Hello Chromedome, You are certainly knowledgeable in the field of
antiquities. I just wanted to ask one general follow-up since you are
interested in this field.  I’m sure you’re familiar with Thomas
Cahill’s book “How the Irish Saved Civilization”.   I was always of
the opinion that
Constantinople must have played an important role in the preservation
of ancient manuscripts.  After all, the eastern empire lasted well
into the Renaissance and they must have had good libraries.  I was
surprised to see Cahill downplay the importance of Constantinople in
his book, but then again, that’s not what he was writing about.  Your
answer though, seems to mirror Cahill in stressing the role of
monasteries in Western Europe,(such as Fulda), as opposed to libraries
in the Byzantine Empire, in playing the more prominent role as
repositories of ancient manuscripts.  Do you have any thoughts on the
role of Byzantium libraries versus monasteries in Western Europe in
regards to preserving ancient knowledge and writings?

Hello again, halejrb-ga!

Thank you for your new inquiry.  You're quite right, I've read and
enjoyed Cahill's "How the Irish Saved Civilization," and also "The
Desire of the Everlasting Hills."  Both were entertaining and
well-written.

I don't think that Cahill was deliberately shortchanging the role of
the Byzantine empire as Rome's eastern heir, or as a repository of
information.  His point, defensible if nationalistic, was that the
Irish played a pivotal role in maintaining Western Europe's cultural
continuity.  That's all, nothing more.

Now, having said that, there were a great many other factors at work. 
Launching a deliberate policy of education under Charlemagne's
powerful sponsorship was a great and far-reaching project, but it was
just part of the puzzle.  It was still necessary to train up a
generation of literate, educated scribes and copyists; some to
reproduce the learning of the ages, and some to reproduce themselves
by teaching.  Only then was there the "infrastructure" necessary to
reproduce and disseminate the learning of the ages.

So where did these manuscripts come from?

Well, in the case of Tacitus, we simply don't know, which is why I
left that portion of my answer a blank.  It is possible that Fulda and
Monte Cassino had reproduced earlier manuscripts of Western origin,
but more likely that the source materials were acquired from the East.

During the centuries after the division of Rome into the Eastern and
Western empires, there was a significant amount of trade (and warfare)
back and forth.  It is unthinkable that manuscripts would not have
formed part of this trade.  The floodgates opened in good earnest, of
course, with the launching of the First Crusade in 1095.

With the passage of time, the loss of original MSS, and the haphazard
record keeping of bygone days, we simply aren't in a position to know
how much we owe to Constantinople and its empire.  It seems safe to
assume, though, that a significant proportion of our ancient
manuscripts MUST logically have arrived by way of the Byzantines,
either as trade items, or in personal collections.

I have not researched this, as the form of your question and its price
tag suggested that you were looking for a personal opinion, formed on
my past reading.  That is what I have posted here.

For the sake of my own curiosity, though, since you raised the
subject, I did a quick search using the terms

+Constantinople +manuscript

and got over 9500 results.  Here are a couple of interesting and
representative links:

Discussion of an ancient Archimedes manuscript which came by way of
Constantinople, not without adventure (there are lots more on this
topic):
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/aug2000/arch-a03.shtml

Discussion of a manuscript brought from the Byzantine empire to Italy
during the middle ages:
http://www.womenpriests.org/traditio/parenti.htm

You may also be interested in UNESCO's "Memory of the World" project,
devoted to the preservation of our documentary heritage in all media:
http://www.unesco.org/webworld/mdm/index_2.html

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to take my favourite
hobbyhorse out for another ride!

Another good answer.  Your answer is counter-intuitive though because
the Eastern Empire already had the infrastucture Charlemagne had to
rebuild in the West.  From reading the Socialist Newspaper article, it
seems to me if Byzantium had good libraries before the 1st Crusader
then the Crusaders  destroyed as much knowledge in Constantinople as
they "disseminnated".  There is also the fact that the Byzantium
Empire was quite corrupt.  It's quite possible that this corruption
prevented the libaries there from ever reaching their full potential.
The result is,that like Cahill says, it's the humble monks in the West
to whom who owe most of our knowledge of the ancient world.

There is another factor at play here as well.  Presumably many MSS in
Constantinople would have been in Greek.  These would have been less
attractive to many in the West due to the need for translation.  Even
as early as the fourth century this had become a major issue.

However, from the 12th Century onwards Arabic texts began to become
more important particularly in the Universities.  As these included
the writings of Greek authors it is possible to see these flowing from
Constantinople through the Middle East or Spain and then onto Western
Europe.