university of copenhagen

The Memory Library

How the Library in Hellenistic Alexandria Worked
Olesen-Bagneux, Ole

Published in:
Knowledge Organization

Publication date:
2014

Document version
Early version, also known as pre-print

Citation for published version (APA):

Olesen-Bagneux, O. (2014). The Memory Library: How the Library in Hellenistic Alexandria Worked. Knowledge
Organization, 41(1), 3-13. http://www.isko.org/ko411toc.pdf

Download date: 22. mai. 2024

Knowl. Org. 41(2014)No.1 3
O. Olesen-Bagneux. The Memory Library: How the Library in Hellenistic Alexandria Worked

The Memory Library:

How the Library in Hellenistic Alexandria Worked
Ole Olesen-Bagneux

University of Copenhagen, 6 Birketinget, DK-2300, Copenhagen, Denmark, <[email protected]>

Ole Olesen-Bagneux holds an MLISc and began his Ph.D. in 2011 at the Royal School of Library and Informa-
tion Science, now part of the University of Copenhagen. In the fall of 2012 he studied at Anthropologie et
Histoire des Mondes Antiques in Paris, affiliated both at L’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales at the
Sorbonne. Here, under fruitful guidance by Professor Christian Jacob, he spent some very long days reading in
the Bibliothèque Gernet-Glotz. He also followed Jacobs’s courses on his theory of places of knowledge (lieux
de savoir ).

Olesen-Bagneux, Ole. The Memory Library: How the Library in Hellenistic Alexandria Worked. Knowl-
edge Organization. 41(1), 3-13. 37 references.

Abstract: For millennia the famous library in Hellenistic Alexandria has been praised as an epicenter of
enlightenment and wisdom. And yet, a question still seems unanswered: how was its literature classified and retrieved? It is a subject that
has been given surprisingly little attention by the field of library-and-information science―indeed, by scholarship in general. Furthermore,
a certain way of thinking has influenced the few answers that have so far been attempted. It is as if the scholars of our era have tried to
identify the modern, physical library in the Hellenistic library in Alexandria. But such an approach is biased in a basic way: It simply does
not consider the impact of the cultural and intellectual context of the library. This article differs fundamentally, because I reject the notion
that the library was like those of today. Accordingly, an entirely new way of understanding how the library actually worked, in terms of
classification and retrieval processes is presented. The key element is to understand the library both as a physical structure and as a struc-
ture in the memory of the Alexandrian scholars. In this article, these structures are put together so as to propose a new interpretation of
the library.

Received 21 August 2013; Revised 25 October 2013; Accepted 29 October 2013

Keywords: library, memory, literature, Pinakes, Aristophanes, mechanics, scholars, Alexandria

1.0 Introduction It seems quite obvious, that the ancient library of Hel-
lenistic Alexandria was not like a modern library―not at
Very little is known about the ancient library of Alexan- all. Nevertheless, the library has been misinterpreted, quite
dria. Sources indicate that it could have contained between substantially, by modern scholarship as though it had been
40,000 and 700,000 scrolls (Staikos 2004). Nor can it be similar to modern libraries. This can be seen in the de-
ascertained exactly when it was established but it must scriptions of how the library worked, of how classifica-
have been shortly after 300 BCE. It is reasonable to ac- tion and retrieval was conducted within it. In his book Li-
cept that it must have looked something like its later rival, braries in the Ancient World Lionel Casson (2001, 41) pro-
the Attalid library in Pergamum, erected around 200 BCE. vides such a description. He writes about the Pinakes by
We have rather firm knowledge about its architecture Callimachus, calling it: “A key to the vast collection: from
(Hoepfner 2002). The library in Alexandria was part of a his Pinakes users could determine the existence of any
religious institution, the Mouseion, and the scholars were particular work; from his shelf-list they could determine
in fact extremely skilled slaves that were imprisoned its location. He had created a vital reference tool.”
within the Mouseion. Attempted escape could be penal- Casson claims that the Pinakes was not the catalog of
ized by death (Canfora 1990), and part of the poetry writ- the library, but merely a sort of bibliography, a point of
ten by these locked-up scholars was performed during re- view that contradicts that generally accepted. Casson be-
ligious ceremonies (Meillier 1979). lieves that a specific list was not integrated in the Pinakes,
4 Knowl. Org. 41(2014)No.1
O. Olesen-Bagneux. The Memory Library: How the Library in Hellenistic Alexandria Worked

