Pausanias_Travel_Writing_in_Ancient Greece [Maria_Pretzler]

1. Approaching Pausanias’ Periegesis
often evinces this attitude by focusing on the site descriptions, while
paying little attention to Pausanias’ logoi, except where connections to
other ancient sources needed to be pointed out, and where contradictions
or discrepancies demanded discussion. 53
For a long time after the end of the ‘Pausanias boom’ around 1900,
attitudes apparently changed little. The Periegesis remained crucial for
archaeological work in Greece. Further efforts to identify sites led to a
more scholarly approach to topographical studies, inspiring scholars to
investigate the Greek landscape beyond the great sanctuaries and cities
and to look at smaller towns and settlements, rural sites or ancient roads,
while excavations at the large sites were also still in progress. 54
Papachatzis’s
five-volume archaeological commentary of the 1960s
demonstrates the ongoing dialogue between archaeology and Pausanias’
text. At the same time, classicists paid little attention to Pausanias for
decades; Regenbogen’s article in Pauly and Wissowa’s Realencyclopädie
offered many new perspectives, but did not inspire further debate. 55
Habicht’s seminal Sather lectures, published in 1985, demonstrate that
Pausanias studies had suffered from the continuing division between
archaeology and classics. Habicht presents numerous examples to demonstrate
how archaeology or epigraphy can confirm Pausanias’ text as an
eye-witness account, and finally lays to rest Wilamowitz’ old idea that the
Periegesis was compiled from earlier texts and therefore unreliable. Few
with experience of using Pausanias in the field in Greece would have
subscribed to this idea in the first place, but it was still necessary to
remind classicists of the reliability of Pausanias as a guide, and the quality
of the information he offers. Habicht shows little admiration for
Pausanias’ literary efforts, which he presents as a failure, but he established
the Periegesis as a subject worthy of classicists’ attention. The book
proved a turning point, perhaps in concert with increased interest in the
Greek east of the Roman empire and the phenomenon of the Second
Sophistic.
In the preface to Alcock, Cherry and Elsner’s 2001 collection of articles
on Pausanias, the editors proclaim a new turn-of-the century boom, mirroring
the scholarly activities around 1900. 56 Two series of multi-volume
text editions with translation and commentary are in progress, one in
Italian (Valla) and one in French (Budé). 57 Pausanias’ literary efforts have
also received more attention, for example in a volume dealing with the
historiographical aspects of his work, 58
and Hutton’s Describing Greece
focuses on the structure, language and literary aspirations of the Periegesis.
59
Both classics and archaeology have abandoned an almost
exclusive focus on the archaic and classical periods and the last three
decades have seen an increasing interest in Roman Greece and the Greek
literature of the Roman east. 60 This sheds new light on the world
Pausanias describes, and on the cultural background that he shared with
his informants as well as with his intended readership. Archaeologists,
13