<head>Criticism of the historians Zeno and Antisthenes</head>Since some authors of special histories have dealt with this period comprising the attempt on Messene and the sea battles I have described, I should like to offer a brief criticism of them.
I shall not criticize the whole class, but those only whom I regard as worthy of mention and detailed examination.
These are Zeno and Antisthenes of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rhodes&groupId=931&placeId=1665">Rhodes</a>, whom for several reasons I consider worthy of notice. For not only were they contemporary with the events they described, but they also took part in politics, and generally speaking they did not compose their works for the sake of gain but to win fame and do their duty as statesmen.
Since they treated of the same events as I myself I must not pass them over in silence, lest owing to their being Rhodians and to the reputation the Rhodians have for great familiarity with naval matters, in cases where I differ from them students may be inclined to follow them rather than myself.
Both of them, then, declare that the battle of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Lade&groupId=663&placeId=1213">Lade</a> was not less important than that of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Chios&groupId=462&placeId=863">Chios</a>, but more severe and terrible, and that both as regards the issue of the separate contests that occurred in the fight and its general result the victory lay with the Rhodians.
Now I would admit that authors should have a partiality for their own country but they should not make statements about it that are contrary to facts.
Surely the mistakes of which we writers are guilty and which it is difficult for us, being but human, to avoid are quite sufficient;
but if we make deliberate misstatements in the interest of our country or of friends or for favour, what difference is there between us and those who gain their living by their pens?
For just as the latter, weighing everything by the standard of profit, make their works unreliable, so politicians, biased by their dislikes and affections, often achieve the same result.
Therefore I would add that readers should carefully look out for this fault and authors themselves be on their guard against it.
Walbank Commentary