‘In Stymphalos there is also an old sanctuary of Stymphalian Artemis. The image is of wood, mostly gilded. On the roof of the temple there are also representations of the Stymphalian birds. It was difficult to discern clearly whether they were made of wood or plaster, but my examination suggested that they were of wood rather than plaster.’Pausanias' reference to the Stymphalian birds of the temple at Stymphalos was taken by the German scholar, Bliimner, to indicate that stucco reliefs (...) were produced by the Greeks; and, despite the caution of Miss E. L. Wadsworth, 3 the inference that plaster was used for architectural sculptures of some form in Classical Greece has clearly been accepted by M. Cagiano de Azevedo and N. Bonacasa in the two great Italian encyclopedias of art. (shrink)

In his historical introduction to Laconia written in the second century AD Pausanias could rely on several genealogical lists as well as on rich mythological and historical narratives of the earliest times of Sparta. Although these mainly originated from non-Spartan authors, they reflect a variety of elaborate tales about which the Spartans debated, but which also strengthened their community and defended it against the outer world. Through its own past Sparta managed in the long run to assert a leading (...) position in the Peloponnese as well as in the whole Greek world and to be remembered not only by its admirers as a traditional supreme power. (shrink)

The view that Pausanias 9. 13. 1–15. 6 is a simple epitome of Plutarch's lost Epaminondas, first advanced by Wilamowitz in 1874 and later elaborated by Wilamowitz himself and by Ludwig Peper, has commonly been accepted, with little or no further discussion, by students of Plutarch, Pausanias and fourth-century history. In a recent general reaffirmation of the thesis John Buckler does note that what Pausanias says about Mantinea is hard to square with Plutarchan evidence and he therefore (...) admits some contamination of the hypothetical source with non-Plutarchan material. But Buckler's discussion of the matter within the framework of a book on the Theban hegemony is necessarily brief and somewhat unsystematic, and may be thought over-ready to assume Plutarchan connections where none can be demonstrated. The purpose of this paper is to show that the Wilamowitz/Peper hypothesis in its pure form cannot reasonably be sustained, that at the very least some degree of contamination must be presumed, and that the existence of a direct connection between Pausanias and Plutarch can hardly be regarded as established beyond reasonable doubt. (shrink)

The Periegesis of Pausanias has finally entered the world of serious literature. Long after the way was first shown, the Magnesian has arrived and duly taken his place in the intellectual world of the second century: a pilgrim to the past. Yet he was no bookish, library-bound bore. Recent studies have transformed our opinion of him as a recorder of the sites and treasures of what was, even to him, antiquity, ‘His faithfulness in reporting what he saw has, time (...) and time again, been proven at a large number of sites and could easily be demonstrated at a good many others.’ ‘The very fact that the second-century A.D. traveller Pausanias wrote at such length about the sites and monuments of Greece is itself indicative of his most important attitude towards antiquities. That is, he thought them of sufficient value to be worth recording and thought it worth travelling extensively in mainland Greece over a period of many years to see them for himself.’ And so inevitably, as respect for the author has grown, the desire to lay bare his soul has followed. Critics are unanimous in their view of a man sensitive to the resonance of the ancient and power of the past. On occasion a Herodotean fascination with the mutability of man's lot bubbles to the surface, indeed we may surmise Herodotus to have been an important influence on the Periegesis in several fundamental respects. Above all he was a man of deep learning and keen interest in the past and a faithful recorder of its remains. Archaeologists and art-historians concur. (shrink)

