Pausanias_Travel_Writing_in_Ancient Greece [Maria_Pretzler]

Pausanias: Travel Writing in Ancient Greece
comments on the behaviour of the Gauls should be seen in the context of
his whole account of the Gallic invasion and the sack of Delphi: the
atrocities at Kallion emphasise the image of reckless, impious barbarians
who were defeated by an alliance of brave Greeks. After all, the defence
against the Gallic invasion was one of Pausanias’ core events in Greek
history. 65
The account of the sack of Corinth in 146 BC comes at the end of an
extensive account of relations between the Achaian League and Rome, and
it marks the completion of the Roman conquest of Greece.
As soon as it was night, the Achaians who had escaped to Corinth during the
battle fled from the city, and many of the Corinthians did likewise. Although
the gates were open, Mummius initially hesitated to enter Corinth, because
he suspected that an ambush had been prepared inside the walls. On the
third day after the battle he stormed the city and set it on fire. Many of those
left in the city were killed by the Romans, but the women and children
Mummius sold into slavery. He also sold the liberated slaves who had fought
with the Achaians and who had not immediately died in the battle. Mummius
carried off the votive offerings and art works which attracted most
admiration; those that were not as highly valued he gave to Philopoimen, the
general of Attalos. Even in my time there are Corinthian spoils at Pergamon.
66 (Paus. 7.16.7-8)
In this case Pausanias concentrates on the bare outline of events, leaving
the gruesome details to his readers’ imagination. There was no need to
establish that the sack of Corinth was a terrible disaster: it was an
infamous example of the worst behaviour of Roman conquerors, and even
Romans criticised Mummius’ actions as excessively harsh. 67
Pausanias’
account seems to be inspired by Thucydides who demonstrated that an
understated, matter-of-fact report of horrific events can be more effective
in evoking outrage or pity in the reader than any graphic depiction of cruel
scenes. 68 Thucydides’ terse report of the destruction of Melos at the end of
the Melian dialogue required no explicit condemnation of Athenian cruelty.
In the same way, Pausanias’ concise account of the fall of Corinth at
the end of a long account of deteriorating relations between Achaians and
Romans does not imply that he is trying to excuse Mummius’ actions.
Nevertheless, a comparison between his comments on the fates of Kallion
and Corinth illustrates a clear distinction between Gauls as stereotypical
barbarians at their most ferocious, and Romans whose behaviour is violent,
but not outside the norms of Greek warfare.
Pausanias shows his versatility as a historical writer, which makes it
difficult to come to general conclusions about his historical logoi: where
one passage seems to be distinguished by certain qualities there is often
another account where the same features are conspicuously absent. At the
same time, this variety of historiographical styles allowed Pausanias to
suggest associations and interpretations to his readers without having to
86