Pausanias_Travel_Writing_in_Ancient Greece [Maria_Pretzler]

Pausanias: Travel Writing in Ancient Greece
particularly complex, such as the complicated position of the female
centaur as she lies on the ground feeding her children. Lucian explains
how Zeuxis carefully combines appropriate aspects of the bodies of human
and horse to depict the wildness of the male in contrast with the more
refined appearance of the female, while also making the centaurs seem
like coherent characters. The text also notes how the interaction between
the different figures is depicted, and offers comments on the finer points
of the design, such as the precise lines, a good use of colour, shadows,
perspective, proportion and symmetry.
Pausanias’ extensive descriptions do not exhaust the possibilities of
ancient ekphrasis, let alone those of Lucian’s exceptional example. Apart
from aspects of material and technique he shows some interest in iconography,
which usually serves to support the interpretation of a work of art:
Pausanias’ main concern is to decipher the content of an image, and he
rarely pays attention to the impact of an art work on the viewer. 46 The most
complex ekphrasis in the Periegesis is the description of Polygnotos’ paintings
in the Lesche of the Knidians at Delphi. 47 Pausanias faithfully lists all
the characters that were included in every part of the painting, giving
barely more than their names, which were supplied by inscriptions. His
main aim is to understand what the image can tell him about individual
characters and the story as a whole. 48 There are few references to the
painter’s visual interpretation of the scenes, but Pausanias comments on
iconographical details, noting, for example, the clothing, hairstyle and
attributes of some figures, and occasionally he also mentions the colour of
particular features. The viewer is guided through the image, moving from
scene to scene, and Pausanias’ directions provide some information about
the composition of the painting, as when he points out that some scenes
are depicted above others. This suggests that the painting loosely arranged
its figures and scenes in several tiers, as can be seen on some
classical vases. Pausanias does not actually attempt to convey what the
picture looked like – Stansbury-O’Donnell’s reconstruction reproduces the
order and approximate location of the scenes as they are described in the
text, but for its design has to rely on appropriate vase paintings – and it is
completely impossible to imagine colours and shading. 49 This disregard for
the visual aspects and artistic qualities of art works is most striking in
Pausanias’ most extensive ekphraseis, but it characterises his general
approach to art. In fact, Pausanias’ complete silence on design, expression
or style is even more remarkable in the case of his description of the Chest
of Kypselos. 50
Here he was dealing with a style that must have seemed
unusual and thrillingly ancient, but although Pausanias clearly wrestles
with an unfamiliar iconography, and though he describes the archaic
design of the inscriptions, he mentions only one aspect that betrays the
high age of the images, namely a centaur with human forelegs. 51 The
closest Pausanias ever comes to an analytic description of the archaic style
are his comments on an athlete’s statue in Phigalia which he describes as
112