and that this list was the catalog (Casson 2001, 153). This Alexandrian reality. And so unfortunately they all just ba-
is pure assumption, no actual evidence of this can be sically conclude that the Alexandrian library worked like a
found. It is as if Casson reproduces a modern distinction modern, physical library.
between catalog and bibliography in antiquity, as if he Instead of searching for elements similar to modern
seeks to confirm the link between libraries in modern ones, my analysis turns the perspective around. I will argue
times, and libraries in antiquity. It makes little sense to ac- that the way the library in Hellenistic Alexandria worked
cept Casson’s view since it builds on the assumption that was in fact the result of a close and functional connection
the Alexandrian scholars would maintain complex, unnec- with the Greek past it also contained. I believe that the
essary and time consuming workflows in retrieving the lit- key to understanding the library lies in the story about
erature in the library, for no actual reason. Konstantinos Aristophanes of Byzantium (Jacob 2010). In this story, it
Staikos (2004, 186) expresses the generally accepted view is claimed that Aristophanes knew the structure and con-
of the Pinakes: “What Callimachus set out to do was to tent of the library by heart. Accordingly, I agree with
compile a comprehensive ‘bibliographical’ list of authors Christian Jacob (2010, 11) on the nature of the memory
and their works that would also serve as a library cata- of Aristophanes, i.e. as a mental construct that somehow
logue. The result was the Pinakes.” Although I agree with matches the library. But I think it is a demonstration of
Staikos, I believe that he describes only a part of how the how the library worked, not only for Aristophanes, but for
library worked. And even though he differs with Casson, the scholars in general. Therefore, Jacob’s view is followed
he thinks like him: He uses exclamation points for the in this article, but his considerations are widened and sup-
word bibliographical, knowing that he pushes a point fur- ported with evidence.
ther than what Callimachus himself would have under- The main body of the article has three parts. The first
stood. part is called The Dead Library. In antiquity, physical text
Scholarship on the Alexandrian library is heavily biased was considered to be related to death (Svenbro 1988). Ac-
by the unfruitful desire to retrieve elements similar to cordingly, The Dead Library deals with the physical struc-
those present in our own era. It is as if we want to know ture―the actual library―of organized texts. It examines
what constituted the bibliography of the Alexandrian li- how the physical scrolls were classified and retrieved. But
brary instead of trying to grasp what the Pinakes actually the reader must have in mind that this was not how the li-
was in its own respect. Both Casson and Staikos thinks of brary worked―only an aspect of how it worked! The sec-
the library of Hellenistic Alexandria as a modern, physical ond part is called The Living Library. Human beings were
library, totally uninfluenced by the intellectual principles called living libraries in antiquity, if they could remember
of the Greek past it was dedicated to protect. Staikos impressive amounts of literature (Too 2010). Therefore,
(2000, 67) goes so far as to claim that: “Quite possibly the The Living Library analyzes the scholar in antiquity, how he
‘philosophy’ underlying the Pinakes was entirely Callima- or she was able to store, search, remember and quote
chus’s own idea and owed nothing to the cataloguing enormous amounts of literature from memory. Finally,
methods employed by the Peripatetics at the Lyceum in the third part is called The Memory Library. This third part
Athens or the methods devised by the Babylonians for use melds the dead and the living library into one constella-
in their great collections of archives.” tion, and claims that this was how the library actually
I think that the specific assumption might be correct, worked. In this part, I argue that the library, be it in mem-
that the Peripatetics and the Babylonians did not influence ory or the actual physical library could be sung. “The
Callimachus. Nevertheless, with this assumption at hand memory library,” is a new term, and yet, the Greek word
Staikos (2000) simply denies that the entire intellectual Μουσεῖον (Mouseion) could be translated as exactly this:
heritage played any role whatsoever in the way the Alex- “Memory library.”
andrians organized their library. And that, I think, is not
correct. Like Staikos, Phillips (2010) believes that the Al- 2.0 The Dead Library
exandrian library was more in contact with our present re-
ality than the Greek era that had just ended. Phillips As mentioned above briefly, death and written text was
(2010) even goes as far as to conclude that the library of considered to be closely connected in Greek antiquity. Ac-
Alexandria simply was the first modern library in the tually, the written testimonies of a person, in modern
world, since it had all the characteristics of a modern li- times we would call this the collected works of an author,
brary! were viewed as the true tomb of the person leaving them
I disagree fundamentally with the view represented by behind. These written testimonies simply outmatched the
Staikos (2000), Casson (2001) and Phillips (2010). They sepulchral monument representing a person that died
are blinded by the many centuries of human civilization (Platthy 1968, 96). More recent studies have shown that
that divides the present from the 3rd and 2nd century BCE the link between death and written culture evolved in an-
Knowl. Org. 41(2014)No.1 5
O. Olesen-Bagneux. The Memory Library: How the Library in Hellenistic Alexandria Worked

tiquity (Svenbro 1988, 13) and culminated in a refined lit- first step towards complete alphabetization, or whether it
erary wave coined as the Alexandrian avant-garde (Bing contained a potential in its own respect, different from
2008, 144-145). The remarkable esthetics of that wave re- complete alphabetization.
garded a library as an enormous graveyard, containing the
true sepulchral monuments of the writers now dead. 2.2 Callimachus
Thus, the physical library in Alexandria in Hellenistic
times is called “the dead library.” In the following, I will Callimachus of Cyrene (305-240 BC) was probably not
describe how the dead library was organized. the director of the library, but he had substantial influence
on its organization. In this respect, his is famous for com-
2.1 Zenodotus posing the Πίνακες τῶν ἐν πάσῃ παιδείᾳ διαλαμψάντων
(Pfeiffer 1949), that translates thus: Tables of those who dis-
Zenodotus of Ephesus (330-260 BC) was most likely the tinguished themselves in all branches of learning and their writings.
first director of the library in Alexandria. It is believed It is usually just referred to as Pinakes, its first word in
that he refined the organization of the library extensively, Greek, meaning table or board. It should be mentioned
since he was able to conduct a complete and critical ver- though, that Callimachus composed several Pinakes (Witty
sion of Homer. And in order to do so, the different ver- 1973). The Pinakes consisted of 120 scrolls and contained
sions of Homer had to be strictly organized. So, he information about writers and their works. It has been
probably divided the holdings of the library into at least characterized as so many different genres―literary ency-
two categories, or, at the very least he created a principle clopedia (Lerner 2001, 29), register of literary matter
of division that was later to be followed. These two cate- (Cancik et al., 1996-), catalog (Staikos 2004, 186), biobibli-
gories were critical edited texts and different versions of ographical catalogue raisonné (Witty 1958, 132) bibliogra-
the same text that were yet to be compared in order to es- phy (Jacob 2007, 1127), biobibliography (Blum 1991, 1)
tablish the critical edition. It has been argued that Ze- ―that it would probably be most suitable to define it as a
nodotus divided texts into classes that followed a classifi- genre of its own, pinakography, as mentioned but refuted
cation scheme (e.g. Casson 2001, 37-40) but this argument by Blum (1991, 9). Although Blum (1991) is right, when
is not supported with evidence, besides the accepted as- he describes the Pinakes as a biobibliography, Callimachus
sumption that Zenodotus must have created a list of in- would not have had a clue about the meaning of such a
ventory that mentioned each scroll contained in the li- word, at least not as a literary genre. It blurs the analysis
brary. of what might have been Callimachus’s intention with his
Along with this division came a more frequent use of work when it is categorized as something that did not ex-
the Sillybos―the little note that was attached to each scroll, ist in his era. The aforementioned attempts to categorize
with information that in modern times would be called the Pinakes as genres that were not yet invented but basi-
metadata. The Sillybos would hold the title of the first text cally just labels it with a retronym that does not answer
or more likely the incipit (the first words of the text). It what it was in its own respect. Nevertheless, the problem
would also hold the stichometric sum that was the total of genre clearly demonstrates that it is difficult to ascer-
number of lines, stichos, in the Homeric verses. Originally, tain what the Pinakes was. It has not reached us; it is lost,
the stichometric sum was used to control production of but we have testimonies of its existence and content
text―it originated from classic Athens and was not in- (Witty 1958, 133-36) that can enable a discussion with sci-
vented in Alexandria. People knew that a certain song was entific authority.
a certain number of lines long, and thus the total sum of The Pinakes was divided into classes and three are
lines indicated whether the scribe had conducted honest known with certainty: Law, rhetoric and miscellaneous.
labor (Witty 1958, 134). The Alexandrian scholars invented Another seven seem likely (Witty 1958, 136; Pfeiffer 1949,
a new way of using the stichometric numbers, as we shall 349) creating a total of ten classes. Most likely even more
see below. The Sillybos would also hold the name of the than ten classes existed and different assumptions have
critical editor, for example the “Zenodotus version.” This been made as to try to imagine the totality of the classes
indicates frequent use: all texts were to be critically edited of the Pinakes (e.g. Parsons 1952, 204-19). Each class
at some point. would be divided into subclasses, though they were di-
Quite certainly, the library was arranged alphabetically vided in different ways: chronologically, topographically
from the start, since Zenodotus left proof that he was and biographically (Pfeiffer 1968, 129). The number of
familiar with alphabetization (Casson 2001, 37-40). But classes and their subdivisions is not that important to my
this was only alphabetization by the first letter. This way point. The fact that the classes matched a certain area of
of alphabetizing has been subject to speculation (e.g. the library is―which is a generally accepted assumption
Blum 1991, 227) because it is uncertain whether it was the (e.g. Staikos 2004, 186). That a work was placed within a
6 Knowl. Org. 41(2014)No.1
O. Olesen-Bagneux. The Memory Library: How the Library in Hellenistic Alexandria Worked