SummaryPausanias saw in the Athenian Stoa at Delphi an inscription, different from the one still visible on the Stoa’s stylobate, which he rightly connected with Phormio’s victories in the Corinthian Gulf in 429 BC (10, 11, 6). The not exact correspondence between its contents reported by Pausanias and some details of the narrative in Thucydides enables us to reconstruct with a greater precision the movements of Phormio after the two battles. On the other hand, the quite unnoticed exact correspondence (...) between the Spartan allies listed in the inscription as reported by Pausanias and the catalogue of Spartan naval allies in Thuc. 2, 9, 3, as well as the absence from these lists of Anactorion, although her ships had joined the Peloponnesian fleet at least in the earliest phases of that campaign, give grounds for the suggestion that Thucydides’ catalogue mirrors the make-up of the Peloponnesian fleet that actually fought in 429 and that just the inscription seen by Pausanias may have been (one of) his source(s). (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:American Journal of Philology 123.4 (2002) 633-637 [Access article in PDF] Susan E. Alcock, John F. Cherry, and Jas; Elsner, eds. Pausanias: Travel and Memory in Roman Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. xii + 379 pp. Cloth, $65. As he moves from monument to monument and polis to polis, Pausanias gives the impression that the sun is always shining and the weather fresh and sweet. Beyond (...) the next turn in the road, there might be a grove or spring and maybe a precinct of Demeter, a statue of Artemis, or a little temple of Aphrodite. If they were "worth seeing," we can rely on Pausanias to let us know. Delivering a mixed narrative that weaves together history, myth, and his own style of ekphrasis, his even-toned voiceover makes him a comfortable traveling companion. Or does it? We know that the oaks on Mt. Parnon make the forest dark (they are still there today), but for Pausanias, the land is called Skotitas, "Dark," not for the shadows of the oaks, but for Zeus Skotitas who had his sanctuary nearby. As Ada Cohen points out in her essay, Pausanias does not describe the landscape itself but only the places where it intersects with divinity. As the collaborators here make clear, similar principles of selection operate on other levels. Pausanias may enable us to visualize a lost world, but the view is sanitized. Writing at the peak of Roman wealth, power, and privilege, he gives us old Greece with hardly a trace of Rome. He presents cities without houses, landscapes without agriculture, sanctuaries without worshippers, and the past without the present. Like the cardboard and cellophane 3-D glasses worn by cinema audiences in the 1950s, his text brings into temporary and unstable focus a very specialized scene, but the view is that of a virtual museum, a theme park created for our viewing enjoyment.How did he do it and what are the consequences? I admit that when it comes to Pausanias, I am one of those "seekers after lost religions" whom Elsner classifies with archaeologists surveying the text of Pausanias for possible excavation sites. We will all be a little more careful after reading this book. Yet, where else [End Page 633] could we find the information Pausanias gives? Habicht rehabilitated Pausanias in the 1980s by demonstrating how well his text stands up when compared with the surviving external record. Pausanias did not have a spreadsheet to keep straight the sixty-nine altars at Olympia, but he must at least have taken notes.The arrangement of the articles presented here replicates a familiar academic setting. Structured like a weekend conference, the book divides into three sessions ("The Traveler and the Text," "Studies and Comparisons," and "Nachleben"), with four papers and two comments in each session. Very generally, the topics are: landscape as language (J. Elsner); mental baggage and method (E. Bowie); informants and information (C. P. Jones); pilgrimage and the inspiration of vision (I. Rutherford); selection and cultural choice (M. Torelli); memory and memorization (D. Konstan); identity, monumentality and the recall of mo(nu)ments sublime (J. Porter); representation of space and movement (A. Cohen); archaic text and image on the chest of Kypselos (A. M. Snodgrass); filling the empty map of Messenia (S. E. Alcock); Greek narratives in Roman images (B. Bergmann); other Spartas (P. Cartledge); shaping the genre of travel writing (S. B. Sutton); Leake's Pausanias and Greek topography (J. M. Wagstaff); rearranging Pausanias or Farnell on Greek ritual (J. Henderson); Harrison and Verrall present Pausanias for the hoipolloi (M. Beard); Sparta and the French Enlightenment (S. Bann); and remembering and reforming the past (J. Cherry).There isn't space enough here to do justice to every argument, but I will take a sentence to praise the editors for inspiring the synergy of so many specialties. Archaeologists talk about texts; literary scholars talk about places and objects; and art historians discuss the relation between the two. The section entitled Nachleben surveys the nineteenth-century efflorescence of Pausanias and from four very different vantage points evaluates his influence on... