Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-29-2010, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

...
Please, does anyone here know the full details of Ammianus's extant description of his Serapeum visit, and does he make any reference to what he himself saw/didn't see with reference to a library? Could it even be possible that the Ammianus description may be viewable on the Web, hopefully in an English translation?

Thanks,

Chaucer

There is Ammianus Online Project

Quote:

Ammianus probably completed his Res Gestae in the early 390s. In Book 22 he mentions the great temple of Alexandria, the Serapeum, comparing its beauty with the Capitol. Had he known about the destruction of this temple by gangs of monks in the summer of 391, he would most probably have mentioned it. Yet he mentions the death of the senator Petronius Probus in 390. So his Res Gestae must have been completed between 390 and 392, since the news about the Serapeum would have reached Rome at the latest in 392. With the ending of his work our knowledge of Ammianus Marcellinus also ends.

Book 22 is online at tertullian.org

This seems to be the relevant part:

Quote:

12. Besides this there are many lofty temples, and especially one to Serapis, which, although no words can adequately describe it, we may yet say, from its splendid halls supported by pillars, and its beautiful statues and other embellishments, is so superbly decorated, that next to the Capitol, of which the ever-venerable Rome boasts, the whole world has nothing worthier of admiration.

This does not sound like it refers to the distant past.

Check it out for yourself.

Chaucer · 07-29-2010, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

...
Please, does anyone here know the full details of Ammianus's extant description of his Serapeum visit, and does he make any reference to what he himself saw/didn't see with reference to a library? Could it even be possible that the Ammianus description may be viewable on the Web, hopefully in an English translation?

Thanks,

Chaucer

There is Ammianus Online Project

Book 22 is online at tertullian.org

This seems to be the relevant part:

Quote:

12. Besides this there are many lofty temples, and especially one to Serapis, which, although no words can adequately describe it, we may yet say, from its splendid halls supported by pillars, and its beautiful statues and other embellishments, is so superbly decorated, that next to the Capitol, of which the ever-venerable Rome boasts, the whole world has nothing worthier of admiration.

This does not sound like it refers to the distant past.

Check it out for yourself.

Thanks very much. Much appreciated. Here's the relevant passage in its entirety --

12. Besides this there are many lofty temples, and especially one to Serapis, which, although no words can adequately describe it, we may yet say, from its splendid halls supported by pillars, and its beautiful statues and other embellishments, is so superbly decorated, that next to the Capitol, of which the ever-venerable Rome boasts, the whole world has nothing worthier of admiration.

13. In it were libraries of inestimable value; and the concurrent testimony of ancient records affirm that 70,000 volumes, which had been collected by the anxious care of the Ptolemies, were burnt in the Alexandrian war when the city was sacked in the time of Caesar the Dictator.

-- Thoughts, please?

Thanks,

Chaucer

Toto · 07-29-2010, 06:38 PM

I think that 13 refers to the well known burning of the library by Caesar some centuries before. But the temple to Serapis referred to in 12 was still standing when this was written, so its contents were presumably still there.

PhilosopherJay · 07-29-2010, 08:38 PM

Hi Chaucer,

This from wikipedia:

Quote:

The anonymous author of the Alexandrian Wars writes that the fires Caesar's soldiers had set to burn the Egyptian navy in the port of Alexandria went as far as burning a store full of papyri located near the port.[12] However, the geographical study of the location of the historical Bibliotheca Alexandrina in the neighborhood of Bruchion suggests that this store cannot have been the Great Library.[13] It is most probable here that these historians confused the two Greek words bibliothekas, which means “set of books”, with bibliotheka, which means library. As a result, they thought that what had been recorded earlier concerning the burning of some books stored near the port constituted the burning of the famous Alexandrian Library. In any case, whether the burned books were only some books found in storage or books found inside the library itself, the Roman stoic philosopher Seneca (c. 4 BCE – CE 65) refers to 40,000 books having been burnt at Alexandria. During Marcus Antonius' rule of the eastern part of the Empire (40-30 BCE), he plundered the second largest library in the world (that at Pergamon) and presented the collection as a gift to Cleopatra as a replacement for the books lost to Caesar's fire. Abaddi speaks to this story as anti-Antony propaganda, from Rome, to show his loyalty to Egypt.

Anti-Antony propaganda or not the Library of Alexandria must have still been intact and housing books if Antony sent thousands of books to be housed there or if a rumor was started to that effect.

