CHAPTER III.
Alexandria.
DURING the middle of the third century before Christ, the centre of literary activity was transferred from Athens to Alexandria, which became, under Ptolemy Philadelphus, and for more than three centuries remained, the great book-producing mart of the world. The literature of Alexandria was not, like that of Athens, and later that of Rome, something of slow growth and gradual development; the literary ambition and the resources of the second Ptolemy proved sufficient to bring together in a few years’ time a great body of writers and students and to place at their disposal the largest collection of books known to antiquity.
The most important step in the undertaking of securing for the royal young city of the Nile the literary leadership of the world was the establishment of the great Museum, which appears to have comprised in one organization a great lending and reference library, a series of art collections, a group of colleges endowed for research (of the type of “All Souls” at Oxford), a university of instruction, and an academy with functions like those of the Paris Academy, assuming authority to fix a standard of language and of literary expression, and possibly even to decide concerning the relative rank of writers. The Museum (whose name is of course evidence of its Greek origin and character) is said to date from the year 290 B.C., in which case the founding of it must be credited to Ptolemy Soter, the father of Philadelphus, but its full organization and effective work certainly belonged to the reign of the latter.
Schools of instruction and courses of lectures had, as we have seen, existed at Athens for a century or more, and Athens had also possessed as early as 300 B.C., at least one public library. Alexandria, however, presents the first example of a university established on a state foundation, and offering to literary and scientific workers an assured income through salaried positions. Mahaffy finds in these positions a fair parallel to the institution of fellowships existing in the British universities. He says: “The fellows of the Alexandrian University, brought together into a society by the second Ptolemy, developed that critical spirit which sifted the wheat from the chaff of Greek literature, and preserved for us the great masterpieces in carefully edited texts.”[115]
A peculiarity of the literature of the Alexandrian school was that it had no connection with the country in which it was produced. No inspiration was derived by the Alexandrian writers from Egypt. The traditions and the accumulated learning of the civilization of the Nile (possibly the oldest civilization the world has known), appear to have been contemptuously ignored by the immigrant writers of the Museum, whose interests and whose literary connections remained exclusively Greek. The literature of Alexandria, as well during the reign of the Ptolemies as after the absorption of Egypt into the empire of Rome, remained a direct outgrowth of that of Greece (including, of course, in the term, Magna Græcia as well as the Peninsula). It presented certain distinctive characteristics of its own, but these seem to have been due rather to the academic influence, and in the later period to the growth of the theological spirit, than to the Egyptian environment or to the relations of the city with imperial Rome.
Of the several divisions of the Museum, that most frequently referred to in literature, and therefore the best known to later generations, is the Library, but concerning this the accounts are in many respects conflicting. John Tzetzes, a Greek scholar of the twelfth century, writing in Constantinople, tells us on the authority of the Alexandrian writer, Callimachus, that “the outer library” contained 42,000 rolls, while in the inner were placed 490,000 rolls. Callimachus noted “from an examination of the catalogue” that of the latter, 90,000, were βίβλοι ἀμιγεῖς or “unmixed” rolls, that is, rolls containing each only a single work, while 400,000 were βίβλοι συμμιγεῖς or “mixed” rolls, containing each two or more distinct works.[116] Josephus quotes Demetrius Phalerius as saying to Ptolemy Soter (the first Ptolemy) that the library already contained 200,000 volumes, and would soon include 500,000. In consideration of what is known of the extent of the literature of the time in existence, these figures have been considered by many authorities as too large to be credible. Birt points out, however, that the wholesale purchases which Philadelphus caused to be made throughout Greece and the Greek cities of Asia Minor had unquestionably brought to Alexandria not only single copies and duplicates of all the existing works, but supplies of them by the dozens or hundreds. The unlimited prices offered from the King’s treasury by the librarians of the Museum caused a steady flow of books to set in towards Alexandria from all parts of the civilized world, and in addition to the purchase of all the manuscripts that were offered, the representatives of the King appear to have made a thorough ransacking of all the public and private collections that could be reached, and even to have taken by force volumes which the owners did not wish to sell. Ptolemy is said to have refused food to the Athenians during a famine except on condition that they would give him certain authenticated copies of the tragedies of Æschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides. It is fair to add that he paid for these tragedies, in addition to the promised shipment of corn, the sum of fifteen talents in silver, the equivalent of about $16,200.
