The Library of Alexandria appeals to a certain academic fantasy-- the notion that there might be one place that could fulfill all your research needs. Need to track down that citation? You don’t need to write a colleague-- it’s right there on the shelf.
This leads to two problems. First, any library that claims to have
“5. Comprehensive Level: A collection which, so far as is reasonably possible, includes all significant works of recorded knowledge (publications, manuscripts, and other forms), in all applicable languages, for a necessarily defined and limited field. This level of collecting intensity is one that maintains a " special collection.” The aim, if not achievement, is exhaustiveness. Older material is retained for historical research. In law collections, this includes manuscripts, dissertations, and material on non-legal aspects."
must spend an awful lot of effort to maintain the collection at that level. If they fall behind, it’s less attractive to users because those annoying gaps start to appear.
The second problem is that centralisation of collections lends itself to catastrophe.
Currently reading Gubara, D. E. M. (2012). Al-Azhar in the Bibliographic Imagination. Journal of Arabic Literature, 43(2-3), 299–335. doi:10.1163/1570064x-12341236. The article, ostensibly about large Cairo library, goes deep into Michael Foucault’s Archaeology of Knowledge.
Right now I’m thinking that Sci-hub has certain similarities toi the Alexandrine Library, particularly the practice of seizing books from ships to be copied.