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:American Journal of Philology 122.2 (2001) 296-297 [Access article in PDF] Michel Casevitz, ed. Pausanias: Description de la Grèce. Vol. 5: Livre 5:Élide (1). Trans. Jean Pouilloux, comm. Anne Jacquemin. Association Guillaume Budé for Collection des Universités de France. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1999. xxxix + pp. 1-82 (verso and recto double pp.) and 83-285. 2 maps. 1 plan. Cloth; price not stated. The fifth book of (...) class='Hi'>Pausanias (Elis 1) is the third volume to appear in the Budé collection, following Attica (vol. 1, 1991) and Arcadia (vol. 8, 1998). Textual notes are by Michel Casevitz; archaeological notes are by Anne Jacquemin.The text is produced from a new recension of the manuscripts, based on the researches on Pausanias of Aubrey Diller, which were published in TAPA (67 [1936]: 232-39; 86 [1955]: 268-79; 87 [1956]: 84-97; 88 [1957]: 169-88). Diller showed that four manuscripts (V, F, P, Ma) were the only independent witnesses to the text of Pausanias, deriving from a lost exemplar of 1437 owned by Niccolò Niccoli and later in the Library of St. Mark in Florence. The Teubner edition of M. Rocha-Pereira (1973, 1977) was the first text produced on the basis of this recension. The Budé differs from it in various readings and in its excellent notes. Book 5, the first of Pausanias' books on Elis, contains the beginning of his description of Olympia. The notes take account of the German excavations of the site carried out since 1936, reports of which have appeared in the Jahrbücher des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts and the Olympia Berichten.The collaboration of a philologist and an archaeologist as commentators is particularly fortunate, because of important developments in both areas since the extensive commentaries of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Frazer, Hitzig-Blümner). The wisdom accumulated in the earlier commentaries is not neglected, but in most cases the information has been brought up to date very well. For example, the comment on 10.2 (147), on the date of the Temple of Zeus, parallels that of Frazer in its dissociation of the building of the temple from the war between Elis and Pisa. There is a review of ancient texts, including Herodotus and Strabo and the Spartan dedication of a shield of the booty of Tanagra set atop the ridge of the roof, the inscription of which Pausanias quotes. A discussion follows of dedication bases set up nearby and the excavation levels at which they were found (the Praxiteles base, the dedication made by the sculptor Onatas of Aegina, the Mikythos dedications, etc.), suggesting that the temple was built in the general period 480-455. The Budé then takes note of a study by F. Krauss (Mélanges Bohringer, 1957) on the columns of the temple, suggesting that those of the east façade are the most beautiful examples of the Doric style of the temple.The comment on the Altis in 10.1 (146) is equally instructive. Frazer simply comments on Pindar's statement (Ol. 10.55) that the area was called Altis, and the comment of Hitzig-Blümner is also brief. The Budé, on the other hand, considers the etymology of from and cites several references in Pausanias to show that the Altis had limits within the larger area of the grove. [End Page 296]The discussion of the dating of the cult statue of Zeus by Phidias (in the 420s) in comment on 5.11 (156-57) is also good and follows in the tradition of Frazer, but here the Budé editor can call attention to excavation of the workshop of Phidias in 1954-58 and the monograph of Mallwitz and Schiering, which shows, because of pottery and other finds, that work on the statue was going on in the 430s. Consequently, the old controversy on the priority of the Olympian Zeus and the Athena Parthenos is settled in favor of the Athena statue, completed in 438.On 5.15.4, line 20: the reading of the manuscripts' which includes the... (shrink)

