Delphi Complete Works of Pausanias

by Pausanias

  [7] τοῦτο οὖν τὸ ἄγαλμα τῆς ἐν τῇ Ἀμφίσσῃ Ἀθηνᾶς καὶ ἰδεῖν ἔστιν ἀρχαιότερον καὶ ἀργότερον τὴν τέχνην. ἄγουσι δὲ καὶ τελετὴν οἱ Ἀμφισσεῖς Ἀνάκτων καλουμένων παίδων: οἵτινες δὲ θεῶν εἰσιν οἱ Ἄνακτες παῖδες, οὐ κατὰ ταὐτά ἐστιν εἰρημένον, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μὲν εἶναι Διοσκούρους, οἱ δὲ Κούρητας, οἱ δὲ πλέον τι ἐπίστασθαι νομίζοντες Καβείρους λέγουσι.

  [38.7] A mere glance shows that this image is older, and of rougher workmanship, than the Athena in Amphissa. The Amphissians also celebrate mysteries in honor of the Boy Kings, as they are called. Their accounts as to who of the gods the Boy Kings are do not agree; some say they are the Dioscuri, others the Curetes, and others, who pretend to have fuller knowledge, hold them to be the Cabeiri.

  MYONIA

  [8] τούτων δὲ τῶν Λοκρῶν τοσαίδε ἄλλαι πόλεις εἰσίν: ἄνω μὲν ὑπὲρ Ἀμφίσσης πρὸς ἤπειρον Μυονία σταδίοις ἀπωτέρω τριάκοντα Ἀμφίσσης: οὗτοι καὶ τῷ Διὶ ἐν Ὀλυμπίᾳ εἰσὶν οἱ ἀναθέντες Μυᾶνες τὴν ἀσπίδα. κεῖται δὲ τὸ πόλισμα ἐπὶ ὑψηλοῦ, καί σφισιν ἄλσος καὶ βωμὸς θεῶν Μειλιχίων ἐστί: νυκτεριναὶ δὲ αἱ θυσίαι θεοῖς τοῖς Μειλιχίοις εἰσὶ καὶ ἀναλῶσαι τὰ κρέα αὐτόθι πρὶν ἢ ἥλιον ἐπισχεῖν νομίζουσι. καὶ Ποσειδῶνός ἐστιν ὑπὲρ τὴν πόλιν τέμενος καλούμενον Ποσειδώνιον, ἐν δὲ αὐτῷ ναὸς Ποσειδῶνος: τὸ δὲ ἄγαλμα ἐς ἐμὲ οὐκ ἦν.

  [38.8] These Locrians also possess the following cities. Farther inland from Amphissa, and above it, is Myonia, thirty stades distant from it. Its people are those who dedicated the shield to Zeus at Olympia. The town lies upon a height, and it has a grove and an altar of the Gracious Gods. The sacrifices to the Gracious Gods are offered at night, and their rule is to consume the meat on the spot before sunrise. Beyond the city is a precinct of Poseidon, called Poseidonium, and a temple of Poseidon is in it. But the image had disappeared before my time.

  OEANTHEIA

  [9] οὗτοι μὲν δὴ ὑπεροικοῦσιν Ἀμφίσσης: ἐπὶ θαλάσσης δὲ Οἰάνθεια καὶ ταύτῃ ὁμοροῦσά ἐστι Ναύπακτος. πλὴν δὲ Ἀμφίσσης ὑπ᾽ Ἀχαιῶν οἱ ἄλλοι Πατρέων ἄρχονται, βασιλέως σφίσι δόντος Αὐγούστου. ἐν Οἰανθείᾳ δὲ Ἀφροδίτης τε ἱερὸν καὶ ὀλίγον ὑπὲρ τὴν πόλιν κυπαρίσσου τε ἀναμὶξ καὶ τῆς πίτυός ἐστιν ἄλσος καὶ ναός τε Ἀρτέμιδος καὶ ἄγαλμα ἐν τῷ ἄλσει: γραφαὶ δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν τοίχων ἐξίτηλοί τε ἦσαν ὑπὸ τοῦ χρόνου καὶ οὐδὲν ἔτι ἐλείπετο ἐς θέαν αὐτῶν.

