[In the following excerpt, Ebeling describes Pausanias's use of digressions and his debt to Polybius in his scheme of relating history.]

The periegesis of Pausanias is regarded in two lights: first, as a description of the monuments of Greece, of inestimable value to the archaeologist; secondly, as a repository of myths, legends, love stories, tales of notable natural phenomena, and numerous facts of history, given either in the form of brief notes, or in extensive introductions and excursuses.… The problem has been to a large extent to establish the relationship Pausanias holds to what is known as periegetical literature. This had its beginnings in the local histories of Ionia: year-books, chronicles, genealogies, and stories of the founding of cities. Charon of Lampsacus, the Lesbian Hellanicus and, especially, Hecataeus may be mentioned. Out of the efforts of these writers rose the work of the 'father of history', Herodotus, who reflects his predecessors in a marked degree; but the higher forms of history did not put an end to the local histories, which continued to flourish, and became especially common in the Hellenistic period. In a recent number of Hermes (48.194 ff.), Georgi Pasquali has discussed interestingly the extant periegetical literature of the Hellenistic age, which has lately been enriched by the discovery of a papyrus from Hawara, published by Wilcken. He traces a connection with the above mentioned Ionic literature, and shows a close correspondence with the periegesis of Pausanias. The points of resemblance between the latter and Herodotus are not due solely to Pausanias's direct dependence on Herodotus, but also to the department of literature. But Pasquali censures Pausanias for exceeding the limits of the traditional form of periegetical literature. We must, however, recognize that Pausanias was justified in taking a more comprehensive view of his subject, feeling, as he did, the need of supplying historical information to readers of his own time, the period of the Antonines. Accordingly, more than a fourth of his work is devoted to history. In undertaking to throw some light on his treatment of this, I hope to show that the scattered parts are largely held together by a plan.

Pausanias's periegesis, with its introductions, notes and digressions, gives the reader a survey of Greek history from the earliest mythological period down to the Roman conquest, and glimpses even of later days, to the times of Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. How well Pausanias, if we include his brief allusions, covers the field of Greek history, may be seen by a comparison of his work with Peter's chronological tables, which, together with Abbott's Skeleton Outline of Greek History, containing genealogical tables, is serviceable in systematizing the scattered historical accounts, attached as these are to the monuments, cities and countries visited. In this way we can see that a plan of history runs through the whole work. Pausanias himself had the needs of his readers in mind. Many articles (and not merely the historical ones) are complete in themselves and might seem to have been intended for an encyclopedia, and it is interesting to find that about twenty reappear in Suidas, and that nearly everyone is almost literally transcribed. Numerous cross-references facilitate the task of correlating the dismembered parts and chronological sequence is shown by means of genealogies, chronological tables, an occasional Olympiad, and particularly by the use, as chronological points, of memorable wars and battles, which he could assume to be familiar, or which appear in connected accounts. While there was a certain antagonism between his historical and his periegetical plans, both were united in his aim to connect the past with the present. Thus the histories of Mantinea, Elatea and Thebes compare fairly well with the sketches of those places given in Baedeker, where also memorable wars are the chief links that connect the past with the present.… [The] Roman conquest was conveniently made the goal of his general scheme of history, which is revealed when we correlate the various introductions and digressions with the history of the Achaeans in Book 7, particularly with the sections dealing with the revival of the Achaean League, coincident with the invasion of the Gauls in 279-278 B.C. When Pausanias reaches this point (7.6.8), he does not really tell of a revival of the League, as Polybius does (2.40.5-6). He describes rather the general political situation in Greece, which favored the expansion of Achaean power: Sparta had been humbled at Leuctra and was held in check by Megalopolis and Messene; Thebes had suffered so greatly at the hands of Alexander that, even after the restoration by Cassander, the Thebans were unable to hold their own (i.e. against Sulla; cf. 9.7.4-5); and, while Athens enjoyed the good will of Greece, owing to her later deeds (cf. the Lamian war, and the prominence of Athens—according to Pausanias—in repelling the Gauls), she was engaged in constant warfare with Macedonia. Further, while the alliances of the other Greek cities were no longer existent, the Achaeans had a common council to direct their affairs and moreover had not suffered from war and pestilence (!), as much as had the rest of the Greeks (7.6.3 ff.), and had remained free of tyrants (! cf. Polybius 2.41.10), except Pellene. While this summary of Greek history explains the rapid expansion of the League, which began when Aratus freed the Sicyonians of their tyrant, it also shows us that the period of Greek history that he had particularly elected to treat Pausanias viewed from the standpoint of his Achaean history, which constituted the last chapter leading to the Roman conquest. All this and more will appear in the detailed exposition of the several books.