Thus we may take it that the text of Ammianus is wrong and the Library at Alexandria was not burned in the time of Julius Caesar. Whether this is a mistake made by Ammianus or a Christian forgery to shift the blame for the destruction of the Great Library from the Christians to the Romans is anybody's guess at this point.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There is Ammianus Online Project

Book 22 is online at tertullian.org

This seems to be the relevant part:

This does not sound like it refers to the distant past.

Check it out for yourself.

Thanks very much. Much appreciated. Here's the relevant passage in its entirety --

12. Besides this there are many lofty temples, and especially one to Serapis, which, although no words can adequately describe it, we may yet say, from its splendid halls supported by pillars, and its beautiful statues and other embellishments, is so superbly decorated, that next to the Capitol, of which the ever-venerable Rome boasts, the whole world has nothing worthier of admiration.

13. In it were libraries of inestimable value; and the concurrent testimony of ancient records affirm that 70,000 volumes, which had been collected by the anxious care of the Ptolemies, were burnt in the Alexandrian war when the city was sacked in the time of Caesar the Dictator.

-- Thoughts, please?

Thanks,

Chaucer

Chaucer · 07-29-2010, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Chaucer,

This from wikipedia:

Quote:

The anonymous author of the Alexandrian Wars writes that the fires Caesar's soldiers had set to burn the Egyptian navy in the port of Alexandria went as far as burning a store full of papyri located near the port.[12] However, the geographical study of the location of the historical Bibliotheca Alexandrina in the neighborhood of Bruchion suggests that this store cannot have been the Great Library.[13] It is most probable here that these historians confused the two Greek words bibliothekas, which means “set of books”, with bibliotheka, which means library. As a result, they thought that what had been recorded earlier concerning the burning of some books stored near the port constituted the burning of the famous Alexandrian Library. In any case, whether the burned books were only some books found in storage or books found inside the library itself, the Roman stoic philosopher Seneca (c. 4 BCE – CE 65) refers to 40,000 books having been burnt at Alexandria. During Marcus Antonius' rule of the eastern part of the Empire (40-30 BCE), he plundered the second largest library in the world (that at Pergamon) and presented the collection as a gift to Cleopatra as a replacement for the books lost to Caesar's fire. Abaddi speaks to this story as anti-Antony propaganda, from Rome, to show his loyalty to Egypt.

Anti-Antony propaganda or not the Library of Alexandria must have still been intact and housing books if Antony sent thousands of books to be housed there or if a rumor was started to that effect.

Thus we may take it that the text of Ammianus is wrong and the Library at Alexandria was not burned in the time of Julius Caesar. Whether this is a mistake made by Ammianus or a Christian forgery to shift the blame for the destruction of the Great Library from the Christians to the Romans is anybody's guess at this point.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Thanks very much. Much appreciated. Here's the relevant passage in its entirety --

12. Besides this there are many lofty temples, and especially one to Serapis, which, although no words can adequately describe it, we may yet say, from its splendid halls supported by pillars, and its beautiful statues and other embellishments, is so superbly decorated, that next to the Capitol, of which the ever-venerable Rome boasts, the whole world has nothing worthier of admiration.

13. In it were libraries of inestimable value; and the concurrent testimony of ancient records affirm that 70,000 volumes, which had been collected by the anxious care of the Ptolemies, were burnt in the Alexandrian war when the city was sacked in the time of Caesar the Dictator.

-- Thoughts, please?

Thanks,

Chaucer

Anyone here know what's the latest guess as to the date of the anonymous Alexandrian Wars text versus that of Ammianus's text? One or the other may well be significantly earlier; I admit I simply don't know.

Thanks,

Chaucer

PhilosopherJay · 07-30-2010, 10:34 AM

Hi Chaucer,

the anonymous author of the Alexandrian War appears to have written shorty after the war in 48-47 B.C.E. Probably before Caesar died in 44 B.C.E.

Ammianus, apparently composed his history between 371 and 391 C.E.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Chaucer,

This from wikipedia:

Anti-Antony propaganda or not the Library of Alexandria must have still been intact and housing books if Antony sent thousands of books to be housed there or if a rumor was started to that effect.

Thus we may take it that the text of Ammianus is wrong and the Library at Alexandria was not burned in the time of Julius Caesar. Whether this is a mistake made by Ammianus or a Christian forgery to shift the blame for the destruction of the Great Library from the Christians to the Romans is anybody's guess at this point.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Anyone here know what's the latest guess as to the date of the anonymous Alexandrian Wars text versus that of Ammianus's text? One or the other may well be significantly earlier; I admit I simply don't know.

