Pausanias_Travel_Writing_in_Ancient Greece [Maria_Pretzler]

9. Pausanias and his Readers
mann introduced an analytical method of describing art which pays special
attention to technique and expression and he was the first to divide
Greek art into distinct periods defined by particular aspects of style. He
also linked this evolution of artistic style to Greek history, and he explained
the nature and development of Greek art with reference to its
cultural and historical background. 29 Winckelmann was aware that his
theory was problematic: after all, he was speculating about the nature of
Greek art although almost all the original evidence was lost. In fact he was
the first to recognise that most ‘Greek’ sculptures preserved in Italy were
actually Roman copies of lost originals, which made it even more difficult
to decide whether his few examples were representative of a particular
phase of Greek art. 30 Winckelmann’s definition of periods of Greek art
therefore relied mainly on texts that rarely mentioned the often minute
details that his analysis of surviving art had identified as crucial.
Although the art works themselves were firmly at the centre of
Winckelmann’s attention, he had to rely on texts to understand the
cultural and historical context of Greek art. He had enjoyed a thorough
classical education and had read widely among both Greek and Roman
literature. 31
His study is therefore based on a wide range of sources,
especially Pliny, who supplies the framework for the historical development
of Greek sculpture, just as in earlier works on ancient art. We do not
know when Winckelmann first encountered the Periegesis, but in February
1756 he reported that he had drawn up a plan for a ‘treatise on the
taste of Greek artists’ and that this had prompted him ‘to re-read the
whole Pausanias’. 32 There is no doubt that he knew the Periegesis very well
indeed; as his many references show, it was rarely far from his mind while
he was writing his History of the Art of Antiquity. 33 In one case Winckelmann
suggests an emendation of the text, arguing on the basis of
Pausanias’ idiosyncratic style, and he describes him as ‘Cappadocian’,
which suggests that he had engaged with the problem of Pausanias’
background. 34 Within the work the Periegesis provides evidence for crucial
arguments and it is used to establish the context and meaning of art works
in antiquity: where were statues set up, and what was their function?
Which types of art were sacred? 35 Pausanias also supplied evidence about
the material of art works, the iconography of statues, and, more generally,
the subjects of ancient sculptures. Winckelmann was, in fact, one of the
first to suggest that most ancient sculpture did not deal with Roman
history, but depicted Greek mythological subjects. 36 Finally, like Caylus he
found Pausanias useful for his (limited) thoughts on the earliest stages of
Greek art. 37
It is likely that, rather than merely serving as a mine of information,
the Periegesis played a role in shaping Winckelmann’s new approach. As
we saw in the last chapter, Pausanias was capable of stylistic comparison,
and he had some sense of chronological criteria which could be applied to
sculpture in particular. Winckelmann respected Pausanias’ judgement on
123