The Attica has no introduction, mythical or historical. All mythological and historical matter is introduced in periegetical notes and digressions; and, as the latter are largely concerned with the Hellenistic history of Egypt, etc., not directly affecting Athens, they seem to occupy space that should better have been devoted to the description of monuments. Gurlitt (Ober Pausanias [1890], 2-3) shows that the Attica appeared first as a separate publication, and points out an improvement in the style and composition of the later books, made possible by the employment of introductions. Robert (Pausanias als Schriftsteller) has a different view of successive publications and sees no improvement in style (cf. Amer. Journ. Phil. 31. 216). The more liberal treatment later of the monuments is indeed apparent; but in the matter of introductions and digressions, especially the historical ones, there is no steady progression. Books 3, 4, and 7 have long introductions and few or no digressions, presenting a striking contrast with Books 2, 5(6), 8, 9, and 10, expecially with the last three, which have brief historical introductions and long digressions, the longest (in 10.19.5 ff.) filling over sixteen pages. The fact is that each of the ten books has its individuality. The Attica, without a formal introduction, awakens interest at the start. Even a condensed introductory outline of Attic history would have tended to become a gener:' sketch of Greek history, which he preferred to give, in a fashion, in Book 3, as we shall see; besides, he desired to reserve space for his Hellenistic history. Hence he chose to give all of his historical matter in the Attica in the form of digressions… In view of the attitude outlined above toward the earlier Athenian history, it is interesting to see how skillfully he manages to give a survey of that history in his enumeration of the monuments in the 'national cemetery' along the road to the Academy (1.25.2 ff.). A close examination of this seemingly bare outline shows that it was carefully constructed and presents a kind of prototype of later outlines of wars and battles, which begin in 5.4.7.