Ή ταύτιση του κτηρίου λουτρών Α, κοντά στό θέατρο, μέ Σεραπιεΐο πού μετατράπηκε σέ Ασκληπιείο, μας επιτρέπει νά προτείνουμε δύο τοπογραφικά σημεία της διαδρομής του Παυσανία στό "Αργός : σύμφωνα μέ αυτά αναφέρει τό κτήριο μιά πρώτη φορά δταν κατεβαίνει άπό τό 'Αφροδίσιο προς την 'Αγορά και μιά δεύτερη φορά όταν γυρνάει πάλι σ' αυτήν στό τέλος της διαδρομής του. 'Από τους χώρους πού αναφέρει ό Παυσανίας αυτό τό σύνολο μας επιτρέπει νά περιορίσουμε τήν ερευνά στό χώρο Δέλτα καί στην (...) δδό των Νεμεάδων Πυλών. (shrink)

The intention in this paper is analyze how and why Pausanias relate the difference with the mythic Orpheus. This will reveal another face of the vast myth of the bard. For this particular research some aspects of Orpheus myth will be studied: place of birth, appearance, legend, magician’s role and his relation with Musaeus and the Eleusinian Mysteries.

Pausanias says that in 659 BCE the Spartans captured Phigalia and drove out the Phigalians. Guided by a Delphic oracle the Phigalians recovered their city with the help of 100 Oresthasians, all killed in the fighting and buried in a polyandrion in Phigalia. It is impossible to check how much – if any – of that story is historically correct, but it is possible to see how the development of the story over time matches other elements of the Phigalians’ (...) developing self-perception, particularly in the Hellenistic period. For the Phigalians connections with Megalopolis became increasingly important, especially when from the late third century both belonged to the Achaian League, and with Megalopolitan connections went hostility to Sparta and respect for the mythical role of Orestes in Megalopolitan territory. (shrink)

M. J. Dewar argues that in Georg. 1.511–4 Virgil may have been drawing a disquieting parallel between Orestes, evoked through an imitation of Aeschylus , and Octavian, present a few lines above . Pausanias probably supports this suggestion; he shows that the link Octavian-Orestes existed quite early and in a sense favourable to Octavian, even though it may soon have been used in a negative sense by anti-Caesarian propaganda on account of the dark side of the myth. In front (...) of the temple of Hera in Argos there was still visible in the second century a statue representing Orestes, but identified by the inscription as Augustus. Certainly this parallel Augustus-Orestes was not proposed-and preserved - with polemical purpose in a famous sanctuary and in the Augustan age. Given the resemblance between history and myth and the moral weight of the famous myth itself, it is unlikely that we have to do with the mere re-use of any old statue. (shrink)

It is argued that Athenagoras, Leg. 17, draws on Pausanias 1.26.4, and may join Aelian, Pollux, Philostratus and Longus in the list of possible readers of the periegete.

Pausanias' Description of Greece, translated into English, with Notes and Index, by Arthur Richard Shilleto. Two Vols. George Bell and Sons. 1886. 10s.Pausanias der Perieget; Untersuchungen über seine Schriftstellerei und seine Quellen, von Dr. A. Kalkmann. Berlin, Reimer. 1886. 8 Mk.

The excursus of Thucydides on the last years of Pausanias and Themistocles is remarkable for its simple, rapid-flowing style, its storytelling tone, its wealth of personal ancedote, its marked deviation from his normally strict criteria of relevance. These characteristics, which give the excursus a Herodotean flavour, have often been noted by modern scholars, but until recently acceptance of its general credibility has been widespread, and indeed, with one important exception, which seems to have created very little impression almost unchallenged.

El presente trabajo se propone hacer un análisis sobre los principales puntos argumentativos defendidos en el discurso de Pausanias en el contexto del diálogo El Banquetede Platón, con el fin de evidenciar los problemas que dicha argumentación implica. En este discurso, Pausanias defenderá de manera indirecta la pederastia, a través de la justificación de romances entre jóvenes y maestros y apelando al crecimiento espiritual que estos últimos pueden aportar a los primeros. Las afirmaciones de Pausanias son tan (...) ambiciosas que sugieren, incluso, que la pederastia puede ser una manera efectiva de mejorar las relaciones sociales en unapolis. Así puede la pederastia ser un factor fundamental para la constitución de una sociedad fuerte. Además, si tenemos en cuenta que Pausanias parte de una apelación a la divinidad, que ha de ser seguida por los hombres para conseguir el ideal de una sociedad estable, la argumentación de Pausanias parece bastante sólida. Sin embargo, se cuestionará no solo el papel de la pederastia como garante de la estabilidad social, sino la figura misma del sabio que Pausanias emplea para justificar el intercambio íntimo entre jóvenes y maestros. Para esto último se tendrá en cuenta la postura de Platón respecto al discurso de Pausanias. (shrink)

An interesting phrase in a letter of Caelius to Cicero in 51 BC, especially relevant to the standing of injured socii or their non-Roman representatives in the quaestio de repetundis at this time, has been frequently misinterpreted by commentators on Cicero. Caelius is telling Cicero of the outcome of the condemnation of C. Claudius Pulcher after his governorship of Asia and the effect this had on an associate of Claudius, M. Servilius.