;

*»•<

*

tt'

(§>

'3&

*35

&&&

J %

*te,

«&'

fj

rE~

cN?..*!../ 7 LjjKfe

Inrvw/. ,U S,<3Um^.

B-.

^

*

AN ENQUIRY

INTO THE

DESTRUCTION OF THE ANCIENT

ALEXANDRIAN LIBRARY,

BY

MOULVI SHIBLI NOMANI,

Professor of Arabic, M. A. 0. College, AUgarh

tuyc.)^

FREE TRANSLATION (FROM THE ORIGINAL URDU.)

BY

MUHAMMAD GHOUSE SAYEED,

T}an$l<itcr. City Civil Com ttt> Hyderabad,* Deccan.

Price, Govt. AvnaIs Eight.

j » PRINTED BY VEST AND COMPANY, MOUNT ROAD,

AND PUBLISHED BY THE TRANSLATOR, HYDERABAD, DECCAN.

1893.

[All Rights Reserved.]

1

%.^

■ m> . \ fa

c^xLv.

)\\ Up,

17

DEDICATED BY KIND PERMISSION

TO

NAWAB MOHSINUL-MULK, MOHSINUD-DOWLAB

MOULVI SYED MAHDI ALI KHAN BAHADUR

MUNIR NAVAZ JUNG,

Financial Secretary,

to

HIS HIGHNESS THE NIZAM'S GOVERNMENT;

WHO, BY HIS EDUCATION, ATTAINMENTS, IMPRESSIVE

ELOQUENCE, POSITION AND PRINCIPLES,

HAS DESERVEDLY ATTAINED TO THE HIGH STATUS OF A

LEADING MEMBER OF

THE MUHAMMADAN COMMUNITY;

AND

Who Takes a Deep Interest in the Spread

of Truth and the Diffusion

of Knowledge

by

His Most Obedient Servant,

MUHAMMAD GHOUSE SAYEED.

Hyderabad, Deccan,

ist March, 1893.

TRANSLATOR'S NOTE.

The Translator begs to state that while keep- ing to the sense of the original Urdu, he has tried to give as free a rendering as circumstances permitted.

He takes this opportunity of expressing his best thanks to Moulvi Shibli INIomani, Professor of Arabic, Aligarh College, and Author of the original, in Urdu, for the readiness with which he kindly permitted the publication of the translation.

The Translator is highly grateful to Muhammad Aziz Mirza, Esq., b.a., u.r.a.s., Assistant Home Secretary, H. H. the Nizam's Government, for the literary help he has received from him, and begs hereby to acknowledge the same.

In conclusion, he has also to thank the Printers, Messrs. Vest and Co., for the neatness of the printing and the general get-up.

MUHAMMAD GHOUSE SAYEED.

Hyderabad, Deccan,

i st March, 3 893.

AN ENQUIRY

INTO THE

DESTRUCTION OF THE ANCIENT

ALEXANDRIAN LIBRARY.

Of the many mistaken notions that at one time arose in Europe in relation to the history of Islam, and still continue to possess the public mind, the subject of this brochure is one.

Though the Europeans had, from a long time previous, ample means of acquainting themselves with the true history of the Mussalmans, the found- ation of their present knowledge of that history was only laid during the period of the Crusades. The impression, which the Europeans began to have of the Mussalmans, at this period, when, in the words of the historians, they began to emerge from dark- ness and to make any progress in literature and politics, was mainly that they were a fighting, destructive and barbarous people, and, worst of all, they were the enemies of the Sacred Cross, as also of Jerusalem, the holy place of Christian worship.

About this time also, numerous strange stories began to spread in Europe about the Mussalmans, — which was of course but natural. The errone- ous and unfounded notionsthat prevailed in Europe regarding the religion, nationality and social man- ners and customs of the Mussalmans, by -and -bye

2 DESTRUCTION OF THE ANCIENT

reached such a stage of notoriety that they came to be quoted as proverbs by high and low. When in course of time, books, such as histories, stories, novels and philosophical works, came to be com- posed, these current ideas found their way largely into them. To mention an instance. Bacon, in his essay on ' Boldness,' writes : — Muhammad one day, trying to convince his audience that he was the true prophet, asked those that were present, to go to a distant hill which was in sight, and order it to come to him ; whereupon the men carried the message to it. But how could a hill move ? When Muhammad saw that this was the case, instead of feeling ashamed, with great sauvity, said — " Oh, it does not matter ! If the hill will not come to Muhammad, Muham- mad will go to the hill."*

* The author's translation of Bacon's language is evidently incorrect. The following is an extract from the 4( Essay " itself : — " Muhammad made the people believe that he would call a hill to him, and from the top of it offer up his prayers for the observers of his law. The people assembled : Muham- mad called the hill to come to him again and again ; and when the hill stood still, he was never a whit abashed, but said : ' If the hill will not come to Muhammad, Muhammad will go to the hill.'

