be done, though it did not lead him to do them in the very highest way. Genius, indeed, in the highest sense, we must absolutely deny to Xenophon, who had abundant versatile talent, but who lacked "the vision and the faculty divine." He is not great even as a historian: his 'Anabasis' is wanting in general reflections, and his 'Hellenica' is merely the work of an annalist, standing to Thucydides, whose history he undertook to continue, much in the same relation as Smollett occupies towards Hume. We must withdraw, in short, all claim for Xenophon to rank among the greatest writers of antiquity. He comes into a second class, and is admirable, as far as his thought and matter are concerned, only for those qualities which we have above attributed to him.
To this extent, and no further, we should agree with Colonel Mure, whose account of Xenophon (in his 'Critical History of the Language and Literature of Ancient Greece') is from beginning to end a severe attack. Amongst other things, he impugns the good faith of Xenophon as a historian, and stigmatises him as exceedingly false in the colour which he gives to various transactions. Mr Grote, on the other hand, places unbounded reliance on all the statements of Xenophon. Probably an estimate between these two extremes may be the correct one. It is very likely that Xenophon's account of his own share in the 'Retreat of the Ten Thousand' should be taken cum grano salis. It was the practice of ancient historians to insert in their narratives, as having actually been spoken, speeches which they composed in cold blood
