Library of Alexandria: Custodians of Knowledge

What can the destruction of the Library of Alexandria tell us about whether we need custodians of Knowledge ?

The Library of Alexandria, situated in Alexandria, Egypt, was one of antiquity's most renowned centres of knowledge and scholarly activity. Founded in the 3rd century BCE under the Ptolemaic dynasty, it aimed to collect the world's wisdom. However, its destruction is shrouded in mystery and has become synonymous with the loss of invaluable knowledge. Various accounts suggest different phases of decline and destruction.

The first significant blow is thought to have occurred in 48 BCE when Julius Caesar set fire to ships in Alexandria's harbour; the flames purportedly spread to parts of the city, including the library. Additional harm was inflicted under the reign of Emperor Theophilus in 391 CE, who sought to eliminate pagan influences, and further during the decree of Theodosius that closed all pagan temples. In 642 CE, after the Islamic conquest of Alexandria, any remaining traces of the library were possibly lost forever. 

The cumulative effects of these incidents resulted in the irretrievable loss of countless ancient scrolls, texts, documents and artefacts.  

What are The ToK implications of the destruction of the library?

The Library of Alexandria could be seen as a custodian of knowledge. At the time of its first destruction It was thought to contain the greatest documented collection of human knowledge up to that point in time. It was a protective store of all that was thought to be worthy to document and store, a veritable vault of the best knowledge of human civilisation. As such, its destruction could be seen as a significant rupture in the continuum of human knowledge.

This argument could be seen as the reason why we do need custodians of knowledge, the documents in the library could have provided us with an understanding of how the ancient world operated, their tools and engineering techniques, their values and belief systems, and their social organisation. Some of this knowledge may have helped us in the subsequent 2000 yrs to avoid some of the mistakes that we’ve made, and to produce better knowledge still. Much of this was lost in the three main destructive events. 

This is the cumulative theory of knowledge, and creates a fairly compelling (if obvious) argument as to why we need Custodians of Knowledge.

However, can we develop counter-arguments, arguments that the loss of the knowledge in the library did not create significant problems, or may even have been a positive for the development of new knowledge ? In other words can we develop arguments that don’t need custodians of knowledge.

Counterarguments to the need for Custodians of Knowledge

Exclusivity.

The first argument against the positive role of the Library could be developed from the exclusivity of knowledge. It is a fair assumption that not many people had the ability to read and write in the ancient world. It wasn’t so long ago that even in today’s fully literate societies a minority of people could read and write. If these skills were also rare in the ancient world then access to the knowledge held in the Library at Alexandria would have been limited and restricted to a minority of people. Add to this that access would probably have been granted according to membership of elite groups based on religious, political or academic interests  and social class and we start to see that this knowledge would have been the reserve of an elite group. Exclusionary access to knowledge can often develop into power hierarchies which can be used to consolidate and further reproduce privilege. The challenges for the evolution of knowledge that such power hierarchies can create leads us to our second argument against the Library as a Custodian of Knowledge, that is the problem of innovation.

Innovation

If a select group of people have access to knowledge that they use to consolidate their own power we can see an inherent conservation and possible stagnation in that knowledge. There are very few pressures on knowledge to be adapted and evolved it it serves to maintain the current conditions. As such innovative ideas, or new knowledge, are far less likely to appear. If they do appear they are far less likely to be accepted into the library of ‘legitimised knowledge’. This is the gatekeepers argument of the ancient world.For example a stonemason is far less likely to have a great new idea for building pyramids if they are unable to read the established knowledge for building pyramids, and even if they did have that great new idea it is far less likely to be accepted and adopted if they are not part of the social, religious or political groups that have access to, and authorise, knowledge in the library.

This argument is that exclusive libraries can stifle the innovation of new ideas, or new knowledge.

People as knowers.

The third argument is based on the means, or location, of the storage of knowledge, in some ways it is an argument about technology. Some societies don’t have writing, these are often called oral cultures, non-literate or pre-literate cultures, some indigenous cultures fit into this category. In these societies knowledge is stored in people rather than in books, and documents. The knowledge of the society is the sum total of all the knowledge in the society. People pass knowledge to each other, and from one generation to the next using stories, music and art. These societies could be seen as having more inclusive access to knowledge than literate societies, roughly in an oral society everyone has the rights and means to access all of the knowledge. It could be argued that knowledge in such societies is far more open to innovation, evolution and fresh ideas. New knowledge will arise from the lived experiences of the people, and will be verified and legitimised through collective experiences. It could be argued that libraries take people away from the primary experience of knowledge, and therefore remove both their awareness and acceptance of new experiences, and therefore potential new knowledge. This is an argument that libraries stifle innovation.

Summary

In summary we could argue that the destruction of the library of Alexandria may have led to increased pressures for the innovation of new knowledge because the established knowledge was destroyed. This new knowledge may have been better adapted for the new conditions (such as living under the new Roman or later Byzantine Empires), and it may have led to more people both contributing to the development of this knowledge, and knowing the new knowledge.

Of course, personally I don’t believe any of this, I think that knowledge is sacred, libraries are temples of enlightenment, and that we should never destroy books nor libraries. But such are the lengths that we are willing to go to in the pursuit of counter arguments in ToK.

If you want to know more for essay 5 (or any of the other May 24 Essays), if you want detailed guidance notes then click here . These guidance notes give you knowledge arguments, counter arguments,  real world examples, evaluation points and implications.

Please feel free to contact me for help and advice with your ToK Essay (Daniel@ToKToday.com),

Enjoy your writing, Stay toktastic,
Daniel, Lisbon, Oct 23