Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:10:40.662Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pausanias and the historiography of Classical Sparta

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

A. R. Meadows
A. R. Meadows
Affiliation:
Trinity College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Periegesis of Pausanias has finally entered the world of serious literature. Long after the way was first shown, the Magnesian has arrived and duly taken his place in the intellectual world of the second century: a pilgrim to the past. Yet he was no bookish, library-bound bore. Recent studies have transformed our opinion of him as a recorder of the sites and treasures of what was, even to him, antiquity, ‘His faithfulness in reporting what he saw has, time and time again, been proven at a large number of sites and could easily be demonstrated at a good many others.’ ‘The very fact that the second-century A.D. traveller Pausanias wrote at such length about the sites and monuments of Greece is itself indicative of his most important attitude towards antiquities. That is, he thought them of sufficient value to be worth recording and thought it worth travelling extensively in mainland Greece over a period of many years to see them for himself.’ And so inevitably, as respect for the author has grown, the desire to lay bare his soul has followed. Critics are unanimous in their view of a man sensitive to the resonance of the ancient and power of the past. On occasion a Herodotean fascination with the mutability of man's lot bubbles to the surface, indeed we may surmise Herodotus to have been an important influence on the Periegesis in several fundamental respects. Above all he was a man of deep learning and keen interest in the past and a faithful recorder of its remains. Archaeologists and art-historians concur.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , May 1995 , pp. 92 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Bowie, E. L., ‘Greeks and their Past in the Second Sophistic’ in Finley, M. I. (ed.), Studies in Ancient Society (London and Boston, 1974), pp. 166–209, 188–9Google Scholar ; Reardon, B. P., Cowants Littéraires Grecs des IIe et IIIe Siècles après J.-C. (Paris, 1971), pp. 221–4Google Scholar . The following works are also cited by authors' names only: Arafat, K., ‘Pausanias' Attitude to Antiquities’ ABSA 87 (1992), 387–409Google Scholar ; Bommelaer, J.-F., Lysandre de Sparte. Histoire et Tradition. BEFAR 240 (Paris, 1981)Google Scholar ; Cartledge, P. A., Agesilaos and the Crisis of Sparta (London, 1987)Google Scholar ; Sanctis, G. De, ‘Nuovi Studi sulle “Elleniche” di Oxyrhynchos’ AAT 6 (1931), 157–94Google Scholar ; Fischbach, O., ‘Die Benutzung des thukydideischen Geschichtswerkes durch den Periegeten Pausanias’ WS 15 (1893), 161–91Google Scholar ; Forrest, W. G., ‘The Date of the Lykourgan Reforms at Sparta’ Phoenix 17 (1963), 157–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Gurlitt, W., Uber Pausanias Untersuchungen (Graz, 1890)Google Scholar ; Habicht, Ch., Pausanias' Guide to Ancient Greece (Berkeley, 1985)Google Scholar ; Musti, D. and Torelli, M., Pausania Guida della Grecia Libro III La Laconia 2 (Milan, 1992)Google Scholar ; Pelling, C. B. R., ‘Plutarch's Method of Work in the Roman Lives’ JHS 99 (1979), 74–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Segre, M., ‘Pausania come fonte storica’ Historia 1 (1927), 202–34Google Scholar ; Shrimpton, G. S., Theopompus the Historian (Montreal and Kingston, 1991)Google Scholar ; Tuplin, C. J., ‘Pausanias and Plutarch's Epaminondas’ CQ 34 (1984), 346–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Wernicke, C., De Pausaniae Periegetae Studiis Herodoteis (Berlin, 1884)Google Scholar . All unattributed references are to Pausanias in the Teubner edition of M. H. Rocha-Pereira, second edition (Leipzig, 1989). Unattributed references to the commentaries of H. Hitzig and H. Blümner (Leipzig, 1896–1910), and J. G. Frazer (London, 1897) are to vols. 1.2 and 3 respectively; translations of Pausanias are taken from the first volume of the latter work. All dates are B.C., unless otherwise specified.

2 Habicht, p. 63 and passim for a revisionist view of Pausanias, esp. pp. 165–75 for an investigation into the origins of modern hostility to Pausanias. Even where Pausanias now appears from excavation to have been wrong, the reaction is to explain rather than vilify. See e.g. Grenière, J. De la, ‘Pausanias et le Sanctuaire de la Mère des Dieux d'Akriai’ CRAI Janv.-Mars. 1991, 257–65Google Scholar .