  [38.9] These, then, live above Amphissa. On the coast is Oeantheia, neighbor to which is Naupactus. The others, but not Amphissa, are under the government of the Achaeans of Patrae, the emperor Augustus having granted them this privilege. In Oeantheia is a sanctuary of Aphrodite, and a little beyond the city there is a grove of cypress-trees mixed with pines; in the grove is a temple of Artemis with an image. The paintings on the walls I found had lost their color with time, and nothing of them was still left worth seeing.

  NAUPACTUS

  [10] κληθῆναι δὲ ἀπὸ γυναικὸς ἢ νύμφης τεκμαίρομαι τὴν πόλιν, ἐπεὶ ἐπὶ Ναυπάκτῳ γε οἶδα εἰρημένον ὡς Δωριεῖς οἱ ὁμοῦ τοῖς Ἀριστομάχου παισὶ τὰ πλοῖα αὐτόθι ἐποιήσαντο, οἷς ἐς Πελοπόννησον ἐπεραιώθησαν: καὶ ἀντὶ τούτου γενέσθαι τὸ ὄνομα τῷ χωρίῳ φασί. τὰ δέ μοι Ναυπακτίων, ὡς τοῖς ἐς Ἰθώμην ἀποστᾶσιν ὁμοῦ τῷ σεισμῷ τῷ ἐν Λακεδαίμονι Ἀθηναῖοι Ναύπακτον ἐνοικῆσαί σφισιν ἔδοσαν ἀφελόμενοι τοὺς Λοκροὺς καὶ ὡς τοῦ Ἀθηναίων ὕστερον πταίσματος τοῦ ἐν Αἰγὸς ποταμοῖς Λακεδαιμόνιοι τοὺς Μεσσηνίους ἐδίωξαν καὶ ἐκ τῆς Ναυπάκτου, τάδε μὲν ἐπεξῆλθέ μοι καὶ ἐς πλέον ἡ Μεσσηνία συγγραφή: ἐκλιπόντων δὲ ὑπὸ ἀνάγκης τῶν Μεσσηνίων, οὕτως οἱ Λοκροὶ συνελέγχθησαν αὖθις ἐς τὴν Ναύπακτον.

  [38.10] I gather that the city got its name from a woman or a nymph, while as for Naupactus, I have heard it said that the Dorians under the sons of Aristomachus built here the vessels in which they crossed to the Peloponnesus, thus, it is said, giving to the place its name. My account of Naupactus, how the Athenians took it from the Locrians and gave it as a home to those who seceded to Ithome at the time of the earthquake at Lacedaemon, and how, after the Athenian disaster at Aegospotami, the Lacedaemonians expelled the Messenians from Naupactus, all this I have fully related in my history of Messenia. When the Messenians were forced to leave, the Locrians gathered again at Naupactus.

  [11] τὰ δὲ ἔπη τὰ Ναυπάκτια ὀνομαζόμενα ὑπὸ Ἑλλήνων ἀνδρὶ ἐσποιοῦσιν οἱ πολλοὶ Μιλησίῳ: Χάρων δὲ ὁ Πύθεώ φησιν αὐτὰ ποιῆσαι Ναυπάκτιον Καρκίνον. ἑπόμεθα δὲ καὶ ἡμεῖς τῇ τοῦ Λαμψακηνοῦ δόξῃ: τίνα γὰρ καὶ λόγον ἔχοι ἂν ἔπεσιν ἀνδρὸς Μιλησίου πεποιημένοις ἐς γυναῖκας τεθῆναί σφισιν ὄνομα Ναυπάκτια;

  [38.11] The epic poem called the Naupactia by the Greeks is by most people assigned to a poet of Miletus, while Charon, the son of Pythes, says that it is a composition of Carcinus of Naupactus. I am one of those who agree with the Lampsacenian writer. For what reason could there be in giving the name of Naupactia to a poem about women composed by an author of Miletus?

