Slashdot Mirror


Ancient Public Library Discovered In Germany (theguardian.com)

Archaeologists have discovered the remains of the oldest public library in Cologne, Germany, "a building erected almost two millennia ago that may have housed up to 20,000 scrolls," reports The Guardian. From the report: The walls were first uncovered in 2017, during an excavation on the grounds of a Protestant church in the centre of the city. Archaeologists knew they were of Roman origins, with Cologne being one of Germany's oldest cities, founded by the Romans in 50 AD under the name Colonia. But the discovery of niches in the walls, measuring approximately 80cm by 50cm, was, initially, mystifying.

"It took us some time to match up the parallels -- we could see the niches were too small to bear statues inside. But what they are are kind of cupboards for the scrolls," said Dr Dirk Schmitz from the Roman-Germanic Museum of Cologne. "They are very particular to libraries -- you can see the same ones in the library at Ephesus." It is not clear how many scrolls the library would have held, but it would have been "quite huge -- maybe 20,000," said Schmitz.

129 comments

  1. Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by ffkom · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... probably had to be taken away due to copyright claims of some imperial Roman mega-corporations.

    1. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 0
      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    2. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theres so much ancient knowledge and history that we will never know about because the only copies were destroyed in the burning of Alexandria, the burning of books by the first Chinese emeror, the burning of Rome, the destruction of the Aztec civilization by the conquistadors and countless other deliberate destructions of ancient libraries. The absence of copyright might not have saved them but copyright certainly wouldve hindered there being more copies of the works contained in these libraries.

    3. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      ... probably had to be taken away due to copyright claims of some imperial Roman mega-corporations.

      Yeah . . . "In intellectualis proprietas legis veritas" . . . now I need John Cleese to correct that for me.

      But for a lot of folks today, it's "In Facebookus veritas".

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      No, a Roman economist convinced the public to convert the public library into cheap housing for Amazon women.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 5, Informative

      Theres so much ancient knowledge and history that we will never know about because the only copies were destroyed in the burning of Alexandria, the burning of books by the first Chinese emeror, the burning of Rome, the destruction of the Aztec civilization by the conquistadors and countless other deliberate destructions of ancient libraries. The absence of copyright might not have saved them but copyright certainly wouldve hindered there being more copies of the works contained in these libraries.

      Back then there was no copyright - the problems were a) it was a lot of work copying a scroll, let alone thousands. and b) there weren't enough scrolls to write on anyway, so they had to wiped and overwrite used ones (palimpsest). Even moving type printing wasn't really enough, only after ways to mass produce cheap paper were invented, people realised that somebody else could just print the same book as you did at the same cost - but without the cost of creating/acquiring the content. That's when Copyright came into play.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    6. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, thats what I was getting at. The rarity of those works is because of some physical or social hindrance, like lack of resources, labour time or degradation. If there was copyright back then it would only have made these things even more rarer and more likely of getting lost.

      I swear if ever we have a apocalypse; if ever theres a armageddon, the first thing thats gonna go out the window is copyright. Every government or whatever controlling body is around, will be telling everyone to copy as much shit as possible onto whatever storage medium they have available to ensure as much of our culture makes it through.

    7. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ancient civilizations were smarter, everything was in the Public Domain.

    8. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      crap...I think I have some overdue scroll fines.

    9. Re: Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first thing that's going out the window is reckless gratuitous copying. As resources grow scarce, people will stop passing the same copies of mass market entertainment drivel back and forth continuously, only ever watching or listening to a small fragment of it.

    10. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by nukenerd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ancient civilizations were smarter, everything was in the Public Domain.

      I don't know how they are sure that this was a public library, but even if it was you can be pretty sure that it was not open to any member of the public.

    11. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's a bit ironic that you claim there was no copyright in a discussion including Alexandria... Home of the first copyright law. It gave them the right to copy any book coming through their port. They kept the originals and returned the copies. Sadly, copyright law took a very different turn later.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re: Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that is why I have been saying for decades that it is the duty of every single human being to copy, save, backup, print, distribute, anything and everything they find significantly interesting, educational or just entertaining. Copyright be damned.

      That way future generations will have something to work from after the shit hits the fan and civilization as we know it collapses.

      Copyright holders don't care unless they can make a buck, they would rather hord works in their vaults and let it rot.

    13. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by azcoyote · · Score: 4, Informative

      Theres so much ancient knowledge and history that we will never know about because the only copies were destroyed in .... the destruction of the Aztec civilization by the conquistadors ...

      Actually, around 1430, prior to the invasion of the conquistadors, the Mexica (Aztec) king Itzcóatl solidified his cultural rule over the people by having the existing historical texts burned (León-Portilla, Aztec Thought and Culture, 155). Because of this, Mexica history can be rather vague--even aside from the obvious difficulties of translating pictures into language without the original context. The conquistadors destroyed texts too, but what we do know about the Mexica (or more broadly, the Nahua, the peoples who spoke Nahuatl) is largely thanks to certain friars who sought to record as much as they could. Still, the Aztec civilization was not all that old, and much of the history of Mexico is hidden behind it.

      --
      Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
    14. Re: Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good rationalization for piracy. A comet might hit us so I need to pirate Avengers:Age of Ulton.

    15. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Your premise makes no sense. There were no copyright laws because there was virtually no copying.

