Aleksandriskata Biblioteka
Aleksandriskata Biblioteka
ZOTE Dali nekoj znae dali navistina postoela taa biblioteka koja e stavene vo edno od sedumte svetski chuda. Dali ima sliki od bibliotekata kako taa izgledala vo toa vreme. Kolku shto mi e poznato vo bibliotekata imalo mnogu vazni dokumenti koi bi posvedochile za Antichkite Makedonci i segashnite ziteli na R.Makedonija.
f9 Bibliotekata postoela vo Aleksandrija,ima rekonstrukcija na cela biblioteka...sliki ima vo Kosmos od Karl Sagan.Vo 15 vek Gjorgios Gemistos Pletor i nekolkumina Grci od Vizantija gi pechatea ostatocite od Aleksandriskata biblioteka koj navodno gi poseduvala Romanija(poznata kako Vizantija denes) so pomosh na parite od familijata Medichi vo Firenca.Mozhe da se reche deka 90% od pishanite izvori za nastanite pred 14 vek doagjaat od ovie izvori iako ne postoi nikakov dokaz za nivna aftentichnost.
dejan Bila naj golema vo antickiot svet....sve imase tamu, a koga dojde Cesar, prost covek, ja izgore. Ama da nova biblioteka ima sega, isto golema...
Duhot na Vovata Znaci Cezar ja podpalil Bibliotekata. Posot bil "prost covek". Znaci, prostiot Cezar videl deka lugete imaat biblioteka i resil od prost mozok da im ja izgori. Toa e alusijata na kazanoto od tebe. Da vidime kakvi se faktite: Destruction of the Great Library One of the reasons so little is known about the Library is that it was lost centuries after its creation. All that is left of many of the volumes are tantalizing titles that hint at all the history lost from the building's destruction. Few events in ancient history are as controversial as the destruction of the Library, as the historical record is both contradictory and incomplete. Not surprisingly, the Great Library became a symbol for knowledge itself, and its destruction was attributed to those who were portrayed as ignorant barbarians, often for purely political reasons. Much of the debate rests on a different understanding of what constituted the actual Library. Large parts of the Library were likely decentralized, so it is appropriate also to speak of the "Alexandrian libraries". Both the Serapeum, a temple and daughter library, and the Museum itself existed until about AD 400. Only if one believes the Museum to be distinct from the Great Library, an event of destruction prior to that point becomes plausible. One account of such an event of destruction concerns Julius Caesar. During his invasion of Alexandria in 47?48 BC, Caesar set the enemy fleet in the harbor on fire. Some historians believe that this fire spread into the city and destroyed the entire library. While this interpretation is now a minority view, it is based on several ancient sources, all of which were written at least about 150 years after the destruction supposedly took place. Edward Parsons has analyzed the Caesar theory in his book The Alexandrian Library and summarizes the sources as follows: A final summary is interesting: of the 16 writers, ten -- Caesar himself, the author of the Alexandrian War, Cicero, Strabo, Livy (as far as we know), Lucan, Florus, Suetonius, Appian, and even Athenaeus -- apparently knew nothing of the burning of the Museum, of the Library, or of Books during Caesar's visit to Egypt; and six tell of the incident as follows: 1. Seneca (AD 49), the first writer to mention it (and that nearly 100 years after the alleged event), definitely says that 40,000 books were burned. 2. Plutarch (c. 117) says that the fire destroyed the great Library. 3. Aulus Gellius (123 - 169) says that during the "sack" of Alexandria 700,000 volumes were all burned. 4. Dio Cassius (155 - 235) says that storehouses containing grain and books were burned, and that these books were of great number and excellence. 5. Ammianus Marcellinus (390) says that in the "sack" of the city 70,000 volumes were burned.6. Orosius (c. 415), the last writer, singularly confirms Seneca as to number and the thing destroyed: 40,000 books. Of all the sources, Plutarch is the only one to refer explicitly to the destruction of the Library. Plutarch was also the first writer to refer to Caesar by name. Ammianus Marcellinus' account seems to be directly based on Aulus Gellius because the wording is almost the same. The majority of ancient historians, even those strongly politically opposed to Caesar, give no account of the alleged massive disaster. Cecile Orru argued in "Antike Bibliotheken" (2002, edited by Wolfgang H?pfner) that Caesar could not have destroyed the Library because it was located in the royal quarter of the city, where Caesar's troops were fortified after the fire (which would not have been possible if the fire had spread to that location). Furthermore, the Library was a very large stone building and the scrolls were stored away in armaria (and some of them put in capsules), so it is hard to see how a fire in the harbor could have affected a significant part of its contents. Lastly, modern archaeological finds have confirmed an extensive ancient water supply network which covered the major parts of the city, including, of course, the royal quarter. The destruction of the library is attributed by some historians to a period of civil war in the late 3rd century AD -- but we know that the Museum, which was adjacent to the library, survived until the 4th century. There are also allegations dating to medieval times that claim that Caliph Omar, during an invasion in the 7th century, ordered the Library to be destroyed, but these claims are generally regarded as a Christian