Gurlitt (Uber Pausanias, 6 ff.) shows that already in the Attica there is an artificial topographical plan; further, from the condensed form of the digressions he inferred some historical plan (5). The latter was also assumed by 0. Muller (cf. Gotting. Gelehrte Anzeig. [1824], p. 1912). We shall see that Pausanias was indeed working out an historical scheme from the beginning, and it is obvious that, in making the Roman conquest the goal of this scheme and, hence, the history of the Achaean League its nucleus, he was forced to let this historical scheme take precedence, to a certain extent, over the periegetical plan of making his selections of monuments according to a chosen topographical order; and, no doubt, he was thus prompted, at times, to slight important works of art and to seek occasions for introducing his Hellenistic material. This antagonism between the periegetical and the historical plans is more perceptible in the Attica than elsewhere. As Athens, having played only a minor part in the conflict with Rome, had been the center of the struggles between the Diadochi, Book 1 offered the most suitable place for a general account of the Hellenistic period, which justified, in a measure, digressions that treat more or less fully, or, at least, touch, the affairs of Sicily, Italy, Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace, Asia, Syria, Egypt and Cyrene. The very first note (1.1.1) concerns the small barren island named after Patroclus, the naval commander of Ptolemy II, who sent a fleet to the assistance of the Athenians in the Chrimonidean war, which is more fully treated in 3.6.4 ff. He thus introduces at the beginning the matter of Athens's warfare with Macedonia. We should have expected the more important island Helene to be introduced here (cf. 1.35.1). Probably other selections, which in themselves seem more justifiable, were similarly determined. Leosthenes and the Lamian War (1.3 and 1.25.4-5) receive fuller consideration than Canon and the battle of Cnidus (cf. 1.1.3; 2.2; 3.2). In 1.3.4 Pausanias alludes indirectly to the period with which he begins his account of the revival of the Achaean League (cf. 7.6.8), for in discussing the portraits of Xenophon's son Gryllus and Epaminondas, in a painting of the battle of Mantinea, he tells us that Xenophon wrote of the whole war: the seizure of the Cadmea, the defeat of the Lacedaemonians at Leuctra, the Boeotian invasion of the Peloponnesus and the alliance of the Athenians with the Lacedaemonians (Hellenica V-VII). Then in 1.4.1 ff. he devotes about three pages to the Gallic invasion of Greece and Asia, ostensibly to elucidate a portrait of Calippus … but really to familiarize the reader at the outset with an event that was to be used as a chronological point of reference. In 10.19.5 ff. he gives a detailed account of the Gallic invasion of Europe (the crossing of the Gauls into Asia is merely mentioned), which, he says, he intended to give in connection with Delphi, the scene of the greatest conflict of Greeks with the barbarians. This was therefore not an after-thought, as some suppose, and the sketch of the Gauls in the Attica with its discussion of their country and names was evidently planned to serve as an introduction.… These names are important in the architectural history of Athens; but he is not interested in that here, aside from a few generalities included in his eulogistic note on Hadrian (probably from an inscription), who is briefly treated just as, later, Attalus is curtly dismissed with a reference to his account of Lysimachus. On the other hand, he gives a long digression on Ptolemy Lagus and Ptolemy Philadelphus, after the latter of whom one of the phylae was named, his account dealing mainly with the history of Egypt. He justifies this digression with the lengthy statement (1.6.1), that since the history of Attalus and Ptolemy (Philadelphus) was too old to be remembered, and since the historians who had been associated with these kings had been neglected even sooner, therefore he proposed to tell of their deeds, and to show how the government of the Egyptians and the Mysians and the neighboring peoples had come to their fathers. This rather absurd reason for his digression is nothing but a rhetorical variation of Herodotus 1.1.… Such absurdities have their parallels in Pausanias (cf. 2.16.5; 3.1.9). But, if he desired to introduce Hellenistic history here, why did he not take advantage of the fact that two phylae had been named after Antigonus and his son Demetrius 306-305 B.C., which existed until 265 B.C. (cf. Thumser, Hermann's Lehrbuch, p. 775)? Biographies of these men, especially of Demetrius, would have given more of Athenian history, as he aimed to do (cf. 1.20.4; 1.25.6). A special reason appears when we combine with the digression on Ptolemy Lagus those that follow on Lysimachus, Pyrrhus and Seleucus, the latter including a brief note on Ptolemy Ceraunus. For it seems to be more than a coincidence that this whole group figures prominently in Polybius's demarcation of the period when the Achaean League was revived, especially as he described (2.41.2-12) as momentous the period between the time of Alexander and the demise of these rulers (excepting Pyrrhus), which gave a convenient suggestion to fill out this period with their lives; and, actually, Pausanias lets them follow in the very order in which Polybius mentions them, even including Ptolemy Ceraunus at the end of the life of Seleucus. Moreover, Pyrrhus is equally prominent in this connection in Polybius, who, beside noticing him in other passages, mentions his invasion of Italy (281 B.C.) at the close of the above passage (2.41.11), and so Pausanias lets his life follow that of Lysimachus, in which he plays a prominent part.… This indicates that, although he had seen the statue elsewhere (cf. the Hitzig-Bluemner commentary on 1.11.1), he needed the biography here. Pausanias was happy in his selection of this interesting character and made it serve his general scheme. For, as he says, Pyrrhus was the first Greek to come in conflict with the Romans, and was encouraged by the memory of the fall of Troy and by the consciousness that he, a descendant of Achilles, wag making war on the descendants of the Trojans (1.11.7 ff.).…

