PAUSANIAS, a Spartan king and general, who signalized liimself at the battle of Plataea against the Persians. The Greeks, sensible of his services, rewarded his merit with a tenth of the spoils taken from the Persians. He was afterwards appointed to command the Spartan armies, and he extended his conquests in Asia; but the haughtiness of his behaviour created him many enemies; and the Athenians soon obtained a superiority in the affairs of Greece. Pausanias, dissatisfied with his countrymen, offered to betray Greece to the Persians, if he received in marriage, as the reward of his perfidy, the daughter of their king. His intrigues being discovered þy the Ephori of Sparta, he fled for safety to a temple of Minerva; and as the sanctity of the place screened him from the violence of his pursuers, the sacred building was surrounded with heaps of stones, the first of which was carried there by the indignant mother of the unhappy man. He was starved to death in the temple, and died about 474 years before the Christian era.

Pausanias, a very celebrated antiquary, who is believed by Fabricius to be the same mentioned by Philostratus, in his Lives of the Sophists (ii. 13), as a native of Caesareia ad Argaeum, in Cappadocia, was the disciple of Herodes Atticus, and spent the greater part of his life at Rome, where he died at an advanced age. Siebelis, however, in the preface to his valuable edition of the works of Pausanias, remarks that this supposition respecting the place of his birth does not agree with what may be inferred from his own statements. In one passage (v. 13, 4) he seems to speak of Lydia as his native province; and though he frequently alludes to Herodes Atticus, he never speaks of him as his master, which he would scarcely have failed to do if he had owed any part of his education to him. Besides, Philostratus and Suidas are both silent in respect to the work upon Grecian Antiquities which has come down to us; and such an omission is a strong proof that they were not the same individual. The exact period of his birth and death is unknown, but he was employed on a part of his work in the reign of Hadrian, who died a. d. 139, and was writing the Antiquities of Elis A. D. 174, in the fourteenth year of the reign of Μ. Aurelius (v. 1, 1). He must thus have been contemporary with Aulus Gellius, Ptolemy the geographer, Fronto the philosopher, Apuleius, and Lucian, though his pursuits were not likely to bring him in contact with any of them.

The work which he has left is entitled Tíj; 'Ελλάδος ∏εξιηγfiσις, The Description of Greece, and is divided into ten books, containing an account of the antiquities in each of the provinces of Greece, in the following order: Attica, Corinthiaca, Laconica, Messeniaca, two books entitled Eliaca, Achaica, Arcadica, Boeotica, and Phocica. He must have examined minutely every part of these provinces; and it is observed by Sir John Hobhouse, in his Journey through Albania, “that the exact conformity of present appearances with the minute descriptions of the itinerary is no less surprising than satisfactory.” He evidently took every means in his power to be accurate in his descriptions, as he constantly refers, as a corroboration of his statements, to inscriptions on ancient monuments and works of art, and to gifts dedicated in the temples of the gods. Poets and historians also furnished him with materials to illustrate the antiquities of the places he visited. He is accused, however, like the Latin historian Livy, of credulity, and of narrating many stories which have no pretension to credibility. But, aware that such an accusation might be brought against him, he states (vi. 3, 4) that he thought himself bound to give these traditions of the Greeks, though there was no reason why he should believe them. In his style he is thought to have imitated Herodotus, but it is by no means successful.

The Greek text of Pausanias was first published at Venice in 1516 by Aldus, who was assisted by Musurus; but this edition, which is in folio, is very incorrect, having been printed from a bad manuscript. That of Francfort, 1583, in folio, reprinted at Hanau in 1613, and that of Leipzig, 1696, in folio, published by Kuhn, arc accompanied by the Latin translation of Amaseo, which had appeared separately, Florence, 1551, in two volumes. This version, more elegant, but less faithful, than that of Loescher, published without the Greek text, by Oporin, forms the fourth volume of the edition published at Leipzig by Facius, 1794- 1797, in four volumes 8vo., the first in which an attempt was made to collate the text with the manuscripts. The edition of Schoefer, Leipzig, 1818, in three small volumes, contains only the Greqk. But that of Clavier, Paris, 1814- 1821, in six volumes 8vo., is preferable to both these, notwithstanding the numerous typographical errors by which it is deformed; and it is accompanied by a new French translation. It is only necessary further to indicate the Italian translation of Bonaccinoli, Mantua, 1597, in 4to; and that [7:17:163]which appeared at Rome 1792—1793, in five volumes 4to; the English translation of Taylor, London, 1793-1794, in three volumes 8vo; and the German translation of Gold-hagen, Berlin, 1798, in two volumes 8vo.