since Procopius's public and private views of the empress are so different, should he be trusted at all as a historical source? why or why not?
Theodora, in her time as Empress acted just as an Empress should, so that the only way for Procopius to attack her was to attack what he knew, or had heard, regarding her private life. Elizabeth Fisher expands on this to argue that Procopius relied on gossip and slander for his background comments on Theodora, and presents them in such away that they appear as historical fact. With no other written evidence of her background, Procopius has succeeded in portraying Theodora’s early life in such a monstrous fashion that it has become accepted as historical facts. Procopius disliked the ‘feminine’, disliked women in power so intensely that it offended his sensibilities and caused him to write in a ‘one sided and biased’ manner that in fact weakens, and not strengthens, his argument. According to me, in light of above views he should not be trusted as a historical source.
Get Answers For Free
Most questions answered within 1 hours.