just some of the books
From my understanding, it was tens of thousands of scrolls that were burned, despite it not being a "total" burning, and large portions of the library being intact. That is no small loss. And it was again destroyed some more later on. It was not really the great library again. Which is probably why that destruction was always romanticized so. Granted, it still functioned as a center of learning for some time after.
But. The former Great Library had degraded and suffered several major losses of books over the centuries but it had ceased to exist by this stage - the last clear reference to it that we know of dates all the way back to AD 135. Way before this movie. Ammianus Marcellinus, who may have visited Alexandria himself when he was in Egypt in the late 360s, refers to the "
two priceless libraries" it had once housed in the
past tense, indicating they were no longer there by his time. This fits with the descriptions we have in no less than five sources about the sack and destruction of the Serapeum at the hands of the Christians in AD 391: none of which mention any library or books at all. This silence is made more significant by the fact that one of these sources was Eunapius of Sardis, who was not only a vehement anti-Christian but also a philosopher himself. If anyone had an incentive to at least mention this aspect of the destruction it was Eunapius, but he makes no mention of any library or any destruction of books.
And are you sure you are watching the same movie? It seemed to be all about fundamentalism and science coming into conflict, in regards to Hypatia.
Amenábar's screenplay gives some indication that he is aware of at least some of this. The opening titles (in Spanish) do declare explicitly that in Hypatia's time "Alexandria .... possessed ... the (world's) largest known library" (poseia .... la biblioteca mas grande conocida) and a subtitle a few minutes later declares the site of Hypatia's lecture in the opening scene is "the Library of Alexandria" (Biblioteca de Alejandria). But later one of the characters mentions " ... the fire that destroyed the mother library ... ", though this is in a piece of background dialogue while Hypatia is saying something else - less attentive viewers may even miss it completely. Amenábar himself referred in one interview last year to the library in his film as "the second Library of Alexandria", so he clearly understands that the original Great Library no longer existed in AD 391. But he doesn't exactly go out of his way to make this clear to his audience. And he not only includes a library in the Serapeum, despite the evidence even this smaller library no longer existed at this point, but makes it the centre and focus of the whole complex.
Not surprisingly, it is also the focus of the scenes of the storming of the Serapeum by the Christian mob that form the climax of the first half of the film. The accounts of the destruction of the Serapeum make it clear that the mob did not just storm the temple, they tore it to the ground, leaving little more than its foundations. But the movie doesn't depict this at all. Apart from toppling the great statue of Serapis and some other vandalism, the Christians leave the building intact and concentrate almost entirely on dragging the scrolls out of the library and burning them in the temple courtyards. At one point as they swarm through the gate someone can even be heard shouting "Burn the scrolls!", as though this was the whole point of the exercise So, oddly, Amenábar doesn't bother depicting what the mob did do and concentrates instead on something not even hinted at in the source material. He wants to keep the emphasis firmly on the idea of Christians as destroyers of ancient knowledge and reason. One reviewer, accepting this scene as wholly factual, calls it "the movie's most emotionally powerful moment" and says "it really makes you cry". She's blissfully unaware that the whole scene is almost entirely fiction.
reply
share
Raymoiful
9 years ago
Yes, the library has degraded and suffered several major losses. First being during the Caesars siege of Alexandria (there was a huge effort to renew and rebuilt the library and thousands of scrolls from the second largest library in Pergamon were transferred there). But I dont think you get what the movie tried to show at all. In fact the question if parts of the great library were or werent destroyed along with Serapeum doesnt matter at all.
What does matter is that the Theodosius decree forbidding to practice all pagan cults in Roman Empire and ordering to close all pagan temples had huge negative impact on all philosophical schools and started new era of destruction and deterioration of ancient greek and roman knowledge across the whole empire, not to mention the persecution of people who refused to get rid of the old ways. In fact almost all remaining centers of classical greek culture and wisdom were destroyed (or in the best case abandoned) as a result of his decree.
Of course it did not start with Theodosius, it was a result of cultural and ideological transition that was going on for several decades/centuries, and Theodosius had predecessors in the likes of emperor Jovian (who by the way ordered the destruction of great library of Antioch), but his decree was like the last nail in the coffin. His protege and later a family member via marriage, Stilicho, also contributed to that when he supposedly ordered to burn Sibylline books, which were protected in Rome for more than thousand years.