One result of this absorption of the book supplies into Alexandria was that the Greek world was now, and for a considerable time to come remained, dependent upon Alexandria for copies of all of the old writers. The measures of the King had succeeded not only in making it necessary for students and scholars to come to Alexandria for their reading, but in compelling book-buyers to come to Alexandrian dealers for their books. The publishers of Alexandria secured at once a monopoly for their editions, and through their enterprise in training numbers of skilled scribes (including now not only educated slaves but many of the impecunious scholars of the university) and by means of the distributing facilities afforded by the commercial connections of their capital, these publishers retained in their hands for about three centuries the control of the greater part of the book production of the world. The publishers of Athens disappeared, and the publishers who in the last century B.C. and the first century A.D. were carrying on book business in Rome, were obliged to have done in Alexandria the work of transcribing such of their issues as were in the Greek language, forming until the time of Trajan a very large, if not the larger, portion of their total production. The writers who formed what is known as the earlier Alexandrian school, comprised a considerable group of poets, of whom the most noteworthy were Theocritus, Callimachus, Timon, and Lycophron, and some original workers in original science, of whom the most important were Euclid, the father of geometry, Nicomachus, the first scientific arithmetician, Apollonius, whose work on conic sections still exists, and Aratus, the astronomer. If the first named of these scientists could have discounted some small portion even of the compensation due to him from the many generations of students who have utilized his problems in geometry, he would have been one of the nabobs of literature.
The writers who were perhaps the most characteristic of the academic circle of Alexandria, were, however, the so-called “grammarians,” who rendered to their own generation and to posterity the invaluable service of preparing authoritative editions of the great writers of the past. It is to these Alexandrian editions that we are indebted for the larger portion of the works of the Greek writers which have been preserved, while the fact of the existence of many works of which the texts have been lost is known only through the references to their titles made by Alexandrian commentators. One of these grammarians was Zenodotus, the Ephesian, who is credited with having established the first grammar school in Alexandria (about 250 B.C.). Among others whose names have been preserved are Eratosthenes, Crates, Apollonius, Aristophanes, Aristarchus, and Zoilus. The term “grammarian” was evidently used to designate philologists and literati, whose work was by no means limited to the explanation of words, but corresponded more nearly to that done by the French cyclopædists. By this group of scholars was produced what is known as the Alexandrian Canon, a list of Greek authors whose writings were thought worthy of preservation as classics. This list included, according to Schöll,[117] five epic poets, five iambic poets, nine lyric poets, fourteen tragic poets, thirteen comic poets, seven poets of the group known as the Pleiades, eight historians, ten orators, and five philosophers, or in all seventy-nine authors, of whom fifty-six were poets. The academic or official character thus given to the authors named in the Canon was of undoubted service to the world’s literature in giving the needed incentive for the preservation of their writings through the multiplication of well edited copies. Moore suggests, however, that this service may in some measure have been offset by the injury caused to literature through the comparative neglect into which were sure to fall a vast number of writers who had failed to be honored with the stamp of the Canon, and the consequent loss of their works for posterity.[118]
Theocritus was a native of Syracuse, and appears to have divided his time between that city and Alexandria. In like manner Aratus, who belonged in Macedonia, did his literary work partly under the patronage of King Antigonus, and partly under that of Philadelphus. It appears to have been difficult for Greek authors, in whatever city they belonged, to escape the centripetal influence of the Alexandrian Academy, and the attractions presented by so powerful a patron of literature as Philadelphus, while it is also probable that the inducements offered by the Alexandrian publishers had some part in making it desirable for authors of note to make frequent visits to the city. Mahaffy points out that the literature of Alexandria under the Ptolemies possessed little popular character, and was in the main the work of court writers and of scholastic pedants rather than of authors in sympathetic touch with the people. As one evidence of the accuracy of this description, he mentions the omission of any reference in the writings of contemporary Alexandrian writers to the great Galatian invasion which in the early part of the third century B.C. desolated a large part of Asia Minor. While speaking appreciatively of the service rendered to literature by the liberal patronage of Philadelphus, Mahaffy is of opinion that the Museum fellowships came to be utilized (as has been the case in later times with other literary circles supported by royal bounty) by a number of lazy incompetents. In his trenchant phrase, he refers to these deteriorated fellowships as “literary hencoops filled with overfed and idle savants.” His description recalls some at least of the features of the literary circle brought together by Frederick the Great, but the Prussian monarch was probably much more of a barbarian, even in his literary methods, than the Ptolemies of Alexandria.