certain class in Pinakes meant that it was located in the area thing can of course be done in English. “Container” has
or room of this class in the library. Each entry in the Pi- been chosen here.
nakes simply matched a physical location. But if authors in a given class were given a specific
The list of inventory by Zenodotus was perhaps used place, wouldn’t it become impossible to keep that place as
as a catalog in the library (Casson 2001, 37-40) Even the collection grew? This is where alphabetization by only
though Blum (1991) has been criticized substantially for the first letter comes into play. More writers could simply
his research (e.g. Barnes 2000, 77) he makes several very be added in the end of the list in Pinakes (under each let-
qualified points, one of them being the different nature of ter, that is) and simultaneously be given their own con-
the list of inventory by Zenodotus and the Pinakes by Cal- tainer in the room to which they belonged. This again
limachus. A list of inventory only mentions a scroll in makes it probable that the containers or places of authors
such a way that it is retrievable. That was not the case with were recognizable visually, by tables or sculptures because
the Pinakes. Consider the title: Tables of those who distin- crowded rooms by nature leave little space for orientation.
guished themselves in all branches of learning and their writings. This way of ensuring solid structure through flexibility
BIum (1991, 226) points to the fact that scrolls containing was a sort of upside-down-Dewey that permitted writers
more than one author or several works, or even both, to be located in the same spot almost to eternity (though,
were not described with satisfying precision in the list of only in the logic of the slow text production, i.e. pre-
inventory. It did not inform about the writers or works Gutenberg).
contained in the library, only the scrolls. But the Pinakes on
the other hand, mentioned all those who distinguished 2.3 Aristophanes
themselves in all branches of learning and their writings.
It was without doubt the Pinakes that became the library Aristophanes from Byzantium (ca. 260- 185 BC) is nor-
“catalog,” since it was the tool that mentioned all writers mally (e.g. Staikos 2004, 181-182) not considered as a con-
(or those who had been written down by others) and what tributor to the innovation of library mechanics in Helle-
they had written (or what others had written down). Each nistic Alexandria. He updated the Pinakes into a new ver-
entry in the Pinakes would start with a short biography of sion, which is not regarded as significant. But in fact, two
the writer, and then mention his works. Each work was important things happened during his time as director of
mentioned by its title or incipit, the stichometric sum, and the library.
the number of books (scrolls) it consisted of. This infor- The first thing is very simple, and yet its implication is
mation was also indicated on the Sillybos, as mentioned substantial. The stichometric note as mentioned above
above. This permits the first description of the library was only described as indicating a total sum. Evidently,
mechanics. From the class in the Pinakes one knew what keeping track of, say, 12.739 lines only in the mind was a
area of the library to go to, to find a given author, and tough job while at the same time copying a text. There-
from the information in that same author’s entry in Pi- fore, the scribes noted the stichometric numbers continu-
nakes, one could even locate the exact scroll. ously, like small signs next to the column of text. The sys-
Most likely, the library mechanics had a step between tem was like this: A= 100 lines; Β=200 lines; Γ=300 lines;
the area and the work of the author. This step was the Δ= 400 lines and so on. In Athens, the stichometric sum
place of the specific author. Very little can be said with was proof of honest labor, but in Aristophanes’ time as
precision about this, but many sources indicate such a director in Alexandria, the stichometric numbers along the
step. In Pergamum, for example, the library of the Attalid text began to be used as references, just as in modern
kings had sculptures representing authors (Callmer 1944, times we use references to chapters and pages (Irigoin
150-151), that were perhaps located close to that author’s 2001, 24-26). The stichometric number helped indicate
scrolls (Hoepfner 2002, 49). The word pinakes is itself an- which part of the text was requested.
other indication, since it probably originally meant boards The second thing is not traceable in the mechanics of
or tables hung on the shelves or walls of the library, to in- the dead library. It will become clear in the next part, “The
dicate the same information as the Pinakes by Callimachus. Living Library,” that it played a central role in the mechan-
It is also possible to grasp the place of the author due to ics in the living library, and for the memory library as a
impressive research by Gaëlle Coqueugniot (2007). She whole. And since it dealt with the written language, and
concludes that the word kibôtos most likely was the com- was carried out by Aristophanes it is mentioned here. Aris-
mon description of the entities that contained scrolls (Co- tophanes reformed the Greek language. He introduced a
queugniot 2007, 304) even if these entities were different more stringent and frequent use of diacritical signs (they
in size and shape (box, bag, coffin or shelves). Accord- already appear in writings from classic times). These signs,
ingly, Coqueugniot discusses the many possibilities of above and around the letters of the Greek language helped
translation of the word kibôtos into French, and the same demonstrate how syllables are pronounced (Irigoin 2001,
Knowl. Org. 41(2014)No.1 7
O. Olesen-Bagneux. The Memory Library: How the Library in Hellenistic Alexandria Worked

