Perhaps this article can be attributed to a 'defect of memory'
like learning was to Plato, or perhaps it is a fantastic piece of
creation. He either confused two different sources, or combined them
into something new. Paul Veynes tells us that it is not any factual
parts of myth that we learn from, but the fictional parts that are
most valuable. Epictetus says he 'would rejoice in fiction if it
brought him solitude'. Perhaps the columnist is no compiler of
errata, but a fashioner of a Borgesian parable.