3 Arafat, p. 387, cf. Habicht, pp. 148–51.

4 For the most recent study of the psychology of Pausanias and previous bibliography see Eisner, J., ‘Pausanias: A Greek Pilgrim in the Roman World.’ P & P 135 (1992), 3–29Google Scholar . Mutability: cf. Habicht, p. 164 with n. 87. Herodotus: Habicht, p. 133, Arafat, p. 388; Bowie, p. 188, Segre, pp. 207–8. See further below, Part I.

5 One need hardly mention the Messenian War account of book four's preface or the Achaean War of book seven's, or descriptions appended, for example, to statues of Aratus, Epaminondas, Lysimachus, Pyrrhus, Attalus and Ptolemy (2.8.1, 9.12.4, 1.9.5, 1.11.1, 1.6.1). ‘Ohne diese literarischen Quellen bliebe auch das epigraphische und archäologische Material zum gröβten Teile für die historische Rekonstruktion unverwertbar.’, Heinen, H., Untersuchungen zur Hellenistischen Geschichte des 3. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Historia Einzelschrift 20 (Wiesbaden, 1972), p. 167Google Scholar .

6 Immerwahr, W., Die Lakonika des Pausanias auf ihre Quellen untersucht (Berlin, 1889)Google Scholar , henceforth ‘Immerwahr’. For bibliography of the studies of Pausanias' sources in general see Segre, p. 214 n. 60, and Musti, D. and Beschi, L., Pausania Guida della Grecia Libro I l'Attica (Milan, 1982), pp. xxiv–xxxvGoogle Scholar . Also of use is Regenbogen's, O. article ‘Pausanias’ RE Supplbd. 8, cols. 1008–97Google Scholar .

7 Forrest, pp. 176–7.

8 Musti and Torelli, pp. xxvii and 167–88 passim for specific observation of this synthesis.

9 Wernicke, pp. 16–17, 51–68, 87–8. See also the treatment 25 years earlier by Pfundtner, O., ‘Die Historischen Quellen des Reisebeschreibers Pausanias.’ NJPhP 99 (1869), 441–54, esp. pp. 444–6Google Scholar . The stories taken from Herodotus are as follows (references to Pausanias book three in brackets): Bones of Orestes (3.5–3.6) – Hdt. 1.67–8; Cleomenes' Succession (3.9–3.10) – Hdt. 5.40–2; Cleomenes at Argos (4.1) – Hdt. 6.76–80; Cleomenes at Athens (4.2) – Hdt. 5.64; 5.70–4; Cleomenes in Aegina (4.2) – Hdt. 6.49–50; Cleomenes and Demaratos (4.3–4.5) – Hdt. 6.61–7; Cleomenes' Death (4.5) – Hdt. 6.75; Protesilaos and Artayktes (4.6) – Hdt. 9.116–20; Laudatio Leonidae (4.7–4.8) – Hdt. 7.204ff; Pausanias' Regency (4.9) – Hdt. 9.10; Pausanias and the Coan (4.9–4.10) – Hdt. 9.76; Mardonius' Body (4.10) – Hdt. 9.78–9; Ariston's Wife (7.7–7.8) – Hdt. 6.61–9; Demaratos (7.8) – Hdt. 6.70; Leotychidas' Succession (7.9) – Hdt. 6.71; Leotychidas at Mykale (7.9) – Hdt. 8.131; 9.96–106; Leotychidas in Thessaly (7.9) – Hdt. 6.72; Leotychidas in Tegea (7.9) – Hdt. 6.71.

10 Regenbogen, RE Supplbd 8 col 1072. For attempts to attribute the Theseus story to a particular source: Immerwahr, pp. 21–2 and Wernicke, p. 55.

11 Made by Wernicke, p. 55 n. 68.

12 Forrest, p. 176 n. 103. It is difficult to say when exactly in Cleomenes' reign this event did occur however, and we should not necessarily condemn this as inaccuracy.

13 Argos: 2.22.5. Niobe: 1.21.3, 8.2.5–7; cf. Habicht, pp. 13–14 and Bean, G. E., Aegean Turkef (London, 1979), pp. 31–3Google Scholar .

14 As an initiate of the Eleusinian mysteries (1.38.7; cf. 1.37.4) Pausanias was particularly interested in Eleusis' wider influence. See Frazer, I. liii, cf. Habicht, p. 156.

