| ▲ | notorandit 8 hours ago |
| I Hope more and more fragments of anything lost is found. The burn down of Alexandria library was a pity |
|
| ▲ | bluGill 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Evidence for this common myth is lacking. https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/the-great-library-of-a... |
| |
| ▲ | wrqvrwvq 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | People say this without any evidence. This ai-post is just regurgitating hn-thread "received wisdom". The evidence for the existence of a library is thin and hard to piece together, but points to more than a myth.
I appreciate that people want real proof of anything, but dumping an ai-slop summary is hardly doing any better than accepting the existence of a large library. | | |
| ▲ | adastra22 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The Library almost certainly existed. It is the destruction (by deliberate fire) that is probably myth. | | |
| ▲ | z3phyr 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Its destruction multiple times (in sieges and uncontrolled fires) is current historical consensus. | | |
| ▲ | toenail 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Historical consensus? So the non scientific view? Science is not consensus based. | | |
| ▲ | tsimionescu 10 minutes ago | parent [-] | | If you want to know what the science says on some topic, you have exactly two valid options: 1. Become an expert in said topic, reading the broad literature, becoming familiar with points and counterpoints, figuring out how research actually works in the field by contributing some papers of your own, and forming your own personal informed opinion on the preponderance of the evidence. 2. Look at the experts' consensus on said topic Of course, you have other options. A popular one is to adopt the view of one expert in the field that you happen to like, who may or may not accept the consensus view - but this is far more arbitrary than 1 or 2. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | jmyeet 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is a common refrain but in reality I'm not sure it made much difference. Papyrus just doesn't age well and most manuscripts from this era would've been on papyrus. What really decided what texts survived and what didn't was monastic traditions in in the Dark Ages and Middle Ages [1]. At this time, a monk might spend their entire life transcribing a particularly long manuscript. The materials were also expensive. So monasteries were selective in what got retain and unsurprisingly it skewed heavily to texts of religious significance and then to texts of significance to, say, Roman and Greek tradition and history given that monasteries were European. [1]: https://spokenpast.com/articles/medieval-monks-erased-preser... |
| |
| ▲ | jrumbut 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It was a little before that even. Greek was the language of most fields of learning besides law in the Roman Empire. But the Greeks themselves wrote works on these papyrus scrolls that crumbled fast, so anything not actively used by the Romans was quickly lost. There's a good chance that if the papyrus scrolls in any library (Alexandria or otherwise) weren't being copied regularly they were crumbling even before they burned or were lost to time for other reasons. Towards the end of the Roman Empire, a few philosophers took the time to transmit Greek knowledge in Latin as knowledge of Greek faded in western Europe. What these guys happened to translate was the basis of most of European learning in philosophy, math, and other fields for centuries. But they weren't monks (the most famous, Boethius, was not Christian either but a lot of later writers thought he was), the monks in scriptorium came later and grew slowly. St. Benedict said that monks should be taught to read and do so regularly, which required copying books, but he prioritized physical work (to create self-sufficient communities) and prayer. But future Benedictines responded to the incentives of the time and began scaling up the copying and doing less agricultural work as the years went on. | | | |
| ▲ | nonethewiser 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Thanks for sharing. Maybe not as common as you think. I never heard that before. |
|
|
| ▲ | wavefunction 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It probably held a bunch of relatively boring local administrative records as far as "documents found only in the Library of Alexandria" from what I've read. Of course some scholars of the boring administrative history of the world would be thrilled though. |
| |
| ▲ | krapp 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | As far as I know the vast majority of cuneiform we have is essentially administrative records, tax record and receipts. And homework. That's the stuff that tells us how societies and cultures really worked. |
|
|
| ▲ | ButlerianJihad 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| For some reason, there is a gigantic and ancient monastery on Mount Sinai with a commensurate collection of ancient manuscripts and papyri. Totally coincidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Catherine%27s_Monastery#... How did all that stuff get up there? It was holy angels. #itsalwaysangels |
| |
| ▲ | mistrial9 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | those are certainly Christian curated documents. The previous six hundred+ years had seen the development of vivid and exotic religion, philosophy and arts. The Christians famously slew the Dragons, condemned Herod as a sorcerer and astrologer, and replaced the Apollo cults with the scripture that many know well. I imagine that the Library of Alexandria was plural and diverse with respect to the traditions and inquiry that was represented there. | | |
| ▲ | wavefunction 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The early Egyptian Christians were a particularly violent bunch. Lots of murders and political scheming against each other and other Christian authorities in the larger world of the Late Antique. They came to power in Alexandria by murder and looting, specifically |
|
|
|
| ▲ | andrepd 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Everybody knows it's under Uncle Scrooge's money bin. Spoiler alert. |