42). It is very likely that Aristophanes reformed the lan- Nagy calls this melody the colometric melody. It was
guage in such a way because Alexandria was a cultural probably a part of the library mechanics of the living li-
melting pot, attracting scholars from as far as India. These brary, as we shall see below.
foreigners needed help to adapt to the Greek language,
which had not been the case in classical Hellas, where the 2.4 The mechanics of the dead library
intelligentsia had Greek as their first language (Canfora
1992, 20-21). It is not a mistake for the reader to compare To sum up, the mechanics of the dead library evolved into
Aristophanes’ reform with the difference between written a six step procedure around 200 BC. From the Pinakes, one
UK and US English. But the diacritical signs were not em- was led to a specific room via the class of literature. In the
ployed at each syllable where they should have been ac- room (or area) a sculpture or tablet made the containers
cording to pronunciation. This has been quite a mystery to visually recognizable, this led the scholar to the author. In
modern scholars. It is evident, that they symbolized a sys- the container, work and scroll could be identified by in-
tem, and that they were much more frequent than in the formation on the sillybos that matched the information in
classical era. But what was the principle of their employ- the entry in Pinakes. Furthermore, a specific part in the
ment? Gregory Nagy (2000, 9) has resolved this problem, scroll could be located via the stichometric numbers. This
by turning the modern philological editing of manuscripts is demonstrated in Figure 1.
from the time of Aristophanes into a philological study it-
self. What he saw was that modern editions of these 3.0 The living library
manuscripts blurred an understanding of the diacritical
signs in relation to the original meter, in this case the met- Opposed to the dead library was “the living library.” The
ric cola, a meter that most likely was introduced by Aristo- term actually occurs in literature from antiquity, and as a
phanes himself. Originally, the diacritical signs expressed phenomenon it was current. The living library was a
the rhythm of the metric cola. Put simply, a line played out scholar, capable of remembering a large amount of litera-
a melody: ture―a feature that can most likely be interpreted as a
heritage from the rhapsodes of archaic Hellas. But it had
Line The colometric mel- Modern layout (col. 12 a significant difference: not only did the scholar remem-
ody (col. X (VIII)): (8)): ber the literature, he also remembered its location, both
85 αμφιτρυωνιάδασ• Ἀμφιτρυωνιάδας, in memory and in a physical library. The literature con-
ειπεντε•τισαθανατων εἶπέν τε• ῾῾τις ἀθανάτων tained in the memory of the scholar mirrored the physi-
Above, the diacritical Above, the diacritical cal library, as though the physical library were imagined
signs have been used to signs have been used to
point out the rhythm explain the pronunciation
each time a work was sought. Testimonies of living li-
of the entire colon. of each syllable. Each co- braries actually indicate that they began to occur just
Each colon is ex- lon is expressed staccato, about the time when the mechanics of the dead library
pressed as a unit, al- the readability is height- was in place. The aforementioned Aristophanes from
most as if it was one ened, but the melody is
lost.
Byzantium was a living library (Jacob 2010, 11), and he
word.
will be analyzed as such in the following. But the mechan-
Table 1: The colometric melody ics of the living library are approached in reverse chro-