15 3.7.8: κα το μν παρ Δαρεῖον λθόντος ς Πέρσας π πολὺν ν τι Ἀσίαι χρόνον διαμεῑναι τοὺς πογόνους ϕασί (‘They say that, Demaratus having gone to the court of King Darius in Persia, his descendants long survived in Asia Minor’).

16 For the view that Pausanias remembered history rather than copied it, Habicht, 98. Pausanias' knowledge of Herodotus may not be unlike that of Plutarch, who seems to have ‘remembered his Herodotus as disconnected anecdotes, and not as connected historical narrative’, Frost, F. J., Plutarch's Thermistocles – A Historical Commentary (Princeton, 1980), p. 180Google Scholar ; cf. Pelting, p. 96.

17 The bibliography on the kinglists of Pausanias and the Agiad and Eurypontid genealogies of Herodotus VII.204 and VIII.131 is extensive. See, for example, Henige, D. P., The Chronology of Oral Tradition: quest for a chimera (Oxford, 1974), pp. 207–13Google Scholar , Cartledge, P., Sparta and Lakonia, A Regional History 1300–362 B.C. (London, 1979), pp. 341–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar , and most recently West, M. L., ‘Alcman and the Spartan Royalty’ ZPE 91 (1992), 1–7Google Scholar .

18 So, for example, Wernicke, p. 51: ‘Quo factum est, ut in rebus Laconicis scribendis, paene duobus uti fontis videretur, quorum alter, qui Spartae historiam genealogice conscripsit, proprie fons did posset, alter, Herodotus videlicet quasi illius supplemetum merito haberetur.’ The identity of this chronographer is probably irretrievable. Three candidates have been suggested: Timaeus of Tauromenion, Charon of Lampsacus and Sosibius the Spartan. Forrest, pp. 177–8 weighs the pros and cons. If any one fact can sway the decision it may be that throughout the Periegesis Pausanias only claims to have read the work of one of the three men: the Lampsacene (10.38.6 = FGrHist. 262 F4).

19 So, for example, Gurlitt, with a passage from book three of the Periegesis in mind, ‘Die Arbeitsweise des Pausanias entspricht hier der des Plutarch in seinen Biographien.’ (p. 83 n. 39).

20 For other versions of the various stories, see Frazer, pp. 311–12.

21 Leleges, Eurotas (1.1), Lacedaimonians, Sparta (1.2), Arnyclae, tomb of Hyacinthus (1.3). On the possible significance of this, Forrest, pp. 177–8.

22 So Immerwahr, p. 9 (his reference should be to Hdt. 6.52.5).

23 For the differences, see Immerwahr, p. 11 who suggests that the other source is Ephorus. His evidence, the notice in Schol. Pind. Pyth. 5.101b (= FGrHist. 70 F16) that Ephorus also recorded the migration of Theras' family from Thebes is extremely flimsy. Two other possibilities at least should be considered: first that the non-Herodotean source that Pausanias has been using before this episode recorded the additional detail; second, that Pausanias draws on the same source as Ephorus, or a source that used Ephorus. Certainty is impossible.

24 The otherwise unknown episode with the Kynoureans suggests that Pausanias' source here had access to recherché local history (that disagreed with Herodotus' tradition of the autochthony of the Kynoureans [Hdt. 8.73.8]).

25 On massaging the figures, Hitzig-Blümner, p. 742. On the tradition concerning Charillos, Forrest, W. G., A History of Sparta c. 950–192 B.C. (London, 1968) p. 55Google Scholar . Pausanias may have shifted Lycurgus into the Agiad list to facilitate polemic against Herodotus or, with Forrest (op. cit. [n. 1]), p. 177 n. 110, as a tribute to him.

26 The possibility, at least, must remain that this detail occurred in Pausanias' chronographic source, with its interest in aetiology.

27 To suggest with Immerwahr (p. 18) that Ephorus could be the source for those cities not already taken by Procles and Eurysthenes (Strabo 8.5.4. = FGrHist. 70 F117) is special pleading with no firm evidence to support the supposition. Similarly, the notice of Polydoros' colonies (3.3.1) also probably belongs to the ktistic chronography: it certainly contradicts Herodotus on Croton (8.47) and Ephorus on Locri (FGrHist. 70 F138).

