April 23, 2003

You Never Know What's in a Library Until You Look

Mute books, parchments, and palimpsests find a very eloquent voice:


Teresa Nielsen Hayden on Why It's a Bad Idea to Burn Old Libraries: Recently I was deeply vexed by the news that a professional author, who of all people should know better, has dismissed the burning of the National Library in Baghdad on the grounds that any book destroyed in the fire could simply be reprinted. There are moments when you find out more about someone’s scholarship and research habits than you’d ever want to know.

Apparently he was unaware that whereas reprinting might serve to reconstitute his high school library, substantial research libraries contain all sorts of odd things, possibly odd old things, some of which may be sole copies. This goes double for major research libraries, which are textual mathom-houses. Moreover, at the time that some of these odd things were catalogued, they may not have been properly recognized for what they were. (This is, incidentally, why I hate having to do research in closed-stack library systems: You have to take the cataloguer’s word on everything.) Anything can turn up there.

Just this year came the news that a big wodge of Tolkien manuscript had turned up in a carton in the Bodleian Library. It hadn’t been lost, exactly; but it hadn’t occurred to anyone who knew about the material’s existence that it might command enough general interest to warrant publication. It has now been published.

Then there’s the Didache, a.k.a. “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” an authentic document of the ancient church discovered in 1873 in an old library in Constantinople. It dates from around 70 CE; that is, from when people who knew Jesus personally were still alive:

The Didache (“The Teaching”) is one of the most fascinating yet perplexing documents to emerge from the early church. The title (in ancient times “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”) was known from references to it by Athanasius, Didymus, and Eusebius, and Serapion of Thmuis (4th century) has a quotation from it in his Eucharistic prayer [Richardson] p. 163. But no copy was known until 1873, when Bryennios discovered the codex Hierosolymitanus, which contained the full text of the Didache which he published in 1883. Since then it has been the focus of scholarly attention to an extent quite out of proportion to its modest length. …

The document is composed of two parts: (1) instruction about the “Two Ways”, and (2) a manual of church order and practice. The “Two Ways” material appears to have been intended as a summary of basic instruction about the Christian life to be taught to those who were preparing for baptism and church membership. In its present form it represents the Christianization of a common Jewish form of moral instruction. …

The second part consists of instructions about food, baptism, fasting, prayer, the Eucharist, and various offices and positions of leadership. In addition to providing the earliest evidence of a mode of baptism other than immersion, it records the oldest known Christian Eucharist prayers and a form of the Lord’s Prayer quite similar to that found in the Gospel according to Matthew.

The document closes with a brief apocalyptic section that has much in common with the so-called Synoptic Apocalypse (Mark 13; Matthew 24-25; Luke 24).

Which is sort of non-trivial, for those who are interested in such things.

Consider also this discussion of ancient imaging technology and the interesting bit of text, found in 1925 by the Catalan historian Pedro Plá, which turned up in the regional library in Granada:

One of the most regrettable events in history was the destruction of the Library of Alexandria by order of the caliph Omar. It is supposed that this library contained marvelous secrets that, when lost, set back some aspects of human knowledge by centuries.Few things could be rescued. Among them was one related to our subject, which we will transcribe in part below. It was written in the VI century by an Arab doctor and alchemist called Abd-el-Kamir, on whom there is little data. The following is a fragment:
When silver is melted, some small lead-colored particles remain at the bottom of the recipient. If these particles are taken and mixed with animal resin, a thick solution will be obtained which must be poured into a recipient where light does not penetrate.

Then, in absolute darkness, a metallic plate can be impregnated with this solution and is then ready upon exposure to the sun’s rays to record the contours of any object that is placed upon it.

Then there’s the new work being done with palimpsests. These are parchments whose original texts were partially erased, then overwritten with another text. New forensic and imaging technology are enabling us to see the first version of the text, sometimes with startling results:

The announcement on July 11 of the availability of a tenth century manuscript of texts by the Greek scientist and mathematician Archimedes offers an important opportunity to probe the works of one of the greatest thinkers of the ancient world. The document provides the oldest known source of Archimedes’ writings. … The original work lies hidden beneath an overlay of Greek prayers.

