The survival rate of ancient literature

[Robert Vermaat]

I'd like to add another point for the general discussion : why is it that everything we know about the Persians comes from Greco-Roman sources ? Was this a failure of the Persians to preserve their history ? Was this due to the Arab destruction of Persia ? Or did the Persians simply have no tradition of recording their history ?

That has more to do with modern Western science. There is actually a lot of source-material around that is not translated into English, but which is available in Russian and occasionally in German. But how far back that goes I don't know. A lot of ancient Persian material was destroyed I think because the Sassanids fought a lot harder and longer against the Arab invaders, whereas Syria, Egypt and Africa fell relatively easy into their hands.

I'll stop discussing the fate of Carthage and Alexandria as that is, as you say, OT for this thread, with my statement that I disagree very much with the opinion that both were near-empty ruins due to and after the Arab conquest. But maybe we can set up another thread about that? It's still part of Roman history, after all.

That sounds logical, but I also read that the Orthodox church developed a very negative attitude towards earlier Classical learning. Do we know for sure what survived in Constantinople or are we just assuming things here?

Why is this relevant to the question of the thread ? Whether or not the Orthodox Church valued classical learning the point is that Constantinople housed the largest repository of Greek works from the classical period. They weren't destroyed by monks unless, on occasion, paper was so scarce that they recycled the old books to write prayers on. This wasn't done out of malice but out of scarcity.

Well, it has to do with the thread, because it is a reason for the people of the time to decide what to copy and what not to copy. If the Church frowned on, say, Plato or Aristotoles, that would mean their manuscripts were not reproduced? Not destroyed, but not replaced either?

That sounds like a very partisan view to me. Is there really evidence that the re-emergence of Classical texts et al came directly from Constantinople?

Yes, read more on Willem van Moerbeke, the Flemish Dominican friar and one time Latin bishop of Corinth from the mid 13th century. He translated all of the works of Aristotle and many by Archimedes, Hero of Alexandria and more. He translated "Politics" which was never translated into Arabic.

But that's entirely different! hock: Van Moerbeke was one of the clerics attached to the Latin Kingdoms who conquered and effectively destroyed the Byzantine Empire in the 13th century. he worked with the sources preserved by the Byzantines before the new Latin master took them by force. Of course he did! He must have been watering at the mouth to find all that stuf, which for so long had been unavailable in the West, hidden or at least not made available by the Byzantines.
Not proof, as I asked, of Greek scholars supposedly fleeing to the west with a bundle of Classic manuscripts hidden in their baggage, which they then supposedly brought to the Catholic church to have it copied.

Please, please, tell me you did not fall for the Fjordman report or similar writings. I read this stuff (and I studies Islamic history) and it's so anti-Islamic that it scared me. hock: If so, send me a PM, for it's modern politics.