      Roll back the clock to the 1700's and eliminate the idea of copyrights (might as well through patents in there too). Now, how much of our 'culture' that you are so worried about 'making it through' would even exist?

    16. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it is always sad when a 'right' is taken away from the government and given to the people.

    17. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is always sad when a 'right' is taken away from the government and given to the people.

      That's not what happened, though. What actually happened was that modern copyright law takes away from the people and gives to corporations.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those who could read and write. Back then and until recent times, those were nuclear physics-grade skills. A lot of royalty never learned to read and write, they paid people to do just that. But if you knew how to read and write you would have had access.

    19. Re: Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      My thoughts are of the vast amounts of porn that is lost to humanity forever

    20. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it does not. If you create something, you own the copyright (unless you did it as a work for hire). Any 'corporate' involvment is strictly as a result of an agreement between the creator and the corportation, not copyright law.

      Copyright (in the US) has always been about the rights of the creator, not the rights of the public. The public benefits by having the works created.

    21. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well that's not a very popular narrative these days! White people and religion are bad, mm'kay?

    22. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      When was that right given to "the people"? Seems to me that "the people" had that right from time immemorial right up until the development of modern copyright law.

    23. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      It's not completely one-sided. I, as an individual and indie author and game publisher, have also benefited from copyright laws. It keeps other people and corporations from being able to sell my stuff as their own, gives people a bit more incentive to pay me for my work, and because of those payments, gives me some more incentive to keep creating.

      That said, corporations probably benefit in more ways and certainly by more dollars than I do, and the current ridiculously long durations are to the detriment of everyone. There's a lot to be fixed.

    24. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by umghhh · · Score: 1

      Guttenberg project is not an ancient Roman mega- corp thing but is still blocked in Germany by Google due to German court order.

    25. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      No, it does not. If you create something, you own the copyright (unless you did it as a work for hire). Any 'corporate' involvment is strictly as a result of an agreement between the creator and the corportation, not copyright law.

      That is a lot of horse shit. The original terms of copyright were reasonably equitable; in exchange for limited copyright protection, the material would pass into the public domain and belong to all of us. But corporations lobbied for copyright extensions time and again, and now copyright has no benefit for The People. Because...

      The public benefits by having the works created.

      Works will be created with or without copyright. And without copyright, they would belong to all of us. Granted, not all of the same works would be created, but different works would be created. Also, the same kinds of works could be created, for example movies could be funded through various forms of crowdsourcing. The rewards for buying in would include early access to showings of movies, for example. It's nonsensical to believe that copyright is the only reason works are created.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Copyright gives anyone and everyone (ie 'the people') who creates a work the exclusive rights to control that work. Prior to modern copyright law, no such right existed.

      Copyright does not say who may make copies, it says the creator gets to decide that.

    27. Re: Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh! Like the sexy parts of the Carmina Burana?

    28. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by bryonak · · Score: 1

      Interesting question.
      Probably biologists and playwrights and anyone else professionally producing text back in the 18th century would have had to waste sufficient time battling plagiarism to cause a serious motivation/productivity hit on an individual level.

      Due to slow data transport back then, freely copying without repercussion would have caused more friction within the town of the original work, but allowed easier dissemination across the lands.
      Although leaning toward it, I'm not fully sold on the idea that this would have been a bad thing. What we learned from modern FOSS indicates that replacing fundamental competition (copyright) + some collaboration (partnerships/licenses) with fundamental cooperation (default permissive licensing) + some competition (tribalism) can yield a better result overall. In certain areas at least...

      With today's fast transport of data and ideas, we observe that companies on the rise can afford to eschew the protections offered by copyright and patents. They are ahead in timing and have a clear brand recognition advantage.
      Only products and company subdivisions that are stagnating or on the decline need to clutch at data protectionism. If they were to falter, given today's investment culture it is quite conceivable that they will be replaced by a bunch of smaller alternatives with much higher innovation drive.

      Sure, it seems fair to reward the previous innovators with copyright protection, but they made their profit... how about 3 years* of monopoly, then either do it again or make space for groups that will increase the delta-innovation and delta-progress more?
      So in the 21st century, I'm (actually not a neoliberal at all) leaning more to seeing a fundamental copyright overhaul/liberalisation as a good thing.

      * in IT. For pharmaceuticals it needs to be significantly higher. For belletristic it doesn't.

    29. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it was the Catholic church that burned the Mayan codecs...

    30. Re: Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by ffkom · · Score: 1

      At least some parts of that have survived the centuries - see https://www.ranker.com/list/pe...

    31. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by MoaDweeb · · Score: 1

      Defenestration should be reserved for the wealthy. They have everything else.

      --
      New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
    32. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      "if ever theres a armageddon, " .... it'll already be far too late to copy/preserve anything.

      Sorry. Do your copying NOW, so that you have several copies of what might be handy.

    33. Re: Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      But they don't create. It already exists. They merely stumble upon it. It's like saying the first creature that developed a mutation for sensing light created light.

    34. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      It's a bit ironic that you claim there was no copyright in a discussion including Alexandria... Home of the first copyright law. It gave them the right to copy any book coming through their port. They kept the originals and returned the copies.

      It's a bit ironic you defend the equivalent of a LEO demanding your phone, fully unlocked, and giving you an old Nokia as a replacement.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    35. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "It's a bit ironic you defend the equivalent of a LEO demanding your phone, fully unlocked, and giving you an old Nokia as a replacement."

