Oh, no doubt. Browsing the wiki links in this thread, it is pretty apparent that one of the drivers of the loss of ancient manuscripts was the huge shift to Christian writing and texts that occurred in late antiquity.
I was just thinking the other day how amazing google streetview of today will look in even 10 years time.
Heck, just let enough time go by for formats and standards to change so your recorded material becomes unreadable.
My theory is that Aristotle never actually wrote Comedy, and that was the joke.
I was just reading somewhere that the average lifetime of most types manuscripts is actually pretty short, something like 100 years before they become illegible. So in order to survive to the modern era, a text needs to have had more or less continuous interest so that at least once a century, someone would have the desire to go to the considerable effort of having a new copy made to pass on.
The result is that most ancient works probably simply crumbled away due to neglect, rather then being destroyed in dramatic events like the sacking of Rome.
Knocking my head against the wall trying to remember the source. I’ll post again when it comes to me.
I vaguely remember in one of those lost technologies & occult past paperpacks of the 1980s/90s of the School of Daniken, that someone was supposed to have seen the lost histories of Tacitus for sale in an eastern city, but was separated from the seller for good by the crowd…
Still. I was reading an article in a magazine ( that I bought for £5, which shows how little valued 1835 material is worth now ), that described how the English government sent out an emissary to Constantinople to search for lost classical works in the libraries there.
It is available with many OCR mistakes ( but it would be churlish to complain ) at archive.org
[ ctrl + f : constantinople ].
Parts (1835)
[spoiler]Not many years ago it was a favourite opinion
that there must exist in the libraries of Constan-
tinople some fragments of ancient literature, which
had escaped the general destruction occasioned by
the Turks, when they captured the city in the fifteenth
century. In the year 1799, a strong desire of bringing
to light these concealed treasures, or, at all events,
of settling the long-debated question of their exist-
ence, led the English government to determine up(m
sending in the suite of Lord Elgin’s embassy some
competent person who should conduct the required
examination. The plan is said to have originated
with Mr. Pitt and the late Dr. George Tomline,
Bishop of Lincoln; in all probability it was conceived
by that eminent prelate, and readily patronized, as a
matter of course, by the enlightened minister. The
individual chosen for the execution of the task, was
the late Rev. Mr. Carlyle, the Professor of Arabic in
the University of Cambridge…
A promise was immediately given that an inquiry should be set
on foot ; and subsequently, Youssuf declared " that
he had made every investigation in his power, and
had found that no collection whatever of Greek
manuscripts remained at present in the Seraglio."
A request was then preferred for permission to exa-
mine the repositories of Oriental books in the palace;
and to this it was answered, '* that there were two
of these, one in the Treasury, the other in what is
properly called the Library; that the former con-
tained only copies of the Korihi, different com-
mentaries upon it, and treatises peculiar to the Mo-
hammedan laws and religion, and as such ooidd not
be subjected to Mr. Carlyle s inspection
Mr. Carlyle proceeded to take a rapid survey
of the contents of this celebrated repository, but the
jealousy of the Moulahs, who accompanied him,
prevented him from making out a detailed catalogue
of the separate articles. He found the whole number
of manuscripts to be 1294 ; there were many Arabic,
some Persian, and some Turkish,^^’ but, alas,** tb
use the Professor’s pathetic exQlamation, " not one
volume in Greek, Hebrew, or Latin T The subjects
to which they related were various, but, of course,
the prevailing class was theological. Of the Koran
there were 17 manuscripts, and no less than 619
relating to the Mohammedan religion, or jurispru-
dence ; on mystical subjects there were 47 treatises^
and on philosophy 86 ; logic and philology numbered
343, and medicine 31 ; while the histories were 43|
and the works of poetry and the belles lettres 79.
" Such, my lord,** adds the learned examiner, " is
the famous Library of the Seraglio ! respecting which
so many falsehoods have been advanced ; but I am
now very clear, both from the manner in which it is
secured, the declarations of the Turks, and the con-
tradictory accounts of the Franks, it was never before
subjected to the examination of a Christian.**
During Mr. Carlyle*s residence in Constantinople,
he examined, besides the repository contained in the
Seraglio, several other collections, omitting, indeed)
no one wiUiin his reach " which was likely to con-
tain any valuable manuscripts.** The Library of the
Patriarch of Jerusalem, — the largest of the empire,
— was visited, and a catalogue taken of its contents,
which comprised nothing remarkable; the libraries
attached to the mosque of Santa Sophia, to the
schools, mosques, and colleges of Dervises, and even to
the monasteries which are established on the Prince’s
Islands, in the Sea of Marmora, were also inspected.
It ifi not impossible,**
says that gentleman, ’ after all that has been said
and done about these supposed relics of ’ the Library
of the Csesars, that some volumes may be still extant
in the subterranean recesses of the Seraglio. The
Turks allow the monuments of antiquity to fall to
ruin, but they seldom destroy anything; and Mr.
