The Development of the Notion of Libraries in the Ancient World with Special Reference to the

266 Pages·2015·6.86 MB·English

~
''
I
UNIVERSI1Y OF CAPE TOWN
FACUL1Y OF EDUCATION
n
w
The development of the notion of libraries in the
o
ancient world with special reference to the Middle
T
East, Greece, the Roman Republic and the Royal
e
Alexandrian Library. p
a
C

f
o
A dissertatio n presented in
y
fulfilment of the requirements
t
for the idegree of Master of
s
Philosrophy in Librarianship.
e
v
i
n
U
by
Niels Ruppelt
SEPTEMBER 1993
1' , :,·i~· ~~J~~?f) nit•·~;, ~
I
.• ~.,. +.·. . • ·. , • ., ;i:~::~;. .: .; ,r, \Vhr·.;~:! ~
• 1' ')• ,_,.,r_ t ..·. ..t. . -. .. • , • 1 t' l·• }1 •< ~1r 4 tt1t11:1r.
·--~---.-. _... ,. .... .._ .... .....-~
n

w
The copyright of this thesis vests in the author. No
o
T
quotation from it or information derived from it is to be

published without full acknowledgeement of the source.
p
The thesis is to be used for private study or non-
a
C
commercial research purposes only.

f
o
Published by the Universit y of Cape Town (UCT) in terms
y
t
of the non-exclusive license granted to UCT by the author.
i
s
r
e
v
i
n
U
The financial assistance of the Centre for Science Development
towards this research is hereby acknowledged. Opinions
expressed in this publication, or conclusions arrived at, are those
of the author and are not necessarily to be attributed to the
Centre for Science Development.
ABSTRACT
The Royal Alexandrian Library (RAL) is considered by modern scholarship to represent
the epitome of the development of ancient librarianship. Its extensive holdings imply the
application of modern organizational procedures such as collection development,
information retrieval and promotion of use - terms identifiable as elements embodied in
the conceptual framework of librarianship (for the purposes of this study the latter two
concepts - information retrieval and promotion of use - are combined into the simplified
general concept of "collection accessibility"). The RAL therefore constitutes a key
development phase in the evolution of modern librarianship. However, scholars have
disputed the origins of the RAL and Mouseion or university it was attached to. The so
called "Greek thesis" emphasizes the purely Greek origins of both the Mouseion and the
RAL. Conversely, the "Ptolemaic thesis", while acknowledging the Greek origins of the
Mouseion, argues that the RAL (as an independent institution distinguishable from the
Mouseion proper) is derived from Middle Eastern institutions. This study traces the
origins of the RAL from the textual collections of the early Mediterranean and Middle
Eastern civilizations, through the period of Greek and the subsequent Hellenistic cultural
dominance - culminating in the legacy of Hellenistic librarianship as inherited by the
Roman Republic, since the newly emerging Roman empire was to exert a deciding
influence upon the historical development of the RAL. Within these civilizations and
regions a brief overview is undertaken to gauge the extent of literacy and literary output
prevalent in each as well as a general assessment of librarianship and library practices.
The major and most noteworthy archival and book collections are then analysed
according to the organizational procedures identified in the outlined conceptual
framework of librarianship. For this purpose sufficient information has been obtained
from archaeological evidence and primary and secondary sources to allow for the analysis
of forty-three libraries throughout the ancient world. In this way predominantly Middle
Eastern as well as Greek elements have been identified as contributing to the creation,
organization and functioning of the RAL.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................... .
LIST OF FIGURES, MAPS AND TABLES ............................. vi
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 DEFINITION AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 TIMETA BLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. LIBRARIES OF THE MIDDLE EAST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1 MESOPOTAMIA, SYRIA AND ASIA-MINOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.1 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.2 THE INVENTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF WRITING . . . . 7
2.1.3 THE EXTENT OF LITERACY ......................... 8
2.1.4 LITERACY OUTPUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.5 MIDDLE EASTERN LIBRARIANSHIP.................. 11
2.1.5.1 Architectural layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1.5.2 Library personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.1.5.3 Collection development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.1.5.4 Collection accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.1.6 ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL LIBRARIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.6.1 Ur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.6.2 Mari . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.1.6.3 Kish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.1.6.4 Ebla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.1.6.5 Lagash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.1.6.6 Hattusa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.1.6.7 Ugarit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.1.6.8 Agene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.1.6.9 Nineveh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.2 PHARAONIC EGYPT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.2.1 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.2.2 HIEROGLYPHICS AND PAPYRUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.2.3 THE EXTENT OF LITERACY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.2.4 LITERACY OUTPUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.2.5 EGYPTIAN LIBRARIANSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.2.5.1 Architectural layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.2.5.2 Library personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.2.5.3 Collection development 39