So these men, when they have promised great matters, and failed most shamefully, yet, if they have the perfection of boldness, they will but slight it over, and make a turn, and no more ado."

Thus the inference which the author draws from the extract is also consequently erroneous— Translator.

ALEXANDRIAN LIBRARY.

Bacon was no historian, nor does he appear to have cited this instance in any way derogatory to the great Prophet ; but he only mentioned it as an illustration, in the course of a dissertation on * Boldness' ; the reason being, that such traditions had permeated the atmosphere of Europe, and the public had accepted them as fundamental truths.

During the last century, or century and a half, Europe has inclined more and more to a critical enquiry into the truth of such traditions, which has resulted in an ever-increasing exposure of their groundlessness ; so much so, that the celebrated historians of Europe have begun to accept it, as a fact, that they are a source of disgrace to Europe. Carlyle in his lecture on Heroes and Hero worship, said : —

" The lies, which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man, (Muhammad), are disgraceful to ourselves only."

As the lecture was on Muhammad, Carlyle had to confine himself to the allegations against the pro- phet; he might otherwise have dealt with the many current false traditions regarding Islam and its history. Though modern research has tended to lessen the number of these erroneous beliefs, it has not yet succeeded in demolishing them in toto. The reason, however, is that these traditions, having obtained a very wide circulation among the

4 DESTRUCTION OF THE ANCIENT

nations of Europe, their truth could only be fear- lessly enquired into by such critics, as did not find themselves overwhelmed with the weight of public opinion. And critics of this class are but few indeed !

Again, in every nation, critical enquirers are always in the minority. Though only such facts deserve to be believed in, as the critics them- selves have, after careful enquiry, accepted ; yet their researches do not find their way beyond the select few, to the sphere of the general public, or into popular works. Thus the celebrated critics of Europe, such as Gibbon, Carlyle, Godfrey Higgins, Bosworth,* Renan, &c, have discarded many of the current European traditions regarding Islam, as entirely unfounded ; notwithstanding which, however, they continue to find a place in popular works.

Of such a nature is the tradition of the destruc- tion of the Alexandrian Library. The pertinacity with which the Europeans have insisted on the tradition is surprising in the extreme. Histories, Novels, Stories, Proverbs, Poems, Fables, &c, all refer to it. Turning from the region of liter- ature, if we proceed to works on Logic and Philosophy, we find that the charge is not forgot- ten. One of the questions set in Logic, for the

* Evidently, Bosworth Smith.— Translator.

ALEXANDRIAN LIBRARY.

First in Arts Examination of the Calcutta Univer- sity of 1882, was — " Point out the fallacy in the following :-— Writings which agree with the Book of God are useless ; and those that disagree with it ought to be destroyed."

Another question which strikes us in this con- nection, is — why do the Europeans display so much sympathy with the Alexandrian Library ? It is acknowledged on all hands that the Christians had no connection with the library, the idolatrous Kings of Egypt having founded it, centuries before the advent of Christ. It may be said that this sympathy is the result of the appreciative and philanthropic spirit of European society ; but were this so, we ask, why has Alexandria been specially selected ? Other large libraries have shared this alleged fate, and no hue and cry has ever been raised. Who has lamented, or proclaimed to the world, the destruction of the libraries of Persia by Alexander the Great, or the destruction by the Christians of Spain, of millions of books and other monuments of learning collected during long centuries by the Mussalmans ? To what then is this special sympathy for the Alexandrian Library due ?