Figure 1: The mechanics of the dead library

8 Knowl. Org. 41(2014)No.1
O. Olesen-Bagneux. The Memory Library: How the Library in Hellenistic Alexandria Worked

nology, simply because that explains it in the clearest way. ample cabbage. The cabbage, like everything else, opens a
And so, we begin with Athenaeus. universe of literature, and so, comic poets, philosophers
and experts in plants are cited in an elegant continuous
3.1 Athenaeus composition that describes … cabbage! Each scholar pe-
rused the web of literature in a non-linear pattern, zapping
Not until the late Roman period does the literature that between authors, browsing each author’s work, in the sense
has reached us reveal the mechanics of the living library. the subject is described here, in this way, and here again, in that way
Athenaeus of Naucratis (2nd century CE) was a Greek- and so on and so on. The sum of all those patterns consti-
speaking scholar living in Rome. He composed the work tutes the conversation in the Deipnosophistae.
Δειπνοσοφισταί (Deipnosophistae) (Weber-Nielsen 1990). The The scholars, the living libraries, were able to quote ex-
title translates in two ways: The Dinner-table Philosophers and act phrases and the occurrence of words. When they went
Experts of the Dinner-table. Its Greek title is kept here to il- into zetesis mode, and searched their web of literature both
lustrate both meanings, because they are both important the sound of words and their visual representation were in
in this context. The Deipnosophistae is in many ways the key play. While Jacob grasps the refined complexity of the
to literature in antiquity, since large quantities of literature web of Athenaeus, the general assumption that both
have reached us only through this work by Athenaeus. In- sound and visual representation of words or phrases
stead of writing on his own, Athenaeus composed a story played a vital role for the mechanics of the living library is
that enveloped enormous amounts of already existing lit- generally accepted (e.g. Carruthers 2008, 101). Included in
erature. In order to do so, he needed a course of events, the sounds is of course the colometric melody, but as
and he chose an almost never-ending banquet as the set- Jacob clearly demonstrates, by the time Athenaeus com-
ting. As delicate servings were carried in and out the posed his Deipnosophistae the skills of the living library had
scholars were stimulated in various ways. When they were evolved substantially.
starved and impatient, accusations rose around the table.
When new and surprising plates were served, the scholars 3.2 Aristophanes―once again
joyfully exclaimed their happiness. The scholars described
each event with long quotations from literature, and they At this point, we are able to go back in time, and once
quoted that literature from their memories. again look at the merits of Aristophanes from Byzantium
Before proceeding further with the analysis of the (ca. 260-185 BCE). As already mentioned, Aristophanes
Deipnosophistae, it should be mentioned, that a certain tradi- was a living library (Jacob 2010, 11). This is documented
tion of interpretation will not be followed, nor accepted, in Vitruvius’s treaty on architecture De Architectura (Jacob
in this article. This tradition basically interprets the Deip- 2010). Vitruvius tells the story of a poetry contest held at
nosophistae as a messy work, symbolizing cultural decay (e.g. the court of the Ptolemaic court in Alexandria, when
Too 2010, 114) It is correct that the overall story lacks Aristophanes was a young man. The contest was a recitatio
compositional unity (Weber-Nielsen 1990, 8-9) and that and thus, in the literary history it is to be understood as a
these rather unimportant, small details can indeed serve as public performance with its roots in the tradition of the
the foundation of many a pedantic-analytical critique, pin- rhapsodes, and the private reading aloud of poetry
pointing obvious mistakes as though that were the sole amongst friends that was to become common in Rome.
purpose of the humanities. Instead, let’s look at this enig- Contrary to the rhapsodes the person performing in recita-
matic treasury that Athenaeus was so kind to leave us, let’s tio read aloud from manuscript, and contrary to what was
see what he was up to, had in mind. to become the habit in Rome, it was still done in public.
Christian Jacob analyses the Deipnosophistae in The Web of Aristophanes―so Vitruvius tells ―was appointed leader
Athenaeus (2013) in an original way. He regards the memo- of the library because he was able to expose the contest-
rized literature as a sort of common web that the scholars ants in the competition as cheaters. They were not poets;
energetically and constantly peruse during the eternal din- all but one had copied text from various authors in the li-
ner. What motivates them is zetesis, the urge to explore brary, simply claiming that it was their own poetry. Aristo-
something in depth. It is not entirely impossible to de- phanes recognized the poetry and was able to tell who had
scribe how this urge unfolded, how the web of Athenaeus originally composed it. To prove his point, relying only on
worked. The scholars seem to browse important writers on his memory, he had an endless amount of scrolls taken
different subjects, lists of words, of places or quotations, out of the library. He knew where they were stored and
and they correct each other when they cite them wrong, was able to find the exact lines that had been copied, and
again demonstrating that this web was universal in some compare the texts of supposed poets with the originals.
sort. If they cannot agree, the written text appears as the This story has many different layers. It discusses plagia-
concluding authority. Jacob begins his book with the ex- rism, but the topic has to be perceived in the light of the
Knowl. Org. 41(2014)No.1 9
O. Olesen-Bagneux. The Memory Library: How the Library in Hellenistic Alexandria Worked

slow death of oral transmission where borrowing words the Lexeis, the first reference tool on the basis of words.
from the past was no crime. It describes the cultural ri- But one should really be careful about claiming the begin-
valry between Alexandria and Pergamum, where Vitruvius nings of the understanding of words as phenomenon in
favors the library architecture of Pergamum most likely antiquity (Small 1997).
due to that city’s strong bond with Rome. It is also a sym- Browsing words (or the occurrence of words) or co-
bol of the literary wave of the Alexandrian avant-garde, lometric melodies are marked with horizontal arrows, in
since Aristophanes refutes the old-fashioned poetry by the Figure 2 below. In a rather primitive way this illustrates the
fake poets that pleases the audience but lacks esthetic re- process of zetesis, that the living library is exploring a men-
finement. On top of that, Vitruvius most likely enhanced tal constellation of literature. The mechanics of the living
the capabilities of Aristophanes’ memory to add a little library can be illustrated by this figure.
drama to the story. So, all in all, Vitruvius is a source that A final remark: How common was the living library?
has to be dealt with respectfully, but not naively. Consider- There is no point in trying to give a precise answer; too lit-
ing Aristophanes as a living library, one has to have all this tle evidence has reached us. Nevertheless, an evolution
in mind. can be glimpsed. Aristophanes was appointed director of
Indeed, Aristophanes was a living library. How does he the library due to his capabilities. In this context it does
expose its mechanics? The story indicates that he was ca- not matter whether this actually happened or not: the
pable of recognizing poetry, literature in general, in its ex- story itself testifies that Aristophanes as a living library
act phrasing. This seems very similar to the fact that he must have been a rare sight around 230 BCE Alexandria,
used the diacritical signs to make colometric melodies, as or at least that he mastered the role of the living library
described above. These melodies must have been part of a like no other. On the other hand, in second century CE
learning-by-heart memorization that he to some extent Rome, the living libraries gathered in literary discussion
could recognize when they (together with other meter) around the dinner-table in Athenaeus Deipnosophistae. The
were pronounced or sung by others. The story also tells story is fiction, but the setting seems like a common
us, that he was capable of retrieving the scrolls in the li- event, only stretched in time to the extreme. At one point
brary containing the melodies―from memory! (V-203e), a person even comments on the Alexandrian li-
brary, saying that he does not bother to describe its archi-
3.3 The mechanics of the living library tecture and content since it is in the memory of everyone.
Quite possibly, the living library was to begin with a rare
Athenaeus and Aristophanes permit a general description and exclusive phenomenon that over the centuries became
of the mechanics of the living library in the Hellenistic more and more common, as literacy increased.
era. The essential element is the colometric melody. Its ex-
istence can be ascertained as a part of the mechanics of 4.0 The Memory Library
the living library via Vitruvius, as mentioned above. It is
likely, though, that other structures such as entire phrases As the story of Aristophanes demonstrates, the mechanics
or even longer quotations from texts were also included in of the living library somehow blended with the mechanics
the mechanics of the living library. A basic cognitive as- of the dead library. Aristophanes could browse his mem-
sumption is that the longer the quotation, the easier it was ory for quotations by authors and he could afterwards lo-
for the living library to recognize the author. Also, words cate them in them library. Jacob (2010) claims that this
might be considered. Certainly, the living libraries in was exactly the case. Such a skill is also testified by Pliny
Athenaeus’s Rome were capable of perusing their mental the Elder in his Naturalis Histioria although the linking be-
web for specific words. It might already have been the tween living and dead libraries is often not grasped (e.g.
case in Hellenistic Alexandria, since Aristophanes wrote Yates 1965, 41).