The importance of the dependence on Polybius above mentioned calls for a special notice. That, in seeking a history of the Achaean League, which was necessary for his plan, he selected Polybius's history as his source, is so natural a supposition, that, in view of the close agreements in the main part, that is, from the period beginning 200 B.C. (7.7.7), the burden of proof rests on those who would deny it. Of, course his familiarity with the statues of Polybius in Arcadia, and their eulogistic inscriptions cannot be cited as evidence; on the other hand his unsatisfactory description of Polybius's history in 7.30.8-9 … should not be regarded as showing an absence of firsthand knowledge. It is exactly in Pausanias's manner of reckless condensation when giving some chosen detail, here, the anecdote about Scipio, which may have been obtained, or inferred, from Polybius himself (cf. Polybius 38.22.3, ed. Buttner-Wobst). Besides, the passage continues with Polybius's rôle as mediator between the Romans and his countrymen, which was set forth in Polybius's history. A formal attempt to disprove Pausanias's direct use of Polybius in the Achaean history was made by C. Wachsmuth in Leipziger Studien 10.269 ff.; he found discrepancies as well as close agreements. While he admits the possibility that errors are due to Pausanias, and recognizes some of his independent work, yet he concludes that his account depends on an intermediate source. But when Wachsmuth attempts to establish characteristics of this intermediate source, we find that they are characteristics of Pausanias himself: belief in divine retribution, partisanship for the Achaeans and friendship for Athens, animosity toward the Macedonian rulers, a tendency to charge the downfall of the Achaeans to individual leaders, and fondness for parallels from Attic history. The lack of an exposition of the political situation we should better charge to the account of Pausanias than to any intermediate source.

The polemic against Polybius, which Wachsmuth notices, could of course be expected of Pausanias, who, following his principle of doing justice to all the Greeks, could not sympathize, for example, with Polybius's attitude toward the Aetolians (cf. 1.4.4, where Pausanias describes their youthful vigor); his readiness to criticize his authorities is shown in the case of Herodotus, who was his vade mecum throughout. We must also bear in mind that Pausanias did not make excerpts mechanically, nor did he follow one source exclusively. This can be shown by contrasting the two accounts of Philopoemen in Suidas, the first taken bodily from Polybius, the second almost literally from Pausanias, with Pausanias's free handling of Plutarch's Philopoemen, with which he combined other matter. Gurlitt (Über Pausanias, 29) happily describes Pausanlas's method as "einestheils ein Auseinanderreiszen, anderseits ein musivisches Zusammenarbeiten". We may, finally, call attention to Pausanias's date (140 B.C.) for the conclusion of the war (cf. 7.16.10), which is incorrect if taken for the conclusion of hostilities (146 B.C.); but the reader can accept it for the end of the period of adjustment; and, significant for our purpose, it coincides with the end of Polybius's history (cf. Unger, Philologus 55 [1896], 74 ff.).

While Pausanias was working out his scheme of general history, he had also the individual history of Athens to consider. Consequently, after some three chapters of periegetical matter, dealing especially with Theseus, whose deeds, like a silver thread, run throughout the Attica, appearing in twenty-three of the forty-four chapters, he gives an excursus (1.20.4) on the devastation of Athens by Sulla (86 B.C.); but concludes with the comforting statement that the city blossomed forth again under Hadrian.

But Pausanias realized that something more than the Athenian history in the above mentioned biographies was required in order to make the Hellenistic period intelligible, and so, in 1.25.2, in connection with Olympiodorus, he gives a sketch of Athenian history from the battle of Chaeronea (338 B.C.) to Olympiodorus (287 B.C.), in which he points out how Philip II crippled Athens by depriving her of most of her islands and her naval power, after which there followed a period of peace, until, upon the death of Alexander, the Lamian War under the leadership of Leosthenes broke out and the long and ineffectual struggle to throw off the Macedonian yoke began. Finally, however, Cephisodorus (1.36.5. ff.) with his diplomacy (an Athenian exaggeration) succeeded in bringing Roman aid against Philip V, whose defeat at Cynocephalae (197 B.C.) was so complete, that Perseus's defeat at Pydna (168 B.C.) and the final overthrow of the Macedonian power was a natural consequence. This digression near the end of the Attica rounds off the history of the Athenian wars of Macedonia, and, while it is a prognostic of the final subjugation of Greece under Rome, it brings the history of Athens and Greece to the point where, in 7.10, the more detailed history of the Achaean League begins; it is repeated there in substance.