The fact, however, is, as we shall presently show, that this library was destroyed by the Christians themselves, led to do so by their religious leaders. At the time, the act was gloried in ; but when, with

6 DESTRUCTION OF THE ANCIENT

the spread of civilization and enlightenment, Europe found, to its dismay, that the stain of this barbarous act clung to it, it was found that the only practicable means of effacing it, was to transfer the blame to some other nation. When the Muss- almans conquered Egypt and took Alexandria, there was not a trace of this library ; but preju- diced Christians attributed the alleged barbarian act to them. As Europe was then blinded by prejudice and sunk in ignorance, no one cared to enquire into the truth of the story, and the false accusation consequently spread far and wide. The fate of the library has been deplored by Europeans in language which leads one to believe that the library was their own collection. Such, however, is the popular opinion up to the present day, for no one has ever thought of attributing the act to the Christians themselves, as, it is evident, that no nation will ever destroy its own handiwork.

But what truth is there in this allegation, whose echo, atone time, filled every part of Europe? Alas ! It is entirely unfounded ! How then was it possible for such an unfounded statement to attain such publicity and acceptance, for such a length of time, in all the countries of Europe ? The question is apparently difficult, but the answer is not far to seek. As we have already pointed out — and it is not to be wondered at,— such base- less allegations and hundreds of similar unfounded

ALEXANDRIAN LIBRARY.

traditions were very generally accepted as true, during the middle ages, in Europe. As civilization advanced, the matter came to be discussed and many a celebrated writer disputed its truth. It is indeed astonishing to find that even now there are people who believe in the truth of such an allega- tion, though its falsity ought, long ago, to have been once for all considered proved.

Two reasons may be assigned for this. In the first place, even in a progressive age, the spirit of ignorance and barbarism does not become alto- gether extinct ; nor is it possible that it should do so. In the next place, the European method of conducting enquiries into historical events seldom leads to a final decision. The original object of research is lost sight of, and the discus- sion digresses on the intellectual and the conjec- tural possibilities of its occurrence, many minor points thus acquiring undeserved importance. The discussion gradually assumes enormous propor- tions ; but the original point remains undecided. The present is an instance, as the sequel will show. This subject has been under discussion in Europe for a long time, and numerous standard works have been written on it. In many of the gene- ral histories of the Mussalmans, the authors have, after referring to it, left on record their personal opinions regarding its truth or falsity. It may not be out of place here to give a general idea of the nature of the works bearing on the subject, that

8 DESTRUCTION OF THE ANCIENT

have been consulted by the author, as quotations from them are given in their appropriate places. Foremost among them, we would mention Gibbon's History of the Roman Empire, and refer particularly to the Chapter on the " Moslem Conquest of Alexandria," which contains a few short, but critical remarks.

^Egyptica, or observations on certain Antiquities of Egypt ; by J. White, d.d. Professor of Arabic, University of Oxford, 1801, in which the learned author supports the tradition.

Successors of Muhammad ; by Washington Irving, page 113.

The Saracens; Story of Nations Series, page 254-

History of Arabia, Ancient and Modern ; by Andrew Crichton, page 393.

History of Conflict between Religion and Science, by Draper, pages 103 and 104.

The London Spectator has an Essay in support of, and another against, the tradition. — Vide Spectator dated 2nd and 23rd June, 1888.

Encyclopaedia Britannica ; (article Alexandria).

Histoire Generale Des Arabes ; Par L. A. Sedil- lot Tom,

ALEXANDRIAN LIBRARY.

Professor De Sacy's Translation of, and Note on, Abdul Latif Bagdadee's book, containing a lengthened discussion.

Mr. Krell's (of Germany) paper on the subject, read before the fourth session of the Oriental Congress, held at Florence in September, 1878.

The most important point to be discussed as regards this tradition is, whether it finds expres- sion in European or Arabian histories. The matter, however, is not disputed, for, favourable and unfavourable authorities are both agreed on it. The majority of European historians who refer to it, do not maintain that they rely on any indepen- dent authority, but profess their indebtedness to Arabic historians. However this may be, we shall now proceed to trace how this baseless story came to be current in Europe.

The first man to give publicity to it in Europe, was Abulpharagius. The son of a Jewish physi- cian named Aaron, he was born in 1226 a.d., in Malatia. As his father was a convert to Christi- anity, he was brought up in the principles of that religion. Besides his knowledge in divinity, he acquired an intimate acquaintance with the Arabic and the Syrian languages. Oa account of his learning, he was appointed Bishop of Guba in the twenty-first year of his age. Gradually he reached the dignity of Primate of the Jacobites, next only to that of Patriarch. Abulpharagius wrote an ex-