Figure 2: The mechanics of the living library

10 Knowl. Org. 41(2014)No.1
O. Olesen-Bagneux. The Memory Library: How the Library in Hellenistic Alexandria Worked

I have presented the dead and living library as I think huge amounts of knowledge in memory. In fact, such sys-
they must have worked. I will now proceed to argue that tems were used by illiterate societies all around the world
they were in fact combined, not by extraordinary coinci- (Skafte Jensen 2011). The Greek version of this system
dence or skill, but as one logical system, that I will call the originated from the Homeric formulae and meter, as dis-
“Memory Library,” since it relied on human memory and covered by Milman Parry in the beginning of the 20th cen-
since the Μουσεῖον (Mouseion), the name of institution con- tury (Parry and Parry 1971).
taining the library in Hellenistic Alexandria, can be trans- Now, when Nagy (2000) points to the fact that the co-
lated as such. I believe that the memory library was a lometric melodies employed by Aristophanes made it clear
structure that existed both in the memory of the scholars how to express verse, was it only to help foreigners com-
and as a physical library. Instead of pushing the semi- ing to Alexandria? I think that the colometric melody has
modern library’s reality back in time, claiming that it to to be considered as a logical entry to a universe of beats,
some extent existed in the Alexandrian library, as do Phil- of easy retrievable literature by the very way it sounds.
lips (2010) Casson (2001) and Staikos (2000), I will now Consider the fact that almost all of the literature, exclud-
do the contrary. I believe that the memory library that I ing small parts of the late philosophy, in its actual phras-
am about to describe below was a logical continuation of ing contained a system that permitted it to be retrieved by
Greek scholarship in antiquity. I will present what I think its sound. Why on earth would the scholars of Alexandria,
is the most important argument in my favor, namely the being the first in history to create a library to pass on
argument of the human voice (two other essential argu- knowledge from one generation to another (Bing 2008,
ments are mnemonics and literary theory). The argument 40) abandon the benefits of such a perfect system? Why
of the human voice is simply this: The scholars could sing not profit from it instead? The mechanics of the theatre
the entire library. Below, I qualify how. in Athens could without difficulty be integrated in the me-
chanics of the library in Alexandria. One can even con-
4.1 Singing the literature in the library sider if the scholars were capable of avoiding it: The sys-
tem could not be withdrawn from the literature it had cre-
Nagy (2000) is not the only one concerned with literature ated; it was the literature.
in antiquity as sound. In his books Preface to Plato (1963)
and the Muse Learns to Write (1986) Eric A. Havelock ana- 4.2 Singing the structure of the library
lyzes the transformation from orality to literacy in the
Greek society in antiquity. Until Plato, a certain type of As the literature in the library could be sung, so could the
language dominated the Greek society, a language that, al- structure of the library―theoretically. The catalog of ships
though found in literature, was essentially oral (Havelock in the second book of the Iliad is far from being the only
1986, 92-93): catalog or list that singers had memorized and recited by
voice. Indeed the Greek word Καταλέγω, the etymological
Greek literature from its beginnings was composed root of catalog, means both recite and list. What is important
in verse, not prose, and in Athens this continued to understand, is that these two meanings do not oppose
roughly to the death of Euripides .... The content of each other, lists were cataloged as they were sung, they were
the versified language―which, as versified, is storage stored only in the memories of the singers. Surely, this prac-
language, regardless of the individual styles and pur- tice changed in Athens around 400 BCE when lists began
poses of individual writers―is uniformly mythic, to be written down on scrolls, but the original potential did
meaning traditional .… Surviving orality also ex- not disappear overnight. Memorizing lengthy lists was still
plains why Greek literature to Euripides is composed both a praised rhetorical skill and a necessity for the illiter-
as a performance, and in the language of perform- ate. The Greeks did not lose awareness of the fact that lists
ance. The audience controls the artist insofar as he had been passed on to them orally from generation to gen-
still has to compose in such a way that they can not eration over a period of at least 400 years (Havelock 1986,
only memorize what they have heard but also echo it 84). Quite the contrary: in Preface to Plato Havelock argues
in daily speech. The language of Greek classic thea- (1963, 43) that Plato excludes poetry from his Republic ex-
tre not only entertained its society, it supported it. actly because all branches of thinking were still influenced,
and in Plato’s point of view blurred, by the esthetics of
Havelock’s main point is that all Greek literature until orally transmittable poetry.
Plato was composed in verse so that it could be easily This raises a question: If orally-based learning skills, in-
memorized, simply because orality was the means to pass cluding the ability to recite catalogs, had such a huge intel-
on knowledge to the next generation. Generally speaking, lectual impact even in the fall of Plato’s life in Athens,
adding rhyme, repetitions and beat helped illiterates store could it be that a young Aristophanes in Alexandria some
Knowl. Org. 41(2014)No.1 11
O. Olesen-Bagneux. The Memory Library: How the Library in Hellenistic Alexandria Worked