      We're not talking about ships' logs here. This was about making the material available to others. And IMO you should have to provide a copy of your work to the LoC or local equivalent to receive more than five years of copyright protection, with a maximum term of twenty-five.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:Unluckily, the scrolls are long gone... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      "It's a bit ironic you defend the equivalent of a LEO demanding your phone, fully unlocked, and giving you an old Nokia as a replacement."

      We're not talking about ships' logs here.

      And now you pretend that the data on your phone are just like a ships log, and it does't matter if it gets send to a library where random people can read it. Yeah, go ahead.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  2. Weak evidence for being public by raymorris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ancient libraries were very often (nearly always?) private. They would either serve a particular institution, such as a government body, or some were only open to members who paid the high membership fees (compare a country club). For example, the vast majority of the holdings of Library of Congress aren't available of the public.

    The article indicates they think it was a public library because it was located near the center of town, next.to a church, and there were public buildings nearby. Again, the Library of Congress is at the center of Washington, near public buildings, across the street from the capitol, the Supreme Court building, and a church. It's not a public library.

    1. Re:Weak evidence for being public by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Ancient libraries were very often (nearly always?) private. They would either serve a particular institution, such as a government body, or some were only open to members who paid the high membership fees (compare a country club).

      Gee, even way back when, those in power knew that they needed to control access to information to keep the masses under their yolks.

      "Scientia sit potentia", indeed.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Weak evidence for being public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Since the scrolls seem to be missing, I hope it is not public. 20000 years of overdue fees would be like a lot of money.

    3. Re:Weak evidence for being public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yokes. Unless there's a yolk/yoke joke I am missing?

    4. Re:Weak evidence for being public by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Yokes. Unless there's a yolk/yoke joke I am missing?

      The yolk's and the yoke's on me . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:Weak evidence for being public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you're trying to be a pedant, wrong. Public means it's established by the people, not necessarily for each's own individual consumption without any restriction, which doesn't even apply in our version of modern public libraries.

    6. Re:Weak evidence for being public by Jon+Peterson · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure the layout of a city 1600 years later and in another continent is *all* that relevant.

      In the eternal dilemma of whether to believe 'article on internet' and 'commenter on article on internet' I shall have to put my faith in the former.

      Dr Dirk Schmitz from the Roman-Germanic Museum of Cologne may have no idea what he's talking about, but if that's the case he's done well to blag the job.

      --
      ----- .sig: file not found
    7. Re:Weak evidence for being public by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Books and scrolls were seriously costly back then, you wouldn’t want just anyone to walz in and start pawing them. Especially if they couldn’t.read anyway.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    8. Re:Weak evidence for being public by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Especially if they couldnâ(TM)t.read anyway.
      And why would one who could not read go into a library?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:Weak evidence for being public by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Especially if they couldnâ(TM)t.read anyway. And why would one who could not read go into a library?

      For the dirty pictures. Dirty because of the unwashed hands.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    10. Re: Weak evidence for being public by reiterate · · Score: 1

      Couldn't read the sign.

    11. Re:Weak evidence for being public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pretty much the only book people would see in The West during the dark ages, was the bible. And it was almost always in a Priest's hands, because you needed an education to actually, truly understand the bible. Otherwise, you might read it, and have a different opinion than those that were 'in the know'.

      Chaos!

      Of course, few could read back then anyhow.. so...

    12. Re:Weak evidence for being public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am inclined to agree with you; however I note that scientists (here archeologists and historians) in the public eye are under immense pressure to sex up their public communication, as we have seen many times before. It may well be that the word 'public' was added to increase the popular appeal of the press release..

    13. Re: Weak evidence for being public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What other continent? What continent are you on?

    14. Re:Weak evidence for being public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, a perfect description of the library of Alexandria.

    15. Re:Weak evidence for being public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, even way back when, those in power knew that they needed to control access to information to keep the masses under their yolks.

      Hardly. The masses generally went along with those in power because they protected their town/city from invasion (you know, back when walled cities were a thing). Those that didn't were crushed by said same power or were exiled. No, the major reason was in part because as others noted the work was near priceless (before the printing press) and it was generally felt the common masses had little to no reason to have access to information. In comparison, the plays and "trash" novels still existed and were vulgar--you know, of the masses.

      The other major reason was because libraries hoarded information specifically to trade with other scholars. Giving free access to copy would make it very difficult to trade with anyone*. Now days of course the exact opposite is true and free access only increases the spread and hence worth of a work because each unit is otherwise near worthless in most cases. There really was no idea of suppressing information in the same sense--you went after religious leaders/cults and their leaders if you were interested in oppression without any want or need to attack the expensive intermediary of text. Of course, that isn't to say they didn't burn texts as well; it just wasn't the thing you went after because being so rare it wasn't the thing you had to worry nearly as much about having some sort of undue influence.

      * There are some interesting counterexamples of this through history where libraries were a lot more open--still not to the masses--and the overall advantage of having so many scholars come probably outweighed the losses. Basically, the BSD vs Proprietary war is age old.