2.2.5.4 Collection accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.2.6 ANALYSES OF INDIVIDUAL LIBRARIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.2.6.1 Edfu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.2.6.2 Amarna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.2.6.3 Thebes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.2.6.4 Heliopolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
iii
2.3. PALESTINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.3.1 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ........................... 50
2.3.2 THE EXTENT OF LITERACY AND LITERARY OUTPUT .. 51
2.3.3 LIBRARIANSHIP IN THE PALESTINIAN REGION . . . . . . . 53
2.3.3.1 Architectural layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.3.3.2 Library personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.3.3.3 Collection development and accessibility . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.3.3.4 Types of collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2.3.4 ANALYSES OF INDIVIDUAL LIBRARIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2.3.4.1 Samaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2.3.4.2 Lachish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3. LIBRARIES OF GREECE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.1 THE BRONZE AGE .................................... 61
3.1.1 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.1.2 LINEAR A AND B .................................. 63
3.1.3 EXTENT OF LITERACY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.1.4 LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.1.5 BRONZE AGE LIBRARIANSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.1.5.1 Collection development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.1.5.2 Collection accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.1.6 ANALYSES OF INDIVIDUAL LIBRARIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.1.6.1 Knossos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.1.6.2 Mycenae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.1.6.3 Pylos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.2 THE DARK AGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.2.1 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.2.2 POSSIBLE EXISTENCE OF WRITTEN DOCUMENTS AND
BOOK COLLECTIONS .............................. 72
3.3 THE AGE OF GREEK CULTURAL DOMINANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.3.1 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.3.2 INTRODUCTION TO THE ALPHABET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3.3.3 THE EXTENT OF LITERACY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
3.3.4 LITERARY OUTPUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.3.4.1 Early forms: Epic, Didactic and Lyric Poetry . . . . . . . 86
3.3.4.2 Tragedy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.3.4.3 Logography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
3.3.4.4 Comedy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
3.3.4.5 Play festivals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
3.3.4.6 Commentaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3.3.4.7 Publishing and bookshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
3.3.5 GREEK LIBRARIANSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
3.3.5.1 Collection development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
3.3.5.2 Collection accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
3.3.5.3 Commerce collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
3.3.5.4 Private collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
3.3.5.5 School libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
3.3.5.6 Schools of philosophy and academies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
3.3.5.7 State and administrative archives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
3.3.5.8 Temple libraries ............................ 100
iv
3.3.6 ANALYSES OF INDIVIDUAL LIBRARIES .............. 101
3.3.6.1 The Peisistratids ............................ 101
3.3.6.2 Polycrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
3.3.6.3 The Metroon ............................... 106
3.3.6.4 Euthydemus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
3.3.6.5 Plato's Academy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
3.3.6.6 Linos .................................... 111
3.3.6.7 Aristotle .................................. 112
4. THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
4.1 THE AGE OF THE SUCCESSORS ......................... 117
4.1.1 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ........................... 117
4.1.2 THE EXTENT OF LITERACY ........................ 119
4.1.3 LITERARY OUTPUT ............................... 120
4.1.4 HELLENISTIC LIBRARIANSHIP ...................... 122
4.1.4.1 Architectural layout .......................... 123
4.1.4.2 Library personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
4.1.4.3 Collection development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
4.1.4.4 Collection accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
4.1.4.5 Libraries of the academies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
4.1.4.6 Gymnasia ................................. 128
4.1.4.7 Private Collections ........................... 128
4.1.4.8 Royal libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4.1.4. 9 Temple collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
4.1.5 ANALYSES OF INDIVIDUAL LIBRARIES .............. 131
4.1.5.1 The Lyceum ............................... 131
4.1.5.2 The Serapeum temple library ................... 135
4.1.5.3 Antioch ................................... 138
4.1.5.4 Pella ..................................... 141
4.1.5.5 The Ptolemaion ............................. 143
4.1.5.6 The Rhodes Gymnasium ...................... 144
4.1.5.7 Pergamum ................................. 147
4.1.5.8 Qumran .................................. 154
4.1.5.9 The Jerusalem public archive library ............. 158
4.1.5.10 Apellicon of Teos ........................... 159
4.2 THE HELLENISTIC LEGACY OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC .... 163
4.2.1 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ........................... 163
4.2.2 THE EXTENT OF LITERACY ........................ 165
4.2.3 LITERARY OUTPUT ............................... 166
4.2.4 LIBRARIANSHIP IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC ........... 168
