Pausanias_Travel_Writing_in_Ancient Greece [Maria_Pretzler]

6. A Sense of Time: Pausanias as Historian
Where an explanation is offered, it can remain rather vague. Pausanias is
rarely concerned with long-term political developments or complex historical
factors, preferring to show how particular actions of individuals or
states influence history. For example, Pausanias’ history of the Achaian
League in the Hellenistic period and during the Roman conquest of Greece
is among his most elaborate historical narratives. 80 Nevertheless, most of
the developments presented in this account are influenced by the personal
interests and initiatives of a few flawed individuals. Ultimately the main
cause of the Roman victory over the Achaian League appears to be the
treachery and ineptitude of three Greek politicians combined with the
ambition and bias of a few Roman notables. Pausanias’ references to the
political situation scarcely give an impression of the complex interactions
between Rome, Macedonia, the Achaians and numerous other states that
shaped Greek history in the first half of the second century AD. As we have
already seen in Pausanias’ comments on Philip II, he considered divine
retribution as a plausible explanation for historical developments. He is
not thinking of particular gods exacting personal revenge, but there is a
clear notion that impious actions can have a negative influence on the fate
of the perpetrator and his family or associates. Divine retribution features
as a factor in many historical events, even down to relatively recent times,
for example when Sulla’s harsh treatment of Greece is connected to his
fatal illness, or when he hints at a connection between the fate of Caligula
and Nero and their orders to remove the statue of Eros from its temple at
Thespiai. 81
Pausanias’ preferred mode of historical writing emphasises a continuity
of the Greek past from a remote antiquity to his own time. Herodotos may
be seen as the ‘Father of History’, but Thucydides’ adaptation of the
original formula had a lasting influence on the genre. He introduced a new
form of authoritative account that combined an unambiguous narrative
with in-depth political analysis and a precise chronology. Recent history
could be treated in this way, but Thucydides consigns earlier periods to a
short introduction because of a lack of precise information. 82 Few ancient
historians lived up to Thucydides’ exacting standards, but many at least
professed to share his aims. 83 Pausanias, too, is influenced by this cautious
approach to source criticism, and, as we have seen, some passages in the
Periegesis echo Thucydides’ style and historiographical technique. 84
Pausanias has a notion of an early heroic age about which little can be
known, but this refers to a period which is much more remote than
Thucydides’ ‘prehistory’. 85 It was easier to adapt Herodotos’ less rigid mode
of reporting the past to Pausanias’ project because it includes contradictory
traditions and does not require a clear distinction between vague
mythical accounts and later events that were documented more precisely.
As we have seen, Pausanias also prefers a chronological framework that
can accommodate all eras, from the earliest heroic age to the Roman
empire. He leaves room for the divine and the miraculous in his accounts,
89