    16. Re:Weak evidence for being public by Sique · · Score: 1

      There was even a time, when owning a bible was forbidden (as one could read oneself and then get new ideas how to interpret the Bible), when the Cathars in the 12th century started to get hold in Southern France.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    17. Re:Weak evidence for being public by Sique · · Score: 2

      In this case, it is, as the town center of the old Colonia Agrippina was exactly where the town center of today's Cologne is. There is a continuous development from Colonia Agrippina to today's Cologne (and on the other side of the Rhine river, where today's Cologne-Deutz is, was the Roman fortress Castrum Divitensium. Even the churches in Cologne's town center were mostly built on the foundations of Roman temples.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    18. Re:Weak evidence for being public by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

      There were definitely libraries in ancient Rome intended to serve the masses, although they mostly date from slightly later than this (e.g. the Library of Celsus, built in 139 CE in what is now Turkey).

      One of the perqs of being a politician in Ancient Rome is that it afforded you a chance to amass a private fortune. But since you had to be rich to play that game to begin with, what did you spend that new money on? Buying popularity.

      The ultimate examples of that were what we misleadingly call Roman "baths", which by the imperial era had become a combination bath, gym, beauty salon, mall, theater, restaurant, art gallery, and library. Basically they were crammed with every entertaining thing the politician could imagine. Now, granted, wealthy Romans had baths in their home and slaves to feed and groom them, but Romans were a sociable lot; it wasn't enough to be rich, you had to be seen being rich, and generous too.

      Of course baths were so expensive in their engineering only the very richest politicians could afford to donate them to the public, which is why the great era of Roman bath-building was the imperial era. But earlier on politicians donated less grand (by Roman standards -- plenty grand by any other) public works, including public libraries. Gaius Asinius Pollio, patron of the poet Virgil and an accomplished writer himself, donated the first public library in Rome with money he looted from Iran. That was built around 39 BC.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    19. Re:Weak evidence for being public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cuddling obviously.

    20. Re:Weak evidence for being public by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Ancient libraries were very often (nearly always?) private. ... The article indicates they think it was a public library because it was located near the center of town ..

      It is ridiculous to think it was a public library in the modern sense. Are "they" really archaeologists or just the builders who found the place? Very few people would have been allowed to handle these scrolls.

    21. Re:Weak evidence for being public by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      20000 years of overdue fees would be like a lot of money.

      Only 2000 years actually, and some libraries waive fees for old age pensioners which the borrowers certainly will be by now.

    22. Re:Weak evidence for being public by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Books and scrolls were seriously costly back then, you wouldn’t want just anyone to walz in and start pawing them. Especially if they couldn’t.read anyway.

      That is exactly what happened in Ancient Roman baths and public libraries. And the literacy rate in the Empire was about 10% overall, but likely would have been higher in the cities where people are engaged in commerce and government. Given that the population of the city of Rome at the time we're talking was 1.5 million, there would surely be hundreds of thousands of potential patrons for a public library in Rome itself.

      Now ancient Cologne had about 20,000 inhabitants; if 10% of them could read that'd be 2000 potential patrons. However since the function of the city was to administer the Roman province of Germania Inferior ("Lower Germany"), I'd guess the literacy rate would be higher, accounting for a population of bureaucrats, administrators and military officers.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    23. Re:Weak evidence for being public by hey! · · Score: 1

      The dark ages came about seven hundred years after this thing was built.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    24. Re:Weak evidence for being public by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Pretty much the only book people would see in The West during the dark ages, was the bible.

      If you weren't a priest then, the only books you'd see were the account books of your business. Yes, businesses kept account ledgers then. Some of the oldest writings we've found have been invoices...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    25. Re: Weak evidence for being public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GP used "Library of Congress is at the center of Washington" as an example to refute the hypothesis of that German historian. A library which was built quite some time later and more than 4000 miles away; also with a huge puddle of water in between - the Atlantic ocean. Perhaps not the best example to base your own hypothesis about ancient Roman city planning and building on.

    26. Re:Weak evidence for being public by PPH · · Score: 1

      Maybe they found some homeless people sleeping on the benches.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    27. Re:Weak evidence for being public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation for most LoC items being inaccessible?

      Sure, they are not a *circulating* library (you cannot borrow items), but it is most definitely a public library. Anyone can enter and request anything. It helps to have made the request in advance, since it takes a really long time to find anything there.

    28. Re:Weak evidence for being public by hey! · · Score: 1

      But the contents of ancient Roman public libraries were controlled.

      In 8CE, Augustus exiled the poet Ovid, and had his book Ars Amatoria removed from the public libraries, although numerous copies remained in private hands.

      Now the modern myth is that Ovid was exiled because Ars was scandalously pornographic, but I think that's a projection of a modern priggishness onto the Ancient Romans. I think the emporer wanted Ovid and the crowd Ovid was mixed with out of the public mind.

      Romans could be priggish, but about different things like wearing clothes that were above your station; their attitudes toward sex were entirely different from modern prigs. There was a Roman magistrate called a "censor" who was in charge of policing public morals (in addition to taking the "census"). One of the things he could punish you for was celibacy. Until you had produced three children it was your duty to produce more citizens. This may have been in part due to the startlingly high death rate from Malaria, with as many as 30,000 dying from Malaria annually in the city of Rome by some estimates.

      Curiously, one thing that so far as I know censors never did was "censor" books.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    29. Re:Weak evidence for being public by azcoyote · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There was even a time, when owning a bible was forbidden...

