| Popis: |
Unlike many scholars who have seen the Historia as unsophisticated, Cain convincingly argues that the author is well read in the Greco-Roman literary tradition and is skilled in the rhetorical modes of the Second Sophistic. In his first chapter Cain deals with the text, which has been considered problematic because of significant differences between it and Rufinus's Latin translation, as well as Sozomen's Ecclesiastical History, which apparently borrows from the Historia. Since Rufinus and Sozomon both include material that supplements the Historia as we currently have it, some have suggested that there was an earlier, fuller version of the Historia from which these authors borrowed. In Chapter Six Cain focuses on how Anonymous describes the journey itself. Because of the realism of the itinerary and the accuracy of geographical details, Cain concludes that the narrative relates an actual trip rather than a fictional account. |