The most noteworthy literary undertaking emanating from Alexandria was the Greek version of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, which was begun by certain learned Jews (according to tradition seventy Rabbis) about 285 B.C., and was completed in the course of years by various hands. The work of the translators had, of course, no connection with Greek literature other than as a recognition of the necessity of putting into Greek any writings for which a general distribution was planned. Eckhard says that the first use of the term Γραμματεῖς, in the sense of copyists, was as applied to these Hebrew scholars who were devoting themselves to the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. He adds that, in order to leave them undisturbed in their scholarly undertaking, the king assigned to them a special quarter of the city called Kiriath Sepher, or, in the Septuagint, πόλις Γραμμάτων, the first literary quarter or Grub Street of which history makes mention.[119]
Among the grammarians who rendered important service in the editing of the older classics was Callimachus, whose name also appears in the list of poets. This is the same Callimachus whose report concerning the number of the books contained in the library is quoted by Tzetzes. Very few of the other names of the Alexandrian editors have been preserved, their editions having in most cases been modestly sent forth with the names of the authors only.
The publishers of Alexandria must also have been modest, for not a single firm has sent its name down to posterity. There are many references in later literature to the existence in Alexandria of great book-producing concerns, and, as Birt remarks, an active production of literature must have necessitated an effective machinery for the distribution of literature.
Strabo speaks of the excellent organization of the book scribes of Alexandria, and states that Roman methods of bookmaking were derived from Alexandria. The fact that for a number of centuries the entire supply of the most important of the materials required was derived from Egypt, gave an enormous advantage to the development of publishers in Alexandria. Even after the perfection of the methods for the preparation of parchment, papyrus retained its place in the preference of writers, Greek and Roman, and until about the fourth century A.D. the use of parchment continued very inconsiderable. But the papyrus was produced only in Egypt. It was therefore a serious blow at the literary undertakings of the kings of Pergamum when Philadelphus, in pursuance of his policy of concentrating in Alexandria the production of literature, prohibited for some years the export from Egypt of papyrus. It was this embargo that gave a temporary stimulus in Pergamum to the production of dressed skins, and the special interest taken by Pergamum in this industry caused the most carefully finished of the skins (very different in their appearance from the old time διφθέραι) to bear the name of parchment, pergamentum. With the removal of the embargo, however, the writers in Asia Minor appear in the main to have speedily gone back to the use of the more convenient papyrus; the production of parchment languished, and when in the latter Empire, parchment again came into vogue, as its manufacture could as well be carried on in many other places, it did not remain an important product of Pergamum.
Not only in Pergamum but also in Antioch was the attempt made, through the founding of museums (i. e., libraries with schools attached) to create literary centres, but these efforts met with no considerable or lasting success. Mahaffy points out that these cities were, during the larger portion of their existence as separate capitals, much more frequently engaged in the excitement of campaigns than was the case with Alexandria. The position of the latter, practically secure against invasion and outside of the great struggles and contests which kept Asia Minor in a state of agitation, was peculiarly advantageous for the development of literary and scholastic interests.
Attractions were offered to literary men by the Court of Antioch, and Syria became under Greek and Macedonian influence a home of Hellenism, but no important literary undertaking took shape under the Seleucids except the translation by Berosus, the Chaldean High Priest, of certain cuneiform records, a work which was dedicated to Antiochus I.[120] The only large example in literature of Syrian Greek is presented by the New Testament, as the Septuagint remained the most important record of the Greek of Alexandria.[121] The library gathered at Antioch appears after the Roman occupation to have been destroyed or dispersed. The larger collection at Pergamum was, according to Plutarch, given by Antony to Cleopatra, and was absorbed into the Museum of Alexandria.
