Pausanias as historian in Winckelmann's History

Abstract

The relation between Winckelmann and Pausanias-the one the author of the most extensive account of the topography of ancient Greece, the other among its most influential modern imaginators-might seem an obvious area for exploration. Yet Pausanias has so far received little attention from writers on Winckelmann. One reason for this, perhaps, is Winckelmann's own emphasis upon autopsy: his insistence on first-hand observation of works of art and contempt for learning that relies on books (Winckelmann 2006: 71-76). Yet the image of Winckelmann as (solely) an enraptured viewer has long since been exploded; Schadewaldt (1954) and Décultot (2000) have both emphasized the extent to which his putatively fresh and visual approach to antiquity relies on reading practices that hark back to ancient and Renaissance writers. Neglect of Pausanias contrasts with the interest commentators have shown in other possible influences. Kraus (1935) and Schadewaldt (1941) have explored Winckelmann's engagement with Homer, Potts (1994) and Décultot (2000) have discussed his reading of French Enlightenment philosophes. In none of these works does Pausanias receive more than a passing mention. Perhaps more relevant (as well as slightly sinister) is the fact that some earlier scholars did not so much overlook Pausanias' importance to Winckelmann as seek to minimize it. Such appears to be Senff's agenda in the introduction to his 1964 edition of the History. Senff's professed aim was to uncover the sources of Winckelmann's Hauptwerk; his introduction nevertheless invites suspicion that his real aim was to shield the art historian from any charge of depending upon 'inferior' writers, such as Pausanias, for his approach. Proclaiming that 'It is incorrect to portray him as an epigone of the writers, rhetors and sophists ['Skribenten, Rhetoren und Sophisten'] of the first two centuries of our era', Senff goes on to divide Winckelmann's sources into several groups. The principal outcome of his categorization is a strong distinction between 'the great historians... poets... and philosophers of Greece' (together with those of the Enlightenment) and the mere 'Skribenten' (Senff 1964: 2-3). Senff does not doubt the importance of the first group (which includes Herodotus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Homer and Virgil), stating that Winckelmann 'bowed down in awe' before such 'giants' as these, as he had 'studied the

From Pausanias to Baedeker and Trip Advisor: Textual proto-tourism and the engendering of tourism distribution channels

“…Pausanias' tourism still lies in the subtext of contemporary travel guides such as Fodor's and Lonely planet. Pausanias drew on his personal experience of a place to describe it in as accurate a manner as possible (Harloe, 2010;MacCormack, 2010). The current travel and tourism distribution of information on vastly popular textual platforms such as the editions and media network of Lonely Planet or Trip Advisor, combine the underlying message and persuasiveness of the story and reflect positively on a tourism destination, if we consider a tourism destination as a brand on its own.…”

Od Pauzaniasza do Baedekera i serwisu Tripadvisor: prototuryzm tekstualny oraz zagrożenia dla kanałów dystrybucji turystycznej

“…Turystyka według Pauzaniasza wciąż leży u podstaw współczesnych przewodników turystycznych, wydawanych w takich seriach, jak Fodor's Travel Guides czy Lonely Planet. Pauzaniasz bazował na swoich własnych doświadczeniach, by opisać związane z nimi miejsce tak dokładnie, jak to możliwe (Harloe, 2010;MacCormack, 2010). Obecna dystrybucja informacji podróżniczych i turystycznych na popularnych platformach tekstowych, takich jak wydania oraz sieci medialne serwisów Lonely Planet lub Tripadvisor, łączy w sobie ukryty przekaz i przekonujący charakter opowieści, jak również ma pozytywny wpływ na daną destynację turystyczną, jeśli uznamy ją za markę samą w sobie.…”

“Most Worth Remembering”: Pausanias, Analogy, and Classical Archaeology

“…163-166). This attitude among 19th-century scholars is explored in Harloe 2010 andMacCormack 2010. 5.…”