History is written by the winners ?

 'History is written by the winners' is an observation so old that it has no known origin and is simply proverbial; though it feels like one of those precise, intensely quotable sayings by a Roman historian such as Tacitus.

One thinks of Alexander setting off to conquer Persia with a tame historian on his staff, Callisthenes: because what is the point of doing epochal deeds if no one knows about them ? Particularly when you are a hero in the mould of Achilles. One thinks likewise of Julius Caesar being his own historian for the same reason, in 'De Bello Gallico' and elsewhere: but surely very few people take Caesar at his own estimation or uncritically today. Napoleon did not have a director of propaganda, characteristically he was his own: though perhaps we could see the savants he took with him to Egypt as so many Callistheneses. One thinks of Churchill's often repeated joke "History will be kind to me - for I am going to write it." 

But is history really kind to Churchill nowadays ? What about Gallipoli, as one instance among several ?

Chinua Achebe

Last February on Twitter, William Dalrymple tweeted a marvellous quote by Chinua Achebe:

"Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter."

It stuck with me because it's just so true. Also, because it reminds me of one of my favourite fables by Aesop, 'The Man and the Lion.'  Aesop - let's say it is him - puts his finger on something profound and fundamental. I would retell it like this:

The Man and the Lion

A man and a lion were walking together. They were arguing about which is better and stronger, men or lions. It so happened that they came upon a statue of a man killing a lion.

"You see ?" said the man, indicating the statue.

"Yeah" said the lion, "but if lions could make statues . . ."

Here is another version of that story, from the Library of Congress' Aesop for Children: 

The Man & the Lion

A Lion and a Man chanced to travel in company through the forest. They soon began to quarrel, for each of them boasted that he and his kind were far superior to the other both in strength and mind.

Now they reached a clearing in the forest and there stood a statue. It was a representation of Heracles in the act of tearing the jaws of the Nemean Lion.

"See," said the man, "that's how strong we are! The King of Beasts is like wax in our hands!"

"Ho!" laughed the Lion, "a Man made that statue. It would have been quite a different scene had a Lion made it!"

It all depends on the point of view, and who tells the story.

(You can find that version here: Library of Congress Aesop Fables (read.gov) )

 

Aesop's insight I think is that history is not so much written by the winners as by those who have the ability and the power to represent; a broader group which can include the winners. This fable always makes me think of the marginalisation and exclusion of women from history, which we are slowly beginning to correct, because those with the power to represent were almost always men. Hence the persistent ugly misogynistic streak in our culture, from the Garden of Eden story onwards.

I don't know why the lion is looking frightened in this version. Illustrations of this story are however surprisingly rare.