So I think it doesnt matter when the library was finally destroyed. For the movie (and for our civilization) it serves as a symbol of all the ancient knowledge that was lost with the establishment of christianity, or better to say christian iconoclasm that came with it and stood at the beginning of Dark Ages. And while there is a lot of inaccuracies in the movie, it gives a very interesting image of the turbulent times not only Alexandria was going through.
Note: Im roman catholic and student of history and classical archaeology. This movie was recommended to us during one of our classes.
reply
share
rmcsharry-178-702888
8 years ago
"In fact almost all remaining centers of classical greek culture and wisdom were destroyed (or in the best case abandoned) as a result of his decree."
That is not true. Neither is it true that Theodosius's decree brought about "destruction and deterioration of ancient greek and roman knowledge ... across the whole Empire".
Education in the Greek tradition continued for centuries afterwards in Alexandria and Constantinople. Many schools of learning continued to flourish in the East.
The Eastern part of the Roman Empire continued to flourish in terms of learning and continuing the Greek tradition - how else do you think it was preserved into the modern age? It survived through the flourishing of the Byzantine Empire (basically the Roman Empire in the East). This eventually became Islamified and thus spread back into Western Europe from the spread of Islam (eg. research Islam in the Iberian Peninsula, a golden age of learning for all faiths).
So the so-called 'Dark Ages' were not that dark and in any case only came about in Western Europe as a result of the collapse of the power of the Roman Empire in the West. The power of Constantinople kept knowledge in the Greek tradition alive in the East.
reply
share
Raymoiful
8 years ago
It is true. Even at places like Alexandria or Athens, where the philosophical schools had huge prestige and long traditions we can clearly see a significant downfall after the decree was issued. The philosophical schools were officially outlawed by the decree, that alone had enormous impact, because any person or institution, if religious or political, could legally prosecute them. More importantly, they were effectively silenced and their political and social status was diminished. From the time this decree was issued are dramatically increasing sources mentioning and applauding destruction of ancient pagan temples (if they werent reused by christians), we hear about persecution of people who tried to continue some traditions like the games, most of the philosophical schools were closed or run on a much smaller scale, trying to not attract unwanted attention. Yes, some schools managed to continue for some time, but flourishing they were not, more like the other way around, they were fading. In some places, Christian scholars were more tolerant and partly building on ancient knowledge, but this approach was also often met with harsh criticism and caused some internal fighting among Christian patriarchs.
There are many theories about the Dark ages, but the loss of enormous amount of knowledge in the late antiquity period and early middle ages is a fact, and it took us centuries to rediscover it. We have even ancient sources confirming it, as romans themselves noticed the regression and mention that certain technological processes known two generations ago were being forgotten as the society was transforming into a feudal one. The neglect of technologies previously deemed useful is supported also by archeologic research (for example the Roman hydraulic water systems were gradually abandoned because their maintaining was difficult, and people returned to wells and cisterns).
reply
share
rmcsharry-178-702888
8 years ago
As I said before, what you are saying is NOT true in the East, only in the West.
You said "the whole Roman Empire" - sorry, but that is not the case.
Alexandria and Athens were part of the Western Empire as Rome declined (although later reconquered by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian 1).
The Roman Empire in the East flourished for another 800 plus years (the Byzantine Empire). A great deal of this knowledge that you say was lost was because of the Theodosius I decree was not lost in the East.
You say it was rediscovered in the West - much of it was 'transferred' back by the Ottomons because it was NOT lost in the East.
Here is just ONE example of many:
In the field of engineering Isidore of Miletus, the Greek mathematician and architect of the Hagia Sophia, produced the first compilation of Archimedes' works c. 530, and it is through this manuscript tradition, kept alive by the school of mathematics and engineering founded c. 850 during the "Byzantine Renaissance" by Leo the Geometer, that such works are known today (see Archimedes Palimpsest).
reply
share
Ladonia84
9 years ago
I agree with Raymoiful, while your historical insights are very interesting the film is an art piece not a documentary so I think the themes the director brings up are authentic to what was going on in the time although as is the case with nearly every historical film it is not entirely accurate. Like you mentioned the point was to create an emotional response to the final scene when Hypatia was murdered she has since become a symbol of the knowledge that was lost and I think the film does that very realistically.
reply
share