Neglect destroyed more ancient libraries than war or malice did

Evidence

The major disadvantage of papyrus, otherwise an excellent medium for information storage, is its susceptibility to damp. Even in a well-curated collection, texts need to be recopied after a generation or two. The sheer size of the Alexandrian library militated against its survival. As with so many of the libraries we will meet in this book, neglect was a much more potent enemy than war or malice. — Andrew Pettegree, Arthur der Weduwen, The Library- A Fragile History, 58

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Andrew Pettegree, Arthur der Weduwen, The Library- A Fragile History, 58
• XREF: connects to: Conquest-era book destruction aimed to demoralize foes and eradicate rival religions — Andrew Pettegree, Arthur der Weduwen, The Library- A Fragile History, 368; Nazi book policy combined total destruction with systematic collection — Andrew Pettegree, Arthur der Weduwen, The Library- A Fragile History, 754; Libraries decline mainly through neglect and redundancy, not deliberate destruction. — Andrew Pettegree, Arthur der Weduwen, The Library- A Fragile History, 18 (+6 more)

Broader Connections

• FLN guerrilla conditions and illiteracy destroyed the written historical record #exemplifies (0.85)
• Fortified defense lines can decay into near-total unreadiness through neglect #exemplifies (0.75) — Julien Gracq, Balcony in the Forest, 244
• Print’s abundance made destroyed libraries swiftly replaceable #complicates (0.60) — Andrew Pettegree, Arthur der Weduwen, The Library- A Fragile History, 229