Your original point is completely independent of who might have said it before you did. I was therefore not making a comment about that point. Rather, I was cau

Your original point is completely independent of who might have said it before you did. I was therefore not making a comment about that point. Rather, I was cautioning you that in my experience your citation source is often incorrect. Your original point is also simply untrue. The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest is perhaps the most famous case where those defeated - the Romans - are also the ones who wrote the history. They fully acknowledged that they were thoroughly defeated. We have no German account of their victory. You seem to suggest a parallelism between my observation (that quotes are often re-attributed to a more famous name, even when there is no record of them having said it) and the meaning behind the aphorisms you repeated. I believe that is similar to Orwell's point, yes, though we do have other methods, including archaeology, to help establish the history. However, Orwell's point is more a deliberate decision, like the falsification of history practiced by the Soviet Union. Comparing that to lazy scholarship is rather trite, don't you think? I don't understand your question "Why?". Why do people prefer to cite famous people instead of leaving it "anonymous" or "unknown"? I don't know. Why do you personally want to distort history? Again, I can't answer that question. Does it make you feel like you are more of a victor? Do I get to defeat you by changing your words? My deliberately snippy remarks now are really rather trite compared to, say, moving Trotsky from Soviet photograph. I don't really think it makes sense to compare the two.