      Proof? It's easy to repeat these claims, but actual history is far more complex. I don't know of any law ever actually being against owning a Bible. Moreover, Catharism was not persecuted for its use of the Bible, but rather for its attitude against the Bible; like Marcion and the Manichees before, they saw the Godof the Old Testament as evil. Thus the movement had very little to do with the Bible, and was fueled more by other ascetic, philosophical, and mystical influences.

      Owning a Bible was not illegal, but it was nearly impossible for the poor and uneducated masses prior to the printing press. Nobles may own Bibles. In many cases, however, even the book read at Mass was not a whole Bible, but merely a lectionary, which contained the readings of the days but not the entire content of the Bible. This allowed for better mass production.

      It's very easy to ascribe sinister motives to everything, but the people of the middle ages were pretty much the same as us, and economic explanations are often enough to understand the situation. Reading the Bible was not prohibited, but it was assumed that the Bible had to be read according to Church tradition, and so people also read it alongside commentaries and under guidance. Nobles may be privileged to own books--and not just the Bible, but other books as well--but the average peasant simply did not have the money. The price of books was high because of a lack of supply to meet demand. Books were hand-copied word by word.

      --
      Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
    30. Re:Weak evidence for being public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think 10% counts as "public" and even if you go to 20% you've probably got variation in reading levels and certainly a variation of interest and motivation. It's not like they were stocking a collection of Danielle Steel or Steven King.

    31. Re:Weak evidence for being public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure what you're talking about LoC IS a public library. Anyone can go in and basically obtain a book and browse through it. You can't take it out of course, but pretty much almost all books unless in the archives can be accessed during the day. You can even email LoC and asked them for excerpts from books, and they will email you PDFs, if needed to cite in a work.

    32. Re:Weak evidence for being public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale

    33. Re:Weak evidence for being public by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Illegal to translate...

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    34. Re:Weak evidence for being public by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      But the Cathars (a gnostic splinter group of christianity) did not forbid the bible.
      The catholics forbid the Cathars ... hunted them and killed them.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    35. Re:Weak evidence for being public by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Depends what you call ancient and which region you refer to.

      Both "middle east" and Asia had plenty of public libraries since 4000 BC ...

      The most famous one probably was the library of Alexandria.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    36. Re:Weak evidence for being public by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The main obstacle in reading the bible was that it was either written in greek or in latin ...
      It took more than a thousand years that english and german and later french or italian or spanish translations existed ... (And the King James translation is probably the worst)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    37. Re:Weak evidence for being public by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you are an idiot.

      Especially during roman times society was more or less on the same level we are right now.

      They had no computers ... and no diesel engines. And thats it. Laws, society, public interaction was more or less the same as now.

      No idea what you kids learn in school ...

      Heck, the 'code Napolion' or even modern German law, is 90% a word by word translation of old roman law.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    38. Re:Weak evidence for being public by Sique · · Score: 1
      1199: Pope Innocent III forbade the "reading of the bible in private".

      1229: Pope Gregor IX on the Council of Toulouse (Concil Tolosanum):

      Prohibemus etiam, ne libros veteris testamenti aut novi laici permittantur habere; nisi forte psalterium vel breviarium pro divinis officiis aut horas beatae Mariae aliquis ex devotione habere velit.

      (We also prohibit the laity to have the books of the Old Testament or the New, except, perhaps, the psalter or a breviary, for divine service or the hours of the Holy Mary, or if a person wishes to have them out of devotion.)

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    39. Re:Weak evidence for being public by mcswell · · Score: 1

      Yes, those would have been impediments to people in western Europe, although the Latin Bible existed precisely to make it easier for people in the western Roman empire (where some form of Latin was either the main language , or a language which educated people knew) to read. There were other translations elsewhere; early on, it was translated into Syriac (indeed, so early that some claimed at least the Gospels had been written in Syriac, then translated into Greek). Other early translations included Ge'ez ("Ethiopic"), Gothic (Germanic), Slavonic (Slavic), and (partially) into Arabic, all before AD 1000.

      BTW, why do you consider the KJV the worst of the early European translations?

    40. Re:Weak evidence for being public by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      BTW, why do you consider the KJV the worst of the early European translations?
      Because the few parts I had to read are just gibberish, trying to make the original text somewhat more "mystic" perhaps.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  3. Alternative explanation by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    the niches were too small to bear statues inside

    Unless the statues were really small too.

    Pshaw! So -called "experts".

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re: Alternative explanation by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      I'm sure in a few years they'll admit it was some rich Roman's dildo collection.

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    2. Re:Alternative explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who would have so many miniature bear statues?

      -cm

    3. Re:Alternative explanation by jbmartin6 · · Score: 2

      Any sufficiently small statue is indistinguishable from an action figure.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    4. Re:Alternative explanation by hey! · · Score: 1

      It's analogous to this situation. Suppose you walked into a three story house that was completely empty of furniture. Would you know that it house and not, say, an office building? The same kind of knowledge applies here. If it is built like things we know from historical records were Roman libraries, and it's Roman, it was almost certainly a library.

      Now is it possible this was built by a rich eccentric to house his miniature legionnaire action figures? Sure. And it's possible that building is an office building designed to feel like a house. But that's not the parsimonious explanation.

      In any case, it would be very clear that this is a public building. Different kinds of Roman buildings were built along different common patterns, just as office buildings and single family homes in our culture are built according to common patterns. Those patterns are different and alien to our notions, but standardized nonetheless.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  4. So, what of the scrolls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because a building certainly isn't that weird to find, scrolls are much more interesting.

