+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Ancient Civ Talk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: The survival rate of ancient literature (/showthread.php?tid=11387)
The survival rate of ancient literature - Sean Manning - 12-30-2007
Has anyone tried to estimate what proportion of ancient literature survives? Something like 10%, 1%, or 0.1%? Let use define ancient literature as works written down in Greek or Latin and meant for a wide audience (so tax rolls, most letters, poetry written to prove one's literary credentials to a few friends, etc. don't count). A lot of other things could be included: works in other languages, oral poetry, archives, etc., but their loss must be even greater and harder to quantify. Is there a difference between the survival rates of Latin and Greek literature?
Re: The survival rate of ancient literature - Carlton Bach - 12-31-2007
I'm not sure anyone can give you any good answer to that, but the loss must have been considerable. If I had to quantify it, I would say less than 1% is the more likely figure. We know from our sources that libraries with tens of thousands of volumes were not unusual in the Hellenistic amnd Roman period. Even if we assume that the majority of the text in them would have ocverlapped (Antiquity had a literary canon that would have determined what belonged in every library), we can confidently assume the existence of at the very least a high five-figure number of discrete works. By the Roman period, the literary output even of minor philosophers (many of which made a living by writing and going on the 'literary circuit' for their wealthy patrons) probably exceeded in volume that of Aristotle or Plato. Poets and playwrights were a dime a dozen in Rome and Alexandria. Many educated men produced literature either for their own entertainment (and to play in the literary games of one-upmanship that kept their circles busy) or to gain the patronage of the powerful. Panegyrics and speeches were composed for all kinds of occasions, and many were preserved either for their historic significance, genuine quality, or the vanity of their authors.
What we have is a small part of the output of the people who were considered genuine classics, and sometimes not even that. By way of an example consider Vitruvius: a moderately successful architect in the service of Julius Caesar and Augustus who wrote a scholarly book on architecture after his retirement, he cites numerous widely read and sometimes centuries-old classics of his field. He was not a famous man in his time and can not have been the only writer on architecture in his era, either. Yet his is the only text to survive *at all*. To the Renaissance, he became a kind of demigod of builders simply because he was all there was.
Re: The survival rate of ancient literature - M. Demetrius - 12-31-2007
As you say, Carlton, many thousands of scrolls and codices were lost. The Library at Alexandria had basically the complete history of Egypt, if we can believe Herodotus, which was accidentally burned in Mark Antony's day.
In How the Irish Saved Civilization, it's pointed out that many of the surviving Classical works are still with us because of just a few people who put in considerable effort and expense to have them copied. Some historic writers allude to other works that are non-existant today. Seems that the conquerors of historical times thought very little about preserving the history of the conquered. They sure weren't considering the problems of modern historical reenactors, now were they?
:wink:
Re: The survival rate of ancient literature - john m roberts - 12-31-2007
Like other forms of literature, sheer volume acts in favor of survival. (Future archaeologists will find a great deal of Stephen King and J.K. Rowling when they dig up our cities, not so much Fitzgerald or Faulkner.)
We have quite a bit of the writings of Caesar and Cicero, for instance, because for centuries they were used to teach Latin. Schoolboys all over the Empire were forced to copy out page after page of Caesar and Cicero to learn proper use of the language. Thus we could put their works together out of fragments if necessary. Others survived only because of the fortuitous survival of a single manuscript. Many were translated from Greek into Arabic, then lost and back-translated from Arabic in the Middle Ages. It's a crapshoot any way you look at it.
Re: The survival rate of ancient literature - Sean Manning - 12-31-2007
Quote:As you say, Carlton, many thousands of scrolls and codices were lost. The Library at Alexandria had basically the complete history of Egypt, if we can believe Herodotus, which was accidentally burned in Mark Antony's day.Ita amazing to think all the barriers ancient books had to pass to survive to us. I've heard we owe about 75% of our Latin books to the Carolingian Renaissance, and they owed a lot to Ireland and Northumbria. So most Latin literature had been lost by 800 CE, and most of that between say 500 and 800 when few people were interested in secular literature.
In How the Irish Saved Civilization, it's pointed out that many of the surviving Classical works are still with us because of just a few people who put in considerable effort and expense to have them copied. Some historic writers allude to other works that are non-existant today. Seems that the conquerors of historical times thought very little about preserving the history of the conquered. They sure weren't considering the problems of modern historical reenactors, now were they?
But yeah, there are a lot of things to weep over, like all the times someone decided to make another copy of St. Jerome rather than copy something profane like a centurion's memoirs of a war the copyist had never heard of, and rats ate the manuscript before the chance came up again. Or deliberate vandalism, like when one of Charlemagne's successors burned the collection of Germanic oral poetry he had ordered written down because it was too pagan.
Re: The survival rate of ancient literature - Gaius Julius Caesar - 12-31-2007
There was quite a bit destroyed during the Ottoman conquests to, I believe!
I think the story I was told about the library in Egypt was something along the lines of
the generals asked the leader of the time what to do with the Library and his response was along the lines of....
If the books disagree with the Koran, burn them, because they are blasphemy, and if they agree with the Koran, burn them, for we have no need of their knowledge.....
Re: The survival rate of ancient literature - Carlton Bach - 12-31-2007
Quote:There was quite a bit destroyed during the Ottoman conquests to, I believe!
I think the story I was told about the library in Egypt was something along the lines of
the generals asked the leader of the time what to do with the Library and his response was along the lines of....
If the books disagree with the Koran, burn them, because they are blasphemy, and if they agree with the Koran, burn them, for we have no need of their knowledge.....