io DESTRUCTION OF THE ANCIENT

haustive history in the Syrian language compiled from Syrian, Arabic, Persian and Greek sources. He also wrote an Abstract of this work in Arabic, called Mukhthasarud-Dawal, which was published with a Latin version in 1664 by Dr. Pocock, Pro- fessor, Oxford College. There are several editions of this work, all of which, however, are imperfect. In some parts, the Abstract goes beyond the origin- al Syrian. It is uncertain, whether the additions were made by Abulpharagius himself, or are inter- polations, due to some one else. In this Abstract, the destruction of the Alexandrian Library by fire has; for the first time, found mention, and it is through its Latin version that this tradition reached every part of Europe. Gibbon in his history writes : — " Since the Dynasties of Abulpharagius have been given to the world in Latin version, the tale has been repeatedly transcribed." Washington Irving, Arthur Gleen, M.A.,Mr. Crichtonand many other authors have also admitted it. All tradi- tions against the Mussalmans, whether true or false, were, about the time the Latin version made its appearance, greedily accepted as true ; in con- sequence of which, feelings of detestation and hatred began to be entertained against that nation. Thus it was that the tradition began to permeate every kind of European literature with great force.

The following is the literal translation of what Abulpharagius wrote: — (vide Mukhthasarud-Dawral by Abulpharagius, London, 1663, pages 180 — 181).

ALEXANDRIAN LIBRARY. n

" At this time, John, who had derived the sur- name of Philoponus (from his laborious studies in grammar and philosophy,) was wTell known among the Arabs. He was a native of Alexandria and a Jacobite Christian. When, subsequently, he reject- ed the Christian doctrine of Trinity, the priests of Egypt assembled together and called upon him to retract his heresy ; but he did not listen to them. The priests thereupon degraded him from his rank. He lived to a very old age ; for, when Amr Ibnul- A'as took Alexandria, he presented himself before him. Amr had heard of the ability of Philoponus and he therefore received him with great respect, and listened to his discourses on philosophical subjects, such as the Arabs had never known. As Amr himself was a clever and intelligent man, he was greatly struck and became charmed with him. He therefore found John's company indispensable and never allowed him to leave his side.

" One day, John said to Amr, — < You have taken possession of every thing in Alexandria. I do not object to your keeping that which is useful to you, but I think that we people are more entitled to the possession of those things that are not useful to you.' Amr asked him what he wanted. John replied that he wanted as a gift, the philosophical works contained in the royal libraries. Amr replied

12 DESTRUCTION OF THE ANCIENT

that he could do nothing in the matter without the sanction of the Caliph, who was accordingly communicated with ; in reply to which the follow- ing order was received : —

" If the writings, you refer to, are in accordance with the Book of God, there is no necessity for them, in the face of its existence. But if they are against the Book of God, you better commence destroying them." Amr distributed the books among the numerous baths of Alexandria, and ordered that they should be burnt. In short, it took six months for them to be consumed. Read and wonder !"

The tradition in this form, went on spreading for a long time ; but it occurred to no one, to -enquire into its truth. The first man who criti- cally examined it, was the celebrated historian Gibbon, the founder of the modern style of history, who wrote : — " For my own part, I am strongly tempted to deny both the fact and the conse- quences." Gibbon adduced several reasons for this rejection ; among which are that Abulphara- gius was born five" hundred years after the event, and that no writer before him, even among Chris- tian historians, mentions it. How, then, can the evidence of Abulpharagius be considered reliable? When Gibbon rejected the tradition as untrue,

Evidently a mistake for six hundred. — Translator.

ALEXANDRIAN LIBRARY. 13

Europe awoke from its slumber of ignorance : and numerous learned men devoted their time to criti- cal researches on the subject. After Gibbon, two classes of critics arose, one of which upheld, while the other rejected the tradition. As it is an ac- knowledged fact that in the first century after the Hegira, no contemporary History of Islam was written in Europe, it follows that all the histories that have been compiled up to date, or are being compiled in Europe, regarding the Prophet and the first four Caliphs, are based upon Moslem works. We therefore find that those who wanted to prove the truth of this tradition, also had to refer to Ara- bian historians for confirmation of their theories. Mr. Crichton, (who is angry with Gibbon for his rejection) in his work on the " History of Islam," writes: — If this circumstance were entirely depen- dent upon the evidence of a stranger (Abulphara- gius) who wrote six hundred years after the event, then we must pause before accepting the state- ment of the Armenian historian (Abulpharagius). But this statement is not based upon his writings alone, for, Makreezi and Abdul Latif, who have written histories of Egypt from the earliest times, also mention this tradition. Mr. Krell has openly

accepted this view. He writes that, to the best of his knowledge, the tradition is mentioned prima- rily in the history compiled by Abdul Latif, who was born five hundred years after the alleged event.