Book 2 begins naturally and conveniently with Corinth, the scene of the final conquest by Rome, and Pausanias's brief notice of this and his account of the new Corinth seem eminently fitting for his plan, although he has been criticized for this restriction. A little later, in connection with Sicyon, we find four out of some seven Teubner pages of the historical matter in this book devoted to Aratus and the beginning of the political expansion of the Achaean League. Aratus even helped to free Attica of the Macedonian garrisons. In general, the second book, properly called Argolica, impresses us as dealing with a series of detached communities, loosely held together by their relations to Argos. The recognition that the heroic age was the most glorious period in the history of Argos (cf. 7.17.1; Herod. 1.1), which was before the Achaeans under Tisamenus migrated to Achaea, as related 2.18.9, sheds glory on the latter. Mythology is not included in the introduction of Book 7.

The introduction to the Laconica (Book 3) is the first long systematic historical account. It occupies twenty-five Teubner pages and serves, in a measure, as a general history of Greece. The wealth of monuments in Athens and Pausanias's desire to deal there with Hellenistic history, combined with the desirability of making a respectable showing for the Lacedaemonians, must, at the outset, have determined him to let Sparta be the chief exponent of general history. He knew from Thucydides 1.10, a passage familiar to him, as is shown by his noted discussion of the political divisions of the Peloponnesus (5.1.1), that Sparta's' greatness would never be revealed by her monuments. Even so, he had to find a way of giving this history briefly and, according to his periegetical principle, from the Spartan standpoint. These requirements he found admirably united in the chronological list of Spartan kings by the Laconian Sosibius, and it was comparatively easy to combine with this matter from various sources, as Immerwahr has shown. He has been justly criticized for giving the Agiad and Eurypontid royal lines separately, and thus presenting two parallel sketches of Spartan history.… The two accounts are partly interlocked and supplementary to each other, presenting an extreme instance of Pausanias's method of dividing and distributing a connected historical account as the same matter was called for in different parts of his work. The Laconian history gradually merges in the Achaean, and appropriately ends with the reign of Cleomenes III, the last of the Spartan kings; but the account of his tyrannical course, his defeat at Sellasia (222 B.C.), and his death in Egypt have already been told in 2.9.1-3, in connection with the life of Aratus, to which passage the reader is referred. In general, it may be added, the Spartan history is presented in a favorable light, the devastation of Attica being charged against individual leaders (cf. 3.7.11; 8.3.6).