28 See Forrest, pp. 167f: ‘The entry in book 3 owes its origins not to the more or less sober author behind that account but to the absurd romance [of Rhianus] of book 4’. Whomever we take to be the source for the Messenian history of book four, he is clearly intruding.

29 It looks very much as if Pausanias' source here was attributing one king to one generation, so that the reigns of the ‘equivalent’ kings in the two lines coincided. Thus there is nothing of substance to report concerning the kings Eunomos and Polydectes, the fifth and sixth kings (3.7.2), as there was not for the fifth and sixth Agiads, Doryssos and Agesilaos (3.2.4), while for Nicander (3.7.4) an event from the other king-list, the death of Teleclos (3.2.6), is inserted again, apparently, by numerical equivalence in the succession line. Pausanias is almost certainly not responsible for this; he is alert to the problems inherent in such ‘equations’ (3.1.9).

30 So Immerwahr (p. 34). Cf. Hitzig-Blümner, p. 755.

31 For two reasons: how common this story is in the Periegesis is irrelevant to the question of whether the chronographer included the story in his account; the fact that part of the same story is found in Theopompus does not automatically identify him as the source. The episode that follows (3.7.5) concerning Thyreatis may well be the original capture of this portion of land mentioned by Herodotus (1.88). If this is the case, the aetiological/ktistic chronography may again be responsible. The fragment of Sosibius' Περ Θυσιν preserved by Athenaeus (xv. 678b = FGrHist. 595 F5) is clearly not enough in itself to pin down the source as Sosibius.

32 That Pausanias knew Thucydides' work, but not so well, seems to be hinted at in 6.19.4–5: οἳτινες δ οὖτοι ἦσαν, οὐ κατ τ αὐτ παρίστατο ἂπασιν εἰκάζειν μ δ σλθεν νάμνησις ὡς Θουκυδίδης ποιήσειεν ν τοῖς λόγοις Λοκρν τν πρς τι Φωκίδι κα ἂλλας πόλεις, ν δ αὐταῖς εἶναι κα Μυονέας. οί Μυνες οὖν οί π τι σπίδι κατά γε μετέραν γνώμην ἂνθρωποι μέν εἰσιν οί αὐτο <κα> Μυονεῖς οἱ ν τι Λοκρίδι ἠπείρωι The only other mention of Thucydides is at 1.23.9, reterrint to a statue, rather than the Histories. Pausanias seems simply to have felt distaste for Thucydides' subject matter: 8.52.3.

33 Immerwahr, p. 37, followed by Fischbach, p. 168, Frazer, p. 316 and Hitzig-Blümner, p. 757.

34 ‘The Greece he [Philip] conquered, Pausanias believed, had been enfeebled by the Peloponnesian War. In other words, Philip was lucky to have marched against Greece at a time when she was too weak to resist. This characterization sounds as if it originated with Theopompus.’ See Shrimpton, pp. 169–70 with n. 23. Fischbach (p. 168) somewhat disingenuously cuts his citation of Pausanias short and thus can find the sentiment concerning the weakness of Greece to be Thucydidean.

35 Habicht, pp. 112–13.

36 63 Teubner lines to the former, 143 to the latter.

37 Compare the accounts of Cleonymos' ancestry at 3.6.1–3 and 1.13.4–5. Given the paucity of detail provided by Pausanias for Cleonymos' closest ancestors, including the events at Leuctra, these details may well derive from a digression in the main source for Cleonymos, Hieronymus of Cardia; on whom see n. 41 below.

38 The reason for this omission, I suspect, is simple enough. By saut de même cm même, Pausanias has jumped from Eudamidas I to the son of Eudamidas II. Whether this occurred whilst reading a list or when scrolling through a narrative is impossible to say in isolation.

39 That the same narrative source is behind 2.9.1f and 3.10.5 seems guaranteed by the idiosyncratic naming of Eurydamidas in both passages.

