The American Journal of Archaeology, 1893-1 | Page 5

as follows: (1) Pausanias has reached a point in his periegesis where he would naturally mention this temple, because he is standing beside it,[5] and (2) the phrase [Greek: omou de sphisin en t? na? Spoudai?n estin] implies that a temple has just been mentioned. These are, at least, the main arguments, those deduced from the passage following the description of the Erechtheion being merely accessory.
Now, if Pausanias followed precisely the route laid down for him by D?rpfeld (i.e., if he described the two rows of statues between the Propylaia and the eastern front of the Parthenon, taking first the southern and then the northern row), he would come to stand where D?rpfeld suggests. If, however, he followed some other order (e.g., that suggested by Wernicke, Mitth., XII, p. 187), he would not be where D?rpfeld thinks. Pausanias does not say that the statues he mentions are set up in two rows.[6] It may be that the Acropolis was so thickly peopled with statues that each side of the path was bordered with a double or triple row, or that the statues were not arranged in rows at all, and that Pausanias merely picks out from his memory (or his Polemon) a few noticeable figures with only general reference to their relative positions. Be this as it may, the assumption that Pausanias, when he mentions the [Greek Spoudai?n] (or [Greek: spoudai?n]) [Greek: daim?n] is standing, or imagines that he stands, beside the old temple rests upon very slight foundations.
[Footnote 5: D?RPFELD'S arguments for the continued existence of the temple, without which his theory that Pausanias mentioned it must of course fall to the ground, will be discussed below. It seemed to me advisable to discuss the Pausanias question first, because, if he mentioned the temple, it must have existed, if not to his time, at least to that of Polemon or of his other (unknown) authority.]
[Footnote 6: The most than can be deduced from the use of [Greek: peran] (c. 24.1) is, that the statues were on both sides of the path.]
Whether Pausanias, in what he says of Ergane, the legless Herm?, etc., is, as Wernicke (Mitth., XII, p. 185) would have it, merely inserting a bit of misunderstood learning, is of little moment. I am not one of those who picture to Page 4 themselves Pausanias going about copying inscriptions, asking questions, and forming his own judgments, referring only occasionally to books when he wished to refresh his memory or look up some matter of history. The labors of Kalkmann, Wilamowitz, and others have shown conclusively, that a large part of Pausanias' periegesis is adopted from the works of previous writers, and adopted in some cases with little care by a man of no very striking intellectual ability. It is convenient to speak as if Pausanias visited all the places and saw all the things he describes, but it is certain that he does not mention all he must in that case have seen, and perhaps possible that he describes things he never can have seen. Whether Pausanias travelled about Greece and then wrote his description with the aid (largely employed) of previous works, or wrote it without travelling, makes little difference except when it is important to know the exact topographical order of objects mentioned. In any case, however, his accuracy in detail is hardly to be accepted without question, especially in his description of the Acropolis, where he has to try his prentice hand upon a material far too great for him. A useless bit of lore stupidly applied may not be an impossibility for Pausanias, but, however low our opinion of his intellect may be, he is the best we have,[7] and must be treated accordingly. The passage about Ergane, etc., must not be simply cast aside as misunderstood lore, but neither should it be enriched by inserting the description of a temple together with the state-treasury. The passage must be explained without doing violence to the Ms. tradition. That this is possible has lately been shown by A.W. Verrall.[8] He says: 'What Pausanias actually says is this--: "The Athenians are specially distinguished by religious zeal. The name of Ergane was first given by them, and the name Herm?; and in the temple along with them is a Good Fortune of the Zealous"--words which are quite as apt for the meaning above explained (i.e., a note on the piety of the Athenians) as those of the author often are in such cases.'
[Footnote 7: I think it is F.G. WELCKEK to whom the saying is attributed: Pausanias ist ein Schaf, aber ein Schaf mit goldenem Vliesse.]
[Footnote 8: HARRISON and VERRALL, Mythology and Monuments of Athens, p. 610. I am not sure that a colorless verb has not fallen out after [Greek: Ermas], though the assumption of a