  [12] ἐνταῦθα ἔστι μὲν ἐπὶ θαλάσσῃ ναὸς Ποσειδῶνος καὶ ἄγαλμα ὀρθὸν χαλκοῦ πεποιημένον, ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἱερὸν Ἀρτέμιδος καὶ ἄγαλμα λευκοῦ λίθου: σχῆμα δὲ ἀκοντιζούσης παρέχεται καὶ ἐπίκλησιν εἴληφεν Αἰτωλή. Ἀφροδίτη δὲ ἔχει μὲν ἐν σπηλαίῳ τιμάς: εὔχονται δὲ καὶ ἄλλων εἵνεκα καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες μάλιστα αἱ χῆραι γάμον αἰτοῦσι παρὰ τῆς θεοῦ.

  [38.12] Here there is on the coast a temple of Poseidon with a standing image made of bronze; there is also a sanctuary of Artemis with an image of white marble. She is in the attitude of one hurling a javelin, and is surnamed Aetolian. In a cave Aphrodite is worshipped, to whom prayers are offered for various reasons, and especially by widows who ask the goddess to grant them marriage.

  [13] τοῦ δὲ Ἀσκληπιοῦ τὸ ἱερὸν ἐρείπια ἦν, ἐξ ἀρχῆς δὲ ᾠκοδόμησεν αὐτὸ ἀνὴρ ἰδιώτης Φαλύσιος. νοσήσαντι γάρ οἱ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς καὶ οὐ πολὺ ἀποδέον τυφλῷ ὁ ἐν Ἐπιδαύρῳ πέμπει θεὸς Ἀνύτην τὴν ποιήσασαν τὰ ἔπη φέρουσαν σεσημασμένην δέλτον. τοῦτο ἐφάνη τῇ γυναικὶ ὄψις ὀνείρατος, ὕπαρ μέντοι ἦν αὐτίκα: καὶ εὗρέ τε ἐν ταῖς χερσὶ τα
ῖς αὑτῆς σεσημασμένην δέλτον καὶ πλεύσασα ἐς τὴν Ναύπακτον ἐκέλευσεν ἀφελόντα τὴν σφραγῖδα Φαλύσιον ἐπιλέγεσθαι τὰ γεγραμμένα. τῷ δὲ ἄλλως μὲν οὐ δυνατὰ ἐφαίνετο ἰδεῖν τὰ γράμματα ἔχοντι οὕτω τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν: ἐλπίζων δέ τι ἐκ τοῦ Ἀσκληπιοῦ χρηστὸν ἀφαιρεῖ τὴν σφραγῖδα, καὶ ἰδὼν ἐς τὸν κηρὸν ὑγιής τε ἦν καὶ δίδωσι τῇ Ἀνύτῃ τὸ ἐν τῇ δέλτῳ γεγραμμένον, στατῆρας δισχιλίους χρυσοῦ.

  [38.13] The sanctuary of Asclepius I found in ruins, but it was originally built by a private person called Phalysius. For he had a complaint of the eyes, and when he was almost blind the god at Epidaurus sent to him the poetess Anyte, who brought with her a sealed tablet. The woman thought that the god’s appearance was a dream, but it proved at once to be a waking vision. For she found in her own hands a sealed tablet; so sailing to Naupactus she bade Phalysius take away the seal and read what was written. He did not think it possible to read the writing with his eyes in such a condition, but hoping to get some benefit from Asclepius he took away the seal. When he had looked at the wax he recovered his sight, and gave to Anyte what was written on the tablet, two thousand staters of gold.

  The Biography

  Ruins at Troy, northwest Anatolia, Turkey — Pausanias was one of the first ancient authors to write of seeing the ruins of Troy.

