The more my mind wanders along the cigar-smoke filled corridor of Winston Churchill's pithy epithet, "History is written by the victor," the less this dimly-lit passage seems to lead anywhere.
For instance, does the victor still write the history of a Phyrric victory? Surely in this case the loser should at least get the opportunity to compose a preface to the history. Or perhaps the victor is only allowed to write the history on condition that publication is limited to a heavily-bowlderized Esperanto language edition.
Frankly, considering that sources represent him as somewhat of a royal wit - "One more such victory will undo me!" - we must assume that the particular history of King Phyrrus was compiled by an Alexandrian Oscar Wilde.
Ultimately, though, I reckon that history is ultimately written by those who lack the imagination to turn it into a lucrative screenplay for a big-budget BBC costume drama, since anyone concerned with fame and image will obviously gravitate towards entertainment rather than musty old boring books.
And besides, in aphoristic terms, surely "the victor" will be far too busy sorting out the spoils that now belong to him to bother with writing anything down?
Your move, Winston.
Comments