Pausanias_Travel_Writing_in_Ancient Greece [Maria_Pretzler]

9. Pausanias and his Readers
strong views about the importance of Greek freedom. Unlike Winckelmann,
he does not directly connect the political status of Greece with the
achievements of its artists, but his work offers an opportunity to contemplate
the loss of Greek freedom together with information about a decline
in art and the cultured ways of the classical Greeks.
Winckelmann’s approach provided the basis for the study of ancient art,
a crucial part of classical archaeology. Moreover, he had a great impact on
attitudes to antiquity in general, especially in Germany. His interpretation
of art as part of Greek culture contributed to a more holistic approach
to the history and culture of antiquity (Altertumswissenschaften) which
developed particularly in Germany alongside purely literary studies (classical
philology). 45 Soon after Winckelmann’s death (1768), however,
attitudes to ancient Greece were to change significantly. The last decades
of Ottoman rule in Greece saw the looting of a number of important
antiquities, especially sculptures from the Parthenon, Bassai and the
temple of Aphaia in Aigina. The analysis of originals as well as Roman
copies progressed rapidly, so that many of Winckelmann’s conclusions
soon seemed hopelessly outdated. At the same time a more sober image of
Greece replaced the romantic and idealistic notions of the Age of Enlightenment.
46 An increasing number of travellers visited Greece in the early
years of the nineteenth century, and after the foundation of the modern
Greek state the country and its archaeological sites became increasingly
accessible. Research into ancient Greek art and culture no longer relied
exclusively on texts. Attitudes to the Periegesis were bound to be particularly
affected, since it could now be measured against real artefacts and
landscapes.
Early travellers used Pausanias as a travel guide which, though out-ofdate
by over sixteen hundred years, still proved useful for their purposes.
Excavations provided new evidence which illustrated Pausanias’ approach
to particular sites. By the latter part of the century the general esteem for
the Periegesis had grown significantly, as demonstrated by the call for a
new translation that opens this chapter. Soon there was a new English
translation and a German multi-volume edition, followed by Frazer’s
monumental translation and commentary. 47 At the same time there was
also a backlash to this enthusiastic reception: Wilamowitz and a number
of his pupils emphasised Pausanias’ ‘ineptitude’ as a writer and suggested
that much of his work was a compilation of earlier literary sources. These
arguments were refuted almost instantly, but the debate remained influential
for several decades. Arguments about Pausanias’ reliability were
further fuelled by problems with the identification of recently excavated
monuments on sites described in the Periegesis. 48 The ‘Pausanias boom’ of
the late nineteenth century therefore included a good deal of heated
debate. 49
Frazer is a crucial figure in this period of Pausanias studies. His
valuable if somewhat eccentric commentary is still important, and it will
125