14 DESTRUCTION OF THE ANCIENT

The tradition being thus solely based on Arabic histories, it is very easy to come to a conclusion as to its authenticity. In the matter of acquaintance with Arabic writings, we have a greater claim than the Europeans, for, as the proverb goes, " a man in the house knows more of its condition than an outsider." The European writers who uphold it, quote Abdul Latif Bagdadi, Makreezi and Haji Khalifa as authorities, ad nauseam, and add that these historians are very reliable and their evidence cannot be rejected. One English writer, evidently unacquainted with the subject, has even gone the length of quoting Ibn-i-Khaldoun as his authority ; and, with characteristic shamefaced- ness, wrote — Ibn-i-Khaldoun has, in his history of Caliph Omar, mentioned this tradition. Ibn-i-Khal- doun s history is a well-known work, but in no part of the chapter on Omar is there a single word about this fiction. Having thus disposed of Ibn-i- Khaldoun, there remain only the three above men- tioned authors upon whose writings the tradition is apparently based.

We now turn our attention to the critical ex- amination of this tradition from the historical point of view, in the course of which we shall show that the authority, which the European historians derive from these authors, does not exist. In the critical examination of historical events, two methods may be adopted — (i) the " authoritative"; and (2) the " probable." By ' authority' we mean

ALEXANDRIAN LIBRARY. 15

the basis of an event on the testimony of some person who was present at its occurrence. All the standard Arabic histories are based upon this principle, and, in them, the authority is generally traced back to the original person, by the state- ments " heard from, or learned from, so and so;" after which the names of all the intermediate persons are given, through whom the tradition is traced to the original person, who was present at the time of its occurrence. This system was fol- lowed up to the fourth century after the Hegira, since which time, however, the practice has become less common.

By the method of * probability,' we mean the consideration of an event in its relation to the fol- lowing circumstances, viz : the dictates of human nature, the peculiarities of the times, the possi- bilities of its occurrence and other similar circum- stances. If the event does not stand this test, grave doubts arise as to its truth ; and there arises a suspicion that the tradition has undergone a change in assuming its present aspect.

In the critical examination of this tradition also, we shall adopt these methods. Whereas in this discussion there are two parties, one of which denies it and the other claims to have proved it ; and, as in such cases, the onus of proof lies on that party that claims to have proved it ; we have in the first place to discuss the proof that has been adduced.

16 DESTRUCTION OF THE ANCIENT

r~~

As far as we are aware, (and we can emphati- cally declare that no body can adduce better evi- dence in the discussion), the argument brought forward by all the European writers, amounts to this, that the alleged fact is mentioned by Abdul Latif Bagdadi, Makreezi and Haji Khalifa. The points at issue are (i) whether these writers have made any statements in this connection, which can be accepted as evidence ; and (2) whether their evidence is conclusive.

The European historians who uphold this tradi- tion erroneously quote, again and again, these three as authorities. Those who deny the tradi- tion consider that their evidence is unreliable. Thus the discussion has, so to speak, drawn a curtain over the fraudulent manoeuvres of the European historians, for it became confined to the consideration of whether the authority of Abdul Latif and others, was reliable or not, though the first and foremost point to be decided is, whether the statements of Abdul Latif and others consti- tute any evidence at all.

The most important point therefore to be dis- cussed is whether the statements of the three above noted authors constitute three independent pieces of evidence. Makreezi's History printed in Egypt is before us. In volume I, page 151, the author describes the Minaret of Savari, one of the most celebrated in Alexandria, under the heading

ALEXANDRIAN LIBRARY.

*7

" Minaret of Savavi," and under it, transcribes word for word, the language of Abdul Latifs description of it. In Abdul Latifs work, the Alexandrian library finds only an incidental mention, and as Makreezi has quoted Abdul Latif word for word, the description of the library has also been similarly transcribed. It is on account of this, that M. Langles, the celebrated French Savant, is compelled to admit that Makreezi's de- scription is not independent evidence, but on the other hand, is only a transcript of Abdul Latifs words — (vide Professor De Sacy's note on the translation of Abdul Latif Bagdadi's history, page 240, Paris 1810). M. Langles holds views contrary to ours, but lie has been compelled to admit this. Those European historians, who have not seen Makreezi's book in original, like those who believe in a thing without seeing it, often refer to him. But M. Langles was unlike them, as he had read Makreezi in original, in which though he describes with great minuteness] of detail, the conquest of Alexandria, he has not/ written a single word about the library, from which it can reasonably be inferred that the) above mentioned event can be placed in the category of authentic historical occurrences.

