Sunday, May 26, 2013

More on Pausanias

I have previously written on Pausanias and his lost work back in 2010 here. While reading Glanville Downey's magisterial work on the history of the city, A History of Antioch in Syria: From Seleucus to the Arab Conquest, Princeton University Press, 1974, I found that he had dedicated  a few pages to the subject of lost sources including Pausanias. This is what he has to say on Pausanias: 

"The best known ancient account of the foundation of Antioch is the lost Αντιοχειασ Κτισιζ of Pausanias, which was used and mentioned by later writers. The quotations seem to suggest that Pausanias' work included a history of Antioch, whether as a part of the Κτισιζ or as a separate composition is not clear. There were a number of writers named Pausanias in antiquity, and modern scholars were for some time uncertain whether the Pausanias who wrote on Antioch was to be identified with the much better known Pausanias the periegete, whose work is preserved. The evidence seemed to most students to indicate that these two writers named Pausanias were not identical, but then the question arose as to whether the writer on Antioch was the Pausanias who was called Pausanias of Damascus. Opinion on this question varied, and indeed the evidence is very slender." A recent study by Aubrey Diller of the whole problem of the authors named Pausanias, based on a much better collection of material than was previously assembled, has shown that the writer on Antioch is to be separated from Pausanias of Damascus, and that he is not to be identified with the other writers so named who are known in other connections. While  the evidence is not extensive, it appears that Pausanias' work on Antioch is to be dated either in the second or the fourth century after Christ".

A periegete, by the way, is a wanderer or voyager. 

Downey also notes that Malalas quotes Pausanias (38.15; 197.17; 203.22; 204.2, 8; 248.15), as he does many other writers, but this does not necessarily mean that Malalas used Pausanias directly. he contends that Malalas may have taken the information from an intermediate source, while giving the impression that he was making a direct quotation. 

Richard Forster, cites passages which, he states, prove that Libanius made use of Pausanias' work in writing his oration, In praise of Antioch, the Antiochikos. Downey states that it is likely that Libanius did derive some of his material from Pausanias, whether directly or indirectly; but the passages cited by Forster are of such a generalized character that it may be doubted whether they are by themselves as convincing as Forster believed.

Aubrey Diller's work, "The Authors Named Pausanias," TAPA 86 (1955) 268-279, through the wonders of someone lifting it from JSTOR and putting it online, is now available for general reading only 57 years after first being published. It is an interesting piece, as it discusses the many (or maybe not so many) different personages that may have been called Pausanias and written his major work. 

Interestingly Diller did not cite a previous work which like his own tried to enumerate the various Pausanias characters in the ancient world. This work, The topography of Athens and the Demi, Volume 1, by William Martin Leake, published by J Rodwell in 1841 contains an Appendix IV (pages 475-76) dedicated to the Pausanias alternatives. It is available on Google Books (which Diller obviously did not have access to...).

Leake states: "Again, I. Tzetzes and I. Malala refer, as well as Stephanus, to a Pausanias who wrote a work on the foundation of Antioch (Αντιοχειασ Κτισιζ ) which agrees with the mention of Antioch, the Orontes, and Daphne, by the Periegetes of Greece; the article Δωποζ in Stephanus accords equally with his notice of some of the most remarkable places in Judaea. Malala describes Pausanias as a χπονογραφοζ which concurs with the references in Tzetzes and Stephanus, to the extent of shewing that the work on Syria was chiefly historical".

No comments: