| |
| | Historians agree that Liudprand of Cremona is amusing(1), relatively informative, and not entirely trustworthy |
 | | Previté‑Orton complained that, "he had a soul above documents," and was "singularly retentive of amorous scandal however devoid of probability."(2) Literary historians and critics also have not been entirely comfortable with him. |
 | | For example, instead of considering him in the context of other tenth‑century historians, like Widukind of Corvey, Hrosthvita, Flodoard, or Richer, two twentieth‑century medievalists ‑‑ Erich Auerbach and Georg Misch ‑‑ have used him as a ficelle by means of which to praise Rather of Verona. |
 | | Both fascinated and embarassed by Liudprand, Auerbach quotes a passage involving the Priapic equipment and activities of the priest Dominic, but spares it the kind of close analysis for which he is justly known(3). |
| www.bu.edu /english/levine/liud.htm (3063 words) |
|