"==miscellaneous== 

 Is the library an institution or the collection of books?  The article switches meanings in such a way as to allow the library to survive up to 400 so it can be destroyed by Christians. The last chief librarian of the Royal Library was Aristarchus of Samothrace (fl. 150 BC). If ""Library of Alexandria"" means the Royal Library, there wouldn't have been a library of this name in Roman times since Egypt was no longer a kingdom. But the Athenaeus quote from 200 AD and other sources suggest that Alexandria was still famous for ""libraries,"" the best-known of which was at the Sarapeum (Temple of Saraphis). Several ancient sources describe the destruction of Sarapeum in 391, but none mention books. If the books disappeared sometime between 200 and 391, the massive fire of 272 is the obvious culprit. 

 The story of Christians ransacking the library is from _History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ by Edward Gibbon. There is nothing in ancient sources to support the details he gives. He seems to have just invented it as an anti-Christian smeer. 

 I find this sentence to be a non sequitur: ""As noted above, it is generally accepted that the Museum of Alexandria existed until c. AD 400, and if the Museum and the Library are considered to be largely identical or attached to one another, earlier accounts of destruction could only concern a small number of books stored elsewhere."" 

 If the book collection and museum buildings were destroyed in the fire of 272, the museum could be rebuilt and continue to function as a research institution, although persumably its collection of books was much smaller from that point on. The article does not even mention this fire, yet it is the most common explanation of what happened to the library. 

 In the conclusion of the article, the author's highly questionable opinions are presented as a ""growing consensus among historians""  now that's bullheaded arrogance for you!  

 : Good points all.  The article shifts back & forth between library as building and library as collection of books.  This should be clarified, particularly in light of the POV conclusions.  The article fails to mention the damage to the library under Caracalla, then when Alexandria was taken by Zenobia, and under Aurelian.  If the library constituted a bunch of scrolls (which would probably have been much more valuable - both in monetary and in intellectual/cultural terms - than the actual building), then there was probably little of it left by the time of Theodosius.  Not to mention the fact that Christians had long made their peace with Classicaul culture & literature - see the Cappadocian Fathers, among others,  for evidence - so it is highly unlikely that they would have destroyed the books anyway.  If we're talking about the actual building, than sure, it probably was finally destroyed under Theodosius, but to call that the ""most severe"" is a little silly, seeing as how it had long since (by over 500 years!) ceased to be the massive cultural center that it was under the Ptolemies. 

 : It should also be noted that Apollodorus' mention of how the Library was retained in the ""memory"" of all by no means indicates that he or his readers had actually seen the place, or that it still existed. 

  
 I think the first sentence of this article is vague...was once the largest in the world? So would the first library of 2 scrolls be the 'largest in the world' at its time. And the sentence about the reason so little is known about its destruction is that is happened so long after the founding? I don't see the logic. But from the ridiculous discussion below I imagine that any changes I might make would automatically be deleted because some people feel a sense of ownership over this page.  

 - 

 This article has very little mention of the sacking of the Brucheion quarter (where the museum was located) by Aurelian in 272 A.D.  It is likely the greater part of the remaining library was destroyed at this time.  Indeed there is mention that the museum existed in the 4th Centuryso did the temple of Serapisbut in what condition did it exist?  Judging from the lack of specific mention of the library in any significant terms by the 4th Century its likely that it was only a shadow of its former glory by that time.  Thus, far from being the majority opinion, it is unlikely that the ""most severe"" destruction of the library was done under Flavius Theodosius.   

  

 Carl Sagan's book Cosmos has a redition of the burning of the Library 
 of Alexandria which I always found a little fishy.  Could someone talk about 
 that? 

 Carl Sagan reported, if I remember correctly, the Caliph Omar story (though he didn't provide names) as his idea of what really happened. I'll