Having thus eliminated Makreezi's name, there remain only two, viz., Abdul Latif and Haji Khalifa. — The European historians often refer to the latter but they do not quote his words ; for, had they

18 DESTRUCTION OF THE ANCIENT

done so, their argument would have probably been weakened. We are greatly indebted to Professor De Sacy, the celebrated French author, who very emphatically tries to establish this tradition ; for, it was he, who exposed the secret, by quoting Haji Khalifa's words (which translated are as follows): —

" In the early days of Islam, the Arabs confined themselves to the study of the Revealed Law, and the sciences of Lexicography and Medicine. As such knowledge was of every day use, it was studied by a few. As the tenets of Islam had not obtained a firm hold on the minds of the people, it was feared that the ancient sciences would interfere with popular beliefs, so much so that it is alleged that the books they found in the con- quest of different cities were burnt."

In the above extract, the name of Alexandria is not even mentioned. Only the burning of books, in a general way, is stated, and even this state- ment is prefaced with — " it is alleged — " which evidently shows that it was a vulgar tradition. From the style of the passage, it does not at all appear that the author wanted it to be believed as a genuine occurrence. Haji Khalifa only des- cribes the lack of attention towards knowledge that prevailed in the early days of Islam, and in the course of it, mentions a common tradition as such. The incident reminds us of the following.

ALEXANDRIAN LIBRARY. ig

Napoleon wishing to be looked upon as the Com- mander of the Faithful in Egypt, had recourse to many subterfuges, among which it is alleged that he uttered the Muhammadan article of Faith* in the Mosque at Azhar, and said his prayers along with the community. This style of writing is very common, and an author or speaker is thus enabled to give utterance to even the most unfounded traditions. The fathering of the mention of the burning of the Alexandrian Library on Haji Khalifa, is such an astonishing piece of audacity, that it could not have emanated from any but European writers.

The testimony of Abdul Latif Bagdadi alone remains to be considered, which is in reality the last refuge of European historians. Abdul Latif wrote a history of Egypt which he finished on the ioth Shaban 603 Hegira. It contains a descrip- tion only of those circumstances and events which Abdul Latif himself witnessed in Egypt. He has a chapter on the Minaret of Savari, where he, after describing it fully, writes that around the tower there are four hundred small pillars. In the course of this Chapter, he writes as follows : —

" And I find that it is the same portico in which Aristotle, and his disciples after him, taught, and it was the Academy which Alexander

*There is no God but God, and Muhammad is his prophet.

20 DESTRUCTION OF THE ANCIENT

had established when he founded the city, and that in it was located the library which Amy Ibmtl-A 'as burnt under the orders of Caliph Omar."

From this, any one can understand the spirit in which Abdul Latif refers to this circumstance, Mr. Krell, the German author, after quoting the above passage in his paper, writes : — It does not appear to have been mentioned with any particular object, nor is it intended to remind us of any real occurrence. A well-known tradition is, however, mentioned, which, the pilgrims of that time had given wide currency to ; and it belongs to that class of irresponsible and unreasonable stories which were current during the middle ages among the pilgrims with respect to Jerusalem.

A diverting incident in this connection is, that not only is Abdul Latif s mention of this circum- stance unfounded, but all the events he describes in this sentence happen to be untrue. Neither was this place Aristotle's portico, not did he ever deliver lectures there. A correspondent in The Spectator of the 13th June, commenting on the inaccuracy of Abdul Latifs statement humor- ously asks, — what truth is there in the other events which Abdul Latif mentions, even leaving out of consideration the description of the burning of the library ?