That quote is usually attributed to Omar, one of the righteous caliphs, in response to a question by his military commander about the fate of the Library of Alexandria. Unfortunately it is apocryphal, first recorded in historiographical texts of a much later date. It *could* be true, the same way young Washington *could* have chopped down a cherry tree, but it has the ring of 'behold, ye degenerates, what faith our forebears had' to it.
One explanation forwarded by Bernard Lewis
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/3517
and the 'Free Copts' coming out in support of it (in defense of bishops Theophilus and Cyril?)
http://freecopts.net/english/index.php? ... iew&id=343
I'm no Arabist, I can't judge the sources, but it strikes me as a later invention. For one thing, I doubt there was *the* Library of Alexandria in existence by the 630s, and the tale presupposes knowledge of its iconic status, That would put it after the translation and study of Greek historical texts by Arab scholars.
Re: The survival rate of ancient literature - Sean Manning - 01-01-2008
After discussing all the different points at which the Great Library may have suffered damage, the great L. Sprague de Camp had this to say (The Ancient Engineers):
“All we can say for sure is that monotheism proved as deadly a foe of learning as war and barbarianism.â€
Re: The survival rate of ancient literature - Iagoba - 01-02-2008
About the survival rate, based on popularity, it´s relative (I´m not sure if this means the same in English) to a continuate popularity.
That remembers me the week-end houses at the villages, usually have the books that are not popular now: "the Hollisters" "the Five" and so. books that aren´t being read hardly at all now.
When my uncle chose what books to leave in his room, he left there the best ones (for him): in his choice, Dune, Tolkien´s, Asimov´s Foundation...
Now I´m reading them. There were many books that my uncle didn´t left in his room. They are stored at the village huse. But those are not of my interest. They will remain some years more, and then, recycled.
(I hate to burn books. Apart from that "ministry of culture" scene in Indy and those reminiscences, it´s spoiling paper. We only burnt one book ever, the leaflet for the European Constitution, last winter. We said it was worth for something at least :twisted: )
sorry gone totally OT :roll: My youth doest´have still wisdom, but wit :twisted:
Re: The survival rate of ancient literature - Gaius Julius Caesar - 01-02-2008
Ah well, one can only imagine what fantasies the conquered concoct about those who conquer them!
Re: The survival rate of ancient literature - Tertius Mummius - 01-05-2008
We should add that several books that we would like to read were already lost in Roman times, e. g. the whole literature of Carthage, which - according to Polybios and Livius - must have been extensive. But even books by Roman authors were eventually, when uncopied, lost. Such a fate struck the works by Claudius on the history of Etrurians and Carthage, and many more. Vegetius complains about lost knowledge of the Roman army, there must have been written knowledge (if not a "Hardee's Manual") which was lost when it went anachronistic to new tactics of new enemies.
But there is another aspect, the natural lifespan of books. Today, books have a lifespan of about 10-20 years on the average - of course our shelves are filled with books that survived for (much) longer times, but the selection which sorts out out-dated and out-fashioned books works silently and effectively. Sometimes books and complete authors are being rediscovered - like Fernando Pessoa - and sometimes only a fraction of the work of an author survives, e. g. Alexandre Dumas, who has left us a handful of brilliant Mantle-and-Dagger novels and a graveyard of about 200 unknown and forgotten books. Romans didn't handle books very differently. We have fragments of books by Sueton about famous grammaticians and rhethors which did not survive besides his "bestseller".
Re: The survival rate of ancient literature - Eleatic Guest - 01-08-2008
Quote:Has anyone tried to estimate what proportion of ancient literature survives? Something like 10%, 1%, or 0.1%?
Check out the detailed discussion here: Bücherverluste in der Spätantike
Re: The survival rate of ancient literature - Sean Manning - 01-08-2008
Quote:Alas, I don't sprechen ze Deutsch. Its first on my list of modern languages to learn through. Maybe I'll run that page through Babelfish or something, since you're the second person whose recommended it.Sean Manning:391lupbb Wrote:Has anyone tried to estimate what proportion of ancient literature survives? Something like 10%, 1%, or 0.1%?
Check out the detailed discussion here: Bücherverluste in der Spätantike
Re: The survival rate of ancient literature - Robert Vermaat - 01-09-2008
Quote:There was quite a bit destroyed during the Ottoman conquests to, I believe!
What Carlton said. The Ottoman Turks were not in the business of doing such things either. Being extremely tolerant (until the late 19th c.) they took over matters of state and taxes and did not touch local customs and religion. Which was a part of their success story in empire-building.
The quote attributed to Omar is along similar lines of the Christians in the Roman Empire attributing all kinds of horror stories about persecutions to early emperors.
Whereas the early Christians (as the 'story goes') were not actually favouring the preservation of all those ancient pagan books themselves...
Re: The survival rate of ancient literature - Sean Manning - 01-09-2008
Quote:Although conquest always incidentally destroys some books. Things get accidentally burned, or soldiers steal them and they get ruined in their packs, or they get casually destroyed. Sultan Mehmet may have wanted to preserve the books and buildings of Constantinople in 1453, and he did a fairly good job of it, but some of his auxilliaries seem to have disagreed. Ditto for the Crusaders in 1204.Gaius Julius Caesar:6b8n8jo4 Wrote:There was quite a bit destroyed during the Ottoman conquests to, I believe!
What Carlton said. The Ottoman Turks were not in the business of doing such things either. Being extremely tolerant (until the late 19th c.) they took over matters of state and taxes and did not touch local customs and religion. Which was a part of their success story in empire-building.
The quote attributed to Omar is along similar lines of the Christians in the Roman Empire attributing all kinds of horror stories about persecutions to early emperors.
Whereas the early Christians (as the 'story goes') were not actually favouring the preservation of all those ancient pagan books themselves...