  INTRODUCTION TO PAUSANIAS by W. H. S. Jones

  LIFE OF PAUSANIAS

  About Pausanias we know nothing except what we can gather from a few scattered hints in his own Tour of Greece. In Book v. xiii. § 7 he mentions “the dwelling among us of Pelops and Tantalus,” and “the throne of Pelops on Mount Sipylus.” It is a fair inference that Pausanias was a native of Lydia. His date we can fix with tolerable certainty. In v.i. § 2 he says that two hundred and seventeen years had passed since Corinth was repeopled. Now Corinth was restored in 44 B.C., so that Pausanias was writing his fifth book in 174 A.D. Again, in vii xx. § 6, he tells us that in his account of Attica he did not mention the Odeum of Herodes because it was not yet built at the time of writing; but we happen to know that it was built during the time of the Antonines. These emperors Pausanias knows as “the first Antonine” and “the second Antonine,” and he mentions a war of the latter against the Germans and Sauromatae. This war began in 166 A.D., and the emperor triumphed in 176 A.D. He does not mention the death of “the second Antonine,” which took place in 180 A.D.

  Of the character of Pausanias we know very little. His work is that of a commonplace mind, which accepts the conditions of the period in which it finds itself as the best possible outcome of an unhappy past. Without being a scientific critic, Pausanias can reject the improbable or relate it with a caveat lector. He is transparently honest, with no axe to grind and no object to be gained by intentional inaccuracy. His book exhibits no enthusiasms, either of love or of hate, but throughout it there is manifest a quiet admiration for the beauties and glories of Greece.

  THE STYLE OF PAUSANIAS

  The style of Pausanias is simple and unpretentious. The matter of the work does not lend itself to literary embellishment, and, with two exceptions, the narrative unfolds itself plain and unadorned. The first exception is that Pausanias, like other Hellenistic writers, often indulges in curiously verbose and tortuous expressions to represent very simple ideas; the second is his fondness for transpositions of words, which are sometimes so violent as to throw doubt upon the sense.

  The translator is sometimes troubled by what appears to be carelessness in the use of prepositions.

  It is impossible, for example, to decide positively in many cases whether ‘uper’ means “above” or “beyond.” Another source of ambiguity is the use of ‘EPI’ with the dative case, of which Pausanias is very fond. But ‘epi’ with the dative may have, among others, the following meanings: —

  (1) — In addition to;

  (2) — Next to, close to, at, near;

  (3) — On the top of;

  (4) — In the case of.

  Now in topographical descriptions the use of prepositions with local meanings should be very strict and precise, and it is rather unfortunate that Pausanias employs this construction of ‘epi’ so frequently, as the translator is often uncertain which meaning to choose, and an error may make a serious change in the sense of a passage.

  Another ambiguity, occurring several times in Pausanias, is of less account, as it does not seriously affect the sense, but it may be of some interest to grammarians. Pausanias is fond of using a past tense when in many cases the natural tense in English is the present. The reason is sometimes because the writer is thinking of the time when he visited a locality, or investigated a problem, sometimes because he places himself in the position of his readers. Occasionally the past tense appears to be of the “momentary” type. In each case the translator has to decide which course is the best — to use a past tense in English, to use the present, or to paraphrase.

  THE TOUR

  The work of Pausanias is far from being a complete description of ancient Greece. Many points which a modern reader would be interested in are either passed over altogether or else dismissed in the fewest possible words. Geological features, scenery, the general appearance of cities and villages, the state of agriculture and of trade, the power and efficiency of the country — all these things, which nowadays are objects of concern to an author, occupy a very small part of the narrative of Pausanias. To some extent these omissions are due to the differences between ancient taste and modern taste. The Greeks, for example, and indeed ancient peoples generally, appreciated scenery less than we do. But the chief reason for the peculiar character of the Tour is that Pausanias wrote for a limited public, which took little interest in such matters as industrial and economic questions. The reader he has in mind is the tourist, who visited Greece for pleasure. It is interesting to observe that even in the second century a d there were not a few who travelled for the sake of sight-seeing. We have as evidence not only the work of Pausanias, but also the many references in it (some nineteen in all) to the ciceroni who conducted visitors over the various districts and showed them the sights, adding a running commentary of legend and gossip. Pausanias himself was one of these tourists, and he appears to have explored the country with some thoroughness.

  A modern reader of Pausanias is disappointed because the information given is often so scanty, and of such a nature, that he cannot successfully visualize the place or object that is being described. This dryness of the narrative, this enumeration of sights without adequate description, indicates that Pausanias meant his work to be a guide-book to accompany the tourist on his travels and to show him what to look for; he had no intention of giving information which could be obtained by a glance on the spot.