100 years later was still singing the catalog most useful to curred. Not until the tenth century did silent reading be-
him? If Aristophanes did sing the Pinakes, this would be come the standard way of reading in the western world
the last piece to the puzzle. It would explain not only why (Manguel 1996, 43). Until then, reading out loud or at
he as a living library could identify authors and works by least mumbling the words was the norm. One has to
small bits of literature read out loud, but that he could also imagine the Alexandrian scholars as reading out loud the
find the scrolls containing the literature in the library. Why? literature in the library, every time they read. Therefore, it
Because the Pinakes mirrored the physical library. Singing seems fair to say that both structure and content of the li-
the Pinakes meant singing the library, as structure. brary were sung, and that this was the order of the day.
No evidence of this is given, I must admit. Besides When the scholars recited the Pinakes or the literature out
Vitruvius’ story of the memory of Aristophanes (Jacob loud, this expressed the structure of the library. Done
2010), the Pliny the Elder’s testimony of living libraries over and over again this must at some point have made
(Yates 1965) and Athenaeus’s statement that all scholars the scholars reach a level where they most likely could sing
had the content and structure of the library present in their the library without consulting the scrolls, but rely entirely
memory (Jacob 2013) and finally all the arguments pre- on their memory. The process was made easier due to the
sented above, we are left to speculation. We cannot with fact that the literature was for the most part inherited oral
certainty know whether the scholars had the structure of literature, that was designed to be remembered, and that
the library in their memory, even though all sources indi- the Pinakes had its roots in the same tradition. In this way,
cate it. I would like to point out that this constitutes an ar- I believe, the scholars singingly memorized the library.
gument in itself: No source at all indicates the opposite of
my view. In fact, opposing this idea is merely a result of 4.4 The mechanics of the memory library
thinking like Phillips (2010), Casson (2001) and Staikos
(2000) that the library in Hellenistic Alexandria was organ- As I have just argued, I believe that the Hellenistic library
ized like a modern, physical library per se. There is no evi- of Alexandria could be sung, both its literature and its
dence that the Pinakes was used as a modern, analog refer- structure. Therefore, its physical structure, the dead library,
ence tool. It is simply assumed. must have been integrated with its counterpart, the struc-
ture in the memory of the scholars, the living library. Basi-
4.3 The modernity of silent reading cally, the scholars, being living libraries, made use of them-
selves and the dead library as though they were one struc-
One final argument in support of the idea that the library ture. They could sing both the structure of the library and
was sung is the fact that silent reading was rare in the Al- the literature it contained from their memory, but they
exandrian library. Actually, it might not even have oc- could rely on the physical library in the process of memo-

Figure 3: The mechanics of the memory library

12 Knowl. Org. 41(2014)No.1
O. Olesen-Bagneux. The Memory Library: How the Library in Hellenistic Alexandria Worked

rization and indeed in cases of uncertainty and oblivion. To defend the idea that these two libraries was in fact
The dead and the living library put together formed what one integrated structure, I presented the argument of the
I have chosen to call “the memory library.” In order to il- voice. Havelock (1963, 1986) observed that Greek litera-
lustrate this, I have simply added together the mechanics ture until Plato was unchallenged as orally transmittable.
of the dead and the living library: As a consequence, all of this literature could be stored and
The mechanics of the memory library show both how retrieved in memory by song. Included in this process
classification and indexing, and information-seeking, in were catalogs like the later Pinakes. I have argued, that if
the Hellenistic library of Alexandria, worked. the Pinakes was actually sung by the scholars, the entire li-
To explain the mechanics of the memory library in a brary could be sung, both its content and as a structure.
simple way, the reader must imagine being a living library. This assumption is supported by the fact that reading in
Imagine being Aristophanes. He knows the structure of antiquity meant reading out loud (Manguel 1996). There-
the dead library by heart, since he knows the Pinakes by fore, the argument of the voice qualifies that the dead and
heart: they are identical. And that’s it, really. The living li- the living library constituted one integrated structure. I
braries were able to browse the classes of literature in the have framed this structure as the memory library.
Pinakes from memory, could go to specific rooms, authors, The memory library made classification and retrieval
works, scrolls, parts and even lines in the work (perhaps faster and more precise, than a library merely contained
even words) without moving. They browsed this structure within a building or the human mind. As this article has
in their minds. But if they wanted to, the living libraries demonstrated, the mechanics of the memory library
could verify their content in the dead library, since their reached its level of refinement before 200 BCE, by the
mechanics were compatible with each other’s. The living time Aristophanes became the director of the library. At
library contained the dead library within it. And the dead this point, the memory library had evolved into a 7
library enabled the possibility of the living library. (maybe 8) step procedure: from the entire universe of
The memory library had many advantages. It out- knowledge, to the literary class, author, work, scroll, part,
matched by far the mechanics of the dead library, because line and perhaps even right down to the specific word. I
it could be browsed a lot faster than the dead library. Just have argued that this structure could be perused in the
imagine browsing 120 scrolls for an author, and then run- mind of the scholar, and could always be verified, because
ning to the area were the author was located, finding the the structure in the mind was also the structure of the
right scroll and then, finally the right part. That is easier to physical library.
do in thought than in reality, right? On the other hand
think of the unreliability of human memory. It is easy to References
forget an author’s literary class, exact phrasing and so on.
Well, in this case the memory library was more reliable Barnes, Robert. 2000. Cloistered bookworms in the chi-
than the living library: It could not (in theory) lose its ken-coop of the muses: The ancient library of Alexan-
memory. dria. In MacLeod, Roy M., ed., The Library of Alexan-
dria: centre of learning in the Ancient World. London: I.B.
5.0 Conclusion Tauris Publishers, pp. 61-77.
Bing, Peter. 2008. The well-read muse: present and past in Cal-
In the introduction, a specific understanding of how the limachus and the Hellenistic poets. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
Alexandrian library worked was rejected. Phillips (2010), Michigan Classical Press.
Casson (2001) and Staikos (2000) seem to analyze the Al- Blum, Rudolf. 1991. Kallimachos; The Alexandrian library and
exandrian library by retrieving in it elements from the pre- the origins of bibliography. Madison, Wisconsin: The Uni-
sent reality of libraries. In this article, I have done the ex- versity of Wisconsin Press.
act opposite. Instead of interpreting the library as similar Callmer, Christian. 1944. Antike bibliotheken. Rom: Svenska
to modern ones, I have claimed that the library was in fact Institutet I Rom.
a logic continuation of the Greek intellectual heritage. My Cancik, Hubert, Schneider, Helmuth and Landfester,
point of departure was to follow Jacob (2010). He reflects Manfred. 1996-. Der neue Pauly. Stuttgart: Verlag J.B.
on the memory of Aristophanes and how it must some- Metzler.
how mirror the organization of the library. In the present Canfora, Luciano. 1992. La Bibliothèque d’Alexandrie et
article I have followed his considerations, but widened the l’histoire des textes. Liège: Cedopal.
scope to all the scholars attached to the library. Accord- Canfora, Luciano. 1990. The vanished library. Berkeley: Uni-
ingly, the article frames and outlines the living scholars as versity of California Press
perusing their memory―a memory that mirrors the li- Carruthers, Mary. 2008. The book of memory. Cambridge:
brary’s organization. Cambridge University Press.
Knowl. Org. 41(2014)No.1 13
O. Olesen-Bagneux. The Memory Library: How the Library in Hellenistic Alexandria Worked