    1. Re:So, what of the scrolls? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Seized due to copyright claims from Disney.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:So, what of the scrolls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try. You can claim anyone 'tended' to destroy anything.

    3. Re:So, what of the scrolls? by moronoxyd · · Score: 2

      Right, that's why monasteries were known to be places where monks working as scribes duplicated scrolls and books.

    4. Re:So, what of the scrolls? by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Informative

      AC the world moved to the Codex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:So, what of the scrolls? by Jzanu · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Early Christians did intentionally destroy Pagan writings, including Greek and Roman science, and even went so far as to rape and murder the academic Hypatia for the sake of their internal gossip. They created only limited religious writing. All science from the Greeks and Romans was preserved exclusively by the Arab civilization. I say this as a Catholic, so don't imagine some offense. It is just that history and reality are different than you know.

    6. Re:So, what of the scrolls? by Freischutz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Early Christians did intentionally destroy Pagan writings, including Greek and Roman science, and even went so far as to rape and murder the academic Hypatia for the sake of their internal gossip. They created only limited religious writing. All science from the Greeks and Romans was preserved exclusively by the Arab civilization. I say this as a Catholic, so don't imagine some offense. It is just that history and reality are different than you know.

      Exclusively?? That is quite simply not true. While there have always been book burning morons among the Christians like in any other religion they never dominated for any length of time and were fiercely opposed by scholastically minded people within the church. Large numbers of manuscripts were copied and preserved in Christian monasteries by monks and nuns. In fact we owe a big debt to both Arab scholars and religious figures as well as their Christian counterparts for the preservation of much of the surviving ancient literature and scientific writings. In fact Arab books were translated into western languages during the middle ages, that includes the Quaran which was translated into Latin by monks as early as the 11th and 12th centuries and scientific works such as the famous medical encyclopaedias written by Ibn Sina (known as Avicenna to medieval Europeans) which became well known reference works in Europe of the Middle Ages. The worst we can accuse Christian monks, Arab religious figures and scholars of both cultures of is that they did not have the time or capacity to save everything. That being said we are still finding ancient works in monastic collections that were thought to have been lost.

    7. Re:So, what of the scrolls? by nukenerd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Early Christians did intentionally destroy Pagan writings.

      Correct, even into Victorian times, although Victorian times also saw efforts to revive knowledge of Pagan matters and customs, like Morris dancing.

      As an example, "fairies", the ones in childrens books that look like pretty dolls, are actually a sugar-coated survivor from a large pantheon of pagan spirits and demons that pre-dated Christianity, from both Norse and Classical origins. Early Christian priests did everything in their power to eradicate this extensive folklore.

    8. Re:So, what of the scrolls? by ilguido · · Score: 1

      Early Christians did intentionally destroy Pagan writings, including Greek and Roman science, and even went so far as to rape and murder the academic Hypatia for the sake of their internal gossip.

      Hypatia was caught in the middle of a power struggle between two christian factions. She was too close to one of them and then she was killed for political reasons. Some early Christians intentionally destroyed pagan writings, other early Christians intentionally preserved them: in the end it was preserved a lot, given the circumstances (complete destruction of civil institutions etc.).

      All science from the Greeks and Romans was preserved exclusively by the Arab civilization.

      It was preserved mostly by monks from the Middle Ages, especially Latin manuscripts.

      It is just that history and reality are different than you know.

      Indeed.

    9. Re:So, what of the scrolls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try again. You only learned an entirely artificial version of history. You need to really look at the details to see where your view is wrong.

    10. Re:So, what of the scrolls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the Arabs were pretty smart and developed people before Islam

    11. Re:So, what of the scrolls? by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      While there have always been book burning morons among the Christians like in any other religion they never dominated for any length of time and were fiercely opposed by scholastically minded people within the church.

      The problem is that they didn't need to dominate for long. Just long enough to destroy a library here, a temple there, slaughter an important "demon worshiper" over there etc. The length of time required for those was sometimes a single night, with the requirement just an overzealous bishop and a properly worked up illiterate mob under the illusion they were sticking it to the man. That was pretty common even when the authorities attempted to stop it.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    12. Re:So, what of the scrolls? by azcoyote · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All science from the Greeks and Romans was preserved exclusively by the Arab civilization.

      Such an overblown claim is so easy to unravel, because all it takes is one example. Aristotle was largely preserved by the Arabs, but Plato did not need to be re-introduced in the West, because earlier Christian theologians generally liked Plato a lot. Aristotle was never actually destroyed in the West, but he simply was not liked, so his manuscripts were not copied enough and eventually disappeared (papyrus and paper rot, you know). Both Plato and Aristotle were pagans (though not of the same sort as traditional Greek paganism), and neither had their texts burned for this.

      In fact, Christians generally only intentionally destroyed heretical works. A pagan work cannot be heretical. A heretical work is by someone who claims to be Christian but teaches falsely. I'm sure some ancient Christians somewhere destroyed pagan works, but I cannot think of a single instance where the documentary evidence explicitly states that Christians are destroying pagan texts. You can find passages where they talk about the need to destroy heretical texts, and you can find plenty of passages where they proclaim their fondness for Greek and Roman writings, but I cannot recall any passages about destroying Greek and Roman writings for their paganism. Please, find me one.