It is probable that in Alexandria not only the publishers but also the authors secured returns from the profits of book-production. It is difficult to explain in any other way the gathering of authors in Alexandria from all parts of the Greek world and their frequent references to their business arrangements for the production of their books. A definite piece of evidence is also afforded by the statement of Strabo, previously referred to, that the publishing methods of Rome were derived from those existing in Alexandria; and in Rome, as we shall see in a later chapter, a system of compensation to authors certainly came into practice. It is, however, unfortunately, the case, that no trustworthy data have been found from which can be gathered the details of the business relations of the Alexandrian authors with their publishers. Birt points out that the government itself went into the publishing business on a considerable scale, and its competition may easily have caused perplexities to the publishers. We have already seen that the Museum had, under the directions of the King, taken pains to purchase the most authoritative texts known of the classic authors, while in certain cases they secured the entire supplies of the copies known to be in existence. Staffs of copyists were gathered in the Museum, and under the editorial supervision of the salaried Fellows, editions in more satisfactory form than had heretofore been known were produced for the public. It is not shown whether these copies were offered for sale directly at the Museum, or whether arrangements were entered into with the leading booksellers for their distribution in Alexandria and throughout the reading world. It is probable, however, that the latter course must have been adopted, for it is not likely that the Museum undertook to establish connections for the sale of its editions in foreign countries, while it is certain that for their university editions a wide and continual sale was secured.
One of the changes introduced in book-making methods under Philadelphus was the substitution of papyrus rolls of small and convenient size for the enormous scrolls heretofore in use. According to Birt, the average length of these larger rolls had not exceeded five hundred inches, or about forty-one feet, but instances are cited, in the earlier Egyptian literature, of rolls (principally Hieratic) reaching a length of one hundred and fifty feet. In the fifth century there was burned in Byzantium a Homeric roll one hundred and twenty feet in length.[122] It is possible that the writer of the Apocalypse may have had one of these enormous scrolls in his vision when he beheld the record of the sins of Babylon reaching to the heavens.
Callimachus, the grammarian, who seemed to have had as much responsibility as any man of his group in shaping the literary work of the Academy of Philadelphus, gave utterance to the dictum, “A big book is a big nuisance,” τὸ μέγα βιβλίον ἴσον ἔλεγεν εἶναι τῷ μεγάλῳ κακῷ,[123] and from his time the cumbersome scrolls began to disappear, and as well for the new editions of the classics as for the literature of the day, the small rolls came into use. These smaller rolls would contain in poetry from 350 to 750 lines each, so that for the Iliad and Odyssey, for instance, thirty-six rolls were required. For works in prose each roll would usually contain from 700 to 1500 lines, while specimens have been found with as few as 150 lines.[124] Such rolls would comprise from ten to at the most two hundred pages.[125]
Birt is of opinion that this question of the extent of the sheets available for the writer and the nature of the divisions in the subject suggested by the division in the material, had a very marked influence upon the style, proportioning, and subdivisions of works of literature. He goes so far as to ascribe to this cause the evolution of epigrammatic literature, vers de société, and light and superficial court poetry of the Alexandrian school, which formed so sharp a contrast to the massive tragedies of the great poets of Attica. I can but think, however, that Birt has got the causation reversed, as it seems more probable that a certain style of writing should have brought about a change in the method of dividing writing paper than that the paper-makers should have been in a position, simply by changing the form of their rolls, to evolve a new style of literature, or even to play any important part in such evolution.
This increasing use of small rolls must, of course, be taken into account in calculating the number of works contained in all the post-Alexandrian libraries as well as in the great collection of the Museum of Philadelphus.