The most ambitious historical work of Pausanias is his history of the Messenians, in Book 4, covering seventy-seven Teubner pages. It is usually said that this extended historical account was intended to supply the lack of monuments; but Messenia might have been included in the Laconica, where it receives, as it is, considerable attention, just as Megara is included in the Attica (Book 1) and Corinth in Book 2. Yet in deciding on a separate book he was influenced not merely by the recognition of Messenia as one of the political divisions of the Peloponnesus (5.1.1); but by the important part Messene, the twin city of Megalopolis, played in the history of the Achaean League; and, probably, also by the discovery of the legendary history of the Messenian wars in Myron and Rhianus. His criticism of Myron indicates first-hand knowledge, and we may believe him to have been competent to handle this material (cf. Hitzig-Bluemner, 4.6 ff.), although E. Schwartz (Hermes 34.457) believes that he depended here on a source of the early Empire. The whole history had to be constructed out of various sources, and marks an important stage in the development of his general plan. This may be seen by comparing a summary of it with his subsequent historical outlines. The problem was largely that of bringing the early Messenian history as close as possible to the later, and connecting this with the history of Megalopolis and the Achaean League, which was accomplished along the line of the various wars, as follows. First came the Trojan War; at the return of the Heraclidae, the Dorians took possession of the country. Cresphontes establishes a line of kings. Causes arise that lead to the Messenian Wars. The first begins 743 B.C.; at its close a number go into exile. The Second Messenian War begins 685 B.C.; it ends with the exile of a part of the inhabitants and the reduction of the rest to the condition of Helots. Here he skips to the Third Messenian War in 464 B.C. Cimon's offer of Athenian aid is rejected by the Spartans (461 B.C.). Naupactus, given by the Athenians, becomes a place of refuge (459 B.C.). The Messenians seize and hold Oeneadae for a year, in 455 B.C. Then follow the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, and the account of the assistance furnished by Messenian slingers (Thucy. 4.36.1 says 'Archers'). The disaster at Aegospotami (405 B.C.) is followed by the expulsion of the Messenians from Naupactus and their departure for Sicily and Libya. The defeat of the Spartans at Leuctra (371 B.C.) is followed by Epaminondas's founding of the city Messene (the account of the founding of Megalopolis is reserved for the Arcadica 7.26 ff.) and the scattered exiles return to their country with much jubilation. Pausanias indulges here in reflections on the long banishment of the Messenians in comparison with the varying fortunes of the Thebans. At first, now, the Lacedaemonians were held in check through fear of the Thebans, but when these become involved in the Phocian War in 356 B.C. (4.28.1; cf. 3.10.3, and the fuller account in 10.2 ff.), the Messenians had to defend themselves with the aid of the Argives and Arcadians, and also to ask assistance of Athens. Finally, they ally themselves with Philip II, and for this reason took no part in the battle of Chaeronea; but when Alexander died they joined the other Greeks against the Macedonians, as was already mentioned in the Attica, in 1.25.4, where an account of the Lamian War has been given. When the Gauls invaded Greece (279-278 B.C.), they did not send a contingent to repel the invaders; but held aloof from fear of Sparta. Not long after, they made a successful attack on Elis, and later repelled an invasion under Demetrius Pharius. They hesitated some time before joining the Achaean League, from fear of arousing Spartan hostility, but finally joined; when Cleomenes captured Megalopolis they received the fugitive inhabitants. They took part in the battle of Sellasia (222 B.C.), and helped Aratus and the Achaeans in the taking of Sparta. Finally, a difficulty having arisen with the League, they capture Philopoemen; but for the circumstances of his capture and death the reader is referred to … the biography of Philopoemen (8.51.5 ff.).

Taking up now the composition of the Eliaca, Books 5-6, we see that Pausanias had here to give space to a vast assemblage of monuments, many of them inviting periegetical notes pertaining to Greek history, or giving the opportunity to record biographies of noted athletes; but the general history of Elis was comparatively unimportant and consequently is disposed of in about one page of Teubner text. This sketch, however, is interesting as the first of its kind (similar ones appear in Books 7-10), in which he rapidly traces the history of a community along the line mainly of the national wars, from the Trojan War down to the period in which Polybius placed the revival of the Achaean League. Here the sketch is brought down to the overthrow, in 271 B.C., of Aristotimus, the tyrant supported by the Athenians.

The idea of such an outline and the ability to give it were the fruit of his previous work, particularly of his laboriously constructed Messenian history; and its tentative character is suggested by Pausanias's words, 5.5.1.…

Postponing for the present the consideration of the Achaica, we may note that we find in 8.6 a brief sketch of wars in which the Arcadians did or did not take part, beginning with the Trojan War and ending with the invasion of the Gauls, and the remark that the Arcadians most readily of all the Greeks joined the Achaean League. Special history in connection with individual cities is to follow. Not only do Mantinea (8.6 ff.), Megalopolis (27.1 ff.) and Tegea (45.1 ff.) furnish history; but also the village of Nestane (7.4), … and a spot near Mantinea where the cavalry battle of Mantineans and Athenians against Boeotians and Thessalians took place; the account of the last leads to a notice of the death of Epaminondas (11.5). All these digressions deal chiefly with the chosen period of the Achaean League. An episode on the Antonines looks like an insertion (cf. Robert, Pausanias als Schriftsteller, 271 ff.). The five pages on the history of Megalopolis close with its capture by Cleomenes III; for the account of its restoration, etc., the reader is referred to the life of Philopoemen, which Pausanias regarded as Arcadian history (4.29.12) and as a continuation of the history of Messene, as we have seen. It covers some nine Teubner pages, the latter part being an epilogue, in which the merits of Philopoemen are set forth in comparison with those of other great national leaders, with the judgment that, as Miltiades was the first of the great benefactors of Greece, so Philopoemen was the last.