40 Easily done: cf. Plut. Cleomenes 1.1; Polyb. 4.35.13.

41 1.9.8 = FGrHist. 154 T 11: δ Ἱερώνυμος οὗτος ἒχει μν κα ἂλλως δόξαν πρς πέχθειαν γράψαι τν βασιλέων πλν Ἀντιγόνου, τούτωι δ οὐ δικαίως χαρίζεσθαι (cf. 1.13.9 = FGrHist. 154 F15 and 1.9.7 = F9). Hornblower, J. suggests that Pausanias ‘almost certainly had no direct knowledge of his [Hieronymus'] work.’ (Hieronymus of Cardia [Oxford, 1981], p. 72)Google Scholar , largely, it would seem, because it is unlikely that ‘Pausanias conducted serious research into writers who were by then… both ancient and obscure, and his immediate sources for the historical episodes introduced into the Periegesis were probably compilations or abstracts of the imperial period.’ Yet Hieronymus was used by Plutarch (ibid. pp. 67–71) and Arrian (pp. 64–5), both near contemporaries of Pausanias. He seems also to have been a major source for Diodorus (pp. 18–62) and Dionysius (pp. 71–2). For the view that he was a principal source for Pompeius Trogus and Quintus Curtius too, see Errington, R. M., ‘From Babylon to Triparadeisos: 323–320 B.C.’ JHS 90 (1970), 49–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; especially pp. 72–5. In short, for the first 150 years or so of our era (and a little before that), Hieronymus seems to have been the main author to turn to for late fourth/early third century history. Moreover, if Pausanias goes to the length of naming his historical source, not a frequent occurrence in the Periegesis, we must seriously consider the possibility that he knew him at first hand. Cf. Frazer, I. p. lxviii, Habicht, p. 142.

42 So too in the other two references to the war in the Periegesis (1.1.1, 1.7.3).

43 On Philochorus' personal interest in this war and the probable terminal date of his history, see Jacoby FGrHist. IIIb Suppl. I., pp. 222, 254. For Pollio's epitome, Suda sv. Πωλίων Ασίνιος (= FGrHist. 193 Tl); Jacoby FGrHist. IId Komm., p. 621. The picture of the survival of Philochorus to Roman times may not be quite as bleak as that portrayed by Jacoby (FGrHist. IIIb Suppl. I. pp. 248–9). His Atthis may not have achieved popularity at Rome (and dropped out of popularity in Greece), but in this respect ‘Pausanias does, at least in the field of history, represent something more than was to be expected of a man of his time’ (Habicht, p. 134).

44 Androtion: 6.7.6, 10.8.1 (= FGrHist. 324 FF46 and 58; cf. T15); Cleidemus: 10.15.5 (= FGrHist. 323 F10; cf. Tl). Philatticism: Segre, pp. 228–30; Bowie, p. 189; Reardon, p. 224; Habicht, p. 108. Phylarchus suggested by Immerwahr (p. 31), cf. Musti and Torelli, p. 180.

45 Leonidas II was in exile c. 242–241: Beloch, K. J.Griechische Geschichte 2 IV.2. p. 162Google Scholar ; Agis IV ruled 244–241.

46 For Aratus' Memoirs as the ultimate source of Pausanias 2.8–9, see Jacoby, FGrHist. IIb Komm., p. 655, who prefers, however, to assume a Zwischenquelle.

47 In fact, pace Frazer, I.lxxiii–lxxiv, the probability is that he did not know Polybius' Histories at all. The suggestion that Pausanias drew on Polybius for Achaean affairs elsewhere in the Periegesis (see e.g. Errington, R. M., Philopoemen [Oxford, 1969], pp. 239–40)Google Scholar would be attractive but for the fact that a good deal of the Achaean history at the beginning of book seven plainly cannot derive from Polybius. See Wachsmuth, C., ‘Über eine Hauptquelle für die Geschichte des Achäischen Bundes‘ Leipziger Studien 10 (1887), 269–98Google Scholar . All references to Polybius in the Periegesis are to honorary statues or inscriptions (8.9.1–2; 8.30.8–9; 8.37.2; 8.44.5; 8.48.8).

48 Tuplin, op. cit. (n. 1).

49 The same question also applies to Forrest's suggestion that Pausanias had the information from Olympia (Forrest, p. 176 n. 104).

50 Diod. Sic. 14.17.6–14.17.12. See Cartledge, p. 251 n. 4 and Tuplin, C. J., The Failings of Empire. A Reading of Xenophon's Hellenica 2.3.11–7.5.27. Historia Einzelschrift 76 (Stuttgart, 1993), p. 201 withn. 1Google Scholar .

