Syria did not remain long in the possession of those persons who had the chief hand in subduing it, for in the eighteenth year of the Hegira the mortality in Syria, both among men and beasts, was so terrible, particularly at Emaus and the adjacent territory, that the Arabs called that year the year of destruction. By that pestilence the Saracens lost five-and-twenty thousand men, among whom were Abu Obeidah, who was then fifty-eight years old; Serjabil Ebn Hasanah, formerly Mahomet's secretary; and Yezid Ebn Abu Sofian, with several other officers of note. Kaled survived them about three years, and then died; but the place of his burial—consequently of his death, for they did not use in those days to carry them far—is uncertain; some say at Hems, others at Medina.
FOOTNOTES:
[66] Those of Medina are called by that name because they helped Mahomet in his flight from Mecca.
[67] Those that fled with him are called Mohajerins; by these names the inhabitants of Mecca and Medina are often distinguished.
SARACENS CONQUER EGYPT
DESTRUCTION OF THE LIBRARY AT ALEXANDRIA
A.D. 640
WASHINGTON IRVING
Who shall estimate the loss to civilization and the world that has been caused by the destruction of accumulated stores of books, through the crass ignorance or stupid bigotry of benighted rulers? The chronicles record a number of such vandal acts. Hwangti, one of China's greatest monarchs, he who built the Great Wall of China, attempted the complete extinction of literature in that country, B.C. 213. That prince, being at one time strongly opposed by certain men of letters, expressed his hatred and contempt, not only of the literary class, but of literature itself, and resorted to extreme measures of coercion. All books were proscribed, and orders issued to burn every work except those relating to medicine, agriculture, and science. The destruction was carried out with terrible completeness. The burning of the books was accompanied by the execution of five hundred of the literati and by the banishment of many thousands.
The destruction of the Alexandrian Library, by command of Omar, was as complete as the extinction of literature in China by Hwangti, as head of the Moslem religion.
Omar, using the intrepid Amru, was vicariously proselyting in true Mahometan style—in one hand offering the Koran, the while the other extended the sword.
After a successful campaign in Palestine, Omar's victorious banners were planted in the historic soil of the Pharaohs. A protracted siege of seven months found Amru master of the royal city of Alexandria. The library there was famed as the greatest magazine of literature. But this availed nothing with the ruthless Omar, for he doomed it to annihilation.
Prof. Thomas Smith says: "The library had been collected at fabulous expense of labor and money, from all countries of the world. Its destruction was a wanton act; but its perpetrator showed, like the loving spouse 'of another noted personage, that 'though on pleasure he was bent, he had a frugal mind.' He did not consume the books on their shelves, or in whatever repositories contained them, although doubtless they would have made a beautiful blaze. He utilized them as fuel for heating the baths of the city; and we are told that they sufficed to heat the water for four thousand such baths for six months. With an average share of persuasibility, when it is not against our will to be convinced, we stagger at the statement that seven hundred and thirty thousand furnaces could have been supplied with fuel from the contents of even that magnificent palace, and therefore venture to suggest that the papyri and palm-leaf manuscripts were used rather as fire-lighters than as fuel. Even this is a rather large order; but undoubtedly the collection was enormous. The reason tradition ascribes to Omar for this act has never, so far as we know, been disputed till quite recently, when 'historical criticism' has taken it in hand. 'The contents of these books are either in accordance with the teaching of the Koran or they are opposed to it. If in accord, then they are useless, since the Koran itself is sufficient; and if in opposition, they are pernicious and must be destroyed.'
"But the piecemeal destruction of many hundreds of thousands of manuscripts was no trifling task, even for a despotic caliph. A few escaped their doom; how, we do not know. Perhaps some officer annexed for himself some manuscript that struck him as specially beautiful; or perhaps some stoker at some bath rejected one as slow of ignition. At all events a few—probably very few—were preserved, and among them must have been copies of the writings of Euclid and Ptolemy, the Elements of the one, the Almagest of the other."