attack on Muslims, and include many indications of fabrication, such as the claim that the contents of the Library took six months to burn in Alexandria's public baths. The legend of Caliph Omar's destruction of the library provides the classical example of a dilemma: Omar is reported to have said that if the books of the library did not contain the teachings of the Qur'an, they were useless and should be destroyed; if the books did contain the teachings of the Qur'an, they were superfluous and should be destroyed. Evidence for the existence of the Library after Caesar 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. This is consistent with the number given by Seneca, much smaller than the overall volume of books in the Library. So under this interpretation it is plausible that, for example, books stored in a warehouse near the harbor were accidentally destroyed by Caesar, and that larger numbers cited in some works have to be considered unreliable -- misinterpretations by the medieval monks who preserved these works through the Middle Ages, or deliberate forgeries. Even if one considers the Museum and the Library to be very much separate, there is considerable evidence that the Library continued to exist after the alleged destruction. Plutarch, who claimed the Great Library was destroyed (150 years after the alleged incident), in Life of Antony describes the later transfer of the second largest library to Alexandria by Mark Antony as a gift to Cleopatra. He quotes Calvisius as claiming "that [Mark Antony] had given her the library of Pergamus, containing two hundred thousand distinct volumes", although he himself finds Calvisius' claims hard to believe. In "Einf?hrung in die ?berlieferungsgeschichte" (1994, p. 39), Egert P?hlmann cites further expansions of the Alexandrian libraries by Caesar Augustus (in the year AD 12) and Claudius (AD 41-54). Even if the most extreme allegations against Caesar were true, this raises the question of what happened to these volumes. The continued existence of the Library is also supported by an ancient inscription found in the early 20th century, dedicated to Tiberius Claudius Balbillus of Rome (d. AD 56). As noted in the "Handbuch der Bibliothekswissenschaft" (Georg Leyh, Wiesbaden 1955): "We have to understand the office which Ti. Claudius Balbillus held [...], which included the title 'supra Museum et ab Alexandrina bibliotheca', to have combined the direction of the Museum with that of the united libraries, as an academy." Athenaeus (c. AD 200) wrote in detail in the Deipnosophistai about the wealth of Ptolemy II (309-246 BC) and the type and number of his ships. When it came to the Library and Museum, he wrote: "Why should I now have to point to the books, the establishment of libraries and the collection in the Museum, when this is in every man's memory?" Given the context of his statement, and the fact that the Museum still existed at the time, it is clear that Athenaeus cannot have referred to any event of destruction -- he considered both facilities to be so famous that it was not necessary for him to describe them in detail. We must therefore conclude that at least some of the Alexandrian libraries were still in operation at the time. Zakljucok. Duri i Bibliotekata (BibliotekiTE) da bile izgoreni na vreme na napadot vrz Aleksandrija, nema nikade svedok deka oa bilo napraveno namerno ili od prostastina. Vo najektremen slucaj izgaraneto na Bibliotekata moze da se sumira vaka: War is war - shit happens.
dejan Taka mi dojde izrazot, prekine da me napagjas za sekoja mala 'grska'!!!!! Deka se vikam Makedonec a ne Bugarin, za toa ovaka si so mene neli!!!
f9 Da vidime kakvi se faktite:nema fakti.I tie shto gi citiral kako primarni izvori,ne se toa.
ZOTE Bibliotekata vo svojata riznica cuvala takvi dela shto bile orginalni rakopisi na Aristotel, Platon, Sofokle, Eshil i Evripid. Postoele i tochni nauchni iskazuvanja na nekoi egipetski sveshtenici za medicinata, astronomijata, potoa imalo mnogu budistichki tekstovi, kako i obemna zbirka na prevedeni aramejski i hebrejski tekstovi. Vo toa vreme vo Bibliotekata imalo poveche od 700.000 iljadi orginalni rakopisi i dokumenti. Vo Bibliotekata vo Aleksandrija rabotele mnogu poznati nauchnici. Vo sobite na Bibliotekata Euklid objasnil i ja zapishal svojat Geometrija, ovde isto taka Herofil otkril deka mislite se sozdavaat vo mozokot a ne vo srceto, ovdeka Arstarh 1800 godini pred Kopernik izmeril deka Zemjate se vrti okolu Sonceto, a Eratosten go izmeril obemot na planetata zemja. Vo sekoj sluchaj pozarot shto go podmetnal Cezar mu go skratil na choveshtvoto mnogubrojnite orginalni rakopisi koi bi posvedochile za toa vreme, a najmnogu za nas Makedoncite zashto veruvam deka vo Bibliotekata vo Aleksandrija imalo mnogu vazni dokazi za nashata povrzanost so Antichkite Makedonci.
Duhot na Vovata Значи и Цезар оштетил идентитетот. Јас ви кажав дека постои световна антимакедонска завера. Дејане бре чедо, Македонец си, колку пати да ти го повторам ова, успокои се веке. Кога некој Македонец напише нешто што не се сложувам реагирам исто и кога некой Бугарин или Јапанец да го е напишал - нема разлика... Ф9, ако нема факти значи нема факти. Ни во едната ни во другата посока. Исто како што Мусолини одговорил на папата, кога прашањето било да се дозволи нашиот Цар Борис ІІІ да се покртсти во правосавната вера (пошто и двајцата родители били католици): "Ако Бог постои, тој не е ни католик, ни православен, а ако не постои, тој не постои за никого."