Barthold, formerly one of the Dragomans at Co’n-
stantinople, declared that an eminent Greek merchant
assured him that he had seen books from the Library
of the Palaeologi* in on^ of the chambers of the
Sultan’s Treasury, when admitted for the purpose of
ascertaining the value of various articles in gold and
silver, which the government wished to send to the
mint.[/spoiler]
Another article there says of the Turks: ‘All governors who affect popularity in the East, begin by cutting off the heads of bakers and bankers’.
If “works” are not only written books, but also buildings, a lot were simply torn apart by later generations who didn’t care about the ancestors. That’s why the Coliseum looks like that today - people valued building blocks for new buildings more than “old stadium no longer in use but important because of history”.
That’s true for recent documents (since the late 19th century) because modern paper is acidic and sort of “self-destruct” . Older books or manuscripts are much easier to preserve, the main factors of decay being externals (molds, humidity…). Still, they don’t last forever and require careful preservation.
But my point was that “important” in the sense of “of interest as historical evidence” is not at all the same thing as “great” in the sense of “widely considered to be well worth anybody’s while to read”. The printing press pretty much was a cure-all for the loss of “great” (written) works.
No. Although that is archival material of considerable historical interest, it is not a “great work”. Heck, it is not even a “work”!
Furthermore, since we have copies, albeit imperfect, it is not even “lost” in the relevant sense. All we have of most of the great works of antiquity are copies of copies of copies of copies of . . . , with the first several stages being hand copies, and sometimes even translations. We do not have autograph manuscripts of any of the works or Aristotle or Plato or Homer, or Sophocles, or any of the books of the Bible, but we do not consider those works to be “lost” because their content has been reconstructed, imperfectly, from late (often medieval) manuscript copies. We are a lot better off than that for the video of the moon landing.
True enough, but I doubt whether there are no longer any copies of those once popular works anywhere in the world. Probably most of them (that were in English) are in the Library of Congress or the British Library (or both) and in many other places. One known, surviving copy is enough for a work not be “lost”. According to tradition, most of the works of Aristotle (who was recognized as “great” in his own time) survived until the 1st century B.C. in only a single forgotten copy, buried underground.* Nevertheless, they survived to be probably the most influential writings of the whole western tradition (after the Bible, the Koran and, arguably, the works of Plato). My point is that the issue of the survival of works, especially “great” ones are totally different in the eras before and after the invention of printing. Reliance on hand copying meant that few copies of anything ever existed, which means that it was a lot easier for all copies to get lost, and sometimes it happened.
*Many modern scholars doubt whether these were ever truly the only existing copies of any of Aristotle's esoteric works. Nevertheless, it remains likely that they were the main route through which his works survived and were eventually more widely disseminated.Yes. The various “barbarian” sacks of Rome were generally smash & grab affairs, in which portable valuables were carried off. The semi-destruction of the ancient buildings was the result of Romans wanting to build churches & palaces; barbarians weren’t really up to that sort of heavy labor. Of course, occasionally fires were started that burned up some interesting stuff. Oops.
The Sack of Constantinople, done by Crusaders in 1204, destroyed many treasures of antiquity; priceless Classic Greek bronzes were melted down. And the library burned, although some of the works survived to form part of the Ottoman sultan’s library. The Venetians had supplied the Crusaders’ fleet; at least they carried away their treasures rather than destroying them.
Many were lost in 2003, when anywhere from hundreds to thousands of ancient Arabic manuscripts were destroyed or stolen during the looting of Iraqi museums. Ancient cuneiform tablets, containing some of the world’s oldest writing, were also lost. I think that in 500 or 1000 years the sacking of the Iraq museums may be one of the things that’s remembered from this era – both in the things that were destroyed as well as the efforts by Iraqis and the international community to protect and save countless items and sites.
Mid 16th century, during the Spanish conquest, for various manuscripts in the Americas. For (agonizing) example: Wikipedia, “Maya codices”; University of Arizona, “Mayan Codex Facsimiles”; Wikipedia, “Aztec codices”; Mexconnect, “Early pictorial and written sources of Aztec history”.
I suspect that modern technology makes it easier to lose information forever, not harder. With books, anyone who can speak the language can retrieve the information. On any sort of modern media, you need specialized equipment to retrieve the information. What if you’re trying to find a song by an obscure artist, and it was only ever published on 8-track? Or if you’re trying to find an old computer game, and the only copy you can find is on a Zip disk? You’d be in trouble now, let alone 100 years from now.
Even successful technologies eventually become obsolete. These days, most people don’t have record players, and most new computers don’t come with floppy drives. Probably in another generation, CDs will be considered obsolete.