  I have spoken of the omissions of Pausanias; what kind of information is he careful to include? Towns, villages, roads, rivers, mountains and bays are given with some completeness. Fountains, and water supply (It was natural for a Greek writer to lay stress upon water, that precious necessity in southern lands. But other creature comforts for the traveller Pausanias ignores; he does not even inform his readers where a night’s lodging could be obtained.) generally, theatres and race-courses are often mentioned. But his main interest lies in sanctuaries, statues, tombs, and the legends connected therewith. We notice moreover that, like the tourist of modern days, he devotes his attention to superficial details rather than to truly artistic qualities. When describing a statue Pausanias will tell us that it is “worth seeing” for its size or grace, but he rarely gives a critical appreciation of it. Interspersed among the descriptions of places and buildings are myths and legends, scraps of folklore and history, oracles and prophecies — in fact, odds and ends of all sorts. Sometimes, particularly when Pausanias turns aside to history, thes
e digressions are of great length, (In a modern work they would either not appear at all, the reader being referred to other books, or they would be inserted as notes or appendices. The form of an ancient book and the difficulties of reference in ancient times account for many artistic defects in the old writers.) and seriously interrupt the main thread of the narrative. Peculiarities of ritual are regularly given when they might strike the visitor as odd. Pausanias has a voracious appetite for names. It may safely be said that he never omits to mention one if he can give it. Artists, builders, those who have dedicated votive offerings, figures in history and legend, catalogues and genealogies, appear in great profusion. To us these names are dull enough, but to Greek ears they came fraught with pleasing and romantic associations derived from the stories of childhood, from the national poetry and sagas, and from the hymns sung at religious festivals.

  Pausanias appears to have gathered most of his topographical knowledge from his own travels, but he doubtless used in places the works of his predecessors, while his historical information is fairly reliable, being generally derived from good sources.

  SUMMARY OF BOOKS I AND II

  The regions described in the first two books of Pausanias are, roughly, Attica, Megaris, Corinth and Argolis. The chief places to which the reader is conducted are Sunium, Laurium, the Peiraeus, Athens and its neighbourhood, Marathon, Oropus, the islands Patroclus, Helena and Salamis, Eleusis, Megara, Nisaea and Megaris, Corinth, the Isthmus, Lechaeum, Cenchreae, Acrocorinthus, Sicyon, Titane, Phlius, Cleonae, Argos, Mycenae, Orneae, Tiryns, Epidaurus, Aegina, Troezen, Hermione and its neighbourhood. The way in which Pausanias describes a place can be seen from an analysis of the first five chapters of the second book. The origin of the name Corinth; the Isthmus and what is on it; the harbours of Corinth; the tombs on the way to Corinth from Cenchreae; the sights in Corinth itself — the sanctuary of Artemis Ephesia and the images of Dionysus, the temple of Fortune, the sanctuary of all the gods, the fountain and the statues by it, the market-place with its bronze Athena and the temple of Octavia above it — the road from the market-place to Lechaeum and the sights on it, the chariots of Phaëthon and the Sun, the bronze Heracles, Peirene, the enclosure of Apollo, the statues of Hermes, Poseidon, Leucothea and Palaemon; the baths and wells of Corinth; the road from Corinth to Sicyon with the temple of Apollo, the well of Glauce, the Odeum, and the tomb of Medea’s children; the legend of Medea; the temple of Athena the Bridler and the legend of Bellerophontes; the other early kings of Corinth; the theatre and the Heracles of Daedalus; the sanctuary of Zeus Capitolinus; the old gymnasium and the temples of Zeus and of Asclepius; the Acrocorinthus, with enclosures of Isis and Serapis, altars to the Sun, Necessity and Force, temples of the Mother of the gods, the Fates, Demeter, Hera Bunaea and Aphrodite, the spring behind the last and the legend about it; the Teneatic gate and the sanctuary of Eileithyia; the burnt temple on the way to Sicyon. Pausanias then passes on to the Sicyonians and their city.