Scientists will be using the latest technology such as digital enhancement and ultra-violet and infra-red filters to discern the original text. Some of the inks used contain particles of iron and will be analyzed using delicate magnetic equipment. An RIT archaeologist, Robert Johnston said that “there is always a residual, traces of what was there. It’s amazing what can come out. Soon, nothing will be secret or hidden.” …

The Palimpsest is the only copy of Archimedes’ important On the Method of Mechanical Theorems and the original Greek version of On Floating Bodies. It also contains copies of Archimedes’ On the Measurement of the Circle, On the Sphere and the Cylinder, On Spiral Lines, and On the Equilibrium of Planes, which had previously been known from much later sources.

The manuscript was first written in the tenth century, copied from an edition of Archimedes’ work then extant in Constantinople. Two hundred years later that text was scraped off, and the parchment was rewritten as a prayer book. Many of Constantinople’s books were burnt when the city was sacked by crusaders in 1204, but this prayer book survived. In the sixteenth century it turned up in the Monastery of St. Saba in what is now Israel. By 1846 it was back in Constantinople at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, where it was first identified as a palimpsest. In 1906, a Danish philologist named Johan Ludvig identified the original book as a mathematical text by Archimedes. And now we can read it.

What’s in old libraries? You don’t know until you find it. But in order for that to happen, you have to preserve the old holdings and original documents. You also have to keep the library from being burnt. Until last week, the holdings of the National Library in Baghdad were part of the common inheritance of human civilization. We know some of what was lost. We’ll never know all of it.

I’m sure there’ll continue to be some ignorant barbarians who’ll insist that the library was no great loss, and that Donald Rumsfeld isn’t a nyekulturniy lout as well as a profoundly incompetent Secretary of Defense. They’re nothing new in the history of the world. I just wish that so much of the work of civilization didn’t consist of trying to recover from their little sprees.

Posted by DeLong at April 23, 2003 08:04 PM | TrackBack

Comments

There was the news over the weekend, too, that a huge cache of English Civil War tracts turned up in the archives of a library in Whitehall. The kind of 'social documents' which have helped change our impressions of the period from the old-school Roundheads-and-Cavaliers histories. Had that library been burned, we'd have never known those texts existed.

Posted by: nick sweeney on April 23, 2003 10:39 PM

two thoughts:

was the word "mathom" invented by Tolien in LOTR?

my favorite moment in "The Spy who Loved Me" is when Daniella Bianchi says "kulturniy"

Posted by: roublen vesseau on April 23, 2003 11:28 PM

To me, the burning and looting of the Iraq library and museum is worse than the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan, and I am still angry for that loss.

DSW

Posted by: Antoni Jaume on April 24, 2003 07:02 AM

DSW writes: "worse than the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan"

The destruction of the Buddhas has a certain Zen to it. After all, the Buddha's teachings were all about the impermanence of all things.

It's a great loss that they were destroyed, but in another way, it just seems to fit somehow. Massive eternal carvings of the Buddha just seems to be an attempt to resist what the Buddha actually taught. It's like a picture of Jesus kicking a leper.

Posted by: Jon H on April 24, 2003 09:03 AM

I have a friend with whom I'm barely on speaking terms. He's American born and bred but has decided that his fellow countrymen are barbarians all the way back to 1776, and he's moved to Europe.

The know-nothing responses by Rumsfeld and many, many other Americans to the destruction of the library and museum are unforgivable. You don't expect a guy in that position to be a nice guy, but the gratuitous nature of what he said, its pointless and unprofitable
nihilism-for-nihilism's-sake, was utterly appalling. So maybe my friend is right.

Posted by: zizka on April 24, 2003 09:35 AM

>The know-nothing responses by Rumsfeld and many, many other Americans to the destruction of the library and museum are unforgivable.

