No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Sather Lectures, and he sets out to change that, perhaps with a little more zeal than is called for, since as he willingly admits, at least the specialised literature on Pausanias has been unanimous in his praise for more than half a century. The first chapter contains an intelligent discussion of the basic facts about the man and his work. Two points call for comment. Is it really true, as H. asserts, that P. was never read in antiquity? Absence of direct quotation is not proof enough. Usually authors are extant, because there was interest for them. Ancient authors typically do not name younger standard works they use, nor do they copy them without changes. (This has misled scholars, e.g. in the cases of Diodorus and Diogenes Laertius.) One author who certainly read Pausanias was Philostratus. Gurlitt p. 73 n. 27 lists a few parallels (ignored by H.), and the strongest has gone unnoticed: all the data on Delphi contained in v. Apoll. 6.11 and 6.10 recur in Pausanias, Book 10 (5.9, 12, 9.3, 12, 16.1, 25ff.). Another point where caution is needed is some of P.'s voyages outside Greece: his autopsy of Egypt is no more than part of his imitation of Herodotus; see below on literary fiction. In the following two chapters H. shows that P. has been very often confirmed by archaeological and epigraphical evidence. Not everything archaeologists affirm in such cases can be taken at face-value; they are rarely careful in distinguishing what proves an author to be correct from what is merely compatible with him. But the material H. adduces is clearly sound, and he is right, when he dismisses the wrongheaded view of a few earlier scholars that P. as a rule did not see what he describes and had it all from books written centuries before his own time. H. is able to restrict his examples largely to material that has come to light only very recently and to duplicate a series of epigraphical examples he has published elsewhere. Right as H. is in maintaining that his examples show P. is a 'trustworthy' and 'honest' author, there is a basic misconception about the way this question has been discussed so far by all scholars. It is a consequence of a simplistic view of ancient literary craftsmanship which ought to be outdated by now. H. does not deny that one of P.'s aims is to create a readable work of literature, but he ignores some of the consequences. One of these is the presence of fictions as a literary embellishment. Take 5.20.8: Oenomaus is the archetypal hero of the Olympic games; there is a column in Olympia said to be a relic of his house. A Roman senator does some digging there for the base of his own statue (the inscription is extant), and guess what he finds: remnants of a warrior's and charioteer's equipment, obviously, P. implies, those of Oenomaus himself (the implication is ignored by H.). And what is more, the one pcisoTV o? vat a&e, fox ^Yvom VAC fav&Yas mote significance Vnan for anybody else happens to be present at the occasion-Pausanias. It is significant that H. finds some problems to discuss with the chronolo...

This book can be useful for those who want to read Hellanicus' fragments and know Spanish but no Greek, for those who want to have a collection of titles on H. (48-50), and, conditionally, for Spaniards who want to read an introduction on H. and are unable to read the German of W Jacoby's article in PW. The reviewer does not belong to any of these categories and is W

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW codicum ifieat:, tpees, in 85.2, to ipeVac,-ec; surely the deepest pitfall in the book; but alas, too late. The old emendation appears again, without even a justificatory mention of its source: a scholion, presumably from the Byzantine world, in which priests did not bear arms. It is rash to emend the consensus on such evidence, especially when a word appears twice, giving the square of the probability that the manuscript tradition is sound; and ample if scattered evidence shows that in Greece, as still more clearly at Rome, many (not all) priests were members of the highest social class, prominent in war and politics. Such, surely, are the men whom Sparta honoured with a special tumulus, rather than the eirenes (supposedly Ipeves in Hdt.), whom M. explains as the young soldiers 'dai venti ai trent' anni'; though Plut. Lyk. 17, the only reference given, suggests rather 20 to 21! Even if Amompharetos, one of the men here in question, was a mature young man of thirty, it is still surprising to find him not only commanding a local (not age-group) battalion, but arguing (pp. S3 ff.) with the prince-regent and C.-in-C.; while such conduct is more credible in a senior aristocrat. In other text matters, M. is more conservative, keeping the consensus' Sena OT&SUL in 57.2 (rightly; it is most unlikely that either Herodotos or an early copyist wrote the 'alphabetic' numeral 6'), and 'H0t)c in 98.2 for the password at Mykale. He points out, after Macan, that the name of Hebe, wife of the deified Herakles, is quite a suitable slogan for choice by a Herakleid king; though here Roscher's emendation 'Hpt)?, the fleet having sailed that morning from the Heraion of Samos, is certainly tempting. There is no map or plan, and little topographical discussion, which, if an editor is not to go into great detail, is probably prudent. It is surely time that Grundy's perverse identification of the Dryos Kephalai pass 'leading to Plataia' (39,3) as that of Gyphtokastro was forgotten. It is at least not implicitly accepted (notes, pp. 171 f.). Other places 'non possono essere identificate con precisione', (p. 163) which is unexceptionable, if unexciting. On p. 172, a note might have been added on the possible identity of Pharnakes, father of Artabazos, with the important official of that name in the Persepolis tablets. However, this is an agreeable little book, which may be commended at least to any readers of CR wishing to improve their Italian.

No abstract

No abstract