Casson, Lionel. 2001. Libraries in the ancient world. New Ha- Pfeiffer, Rudolf. 1949. Callimachus―Volumen I fragmenta.
ven: Yale Nota Bene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. I.
Coqueugniot, Gaëlle. 2007. Cofre, casier et armoire: la Ki- Pfeiffer, Rudolf. 1968. History of classical scholarship: from the
bôtos et le mobilier des archives et des bibliothèques beginnings to the end of the Hellenistic Age. Oxford: Oxford
greques. Revue archéologique 2: 293-304 University Press.
Havelock, Eric A. 1963. Preface to Plato. Cambridge: Phillips, Heather. 2010. The great Library of Alexandria?
Belknap Press, Harvard University Press. Library philosophy and practice. Available http://unllib.unl.
Havelock, Eric A. 1986. The muse learns to write. New Ha- edu/LPP/phillips.htm
ven: Yale University Press Platthy, Jenö. 1968. Sources on the earliest Greek libraries, with
Hoepfner, Wolfram. 2002. Die bibliothek eumenes’ II. in the testimonia. Amsterdam: A.M. Hakkert.
pergamon. In Hoepfner, Wolfram, ed., Antike bibliothe- Skafte Jensen, Minna. 2011. Writing Homer: a study based on
ken. Darmstadt: Verlag Philip von Zabern, pp. 41-52. results from modern fieldwork. Copenhagen: Det Kongelige
Irigoin, Jean. 2001. Le livre grec des origines à la Renaissance. Videnskabernes Selskab.
Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Small, Jocelyn P. 1997. Wax tablets of the mind: cognitive stud-
Jacob, Christian. 2007. Alexandrie, IIIe siècle avant J.-C. In ies of memory and literacy in classical antiquity. London:
Jacob, Christian, ed. Lieux de savoir : espaces et communau- Routledge.
tés. Paris: Albin Michel, pp. 1120-45. Staikos, Konstantinos. 2000: The great libraries: from Antiq-
Jacob, Christian. 2010. Le bibliothécaire, le roi et les poè- uity to the Renaissance. New Castle, Delaware: Oak Knoll
tes. Athens dialogues e-journal 2: 1-17. Press.
Jacob, Christian. 2013. The web of Athenaeus. Cambridge, Staikos, Konstantinos. 2004. The history of the library in west-
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ern civilization: from Minos to Cleopatra. New Castle, Dela-
Lerner, Fred. 2001. The story of libraries: from the invention of ware: Oak Knoll Press.
writing to the computer age. New York: Continuum. Svenbro, Jesper. 1988. Phrasikleia : anthropologie de la lecture
Manguel, Alberto. 1996. A history of reading. New York: en grèce ancienne. Paris: Éditions la découverte.
Penguin Group. Too, Yun L. 2010. The idea of the library in the Ancient World.
Meillier, Claude. 1979. Qallimaque et son temps. Lille: Univer- Oxford: Oxford University Press.
sité de Lille. Weber-Nielsen, Carsten. 1990. Mad & vin i oldtiden ―
Nagy, Gregory. 2000. Reading Greek poetry aloud: Evi- Uuddrag af Athenaios’ de lærde middagsgæster. Copenhagen:
dence from the Bacchylides Papyri. Quaerni urbinati di Museum Tusculanum.
cultura classica 1: 7-28 Witty, Francis J. 1958. The pinakes of Callimachus. Library
Parry, Milman and Parry, Adam. 1971. The making of Ho- quarterly 1: 132-8.
meric verse: The collected papers of Milman Parry. Oxford: Witty, Francis J. 1973. The other pinakes and reference
Oxford University Press. works of Callimachus. Library quarterly 3: 237-44
Parsons, Edward A. 1952. The Alexandrian Library: Glory of Yates, Francis A. 1965. The art of memory. London:
the Hellenic World. London: Cleaver-Hume Press Ltd. Routledge