Pausanias_Travel_Writing_in_Ancient Greece [Maria_Pretzler]

1. Approaching Pausanias’ Periegesis
including the mythical past, and then the reader is presented with the
interesting monuments in the city. Pausanias deals with sites in the
countryside by following major routes as far as the polis boundaries,
discussing everything along the route he finds worth seeing. The route to
the next city on his imaginary tour is tackled last, leading across another
border, where Pausanias starts his description of the next city which will
be organised in a similar way. This system is used throughout the Periegesis,
but not without allowing for some variation. 32
After all, some
flexibility was essential because of the great diversity of material that
could be found in Greek cities, for example differences in size, the amount
of interesting material to report and variations in the relative importance
of local history and preserved remains. At times the structure of the text
is also used to convey a particular interpretation of the historical landscape,
for example when Pausanias describes most of Boiotia on routes
leading out through the gates of Thebes, treating the whole region as if it
were part of the Theban countryside. 33
Pausanias was aware that he could offer only a subjective selection of
the information he collected on a site. Indeed, he seems rather proud of his
selective approach.
To avoid misconceptions, I said in my account of Attica that I had not
presented everything, but only a selection of what was most worth remembering.
I will repeat this before my description of Sparta: from the beginning
my account was intended to select the most noteworthy from the many
traditions current everywhere that are not worth recording. This was a
well-considered plan, and I shall not deviate from it. 34 (Paus. 3.11.1)
There are many instances where Pausanias stresses that he wants to focus
on those things most worth recording, worth remembering or worth seeing,
35 but what exactly does this mean? The question of selectivity in the
Periegesis has led to a lot of scholarly discussion, especially when conspicuous
features of the archaeological record are absent from the description
of a site. 36 For example, Pausanias ignores conspicuous Roman buildings,
but he does not exclude all Roman structures; in fact, at times he discusses
recent monuments in some detail, and some are labelled as Roman while
others are mentioned without any indication of their age. 37
The site
descriptions focus on places with some cultural significance, such as
buildings and monuments with links to local history or myths. There is a
clear preference for ancient monuments and sacred places, as well as
features in the landscape that could be connected to common Greek
traditions, but Pausanias takes into account later periods, particularly
where this allows him to discover and present information that was not
widely known. 38 It seems impossible to establish consistent criteria, and it
is never made explicit what makes a story or monument ‘worth recording’.
Local circumstances and personal interest were probably important, but
9