• Atelopus-zeteki@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 month ago

      Indeed. The one small comfort I take, is that many of the scrolls had already been removed before the burning. And hey, since you are committed, let’s take that time machine project off the back burner, solve the problem, and go back and retrieve those lost scrolls.

  • Phegan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 month ago

    I am more disappointed that I never got to visit the hanging gardens of Babylon.

    • The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I think it’s just the loss of knowledge. It would be like if somehow Wikipedia broke today or something with zero backups.

      • lunarul@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. By definition it’s not a primary source of information. Anything on Wikipedia comes should come from a trustworthy primary source. So technically there should be zero loss of knowledge if Wikipedia is lost. Just access would be harder (but still overall easier than it was for an average person to gain access to the library of Alexandria).

  • Thorry84@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    I don’t know why people are so hung up about this. The amount of knowledge lost was very little to basically none. The express purpose of the Library of Alexandria was to COPY important works from around the known world. People would bring information from around the world to them, they would copy the work and the original would be returned. This meant that by definition for every piece of information there would be at least one copy at the time of recording. And because only important works were copied, it’s likely a lot of copies existed. If the information was really pivotal, a lot of work would be based on it, so that’s even more copies. Plus it wasn’t the only place to do this, there were many more libraries around the ancient world that did the same thing. At the time it was burned, it had already been in decline for a while.

    So for all the people going on about how our world would look like if it hadn’t been lost, the answer is exactly the same. It had basically zero impact.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I don’t know why people are so hung up about this. The amount of knowledge lost was very little to basically none. The express purpose of the Library of Alexandria was to COPY important works from around the known world. People would bring information from around the world to them, they would copy the work and the original would be returned. This meant that by definition for every piece of information there would be at least one copy at the time of recording. And because only important works were copied, it’s likely a lot of copies existed. If the information was really pivotal, a lot of work would be based on it, so that’s even more copies.

      Holy fucking shit I don’t even know where to start.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          The first-century AD Roman playwright and Stoic philosopher Seneca the Younger quotes Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita Libri, which was written between 63 and 14 BC, as saying that the fire started by Caesar destroyed 40,000 scrolls from the Library of Alexandria.

          My shock and horror, however, was at the ideas that:

          1. “Losing a large number of copies at one of the greatest repositories of the ancient world is no big deal.”

          2. “There is at least one copy so it’s fine if the copy is lost”

          3. “If it was really important, there would be a lot of copies and we don’t need to worry about it”.

          4. “Very little knowledge was actually lost”

          By the time they killed Hypatia (and this was a political struggle, not a religious one as the internet likes to pretend), it was not in its prime.

          Oh, of course. Want to remind me what the political issue was that got them all riled up?

          • andros_rex@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            What was lost that you are concerned about?

            Probably next to nothing, and certainly nothing of importance was lost. Alexandria was hardly the only library in the world, and the libraries at Pergamum and later Rome herself rivaled Alexandria in scale. Antony replaced the losses of the fire during the Alexandrine War with copies made from the library at Pergamum, and libraries in gymnasia or simply founded for citizens abound during that period in the Greek world, they’re in like literally every city of any size. If anything at all was lost it was almost certainly mainly critical commentaries on various authors, as well as catalogs of their works–both the Alexandrian library and the Pergamene one were famous for producing such commentaries. Pretty much everything else of value would have existed elsewhere. It’s possible that a few (at that time probably little-known) philosophical texts might have been lost, but even such texts are likely to have had other copies elsewhere. For example, Aristotle’s didactic texts are practically unknown in the Hellenistic Period, before a first century, B.C. edition was compiled, but they existed at the very least probably both in Alexandria and the library of the Peripatetics themselves (probably also in Pergamum).

            We do not lose texts because of catastrophic events that wipe out all copies of them. We lose texts because they stop being copied. Papyrus is really freaking old and even in Egypt doesn’t preserve as well as we’d like. Fragmentary papyrus finds are extremely important to Classicists, but the overwhelming majority of our texts (and pretty much all our complete ones) are known from medieval copies. The destruction of the library, whenever exactly it happened, would have had next to no impact on the transmission of texts. Imagine if we went down to the Library of Congress right now–or better yet forty years ago before the Internet–and burned all the stacks and catalogs. That would be a big deal, but would it wipe out knowledge of what was there? Besides the catalogs themselves and any supplementary material that the library had put together for its own purposes…no, not really. Those books all exist elsewhere, except for a handful of extremely rare texts and the stuff the library puts together for its own purposes. Most texts that are lost now were already lost in late antiquity or the early Middle Ages, simply because they were not copied enough. Even a brief period of unpopularity might result in a sharp decline in the survivability of an author–Catullus, despite being unanimously praised by ancient and modern critics, briefly lost popularity under the Antonines and already by late antiquity authors were lamenting the difficulty in obtaining a copy of his poems. The most likely texts to survive were the ones used in the school curricula, which is why we have so many copies of Caesar, Virgil, and Homer, or foundational philosophical texts, especially Plato and Aristotle’s didactic works (his exoteric texts had already been lost by the early Middle Ages). The loss of textual material has very little to do with catastrophic events.