4.2.4.1 Architectural layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
4.2.4.2 Library personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
4.2.4.3 Collection development and accessibility . . . . . . . . . . 172
v
4.2.5 ANALYSES OF INDIVIDUAL LIBRARIES .............. 173
4.2.5.1 Aemilius paulus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
4.2.5.2 Lucullus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
4.2.5.3 Varro .................................... 176
4.2.5.4 Sulla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
4.2.5.5 Cicero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
4.2.5.6 Atticus ................................... 182
4.2.5.7 Tyrannion ................................. 184
4.2.5.8 The Roman public library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
4.3 THE ROYAL ALEXANDRIAN LIBRARY ................... 190
4.3.1 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ........................... 190
4.3.2 THE FOUNDING .................................. 191
4.3.3 ARCHITECTURAL LAYOUT ......................... 195
4.3.4 LIBRARY PERSONNEL ............................. 197
4.3.4.1 Alexander of Aetolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
4.3.4.2 Apollonius of Rhodes ........................ 200
4.3.4.3 Aristarchus of Samothrace ..................... 201
4.3.4.4 Aristophanes of Byzantium .................... 201
4.3.4.5 Callimachus of Cyrene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
4.3.4.6 Erathosthenes of Cyrene ...................... 204
4.3.4.7 Lycophron of Chalcis ......................... 205
4.3.4.8 Zenodotus of Ephesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
4.3.5 COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT ....................... 206
4.3.5.1 Methods of acquisition ........................ 206
4.3.5.2 The holdings ............................... 210
4.3.6 COLLECTION ACCESSIBILITY ....................... 216
4.3.6.1 General retrieval methods ..................... 216
4.3.6.2 The Pinakes of Callimachus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
4.3.6.3 The public library ........................... 224
4.3.7 THE ALEXANDRINE WAR: CAUSE OF DESTRUCTION? . 225
5. A CASE FOR CONTINUI1Y ................................... 231
5.1 THE ESTABLISHMENT OF LIBRARIES: A CONSEQUENCE OF
CULTURAL INTERACTION .............................. 231
5.1.1 THE MIDDLE EAST ................................ 231
5.1.2 GREECE ......................................... 234
5.1.3 THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD ......................... 235
5.1.4 THE ROMAN REPUBLIC ............................ 238
5.2 COMMON ELEMENTS AND PROCEDURES ................ 239
5.2.1 LIBRARY BUILDINGS AND ARCHITECTURAL LAYOUT . 239
5.2.2 COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT ....................... 242
5.2.3 COLLECTION ACCESSIBILITY ....................... 243
5.2.3.1 Seals and labels ............................. 243
5.2.3.2 Colophons ................................. 245
5.2.3.3 Catalogues and shelf-lists ...................... 245
5.2.3.4 Subject differentiation ........................ 247
5.3 THE ROYAL ALEXANDRIAN LIBRARY: THE EPITOME OF
ANCIENT LIBRARIANSHIP .............................. 249
REFERENCES ................................................. 252
vi
LIST OF FIGURES, MAPS AND TABLES
Figure 1: Continuity in the Development of Ancient Libraries .............. 250
Map 1: Library Sites of Mesopotamia, Syria and Asia-Minor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Map 2: Library Sites of Pharoanic E!,rypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Map 3: Library Sites of Palestine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Map 4: Library Sites of the Greek Bronze Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Map 5: Library Sites of the Period of Greek Cultural Dominance . . . . . . . . . . 116
Map 6: Library Sites of the Age of the Successors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Map 7: Library Sites of the Roman Republic ......................... 189
Map 8: Library Sites of the City of Alexandria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
Table 1: Library buildings and architectural layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Table 2: Collection development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Table 3: Seals and labels 244
Table 4: Seals and labels 244
Table 5: Colophons ............................................. 245
Table 6: Catalogues and shelf-lists .................................. 246
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The Royal Alexandrian Library (RAL) has variously been described as the most
influential (PRE Vol. 3, 1899:414), the most noteworthy (Vorstius 1954:7) and "without
doubt the greatest library of antiquity" (Kesting 1986:157) while Parsons concludes that
the institution was "the greatest before the invention of printing ... " and considers its
holdings to be "the most important ever collected" (1952:x).
However, scholars and historians have disputed the origins of the RAL and the Mouseion
or university it was attached to. De Vleeschauwer and Wright (in Rawski 1973:87-90)
have identified the two diverging schools of thought on this issue.
The so-called "Greek thesis", which is proposed by Milkau (1955) amongst others,
emphasizes the purely Greek origins of both the Mouseion and the RAL, with both
institutions seen as a "completely Greek achievement". According to this theory
Demetrius of Phaleron, who was Ptolemy I Soter's appointee to undertake the founding
of the Mouseion and its library, based his creation on the model of the Athenian
Peripatos.
Conversely, the "Ptolemaic thesis" (of which De Vleeschauwer is a major proponent)
argues that while the Mouseion proper can be traced hack to Greek origins, the RAL
itself "is derived from Ptolemy and his recollection of Oriental library institutions".
This study proposes, in the light of the two diverging theories outlined above, to trace the
origins of the RAL from the book collections of the early Middle Eastern civilizations
(Mesopotamia, Syria, Asia-Minor, Pharaonic E!:,rypt and Palestine), the Greek Bronze
Age, through the period of spreading Greek cultural dominance, culminating in the
establishment of the Hellenistic libraries of Alexander the Great's Successors.