Thanks,

Chaucer

PhilosopherJay · 07-30-2010, 11:11 AM

Hi Chuacer,

The blog states, "So the idea that any "Library of Alexandria" or any library at all was destroyed by the Christian mob in AD 391 is simply without evidential foundation."

Yet, the Christian historian Orosius writing in 416 states that he saw the ruined bookcases in the temple of Serapis which were destroyed "by the men of our age". He seems to suggest that the 400,000 scrolls that were destroyed were actually the scrolls from the Great Library of Alexandria. Thus it is a contemporary Christian who gives us evidence that Christians did in fact destroy the books of the Great Library of Alexandria which were housed in the Great Temple of Serapis which Christians destroyed,

Ammianus described it this way:

"Its splendour is such that mere words can only do it an injustice but its great halls of columns and its wealth of lifelike statues and other works of art make it, next to the Capitol, which is the symbol of the eternity of immemorial Rome, the most magnificent building in the whole world. It contained two priceless libraries."

It may be that Ammianus was thinking that the Library of Pergamum and the Library of Alexandria was housed there in the past. It does not necessarily mean that it did not contain a library when the Christians destroyed it in 391.

So we have two vague testimonies, one from the 370's and 380's that the Library of Alexandria may have been housed in the Temple of Serapis and one from 416 suggesting that the Library of Alexandria was what was destroyed when the temple was destroyed by Christians in 416.

The blogger's statement, "So the idea that any "Library of Alexandria" or any library at all was destroyed by the Christian mob in AD 391 is simply without evidential foundation." appears to be quite false. Rather, one should say that the film "Agora" has an historical evidential foundation when it shows Christians destroying the Library of Alexandria.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Back in May, there was a thread on the historical accuracy of a brand new film on the ancient librarian Hypatia (http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....ighlight=agora). Since then, I've read a sobering article by an atheist on the Web that seriously questions its historical accuracy --

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2...ora-redux.html

I'm wondering if anyone here may have any more information on some of this blogger's points. Should we take them seriously? Thanks.

Chaucer

charles · 07-30-2010, 12:49 PM

I read that there were two libraries - the Royal Library and a library in the Caesareum

andrewcriddle · 07-31-2010, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Chuacer,

The blog states, "So the idea that any "Library of Alexandria" or any library at all was destroyed by the Christian mob in AD 391 is simply without evidential foundation."

Yet, the Christian historian Orosius writing in 416 states that he saw the ruined bookcases in the temple of Serapis which were destroyed "by the men of our age". He seems to suggest that the 400,000 scrolls that were destroyed were actually the scrolls from the Great Library of Alexandria. Thus it is a contemporary Christian who gives us evidence that Christians did in fact destroy the books of the Great Library of Alexandria which were housed in the Great Temple of Serapis which Christians destroyed,

Ammianus described it this way:

"Its splendour is such that mere words can only do it an injustice but its great halls of columns and its wealth of lifelike statues and other works of art make it, next to the Capitol, which is the symbol of the eternity of immemorial Rome, the most magnificent building in the whole world. It contained two priceless libraries."

It may be that Ammianus was thinking that the Library of Pergamum and the Library of Alexandria was housed there in the past. It does not necessarily mean that it did not contain a library when the Christians destroyed it in 391.

So we have two vague testimonies, one from the 370's and 380's that the Library of Alexandria may have been housed in the Temple of Serapis and one from 416 suggesting that the Library of Alexandria was what was destroyed when the temple was destroyed by Christians in 416.

The blogger's statement, "So the idea that any "Library of Alexandria" or any library at all was destroyed by the Christian mob in AD 391 is simply without evidential foundation." appears to be quite false. Rather, one should say that the film "Agora" has an historical evidential foundation when it shows Christians destroying the Library of Alexandria.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

The quote from Orosius_book6 is

Quote:

After having arranged his affairs in Thessaly, Caesar went to Alexandria. Upon seeing the head and ring of Pompey that were brought to him, he burst into tears. When he had betaken himself to the royal palace, he was cheated by the keepers, who, to prevent Caesar from getting the spoils, cunningly stripped their own temples in order that they might show that the royal treasures were gone and at the same time inflame the populace against Caesar. Moreover, Achillas, the royal commander, whose hands were stained with Pompey's blood, was also planning to kill Caesar. When he was ordered to dismiss his army consisting of twenty thousand armed troops, he not only scorned the order but even drew up his troops in battle array. During the combat orders were issued to set fire to the royal fleet, which by chance was drawn on shore. The flames spread to part of the city and there burned four hundred thousand books stored in a building which happened to be nearby. So perished that marvelous monument of the literary activity of our ancestors, who had gathered together so many great works of brilliant geniuses. In regard to this, however true it may be that in some of the temples there remain up to the present time book chests, which we ourselves have seen, and that, as we are told, these were emptied by our own men in our own day when these temples were plundered—this statement is true enough—yet it seems fairer to suppose that other collections had later been formed to rival the ancient love of literature, and not that there had once been another library which had books separate from the four hundred thousand volumes mentioned, and for that reason had escaped destruction.