      Note however that there is a deeper problem to your claim. You identify Christianity with the West. If Western European Christianity lost Greek texts, then you conclude that Christians destroyed them. But Christianity also existed in the East, even within Arab lands, and those Christians did not necessarily lose Aristotle. After all, the fall of Constantinople to the Turks did not occur until 1453!

      --
      Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
    13. Re:So, what of the scrolls? by ole_timer · · Score: 1

      moronity is not limited to the Christians...there's equal moronity among the heretics, non-believers, etc.

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    14. Re:So, what of the scrolls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you honestly think that most knowledge was preserved by monks in the middle ages, particularly in latin manuscripts, then you are really, *really*, *REALLY* uneducated on this topic. My college studies included far more medieval and ancient history than is common for students (I attended multiple universities and took every history course for medieval and older that I could).

      Certainly *some* knowledge was preserved by monks. Even useful things from time to time.

      But there was not "complete destruction of civil institutions" as you say. Much used to be made of the "fall of Rome" but that overplaying went out of style decades ago. One observation I recall was that the "dark ages" were only "dark" because of a paucity of written records -- but that there were actually plenty of records and as research continued what was "dark" continually shrank.

      Around five to ten years ago I did an extensive survey of 500 AD to 1000 AD in Europe (that quickly focused on the latter part of the period) that found some interesting things, like Charlemagne's public school (not just for the aristocracy, but noble children rubbing shoulders with commoners). Or that the lot of the serfs was made worse by the eradication of the iron plow share in favor of roman-style agriculture. We know lots of things about the time period, largely because there was *not* complete destruction of civil institutions.

      But throughout that time period the vast majority of regional knowledge preservation, much less adding to the store, was the result of muslims. I realize that doesn't make for good material in christian-centric teaching, but it doesn't change reality.

      In that line, there was a public school "history" text that went after muslims for legally limiting the number of wives to four and completely glossed over Charlemagne's wives and concubines (just counting wives he had more than four) -- all within a span of two pages.

      None of this makes christians bad and muslims good, but people who are intent on either the former or the latter misrepresent and omit significant facts.

    15. Re:So, what of the scrolls? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Ferries are more an celtic thing.
      Norse/Germans had a different mythology.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    16. Re:So, what of the scrolls? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1, Interesting

      but I cannot think of a single instance where the documentary evidence explicitly states that Christians are destroying pagan texts.
      You mean in Europe ...
      In Mexico christians destroyed 99.99999% of all Mayan texts, your amount of 9's might vary.
      Only one single catholic priest collected some/them and that is basically what is left in our days from Mayan writings.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    17. Re:So, what of the scrolls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, there is a great similarity between Celtic and Germanic Fair Folk

    18. Re:So, what of the scrolls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      really? I thought huge amounts of Mayan texts were destroyed by the Mayan's before the Spanish even got there...

    19. Re:So, what of the scrolls? by mcswell · · Score: 1

      "...they did not have the time or capacity to save everything": That's because they didn't have one of these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      (or better, one of these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...)

    20. Re:So, what of the scrolls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such persistent part-truths and myths.

    21. Re:So, what of the scrolls? by ilguido · · Score: 2
      A random guy claim to have studied medieval history (probably his university is called Wikipedia) and he is modded up because his post fits some agenda.

      But throughout that time period the vast majority of regional knowledge preservation, much less adding to the store, was the result of muslims. I realize that doesn't make for good material in christian-centric teaching, but it doesn't change reality.

      Muslims (or better, Christians and some Hebrews employed by Muslims) began to translate Greek books into Arabic in the 8th-9th century, after the conquest of the Near East in the 7th century. The Roman Empire became a Christian Empire during the 4th century. Who do you think preserved those texts in the meantime (just 4 or 5 centuries, you know)? As a comparison Arabic texts were mainly translated into Latin in the 12th century, 3 or 4 century after they were translated from Greek.

      You claim to have studied the 500-1000 AD period and Charlemagne and his public schools: then you should know the paucity of Greek scholars in Western Europe, which had hindered the diffusion of Greek texts for centuries. One of the best Greek translator at the court of the Frankish Kingdom was an Irish monk, Eriugena and that because Ireland was almost spare by the Barbarian Invasions and the chaos they sparked.

    22. Re:So, what of the scrolls? by redlemming · · Score: 2

      All science from the Greeks and Romans was preserved exclusively by the Arab civilization.

      First, the knowledge of the ancient Greeks and Romans wasn't really science. Science didn't really start to evolve until the 16th or 17th century.

      Second, after the fall of the Western Roman empire, the Eastern Roman empire (often known as Byzantium or the Byzantine Empire) would continue for almost 1000 years longer (the capital city of Constantinople would fall to the Ottoman Turks in 1435).

      Huge amounts of earlier knowledge were preserved in Byzantium during this long period. As things started to fall apart (due in part due to Arab pressure), people from this civilization fled back to the West seeking safer lives. Many scholars consider this a primary driving force to the Italian Renaissance.

      What you are referring to as the Arab civilizations (a bit of a loose term, depending upon how you define 'Arab') certainly made some unique contributions, and they helped to preserve some knowledge that might otherwise have been lost, but they did not have the sole or exclusive role in preserving ancient knowledge. A case could even be made that the Arab / Ottoman / etc pressure on Byzantium had a net negative effect in the overall preservation of ancient knowledge.

