CORRESPONDENCE.

BURNING OF THE ALEXANDRIAN LIBRARY. SIR,—Gibbon is, I believe, the first writer who has cast doubt ,on the generally received account of the burning of the library of Alexandria by order of Khalif Omar. Such sub- sequent writers as have adopted his view have done so simply on his authority. They have not added a shred of evidence of their own. It is obvious, therefore, that if Gibbon is upset, the whole case against the received tradition is destroyed. How, then, does the case stand ? There is no reasonable doubt that the library existed when Alexandria was taken by the Arabs. It is certain that it did not survive that catastrophe. The presumptive evidence is, therefore, all in favour of its destruction by the Arabs, and such has been the current belief -till Gibbon's attempt to sneer it down.

It is related, on the authority of an eye-witness, by Abulfarajius, who died Bishop of Aleppo in A.D. 1286, that when the Arabs took possession of Alexandria (A.D. 641), Amru, their General, wrote to ask Khalif Omar what he was -to do with the famous library. Omar replied,—" If these books agree with the Koran, they are superfluous ; if they disagree, they are pernicious and ought to be destroyed." The books were accordingly distributed among the four thousand baths of Alexandria to light their fires, and served that purpose for the space of six months. Abulfarajius naturally deplores the loss of such an intellectual treasure. "For my own part," says Gibbon, "I am strongly tempted to deny both the fact and the consequences." He has thus two strings to his bow, as he proceeds to explain. First, pro- bably the library was not destroyed by the Arabs. Secondly, if it was, it ought to be considered rather a gain than a loss, as it was likely to consist of polemical treatises on subjects of

Christian controversy. The second reason need not detain us.

It proves nothing but Gibbon's bitter animus There is, of course, no evidence at all that the library was composed of controversial or even of exclusively Christian works. Let us, therefore, consider his first objection to the story of the burning of the library by the Arabs. He does not write con- fidently. He is only "strongly tempted" to deny the received account. Fortunately, he gives his reasons, which are as follows :—(1.) The story rests on "the solitary report" of Abulfarajius. and "is overbalanced by the silence of two annalists of a more early date, both Christians, both natives of Egypt, and the most ancient of whom, the patriarch Eutychius, has amply described the conquest of Alexandria."

Besides, no Muslim writer mentions the story. I reply :— (a.) The story does not rest on "the solitary report" of Abul- farajius. He quotes it from the "History of Alexandria and

Philip of Macedon," by John the Grammarian, a Jacobite Christi= of Alexandria, who was in high favour with Amru, of whom he begged as a favour "the books on philo- sophy in the Royal library." Aram referred the matter to Omar, and Omar sent the reply which I have given above.

Abulfarajius gives all this on the authority of John the Grammarian, whose " History " he had before him as he wrote. No higher authority could be given. (b.) Several Mahommedan writers, contrary to Gibbon's assertion, mention the burning of the library by Omar's order as a commonplace fact. Abdul-Lateef, who wrote before Abulfarajius was born,

says :—" Here [i.e., in the Serapeum] was the library which Arnim. Ibn-el-As burned with the sanction of Omar." O.) Thu Khaldonn is the most eminent historical critic in

the Mahommedan world, and one of the most learned and trustworthy writers. He wrote nearly a century after Abulfarajius; but, on the other hand, he was for some years Grand Cadi of Cairo, and had, of course, access to all the archives of Egypt. He says explicitly that the early Khalifs set their faces against all literature and science outside the Koran, and in his "Life of Omar," he mentions in particular the destruction, by that Khalif's order, of the library of the Serapeum. I do not happen to have that work by me, so

I cannot give the reference ; but I will give a reference which is even more cogent. In the " Prolegomena " to his "Universal History," Ibn Khaldoun says :— " We know that the Muslims, when they conquered Persia, found in that country an innumerable quantity of books and scientific treatises, and that their General, Sand Ibn Abi Oueccas, asked Khalif Omar by letter if ho would allow him to distribute those books among the true believers with the rest of the booty.

Omar answered him in these terms Throw them into the water. If they contain anything which can guide men to the truth, we have received from God what will guide us much better. If they contain errors, we shall be well rid of them, thank God.' In con- sequence of this order, the books were thrown into the water and the fire, and the literature and science of the Persians dis- appeared."—"Proleg.," iii., pp. 124-25.

