Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Misplaced Pages's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
I can't find any bibliographical details about this book. I take it this is the living Andrew Stewart who's written on Greek sculpture, not someone quoted by the 1911 Britannica? I can't track down date, publisher, or ISBN. The text of the book is given on the Perseus site but that doesn't have any details either; it does have an ISBN, but it's for the wrong book. Petrouchka00:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Re.: Andrew Steward:
In any case, that citation, and all that goes with it should probably be removed.
Generally, the whole article is full of very oldfashioned thinking about Pausanias. Check out Hutton's and Pretzler's books, and the Alcock/Cherry/Elsner edited volume (as in the bibliography). Habicht (1985) is simply outdated now, and the article pretty much summarises what he and older writers say.
Pausanias' language is no longer seen as clumsy, a number of references have turned up in recent years (so we have to assume that he was in fact read).
The question is whether this should get a pretty thorough re-write... a lot of this is simply judgemental in a very oldfashioned (and now thoroughly outdated) way - all taken from sources which are simply too old, it seems.
Megalopolitan (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