This is the basis of those authorities and tradi- tions on which the European historians solely rely. The weak grounds on which they have

ALEXANDRIAN LIBRARY. 21

based their discussions are indeed very remark- able. It will be evident, from the original passages from Abdul Latif and the other authors that we have quoted, that Makreezi himself never mentioned this circumstance, but in the extract which he made from Abdul Latif s writing on the Minaret of Savari, the library finds incidental mention. Haji Khalifa does not mention Alex- andria even by name. Of course, he refers to libraries in general, and such reference is only under the head of * hearsay,' wherefrom it is evident, that it is by no means an accepted tradi- tion. But the European historians have always referred to the names of Abdul Latif and the others in such a manner, as to leave the impression that these authors claimed truth for this tradition and wrote particularly on the subject.

Professor De Sacy in his Note thus wrote— Of the objections raised against the statement of Abulpharagius, the strongest is, that the historians of Arabia are silent with respect to this important occurrence. After this, Professor De Sacy thus meets this objection : — ' But the strength of this objection is weakened by the evidence of Abdul Latif and Makreezi. ' The absurdity of this contention lies in the fact that the said Professor himself says further on ' Al- though it may be urged, with sufficient cause, that Makreezi only copied his passage from Abdul Latif/

22 DESTRUCTION OF THE ANCIENT

Mr. Crichton writes : This occurrence does not derive its authority solely from the statement of Abulpharagius ; but on the other hand, Mak- reezi and Abdul Latif who have written books on the ancient history of Egypt, also mention it.

Professor White with great emphasis writes : Against the negative arguments of Gibbon, we make bold to adduce the positive evidence of two Arabic Historians, who are such accepted autho- rities that no objection can be taken to them. They are very enthusiastic followers of Islam. They are Abdul Latif and Makreezi ; who, not only agree in recording this circumstance, i.e., the burning of the library, but accurately describe its whereabouts.

How skilfully has Professor White argued in this matter ? Abdul Latif in his description of the minaret, incidentally, mentions the circum- stance. Professor White clothes it in such a garb as to lead a person ignorant of facts, to believe that Abdul Latif wanted not only to establish the truth of this event, but to fix the exact position of the library.

Although European historians in attempting to prove the accuracy of this tradition, have always quoted the names of these three authorities only, viz., Abdul Latif, Makreezi and Haji Khalifa, (and we have in this connection discussed the writings of these authors), yet some European authors

ALEXANDRIAN LIBRARY. 23

have even gone further and have, without any foundation in fact, stated that there is much in- dependent testimony corroborating this event. Mr. Crichton in a footnote remarks — * Baron De Sacy, in his lengthy note on the translation of Abdul Latif (Description of Egypt page 240), has collected evidence from various Arabic authors, whose works exist in the Paris Royal Library. From them, it is proved that the statement of Abulpharagius is reliable ; but conceited Gibbon had never seen those works.'

This passage will easily mislead an ignorant person, and particularly a person who has an in- nocent belief in the veracity of European authors ; for, he will accept it as true, that, in the magnifi- cent library of Paris, there certainly exist materials to prove this tradition ; for, if not, how could such a false tradition receive such wide publication throughout Europe ?

But our readers should not be awed by the grand name of Paris. De Sacy's note, as well as the works to which he refers, are before us. Un- doubtedly De Sacy with great emphasis and zeal wanted to prove this circumstance. It is a pity, however, that his praiseworthy zeal is not borne out by his arguments. In this connection we give a literal translation of his Note : —

"The truth of the reference to the destruction of the Alexandrian Library by order of the Caliph

24 DESTRUCTION OF THE ANCIENT

Omar, by Abulpharagius, in his history of the Dynasties of Arabia, has been doubted by numer- ous celebrated authors. Whatever has been written on this subject and the amount of reliance to be placed thereon, require lengthened dis- cussion.

" The arguments adduced against the truth of this tradition have been published in a collected form in German by Inch Rainhard at Gottingen in 1792. They are also contained in the remarks made by M. de Saint Croix in his article in the Encyclopedia V, 433. M. Langles and Professor White support the general belief, but do not accept the exaggerated description of Abulpharagius.

" Of the objections raised against the description of Abulpharagius, the strongest is that the Arabic historians are silent on this important subject. But the strength of this objection is certainly weakened by the evidence of Abdul Latif and Makreezi ; it may be urged, that it is evident that Makreezi has, as pointed out by M. Langles, only copied the words of Abdul Latif.