This, substantially, is the same answer as that which John the Grammarian reports as having been given by Omar to the conqueror of Alexandria ; and it is, to my mind, conclusive, for it shows that the burning of the Alexandrian Library was not

an isolated fact, but an incident in a deliberate policy carried out ruthlessly wherever the arms of Islam prevailed. (d.) Against this positive testimony, "the silence of two annalists"

of an earlier date than Abulfarajius is of no more value than the silence of Josephus and other contemporary writers about Christianity. Besides, the silence may be satisfactorily explained.

(2.) Gibbon's second reason is that "the rigid sentence of Omar is repugnant to the sound and orthodox precept of the Mahommedan casuists,"—namely, that neither the religious books of Jews and Christians, nor secular books of science and literature, should be destroyed. I reply that there is no absolute precept of the kind ; and certainly the practice of Mahommedan conquerors has not been in accordance with it.

(3.) Gibbon's third reason is that the library which is said to have been destroyed by Omar had, in fact, been destroyed long before by the fanaticism of a Christian Archbishop (Theophilus), under instructions from the Emperor Theodosius. This is a blunder, if not something worse, on the part of

Gibbon. The immoralities practised in the Pagan temple of Serapis had become so scandalous and revolting, that Theo- dosius ordered the destruction of the temple. This was done. Gibbon's blunder is to confound the temple of Serapis with the Serapeum, which was a vast group of buildings,—in fact,

a small town, like the Kremlin in Moscow. The library was not in the Temple of Serapis, but in the Serapeum, which was not destroyed. Gibbon's words are :—

"The valuable library of Alexandria ["valuable," observe, when Christians are supposed to be the destroyers ; worthless when Muslims are supposed to be the destroyers] was pillaged or destroyed ; and near twenty years afterwards the appearance of the empty shelves excited the regret and indignation of every spectator whose mind was not wholly darkened by religious prejudice."

In a foot-note, Gibbon quotes his authority for this state- ment as follows :—

" Nos vidimus armaria librorum, quibus direptis, exinanita ea a nostris hominibus, nostris temporibus memorent.-0aosius, L. vi., C. 15, p. 421."

Turn up the reference, and you find that Gibbon has garbled his authority. He suppresses. without even the excuse of a comma, the beginning of the sentence, which runs thus :— " Hodie in templis extant, qua3 et nos vidimus," &c., showing that Orosius was not speaking of the Serapeum at all, or of its ruined temple, but of other temples still extant.

Such are Gibbon's reasons for being "strongly tempted to deny" the destruction of the Alexandrian library by order of Omar ; and surely no man ever yielded to temptation from a feebler cause. Yet writer after writer, including some names of note, have followed Gibbon, parrot-like, without examining into the facts for themselves. All those writers who have studied the question independently—and they include such illustrious names as Amari, Dozy, De Sacy, Von Hammer, and Gibbon's two editors, 'Allman and Dr. Smith—dismiss Gibbon's scepticism with disdain. And, we may add, that the author of the very masterly book, "Arabia Deserts," recently reviewed in your columns, Mr. Doughty, takes precisely the same line (see "Arabia Deserta," II., pp. 360-61). The whole question is summed up very fairly as follows in Larousse's great work (Vol. I., p. 184), published in 1866 :—

" Cette circonstance de rincendie de la bibliotheque d'Alexandrie par les Arabes a eveille de nos jours lea defiances de la critique et souleve plus d'ime objection. 11 y a des ecrivains, et ils sont aujourd'hui assez nombreux, qui s'ingenient prendre l'histoire en defaut et a battre en breche lea evenements lea moms contestes ; us nient rincendie de la, bibliotheque d'Alexanclrie. D'autres, tout en admettant rauthenticite de ce triste evenement, lui enlivent son caractere et sea consequences e, jamais deplorables, en pretendant que le nombre des volumes devores par le feu etait beaucoup moins considerable qu'on ne l'a dit, et que, d'ailleurs, ils ne traitaient que de controverses theologiques. Ma1heureuse- meat lea uns et lea autres n'apportent aucune preuve serieuse rappui de leurs assertions."