that we can very precisely lay at the door of Edward Gibbon. It is in his monumental Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that we first find the allegation made. Gibbon seems mainly concerned to clear the Arabs of the responsibility of destroying the library and allows his marked anti-Christian prejudice to cloud his better judgement. His excellent footnotes show he had exactly the same sources as we do but drew the wrong conclusions. The story has recently been popularised by Carl Sagan who includes it in Cosmos. He spices the story up with a role for the murdered philosopher Hypatia, even though there is no evidence connecting her to the library at all.

Caliph Omar

First the legendary account:

The Moslems invaded Egypt during the seventh century as their fanaticism carried them on conquests that would take form an empire stretching from Spain to India. There was not much of a struggle in Egypt and the locals found the rule of the Caliph to be more tolerant than that of the Byzantines before them. However, when a Christian called John informed the local Arab general that there existed in Alexandria a great Library preserving all the knowledge in the world he was perturbed. Eventually he sent word to Mecca where Caliph Omar ordered that all the books in the library should be destroyed because, as he said "they will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous." Therefore, the books and scrolls were taken out of the library and distributed as fuel to the many bathhouses of the city. So enormous was the volume of literature that it took six months for it all to be burnt to ashes heating the saunas of the conquerors.

The leader of the Moslem forces that took Egypt in 640AD was called 'Amr and it was he who was supposed to have asked Omar what to do about the fabled library that he found himself in control of.

There are only a few sources that we need to examine. They are very late The first of the two late sources dates from the 12th century and is written by Abd al Latif (died 1231) who, in his Account of Egypt while describing Alexandria, mentions of the ruins of the Serapeum. The problems with this as historical evidence are enormous and insurmountable. He admits that the source of his information was rumour and the fantasy about Aristotle does not bode well for the veracity of the rest of the piece.

In the thirteenth century the great Jacobite Christian Bishop Gregory Bar Hebræus (died 1286), called Abû 'l Faraj in Arabic, fleshes the story out and includes the famous epigram about the Koran. Again there is no clue as to where he found the story but it seems to have been one doing the rounds among Christians living under the dominion of the Moslems. Gregory is happy to record plenty of far fetched tales about omens and monstrosities so we must treat this story with the greatest suspicion. As it is not even included in the original version of his history but only in the Arabic version that he translated and abridged himself very late in life, he may not have known the story when he first put pen to parchment. In The Vanished Library, Canfora mentions a Syriac manuscript published in Paris at the end of the nineteenth century by François Nau. It was written by a Christian monk in the ninth century and details the conversation between John and Caliph Omar. After help from email correspondents, I have finally been able to find this elusive document in its French translation and ascertained that it makes no mention of any library and appears to be an example of a theological dialogue between two representative individuals. In other words it is not historical and has no pretensions to be.

The verdict on Omar

The errors in the sources are obvious and the story itself is almost wholly incredible. In the first place, Gregory Bar Hebræus represents the Christian in his story as being one John of Byzantium and that John was certainly dead by the time of the Moslem invasion of Egypt. Also, the prospect of the library taking six months to burn is simply fantastic and just the sort of exaggeration one might expect to find in Arab legends such as the Arabian Nights. However Alfred Butler's famous observation that the books of the library were made of vellum which does not burn is not true. The very late dates of the source material are also suspect as there is no hint of this atrocity in any early literature - even in the Coptic Christian chronicle of John of Nikiou (died after 640AD) who detailed the Arab invasion. Finally, the story comes from the hand of a Christian intellectual who would have been more than happy to show the religion of his rulers in a bad light. Agreeing with Gibbon this time, we can dismiss it as a legend.

All quotations from or references to this essay should be accompanied by a link back to this page and the name of the author. This essay may be reproduced only with permission of the author although such permission will not normally be declined.

Back to contents

Contact me

Home

© James Hannam 2003.
Last revised: 17 August, 2006 .

The Koran is all the "library" that Islam acknowledges.

The rest is considered either disposably redundant or heretically deserving of the flames.

Islam: no doubt absurd.