Lucretius

On the contrary the Roman Imperial system of government was very much a bureaucracy (mainly instituted by Augustus,perhaps his greatest achievement in fact ) and every bureaucracy needs and produces masses of documents which must be archived to survive .In addition to the personal archive of the Emperor there were other archives of documents.

This about the Temple of Saturn (my highlights )


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Saturn


And here is its replacement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabularium

Not mention all the various administrative buildings in every Province of the Empire ,the fact that these records have been lost or even occasionally written over does not mean that they did not exist .

Roger Pearse

The Oxyrhynchus papyri contain numerous dockets and much official paperwork -- documentary papyri --, as do the Vindolanda tablets.

But I do wonder a little whether we project our own day onto Roman times when we talk about these things. A collection of primary data on how the system worked would be an interesting thing to read, if it exists. (Probably someone German has already compiled such a thing).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Lucretius

Yes once again over the last few days I have perhaps been a little quick to make absolute statements(I blame the medication to be honest ) it should of course have read


"the fact that these records have mostly been lost or even occasionally written over does not mean that they did not exist "

If faced with a choice of trying to preserve a copy of Catullus' poems or old tax returns I know which one I would save
I think the "Germans" would be too busy doing yet another word count of everything we have of Latin literature though, that seemed to be their forte at least when I was studying

Gamera

I'm a bit confused on this point. Although I'm sure records were kept there, do we know the type and quality of records. My understanding is that we have little or nothing in the way of Roman official government documents from the 1st century. If the building were chockful of documents (like our local city hall or courthouse) wouldn't significant numbers of those documents have survived? Do we really know the archival practices of the Roman government?

Given the scope and bureacratic nature of Roman rule, it seems odd we have so few official documents on basic matters -- like tax revenues and censuses.

DCHindley

No, we actually do have quite a few remains from tax rolls and such, almost all from Egypt. That's where the best conditions existed to preserve them - hot & dry. In Egypt, at least, the Imperial bureaucrats were exceptionally picky and precise - no eligible taxpayer was ignored.

If you can find a rare copy of Robert Eisler's Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist, he reproduces numerous examples. Also check out A. Deissmann's Light from the Ancient East (or via: amazon.co.uk), which might still be in print.

Also, almost all of it was found in ancient garbage dumps. So, it looks like there was a limit to how long they kept them. Probably only long enough to check back a few tax cycles whenever pickiness required.

DCH

Roger Pearse

We might ask, tho, how many similar documents from 1950 now survive in the ruined British colonies of Africa, where banditry is rife, law and order almost non-existent, and termite and beetle consume? We must always remember the Roman collapse, and the influence of the break in continuity in every area of culture.

The other issue is preservation of material. Some materials could survive; the Chronography of 354 (which I have online) does contain some material of official origin, particularly the portion on the 14 regions of Rome. But unless someone was going to copy it, the climate means that it was likely to perish.

Our best remains are from rubbish dumps in Egypt, where the climate allowed it, and from Vindolanda where an accident created anaerobic conditions.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Clivedurdle

The technology now available is superb, and when we get at certain sites covered by lava....

Roger Pearse

I've had a quick look in Scribes and Scholars but could find nothing. Next stop was Frederic G. Kenyon, Books and readers in ancient Greece and Rome (or via: amazon.co.uk) which tells me that "a cheap copy of a published work could be bought for 6 or 10 sesterces" p.82. This in turn refers to a bunch of passages from Latin authors (untranslated!) in an appendix, and a passage from Martial (I: 66, 1-12). An expensive book was 5 denarii, apparently (I: 117, 8-17).

Not feeling up to translating Latin verse myself this evening, I was mildly surprised to find a lack of complete translations of Martial online. One exists: the Bohn translation.

You know, given the numbers of people supposedly interested in the classics, and the relative minority of Christians interested in scanning the fathers, the latter seem far better served online than the former. Anyone know why?

Roger Pearse

I:66 To a plagiarist.

You are mistaken, insatiable thief of my writings, who think a poet can be made for the mere expense which copying and a cheap volume cost. The applause of the world is not acquired for six, or even ten sesterces. ...

I:117. To Lupercus.

... You frequently go down to the Argiletum: opposite Caesar's forum is a shop, with pillars on each side covered over with titles of books, so that you may quickly run over the names of all the poets. Procure me there; you will no sooner ask Atrectus -- such is the name of the owner of the shop -- than he will give you, from the first or second shelf, a Martial, well smoothed with pumice stone, and adorned with purple, for five denarii. "You are not worth so much," do you say? You are right, Lupercus.

Clivedurdle

Is not the fact that so much was scraped off and used as prayer books a clue it was expensive?