      The Arabs were not alone in creating pressure on Byzantine civilization: the first time the city of Constantinople was sacked it would be by Christian crusaders (in 1204).

  5. Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Globalists: "None of this matters anyway, you're not going to be hearing about it from us. We have plans to remove all books from your curriculum and make your children get an education by watching gamers on youtube."

  6. And just a few blocks away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...they found the world's longest overdue library scroll.

  7. Re:Libraries are for cows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is wonderful to see that your indoctrination is still progressing at a steady pace.

    kudoz to you.

  8. Re:Destroy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It must be really quite awful to have no higher calling in life than to spew nonsense so vile that you're afraid even to put a pseudonym to it, much less your name.

    I feel sorry for you—in much the same way that I felt sorry for that rattlesnake that got into the patio last year, moments before I blew its head off with a shotgun.

  9. Re: Destroy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reading Westerns again, eh. What floor of the Peabody, MA public library do they shelve the westerns on, priss?

  10. Re:Destroy it by nukenerd · · Score: 1

    spew nonsense so vile that you're afraid even to put a pseudonym to it, much less your name.

    Vile? Just for satirising the EU? You need to lighten up, and the GP is not the only one not to put down a pseudonym.

  11. Re:Destroy it by alexgieg · · Score: 1

    VICTOIRE A NOUS!

    I think you need a little bit of being killed in an European war of yore to gain some perspective. On the bright side, war builds character! I mean, someone would write your name on a plaque alongside thousands of other names or something, so you'd at the very least become a character afterwards, even if kinda blurred while a tourist glanced over it in between your war and theirs. But, hey! At least your genes would carry on in the form as the child of a prostitute or the child of the raped wife of a fallen Enemy, so there's that too!

    --
    Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
  12. Misleading title. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Public library is very VERY misleading. Only an under educated person today would not be aware of how society worked 1.800-1.900 years ago let alone that documents would be public. First, 2,000 years ago only the top 1% even knew how to read. Second, those that could read were either royalty, their court, or the church, of which the later was the greatest number.

    Do you see "public" in any of that? Third, during this time period the church controlled all access to scripture. The Bible was only allowed to be read by clergy and should any one outside of the church try to read or interpret the Bible they would face excommunication. Excommunication was nearly always a death sentence as no one would be allowed to associate with the excommunicated person AND the church gave permission to execute those that were excommunicated as it was not a sin to kill them.

    It is interesting to hear of these finds the article is lacking with any details that make it even an interesting read. Well, unless you think that begging for donations is your thing.

    1. Re:Misleading title. by mcswell · · Score: 2

      Top 1% of what part of the world? There were certainly parts of the Roman empire where the literacy rate was far higher. The Jewish population, for example, was quite literate. Also, it wasn't until much later (than this public library) that the Church controlled anything, much less access to its scriptures. If access to books was controlled earlier, it's only because books were very valuable; sort of like controlling access to the diamond rings under glass in your local jewellery store.

      As for excommunication being a death sentence, I am not sure where you got that idea. Most people who were excommunicated went on to live long lives; the army of the Fourth Crusade was excommunicated by the Pope, and while I'm sure many of them died out there, it was not because they were excommunicated. I've NEVER heard that the Church gave permission to execute those who were excommunicated.

      In sum, if you are correct that "Only an under educated person today would not be aware of how society worked 1.800-1.900 years ago", then I'm afraid you've placed yourself among the under-educated.

  13. Public Library? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So far as I know the modern idea of the public library is something developed in the America's at the suggestion Benjamin Franklin ( if his autobiography is to be believed).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_library

    There idea of a public library doesn't make much sense in a society where the literacy rate is under 10% and the cost of a books of hundreds or thousands of dollars each ( how long does it take to copy a 100 page book well, by hand with a quill pen on very expensive paper). So far as I know you had to be known in some way to be given entry into ancient library and they didn't let the books leave most of the time.

    1. Re:Public Library? by mcswell · · Score: 1

      Perhaps at issue here is what it means for a library to be "public." If it has to be a lending library, then I guess you're right. But if the public is allowed access to read books in the library, then maybe this was a public library. (And even now, most public libraries have certain books--typically reference books--that cannot be checked out, but must be read in the library.)

  14. Discarded when they Migrated to Books by tmjva · · Score: 1

    Time to revive the years old NRK video of Medieval HelpDesk:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
  15. 20.000? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    And none of them returned for 2000 years?
    Call the library cop!

  16. Eau de Public Library by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The latest fragrance from 4711.

  17. Name of Köln by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...founded by the Romans in 50 AD under the name Colonia."

    Colonia Agrippina. (Or, to be exact, Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium.) But calling it "Colonia" would be a lot like calling Los Angeles "Los."

    1. Re:Name of Köln by mcswell · · Score: 1

      But that must be where the modern name Cologne came from, right?

  18. shoulda built an Amazon instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    blah blah public libraries are socialism blah blah

  19. KJV by mcswell · · Score: 2

    Are you sure that's not just because the English is old (Early Modern, roughly same period as Shakespeare)? I've read both the KJV and other translations all the way through, and while there are certainly places where the KJV is not only older English, but also just strange, as well as places where the translation is not so good (mostly Old Testament, maybe especially Psalms), it's not all that bad if you can deal with the thee's and thou's.