51 Gurlitt (p. 83 n. 39) suggests that Thucydides 5.49 may in some way be involved (he does not explain how). The similarity is superficial and it is difficult to see how this could be relevant or explain the account as a whole. Fischbach (pp. 177–8) also attempts to link the notice of the Spartans' exclusion from Olympia with the mention of this in Thucydides. We would have to presume that Pausanias, contrary to his practice elsewhere, took this one detail from Thucydides and then added the account of the Elean War from elsewhere, rather than assume that he was using a self-contained account that gave the background incident to the war.

52 Immerwahr, p. 40 followed by Hitzig-Blümner, p. 759.

53 Lys. 17.1–2, 30.2–3. In any case, the notion of a ‘sonst benutzen Quelle’ for the life of Lysander is certainly an oversimplification. Plutarch also cites Duris, Theophrastus and Daimachus in the Lysander. See Cartledge, p. 70 on Plutarch's sources for the Agesilaos and general modus operandi; cf. Pelling, p. 96 an d id., Plutarch. Life of Antony (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 31–3. More recently Shrimpton, pp. 43f has argued that Ephorus was Plutarch's main source for at least one story concerning Lysander.

54 On the extraordinary nature of this account, see Cartledge, p. 134.

55 ξλθε δ Παυσανίας, λόγῳ μν ὑπρ τν τυράννων π τν δμον, ἒργῳ δ καταλύσων τν πόλεμον, ὡς μ πλιν Λύσανδρος δι τν ϕλων κύριος γνοιτο Ἀθηνν. τοτο μν οὖν διεπράξατο ῤᾳδίως κα τοὺς Ἀθηναίους διαλλάξας κα καταπαύσας τν στάσιν ϕείλετο το Λυσάνδρου τν ϕιλοτιμίαν. λίγῳ δ ὒστερον ποστάντων πάλιν τν Ἀθηναίων αὐτς μν αἰτίαν ἒλαβεν… τῷ δ Λυσάνδρῳ προσεθήκατο δόξαν νδρς οὐ πρς τέρων χάριν οὐδ θεατρικς, λλ πρς τ τῇ Σπάρτῃ συμϕέρον αὐθεκάστως στρατηγοντος. (Lys. 21.3–4). Pausanias set out, ostensibly on behalf of the tyrants against the people, but in fact to put a stop to the war, so that Lysander could not again, through the help of his friends, became master of the Athenians. This Pausanias achieved easily; and having reconciled the Athenians and put a stop to their internal dissent, he thwarted Lysander's ambition. Shortly afterwards, however, when the Athenians revolted again, Pausanias himself took the blame, while Lysander gained the reputation of a man who commanded straightforwardly, neither ingratiatingly nor theatrically, but for the good of Sparta.

56 Cf. Plut. Mor. 399B where the Teubner text of Pohlenz/Sieveking reads μόχθοι, ϕθισίβροτόν, κυλινδομένου.

57 The ‘evidence’ for Theopompus is nothing more than the sweeping statement regarding the sources of the Lysander discussed above. For the Agesilaos, the single reference at 3.1 is enough to pin the whole account on Duris. Ephorus is thus the only one left for Pausanias.

58 Bommelaer, p. 175 n. 15 cannot be correct to suggest that Pausanias and Xenophon's accounts are similar. In Pausanias Leotychidas links the oracle with Agesilaos' lameness; in Xenophon (Hell. 3.3.2–3.3.3) the only speech given to Leotychidas occurs before the arrival of the oracle and argues on the basis of the nature of father-son succession.

59 On the nature of the accounts of Ephorus and Theopompus see Shrimpton, pp. 43–51. For example, Theopompus' fragments seem to show that on occasion he approved of Lysander (cf. FGrHist. 115 FF333 and 20), yet ‘Plutarch's inability to report a positive tradition is significant. He seems to want to set Lysander's achievements in the best possible light; therefore, if he found fulsome praise of Lysander's “near ideal” exercise of Spartan power in Theopompus, why did he not reflect that tradition in his Lysander?’ On this ambivalence of Theopompus see further Connor, W.R., ‘History without Heroes: Theopompus' Treatment of Philip of Macedon’ GRBS 8 (1967), 133–54Google Scholar . Such equivocation seems to resemble that we find in Pausanias.

60 Bommelaer, p. 227 n. 133 is stretching matters too far to see the origin of this episode in Xenophon Ages. 1.8.

61 Grenfell, B. P. and Hunt, A. S., Oxyrhynchus Papyri V. (London, 1908)Google Scholar , cited here by the Teubner edition of V. Bartoletti (Leipzig, 1959).