Birt ascribes to the limitation presented by the size of the rolls the division of narratives into “books,” but it is certainly the case that there are examples of such division in the works of writers of a much earlier date, when large rolls were still customary. Xenophon’s Anabasis, for instance, is so divided.[126] The books in this are also peculiar, as before mentioned, in being preceded by summaries of the preceding books. The length of a dramatic poem was naturally determined by the time that could be allotted for the performance. They contained from 1300 to 1700 lines, and each drama constituted a “book,” although several books might, even under the new fashion of smaller rolls, still be included in one roll.
As fresh supplies of the classic writings came to be distributed through the civilized world, more particularly, of course, among the Greek cities, the monopoly established by the policy of the Ptolemies for the Alexandrian editions gradually came to an end, and the production of books took a fresh start in other centres. The monopoly of the paper-makers, however, continued, for nowhere but in the valley of the Nile could the papyrus be made to grow, and during the first two or three centuries of the Roman Empire the extent of the book-making markets supplied by the paper industries must have been so enormous that it is difficult to understand how the growth of the papyrus, in the limited district suitable for it, could have been sufficient to meet the requirements. To modern Egypt, according to Wilkinson and other authorities, the plant is unknown, for it has entirely disappeared from its ancient habitat on the banks of the Nile. It would seem, therefore, that, like flax and the cotton plant, it required for its existence certain special conditions which could be insured only through careful cultivation. The words of the Hebrew prophet have thus been realized: “The paper reeds by the brooks, by the mouth of the brooks, ... shall wither, be driven away, and be no more.”[127] It is probable that the cultivation was finally brought to a close in the seventh century, when the Saracens took possession of Egypt.
The importance of Alexandria as one of the chief sources of book-production endured for three centuries or more after its conquest by the Romans in the year 30 B.C. As long as the language and literature of the Greeks continued to be the fashion among the cultivated circles in the Roman Empire, the supplies of books prepared by the Greek copyists continued to be largely drawn from Alexandria. By the close of the first century, however, the centre of literary activity had been transferred to Rome, and it was no longer to Alexandria but to Rome as the literary as well as the official capital of the world, that men of letters now journeyed from all parts of the empire.
The Alexandrian Academy of letters was succeeded by the Alexandrian school of theology, and to the city of the Ptolemies is probably to be credited the evolution of the odium theologicum, and the beginning of the long series of fierce and bitter theological contests which have unfortunately played so large a part in the history of the Christian Church, and have had so marked an influence on the history of the world. The names of Philo, Ammonius, and later of Plotinus, Iamblichus, Clemens, Origen, and Porphyry are the best known of the Alexandrian lecturers and writers of the first two centuries after Christ, whose teachings in philosophy and theology exercised influence on the thought of their time and on the metaphysical and theological conception of generations to come. In the fourth century came the more noteworthy Athanasius, and in the fifth Cyril, of whom such a vivid picture is given in Kingsley’s Hypatia. That curious combination of Oriental mysticism with the Hebrew and Christian creeds known as Gnosticism, if it did not originate in Alexandria, was largely taught there during the first two centuries A.D., among the earlier teachers being Basilides, Valentinus, Heracleon, and Theodotus.
From the various schools of metaphysics and theology was poured out during the first three centuries after Christ a great body of writings, which found their way into the remotest corners of the Christian world, and the persisting influence of which can be traced in not a few of the creeds even of to-day. It is probable, however, that important in other ways as this literature was, it presented few examples of literary property in the shape of returns to its author. The writers on metaphysical, theological, and religious subjects were, in fact, so keenly interested in extending the knowledge of their special views and tenets, and in furthering the influence of the creeds and systems of belief with which they had identified themselves, that they were very ready to facilitate by every possible means the distribution of their works, and to give to all who desired the fullest possible freedom for the multiplication of copies. The booksellers may have profited to some extent by the activity of the public interest in the rivalries of the various schools, but it appears as if the compensation of the authors must, like that of the Athenian philosophers of five or six hundred years earlier, have been limited to such payments as were made by the attendants on their lectures.
Our consideration of the relations of authors with their readers, and concerning the nature and extent of the remuneration secured for literary undertakings, must now be transferred to imperial Rome, the city from which what is known as classical literature derives its largest heritage, a heritage second in importance only to that to be credited to Athens.
