Pausanias_Travel_Writing_in_Ancient Greece [Maria_Pretzler]

3. The Importance of Travelling
also be due to Pausanias’ own process of research and writing. After all,
his questions and interests would have prompted particular answers from
his informants, and further adjustments to the material could have been
made when the text was composed. The most problematic issue, however,
is the exact nature of those books that are said to have served as source
for large amounts of material included in the Periegesis. There is no good
evidence for the existence of any work which would have provided the
consistency as well as breath and depth of coverage of any topic that is
central to Pausanias’ work, especially since much of this information is
specifically tied to the contemporary monumental landscape of sites in a
particular part of mainland Greece. Ultimately, we cannot just pass the
source question from one existing literary work to a series of hypothetical
books: either the handbooks in question would have been compiled in an
admirably consistent manner from disparate literary sources, or we have
to postulate that there was another author whose project of travelling
around Greece to collect this kind of information would have been quite
similar to Pausanias’ activities. Moreover, too much reliance on works that
were several hundred years old would have been problematic in conjunction
with Pausanias’ description of Roman Greece, because local tradition
is by no means static and adjusts to contemporary circumstances. 60 Any
handbook that could have served as a major source could hardly have been
created more than a few decades before the Periegesis: many changes had
been made to the Greek memorial landscape during Pausanias’ own
lifetime, especially under the influence of the emperor Hadrian. Since we
already know without doubt that Pausanias visited the sites he writes
about and investigated them in great detail, he does seem the best candidate
for the man whose research also provided much of the additional local
material presented in the Periegesis. Any other interpretation seems to be
an unnecessary complication.
Given Pausanias’ thorough investigation, every site visit would have
resulted in large amounts of material, including excerpts from inscriptions,
lists of characters depicted on monuments, or genealogical
sequences. 61 His thorough descriptions seem impossible without extensive
notes taken on site visits. Pausanias may not have carried out this work
on his own, just as Aristeides ordered his slaves to record his measurements
of Egyptian monuments. 62
Nevertheless, the process would have
required Pausanias’ presence to interpret and select what he wanted
recorded. Even if we assume that most of the collected material was
included in the Periegesis, the investigation of a middle-sized city would
have taken days. The detailed record of hundreds of art works and
monuments at Olympia could hardly have been produced without a
lengthy investigation, probably on numerous visits, and the note taking
must have taken several weeks at least.
What was the incentive for such efforts? As we have seen, Greek
identity and the ideals of paideia are closely connected to the long tradition
41