Some early commentators were disturbed that Polo doesn't mention what we now call 'The Great Wall of China', but since it wasn't built until the seventeenth century after the Mongols had been persuaded to mount up and seek out pastures new that seems a reasonable omission, others were sceptical of the Polo's claim to have worked in government service in China. Though in which case one might wonder why the Travels aren't more literary and courtly in flavour. The involvement of noted writer of courtly Romances Rustichello of Pisa, the two apparently spent some time together in prison, is grounds for suspicion -it has been suggested that possibly he was the author or compiler of the work. That names of persons, places and offices are in a Persian form is remarkable given the claim that the Polos were active at the court of the Mongol Khan in China rather than the Mongol Ilkhan in Prsia.
The book has a complex and unclear textual history. Yet it is still controversial over what it alleges, contains and does not contain. Man makes journey, writes book, has mint named after him. On the face of it this the classic account of traveller Marco Polo's journey from Venice to China and back again is pretty straight forward.
0 kommentar(er)