" I do not mean, by the remarks I shall make, to enter the lists with such a learned author (as M. Langles), whom I heartily look upon with feelings of regard and veneration. But I have discovered some authorities and I am certain, though I do not entirely agree with Abulpharagius, who mentions

ALEXANDRIAN LIBRARY. 25

such details as will hardly stand the test of a cri- tical examination, that it is so far true that it is based upon a historic truth, and that when the Arabs conquered this cityy Amr Ibnul-A'as in carrying out the behests of Caliph Omar, ordered the burning of a large collection of books which existed in Alexandria. "

Professor De Sacy then quotes the words of Haji Khalifa and Ibn-i-Khaldoun, and thereby proves the destruction of the Alexandrian Library.

We were very anxious to have a look at the authorities which Professor De Sacy had discover- ed. But we are sorry that they have turned out to be of no value. By hunting up the magni- ficent Paris Library, the Professor has only been able to discover two authorities — one of whom is the same Haji Khalifa, from whose work we have already quoted, and the other is a paragraph from Ibn-i-Khaldoun, in which there is a mention of the Persian library, and even that finds expression in an incidental and summary manner. It is wonder- ful logic indeed to bring forward the fact of the burning of the Persian library as an argument to support the burning of the Alexandrian Library. Although Ibn-i-Khaldoun's statement is untrue and contrary to the writings of all true and accepted historians, we do not discuss that point in this connection, for, we are here concerned^only with the AlexandrianJLibrary, and not with the Persian one.

26 DESTRUCTION OF THE ANCIENT

Perhaps it may be said, that Professor De Sacy has only adduced Ibn-i-Khaldoun's evidence as corroborative. But it is valueless even as such, for, if any conclusion at all is derivable from it, it is only this, that the Alexandrian occurrence is entirely unfounded : for, some one or other of the numerous Arabic historians would have referred to it at least in a manner similar to that in which Ibn-i-Khaldoun has referred to that of Persia. But not in one of the hundreds and thousands of Arabic histories, can any trace be obtained of this alleged event.

The beauty of the thing lies in the fact that even Abulpharagius, who himself happens to be the respondent in this discussion, does not give expression to the statement in a manner from which it may be evident that he himself accepted it as true or believed in it.

In the original history of Abulpharagius which exists in Syrian, and which contains full particu- lars of the Conquest of Alexandria, this occur- rence is not mentioned at all. It, however, finds a place in the form in which we have extracted it above, in the Abstract of the work in the Arabic language. But there is no satisfactory evidence to show that the additions in the Arabic * Abstract,' which are not found in the original Syrian, were made by Abulpharagius himself or, are only in- terpolations. Mr. Krell of Germany thus remarks

ALEXANDRIAN LIBRARY. 27

on the Abstract — " There are many things in it which are not found in the original Syrian. But it does not appear whether these additions are interpolations made after the death of Abulphara- gius, or whether they were made by Abulphara- gius himself ; because all the editions are incom- plete."

The mention of the burning of the Alexand- rian Library, though made in the Abstract, is not in the original Syrian. The suspicion that this passage is an interpolation is strengthened by the fact that this Abstract was edited by Pro- fessor Pococke with his corrections, and he was very clever in concocting occurrences to the discredit of the Mussalmans.

This discussion was entered into, to find out whether Abdul Latif and Haji Khalifa had given any evidence in connection with this occurrence, or not. But even granting for the sake of argu- ment, that these authors had accepted this tradi- tion as true, the next question that arises is whether their evidence is reliable or not. Abdul Latif Bagdadi was born in 557 Hegira ; and Haji Khalifa lived only two centuries ago. Who then can say that the evidence of authors, who were born 500 years or more after the occurrence, and who quote no authority, nor give any reference, is sufficient to establish the truth of an event alleged to have occurred in the first century after the Hegira ?

28 DESTRUCTION OF THE ANCIENT

With regard to these authors, we must also enquire into the status they occupy as historians, for the European authors have, even in this con- nection, made use of ungrounded arguments. They sing the praises of Haji Khalifa and Abdul Latif in high sounding words, and add that in consider- ation of their dignity and greatness, they should be regarded as authorities. To expose the hollow- ness of the praise bestowed by the European his- torians, it is enough to put one question. We also admit that Abdul Latif and Haji Khalifa are very able authors. But we beg to ask, in what branch of learning ? Abdul Latif was undoubtedly a great Professor of Medicine. Many of his works on medicine are still extant. Ibn-i-Aseeba has, in his Lives of Eminent Physicians, referred to him in great detail, from which his extensive knowledge of medicine is evident. But, has any one called him a historian ? Has he, in his Autobiography men- tioned anything about the science of history ? If not, what supports his