Book 9 has no general history of Boeotia, which may be due, as Robert suggests, to the rarity of Boeotian unity. The book, after a few preliminary remarks, begins with the history of Plataea, most of which is connected with Thebes and dates from the seizure of the Cadmea. Thereupon a mythical introduction leads to the history of the latter, which is given after the outline pattern, but it starts with the Persian Wars, as the Trojan War has already been mentioned. It would have been awkward in a general historical sketch to confine a notice of the Trojan War to the Thebans. Pausanias, as we might expect, defends the Thebans for medizing. Most of this Theban history deals with the period from Leuctra to Cassander's restoration of the city. The confiscation of its territory by Sulla (referred to in 7.6.9), and the subsequent restoration of this by the Romans carry the reader to the contemplation of the city's desolate appearance in the time of Pausanias. Most important, however, for the chosen period of history are the seven pages dealing with Epaminondas (9.13.1 ff.), where a detailed account is given of the battle of Leuctra, Epaminondas's invasion of the Peloponnesus, the restoration of Mantinea and the founding of Megalopolis and Messene.

The history of the Phocians, at the beginning of Book 10, gives details of two wars: the Thessalian War, which Busolt (Griechische Geschichte², 1.700.1) characterizes as a confused compilation from Herodotus and a source used by Plutarch, and the 'Holy War' for which Timaeus and Hieronymus of Cardia have been thought of as sources. We notice the usual scheme, beginning with the Trojan War and ending with the Gallic invasion; and the significance of this close as a chronological point is emphasized by the fact that the detailed account of the Gauls is reserved for a later occasion (19.5 ff.). The history of the Amphictyonic League brings the Phocian history down to Pausanias's own time, as the history of Elatea does to the invasion of the Costobocs (about 176 A.D.).

If we turn now, finally, to the historical introduction of the Achaica, and compare it with Polybius's outline of the early history of the League, we can see how little of the latter suited the purpose of Pausanias. He was interested in the external history of the Achaeans; whereas Polybius described their democratic institutions, and told in general terms how these continued with varying fortunes from their inception, following the overthrow of the monarchical rule of the descendants of Tisamenus, down to Philip II and Alexander, after whom Cassander, Demetrius and Antigonus Gonatas broke up the confederation of the twelve cities, placed garrisons in some and helped to establish tyrants in others. Pausanias lets the expulsion of the Ionians from Achaea by Tisamenus and his associates be followed by a digression on the Ionian migration, which develops into a periegetical account of the Ionian cities. No doubt he was glad to seize an opportunity of giving an account of the interesting temples, antiquities and natural advantages of climate, etc., of his own country, where he probably received his first impulse to study the monuments and the geography of Greece, and got the training that prepared him for his periegetical work. We find illustrations from Ionia throughout his book. The justification for this digression is his broad conception of the term Achaeans, which he took in the Homeric sense, and so made to include Ionians (Achaeus and Ion were brothers), as well as Messenians and Argives. The mythology of the latter in Book 2 serves therefore, as already remarked, as an introduction to his Achaean history; and, further, it is in 2.18.6 that we read of Tisamenus's migration to Achaea.