62 For some attempts see Jacoby, FGrHist. IIc Komm. pp. 8f; De Sanctis, pp. 169–70.

63 For example, Jacoby FGrHist. IIc Komm., p. 4: ‘dieser autor war eine hauptquelle des Ephorus fur die zeit nach Thukydides’; Barber, G. L., The Historian Ephorus (Cambridge, 1935), pp. 52–4Google Scholar ; Andrewes, A., ‘Notion and Cyzicus: the sources compared’ JHS 102 (1982), 15–25, p. 15CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

64 De Sanctis, pp. 169–70 with n. 2. Although, as always, the shadowy figures of Daimachus and Cratippus lurk in the wings, since there is no other evidence for Pausanias having read either, they must remain there.

65 Note the careful cross-references: αἰτία δ ἢτις γένετο προσέσται τι ς Ἀγησίλαον λόγωι (3.5.3); τ δ πι τούτοις ἒς τε τν Λακεδαιμονίων ἒξοδον κα τ ς τν Λυσάνδρου τελευτν δήλωσέ μοι το λόγου τ ς Παυσανίαν (3.9.11); Immerwahr, pp. 27 and 45f.

66 For example, Pausanias knows which Theban was particularly involved with the incitement of the Locrians (3.9.9) while Xenophon (Hell. 3.5.3) is more vague. Pausanias (3.5.3) knows of Thebans and Athenians who had secretly entered Haliartus, Xenophon (3.5.18–19) does not. The relationship between Pausanias' source and the source of Plutarch (Lys. 28–9) is less easy to establish. Both authors were presumably selective in what they took from their source or sources. Lys. 28 contains more detail than Pausanias about Lysander's defeat and death at Haliartus, but there need be no discrepancies between the two. Plutarch does not actually describe the Athenians' secret entry into the city with the Thebans, but we do find Athenians joining the Thebans before the battle (28.3). Some of them may have gone to Haliartus. In Lys. 29 the only difference from Pausanias' account occurs in the motive stated for Pausanias the king's desire for a truce. In Pausanias (3.5.4) it is the arrival of Thrasyboulus, in Plutarch (Lys. 29.2) it is the Thebans who concern the king. Yet even this difference does not require that Plutarch's entire account came from a different source than that of Pausanias. As Cartledge (p. 70) observes, in Plutarch we are dealing with a Macaulay, not a Nepos.

67 The Hellenika Oxyrhynchia (XVIIIB [XIII].2) also specifies Western Locrians. Bruce, I. A. F., An Historical Commentary on the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (Cambridge, 1967), pp. 118–19Google Scholar .

68 And thence by Pausanias himself at 3.7.10.

69 Immerwahr (p. 28) tries to suggest tw o different sources for the two different mentions of her in Pausanias again on the basis of an orthographic difference (χρυσηίδα in book two, χρυσίδα in book three). The current text of Rocha-Pereira exposes the fragility of this notion. One observation that can be made about this notice however is that it does not ultimately derive from Thucydides (4.133.3) where Chrysis flees to Phlius.

70 3.9.9: οἱ δ ς τ ϕανερν το πολέμου παρασχόντες τν ρχν γένοντο οί ξ Ἀμϕίσσης Λοκροί. (‘But it was the Locrians of Arnphissa who brought about an open rupture.’) 3.5.3: μετ δ οὐ πολὺν χρόνον… (Not long afterwards…).

71 3.9.13. cf. Xenophon Hell. 4.3.20; though this may be Pausanias' own addition–he had visited the sanctuary himself (9.34.1).

72 FGrHist. 115 F106, cf. F22.

73 Or possibly Theopompus' Hellenika, since he seems to have dealt with the Egyptian expedition in this too (FGrHist. 115 FF106 and 22).

74 On digression in Theopompus see Cicero Or. 207 (= FGrHist. 115 T37); Dion. Hal. ad. Pomp. 6 (= T20); Photius Bibl. 176 p. 120 b19 (= T2). Cf. F103: Theopompus' inclusion of the Peace of Antalcidas in Philippika 12 (Shrimpton, p. 41); on Theopompus' use of Xenophon (though for the Hellenika), F21.

76 Hitzig-Blümner, , p. 751 contra Immerwahr p. 28Google Scholar .

76 οὒτω μν δ κ τς Ἀργολίδος νέζευξεν ἂκων, π δ Ὀλυνθίους ποιεῖτο αὖθις στρατείαν. (3.5.9.)

