1
Xenophon, to be sure, became his own history by writing of his generalship and his successes and recording that it was Themistogenes Cf. Xenophon, Hellenica, iii. 1. 2; M. MacLaren, Trans. Amer. Phil. Assoc. lxv. (1934) pp. 240-247. the Syracusan who had compiled an account of them, his purpose being to win greater credence for his narrative by referring to himself in the third person, thus favouring another with the glory of the authorship. But all the other historians, men like Cleitodemus, Diyllus, Cf. Moralia, 862 b; Müller, Frag. Hist. Graec. ii. 360-361. Philochorus, Phylarchus, have been for the exploits of others what actors are for plays, exhibiting the deeds of the generals and kings, and merging themselves with their characters as tradition records them, in order that they might share in a certain effulgence, so to speak, and splendour. For there is reflected from the men of action upon the men of letters an image of another’s glory, which shines again there, since the deed is seen, as in a mirror, through the agency of their words.
