[106:1] Some of the historians note naïvely enough, that the performance of Xenophon is very wonderful, seeing he had never learned the art of war, or commanded in any previous campaign. Wonderful indeed, but was it a real fact? Holm, who seems to me really awake to the common-sense difficulties which seldom strike learned men, feels this, but accounts for it (iii. 182) in a very surprising way. I may premise that Xenophon is perhaps his favourite authority, whom he defends against all attacks with great spirit. His answer to the question why Xenophon never again commanded an army, is this: He could have, but he would not, because he was exiled from his native city, and despised the career of a mercenary chief! In other words a very ambitious young man, who had deliberately chosen the profession of foreign adventure, when he had succeeded and shown his transcendent powers, stops short because he despises that profession. Is not this most improbable? Had Xenophon brought home with him a really first-rate reputation, he would not have been required to fight the battles of his native city as a mercenary leader: he would very soon have recovered himself in popularity, and have become a leading Athenian. It was not therefore because he could and would not, but because he would and could not, that he retired into obscurity. There is no reason to think he had excited any great or lasting odium at Athens. We hardly know for certain why he was banished. [108:1] This is stoutly denied by Holm, G. G. iii. 15, and 181 _sq._, who cites Breitenbach's Edition and Stern's researches in support of his opinion. He regards Xenophon as perfectly impartial to others throughout his _Hellenica_. Whether he was so to himself in the _Anabasis_ is of course another question, which Holm has not touched. It may be perfectly true, as Holm insists, that not a single false statement has ever been proved against the author of the _Hellenica_, but does this demonstrate that he was impartial? It is in the selection, in the suppression, in the marshalling of his facts; it is in his _perspective_ that disguised partiality seems to have been shown. CHAPTER VI. POLITICAL THEORIES AND EXPERIMENTS IN THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C. [Sidenote: Literary verdict of the Greeks against democracy.]