            After all, what would have happened if the Library had survived? The collection would be long-decayed by now–the large papyrus finds at places like Oxyrhynchus are due to a large part not to Egypt as a whole but the fact that the climate combined with the garbage heaps in which these papyri are found causes the papyri to get stuck in airless pockets and stuff. So we would know the texts by copies anyway. Alexandria was cut off from the Byzantine scholars who copied Greek (and Muslim scholars generally worked from translation), so the survival of the collection would not have influenced their work significantly. And in any case, as I keep stressing, what was in there was already known elsewhere. Even within the city of Alexandria itself several copies of those texts existed in various locations, many of them on warehouses at the harbor ready to be exported (Badian, for example, conjectured that it was one of these warehouses that Caesar’s troops set fire to, since he was nowhere near the palace complex). It might be nice to have some of the commentaries on various authors that we knew certain Alexandrian scholars put together for their private use, but commentaries are like reading footnotes, we’d rather have the texts themselves–and the texts on which the commentators were commenting existed elsewhere as well.

            https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5t6op5/comment/ddkr2h6/

            • PugJesus@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              I doubt you’ll get much information out of me, I have no idea. You’d be best served by posting a separate question. I’d be extremely surprised, however, to hear that the same is not true of the incident to which you’re referring. Any important texts housed at Baghdad surely must have had copies elsewhere, if for no other reason than that they wouldn’t have been that important otherwise. But that’s a totally uninformed conjecture, what the hell do I know about it

              Yes, he is quite apparently uninformed and doesn’t know the hell about anything. Holy shit, saying the Library at Baghdad being lost either is no big deal? Jesus fucking Christ.

              We do not lose texts because of catastrophic events that wipe out all copies of them. We lose texts because they stop being copied.

              Hey, wanna guess what happens when a central repository for copies and copying is lost? There are fewer chances for copies to be made. This is… this is not exactly high-level historiography.

              This is why I fucking hated AskHistorians back on Reddit. They’d remove actual well-researched comments for not being cited properly, and then leave up absolutely unsupported dogshit assertions up like this because it ‘sounds right’.

              The destruction of the library, whenever exactly it happened, would have had next to no impact on the transmission of texts. Imagine if we went down to the Library of Congress right now–or better yet forty years ago before the Internet–and burned all the stacks and catalogs. That would be a big deal, but would it wipe out knowledge of what was there? Besides the catalogs themselves and any supplementary material that the library had put together for its own purposes…no, not really. Those books all exist elsewhere, except for a handful of extremely rare texts and the stuff the library puts together for its own purposes.

              Holy fucking shit, Does he not understand the difference between modern mass-printing and pre-modern script transmission?

              After all, what would have happened if the Library had survived?

              Tens of thousands of copies of works would have potentially hundreds of years’ worth of copying added to their stock. The idea that there’s a fucking boolean switch here is just… beyond stupid. God have mercy on this posters soul.

              How many Classical works do we know of only because of one or two early copies of that managed to survive long enough to be transmitted by a more interested and more wealthy era? “Hurr hurr if they were important there would have been more copies”. Jesus fucking Christ.

              EDIT: Searched through the commenter’s history out of curiousity. They seem to otherwise have informed takes, which makes their position on the library’s importance all the more baffling.

              • andros_rex@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                Friend, you’re oddly hostile and emotional about this - especially considering your lack of knowledge concerning the historical event in question. Like many, you appear to have conflated the burning of the Library of Alexandria by Caesar in the 1st century with the decline of the Library and later murder of Hypatia in the 4th century.

                I would suggest you check out Hypatia : the life and legend of an Ancient Philosopher by Edward Watts for more details of the nature of the political conflict involving her, Orestes, and Cyril. I would also suggest you calm down and learn more about historical events before you start cussing people out.

                • PugJesus@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  Friend, you’re oddly hostile and emotional about this - especially considering your lack of knowledge concerning the historical event in question. Like many, you appear to have conflated the burning of the Library of Alexandria by Caesar in the 1st century with the decline of the Library and later murder of Hypatia in the 4th century.

                  The meme says “still upset about the Library of Alexandria”, and most people associate that with the burning of the Library of Alexandria, not ‘the decline’ afterwards. You were the one who brought up Hypatia, to which I only responded to demonstrate the absolute fucking absurdity of asserting that it was not a ‘religious issue’ when the core matter was that the Christian mob felt that the wretched pagan whore was leading poor Orestes astray from reconciling with God’s Church (and Bishop Cyril, conveniently, who was definitely known for his tolerance /s)

                  I would suggest you check out Hypatia : the life and legend of an Ancient Philosopher by Edward Watts for more details of the nature of the political conflict involving her, Orestes, and Cyril. I would also suggest you calm down and learn more about historical events before you start cussing people out.

                  I’d suggest you take your tone policing and shove it up your ass. I don’t give misinformation asspats and a hall pass just because it’s stated without emotional terms.

                  People don’t stop passing around misinformation because it’s politely corrected and implicitly legitimized and treated with dignity. They stop passing it around because they learn that it’s not welcome where they’re trying to pass it around.

                  EDIT: I was curious, so I actually did check out Hypatia: The Life and Legend of an Ancient Philosopher. It’s quite good. It’s also quite explicit in placing her killing within a religious context, so, thanks for reinforcing my point, I guess.