I think this has been a curse of partisanship, from both sides. From one side, there certainly seemed to be a lot of people who were only interested in seeing and trumpting how the Bush administration and the Iraq war were wrong. This adds to the total noise in the discussions, and an understandable noise-supression technique for people with non-finite attention is to recognize people who are not interested in substance, but only in their rhetorical side, and tune these people out. (Feel free to insert a comparable example in the other direction.)
So then we have the looting of the museum and library in the wake of what honestly looks like an otherwise surprisingly good military performance, and when many people hear complaints about the looting and fire, their understandable reaction is "You're just grasping at straws for any reason to say this war was wrong. You probably don't really even care about the antiquities or books. And anyways (insert emerging rationalization about why the looting and burning was not really so bad, better than the alternative, or otherwise acceptable)."

Everyone on both sides needs to remember that being excessively partisan for your side trains others to ignore arguments from your own side, even arguments that are correct.

A lesson for listeners is to try to focus on the substance of arguments (but with bounded time and rationality, this cannot be perfect). The same lesson applies to speakers. I suggest you go out of your way to avoid the impression that you are partisan, only on the lookout for reasons to attack the other side and defend your own.

Meanwhile, the looting and burning were clear tragedies and disasters. At this point my main hope is that most of the looting was highly organized (maybe even before the fall of Bagdad) by professionals who will get the artifiacts to the market, and [hoping beyond hope] that most of the fire was a cover to hide an already successful looting of the library.

Posted by: Tom on April 24, 2003 02:02 PM

I think that the problem here is that Rumsfeld is a glib, cheeky, nasty, know-nothing. He could have said all kinds of things other than what he did say. What he did wsay as the worst he could have come up with. "Jars? How many jars to that have in Iraq, anyway". Sorry, that's nihilistic.

I am aggressively partisan and I despised Rumsfeld already, but Nielsen-Hayden is pretty temperate. The facts of the case, plus Rumsfeld's response, appalled her. She was right and I was endorsing, and amplifying, her reaction.

A bump on a log can be even-handed and non-partisan. You are using stereotype rote cliches of the kinds "On the one hand.... and on the other hand...." and "Both sides are equally bad".

I suggest that you go out of your way to convince people that you are capable of responding to events in some other way than splitting the difference.

Posted by: zizka on April 24, 2003 05:06 PM

Aghhhh ... why do people keep repeating that bit of historical bunkum about Caliph Umar???

[snip]
One of the most regrettable events in history was the destruction of the Library of Alexandria by order of the caliph Omar.
[/snip]

That story was cooked up by Bishop Gregory bar Hebraeus 300 years after the fact. The comment Caliph Umar was supposed to have made was that the items in the library will "... either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous." That like the story of the muslim destruction of Alexandria is fabrication unsupported by history or archeology.


From the Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed on Alexandria:

"The libraries, however, were gradually destroyed from the time of Caesar's invasion, and suffered especially in A.D. 391, when Theodosius I had pagan temples and other structures razed. When the Muslim Arabs took Alexandria in 642, its prosperity had withered, largely because of a decline in shipping, but the city still had about 300,000 inhabitants. The Arabs moved the capital of Egypt to Cairo in 969 and Alexandria's decline continued, accelerating in the 14th cent., when the canal to the Nile silted up."

The Christianized Roman Emperor Theodosius burnt the Libraries *251 years before* the Muslims arrived!

The Caliphs were actually responsible for preserving much of what little we have of Greek literature. The real tragedy was the sacking of Baghdad in the 13th century ...

Posted by: patrick on April 25, 2003 10:22 AM

Bishop Gregory Abu Faraj Bar Hebraeus was probably, as Patrick says, a poor source on the fate of the Alexandria Library. His Chronography, however, is an important source on the Mongol Il Khans in the middle east. He also wrote a more popular book of entertaining stories, among which are some of the first moron jokes.

"A moron was eating dates pits and all. Someone asked him why, and he said, 'I bought a pound for two dollars, and I just can't throw away a dollar's worth'"

"When the dentist said that his minimum charge for extracting a tooth was $10, the moron said, 'Well, I'm not going to pay $10 for one tooth. But how about I give you $10 and you pull an extra tooth?'"

Heavily adapted from Budge's translation; Budge didn't seem to have a good sense of comedy.

Posted by: zizka on April 25, 2003 02:55 PM
Post a comment