77 3.6.1: ὑπ γεμόνι τούτωι Βοιωτοῖς ναντία ἠγωνίσαντο ν Λεύκτροις Κλεόμβροτος δ αὐτς γενόμενος νρ γαθς ρχομένης ἒτι ἒπεσε τς μάχης. (‘Under his command the Lacedaemonians fought the battle of Leuctra against the Boeotians. Cleombrotus behaved himself bravely on that occasion, but fell at the beginning of the battle’).

78 Not even his own (9.13.9–10); cf. Xenophon Hell. 6.4.13ff, Plutarch Pel. 23. Diodorus (15.55.5) seems to imply that Cleombrotos did not die immediately. See Hitzig-Blümner, p. 752.

79 For such a grand scheme at work in the Periegesis see Ebeling, H. L., ‘Pausanias as an Historian’ CW 7 (1913), 138–41 and 146–50, esp. pp. 146–7Google Scholar . Pausanias is happy to give details about other events twice, though. Cf. the fate of Asineans (above, p. 7).

80 For (necessarily) inconclusive discussion of Pausanias' sources for Epaminondas' life (9.13–15) see Tuplin, p. 358: ‘to describe Plutarch's life as “the most obvious source” betrays a perspective too much influenced by the isolated survival of a large corpus of Plutarchan biographies – and by the frustrating fact that it does not include Epaminondas’. There is in fact little evidence to support the notion that Pausanias knew Plutarch's work at all, with the possible exception of the life of Philopoemen, on which see Nissen, H., Kritische Untersuchungen über die Quellen der vierten und fünften Dekade des Livius (Berlin, 1863), pp. 287–90Google Scholar . Achaean history in Pausanias is problematic, see above n. 47.

81 Polybius 12.25f.4 = FGrHist. 70 T20.

82 Cf. Shrimpton, p. 41: ‘The implication is that the omission of the Leuctrikoi Kairoi is not a fault of the Hellenka alone, but also of the Philippica.’ The shortness of the notices in Pausanias' account of the Agiad kings of this period, Agesipolis II and Cleomenes II, probably cannot be pressed however: the former ruled for two years only, about the latter no extant source has anything of substance to relate. Perhaps most telling is the fact that Diodorus only mentioned his accession and death, and then cannot decide how long he ruled (Diod. Sic. 15.60.4, 20.29.1). For the chronological extent of the Philippika, Jacoby, FGrHist. IId Komm. pp. 355, 358–9, Shrimpton, pp. 58–66.

83 Athenaeus 12.51 = FGrHist. 115 F232; Jacoby, FGrHist. IIb Komm. pp. 388 and 395. Unfortunately the text of Athenaeus does not seem to be transmitting Theopompus verbatim, so no conclusion can be drawn concerning Pausanias' rewording of his source here.

84 Pelting, p. 91. For the breadth of Pausanias' reading, Habicht, pp. 132–4, 142–3.

86 , Cic.de Orat. 2. 13.57Google Scholar . Quint, . Inst. 10.1.74Google Scholar . Dionysius: Usher, S., Dionysius of Halicarnassus—Critical Essays Volume 2 (Loeb Classical Library, London, 1985), p. 351Google Scholar : ‘In none of Dionysius' critical works does any author receive more fulsome praise than Theopompus in this letter [ad. Pomp. 6].’ For Dionysius, partly what made him such a strong historiographer was the interest he showed in ‘θνν… οἰκισμοὺς κα πόλεων κτίσεις’ (ibid.), an aspect that would make him a particularly attractive source to a periegete. It is perhaps no coincidence that Dionysius, like Pausanias, had little time for Thucydides. Trogus: Develin, R., ‘Pompeius Trogus and Philippic History’ SStor 8 (1985), 110–15Google Scholar . Plutarch: Cartledge, pp. 69–70.

86 Arafat, pp. 407–8; cf. Reardon, p. 224, Habicht, pp. 134–7. So, for example, Pausanias will privilege inscriptions over the statements of the locals who guided him: Habicht, p. 65.

87 It is a pleasure here to record two debts incurred during the writing of this paper: first to the Department of Classical Studies at the University of Michigan for generous support, both financial and practical; and second to John Dillery for his help, encouragement and generosity.