What Orosius seems to be saying (accurately or inaccurately) is that:
a/ Julius Caesar destroyed the Library of Alexandria.
b/ Orosius has observed empty book chests in (unspecified) temples which he has been told were recently looted.
c/ Orosius does not believe that these allegedly recently looted book collections were the remains of the library of Alexandria.

Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay · 07-31-2010, 10:07 AM

Hi Andrew,

Note that Orosius says, "we are told, these were emptied by our own men in our own day when these temples were plundered—this statement is true enough". He says that the bookcases were "emptied" He does not say looted.

Let us say that we were discussing what happened to a cake that was on a refrigerator shelf. If I were to say that the shelf in the refrigerator was empty when I saw found it yesterday, but I saw Julius eating a cake last week, the implication would be that the shelf was empty because someone ate the cake on it -- that someone being Julius. The implication would not be that the cake was looted or moved some place else, but that the cake was eaten.

By talking about "burning books" and then talking about "empty bookshelves," he is giving the impression that the book shelves were emptied by burning the books.

Also note that he says, "It is fairer to suppose". He does not know if the 400,000 books burnt by the Christians of his time are the same books housed in the ancient library of Alexander, but it is fairer to suppose (in other words, better for the reputation of Christians) to say that they were burnt by Julius Caesar rather than saying that the 400,000 books the Christians of his time burned was that ancient collection.

In short, Orosius doesn't deny the opinion that the Christians burned what was essentially the collection of the Ancient Library of Alexandria, he just prefers to say that it was a new collection rather than the old one.

This suggests to me that blaming Julius Caesar was the Christian plan from the beginning. They knew that burning the ancient library of Alexandria would be considered a dastardly act, destroying much of the knowledge of the pre-Christian world, so they decided to do it, but pretend that it had already been burnt earlier. At the same time they would say that what they were burning was merely newer books collected since the time of Julius Caesar.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The quote from Orosius_book6 is

Quote:

After having arranged his affairs in Thessaly, Caesar went to Alexandria. Upon seeing the head and ring of Pompey that were brought to him, he burst into tears. When he had betaken himself to the royal palace, he was cheated by the keepers, who, to prevent Caesar from getting the spoils, cunningly stripped their own temples in order that they might show that the royal treasures were gone and at the same time inflame the populace against Caesar. Moreover, Achillas, the royal commander, whose hands were stained with Pompey's blood, was also planning to kill Caesar. When he was ordered to dismiss his army consisting of twenty thousand armed troops, he not only scorned the order but even drew up his troops in battle array. During the combat orders were issued to set fire to the royal fleet, which by chance was drawn on shore. The flames spread to part of the city and there burned four hundred thousand books stored in a building which happened to be nearby. So perished that marvelous monument of the literary activity of our ancestors, who had gathered together so many great works of brilliant geniuses. In regard to this, however true it may be that in some of the temples there remain up to the present time book chests, which we ourselves have seen, and that, as we are told, these were emptied by our own men in our own day when these temples were plundered—this statement is true enough—yet it seems fairer to suppose that other collections had later been formed to rival the ancient love of literature, and not that there had once been another library which had books separate from the four hundred thousand volumes mentioned, and for that reason had escaped destruction.

What Orosius seems to be saying (accurately or inaccurately) is that:
a/ Julius Caesar destroyed the Library of Alexandria.
b/ Orosius has observed empty book chests in (unspecified) temples which he has been told were recently looted.
c/ Orosius does not believe that these allegedly recently looted book collections were the remains of the library of Alexandria.

Andrew Criddle

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-29-2010, 06:38 PM	#23
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I think that 13 refers to the well known burning of the library by Caesar some centuries before. But the temple to Serapis referred to in 12 was still standing when this was written, so its contents were presumably still there.

07-30-2010, 12:49 PM	#28
charles Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Midwest Posts: 94	I read that there were two libraries - the Royal Library and a library in the Caesareum

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.