Having completed this account of the Ionians, his fullest account of them, he returns to the Achaeans, who have meanwhile occupied the twelve cities formerly inhabited by the Ionians. While he speaks of the prominence of the sons of Tisamenus and others, he has nothing to say of monarchical government and its termination, and the subsequent history of Achaean democracy. Instead he makes use of his scheme of national wars… He continues thus: At the time of Agamemnon's expedition against Ilium, the Achaeans, who then inhabited Lacedaemonia and Argos, formed the largest part of the Greek host; but, when Xerxes invaded Greece, it does not appear that the Achaeans took part in the expedition of Leonidas to Thermopylae, nor did they take part with the Athenians and Themistocles in the naval battle at Euboea and Salamis; the Laconian and the Attic lists of allies do not include them. They were also too late for the engagement at Plataea; for, had they taken part there, it is evident that the honor would have been granted the Achaeans of being included in the list of Greeks on the monument at Olympia (cf. 5.23.1 ff.). In my opinion, says Pausanias, those who remaitied at home protected their own countries; and, besides, owing to their prominence in the Trojan War, they objected to being commanded by Lacedaemonian Dorians. This attitude was shown by them at a later date; for, when the Lacedaemonians began the war against the Athenians, the Achaeans were eager for an alliance with the people of Patrae, and they were no less inclined toward the Athenians. This is a characteristic avoidance of the fact that the Achaeans were on the Spartan side during the latter part of the Peloponnesian War (cf. Thucy. 5.52.3; 2.9.2; Xen. Hell. 3.5.12). In the later general wars, continues Pausanias, the Achaeans took part in the battle of Chaeronea against Philip and the Macedonians; but, they say, they did not take part in the expedition to Thessaly and in the so-called Lamian War; for they had not yet recovered from the disaster in Boeotia. But the native guide of the people of Patrae said that the wrestler Chilon alone of the Achaeans took part in the engagement at Lamia. And I myself know, says Pausanias, that a Lydian named Adrastus, alone and of his own accord, fought for the Greeks, for which the Lydians set up a bronze image of him before the temple of the Persian Artemis, and they wrote an inscription that Adrastus had lost his life fighting against Leonnatus in behalf of the Greeks. When the Gauls invaded Greece, the Achaeans followed the general Peloponnesian policy of trusting to their ability to defend the isthmus of Corinth by drawing a wall from sea to sea, in as much as the barbarians had no ships.

Pausanias now describes the period when Thebes, Sparta and Athens no longer dominated the politics of Greece, and Greek cities were isolated and weak. This condition of affairs favored the expansion of the Achaean League. Reviewing now the foregoing 'history', we notice that the Trojan War makes a good beginning, after which Pausanias uses some of the later national wars as points of vantage from which to make observations as to what the Achaeans were doing at these several times; and, apparently, his negative results are just as much history to him as the solitary instance of their participating in the battle of Chaeronea, and the assistance rendered at Lamia by the solitary citizen of Patrae. The fact is that he did make use of these negative results, for, instead of adopting Polybius's account of the low ebb in the political power of the Achaeans, he thinks of them as comparatively powerful among the Greeks, as they had not suffered from war and pestilence as much as the rest of the Greeks. These generalities bring his narrative to Aratus, following a brief statement as to Aegium, where the Achaeans met in common council (cf. Polyb. 2.38). Now follows a summary of Achaean history that has already been treated in Books 2 and 3, which leads to a characterization of Philip V and his oppression of the Athenians and the Aetolians, and so introduces a restatement of Cephisodorus's embassy to Rome (cf. 1.36.5-6) and the consequent outbreak of the Macedonian War of 200 B.C. The entrance of Rome on the field of action at this point Pausanias recognizes by giving an explanation of the Roman name of their commander Otilius (cf. Hitzig-Bluemner's commentary on 7.7.8). From here on the story of the difficulties the Achaeans had with the Romans, and their ultimate defeat at Corinth is told with some fullness, by which important gaps in the fragmentary history of Polybius and omissions of Livy are supplied. The sack of Corinth by Mummius reminds Pausanias of Corinthian spoils he had seen at Pergamum. The Romans put an end to the democratic form of government and laid upon the Greeks various restrictions and a tribute. Later, they relented and cancelled the severe measures of Mummius. But a governor was sent, down to Pausanias's time, who was called the governor of Achaea, because the Achaeans had been the leading Greeks at the time of the conquest (this name was probably adopted when the province of Greece was separated from that of Macedonia by Augustus, 27 B.C.). Greece had reached a condition of absolute weakness, having been visited with severe blows of destiny from the beginning: the power of Argos was overthrown by the Dorians; the Attic people, after their recovery from the Peloponnesian War and the devastations of pestilence, were again put down by the Macedonians; the wrath of Alexander the Great had fallen like a thunderbolt on Thebes; the Lacedaemonians received their check from Epaminondas; then the Achaeans gave the last exhibition of Greek political strength.… Later, Nero relieved them of all their burdens, giving the Roman people (i.e. Senate) the island of Sardinia in exchange; but when in Vespasian's time disorders arose this emperor made them pay tribute again.

Notes

This paper was read at the Seventh Annual Meeting of The Classical Association of the Atlantic States, at Baltimore, May 3, 1913.