Historiography was born out of myth: according to Strabo (1.2.8), the first ‘‘historians’’ (historikoi) were also ‘‘mythographers’’ (muthographoi). To give but one example, Pherecydes of Syros, who is known as the composer of a theogony and genealogies, was listed among the historians by Lucian (Macr. 23). Ancient historians - including Thucydides - could never do without myths. But their place varies according to the various sub-genres.
Local histories (a genre which enjoyed a full life extending from the early fifth century to the late Roman empire), dealing either with Greek city-states or foreign peoples and beginning with the Persica of Dionysius of Miletus, usually included a development on a locale’s mythical origins, as did the elegiac poems of the sixth century that preceded them, such as Eumelus of Corinth’s Corinthiaca, Mimnermus’ Smyrneis, Panyassis’ Ionica, or Semonides of Amorgos’ Archaeology of the Samians (Lasserre 1976: 123-125; Bowie 2001). But the space devoted to mythical times varied greatly according to the authors, as demonstrated by a comparison of the Atthides that narrated the whole history of Athens from primeval times and the earliest king, Cecrops, down to the time of the authors. The first historians of the West, Antiochus of Syracuse and Philistus, also began with myth (the arrival of Daedalus under the reign of the Sican king Cocalus). The most famous of them, Timaeus of Tauromenium, who devoted five books out of thirty-eight to the most ancient times and ‘‘set out to graft the rich mythology of mainland Greece onto the West’’ (Walbank 1989-1990: 47), went even further back. Among the twenty books devoted by Dionysius to Roman Antiquities, four are devoted to the ‘‘most ancient myths’’ (1.8.1) and the origins of the city.
Even in histories dealing with ‘‘historical’’ events or characters (predominantly belonging to the near past) and written by authors who are openly critical of their use, myths appear as digressions (in the narrative) or argument (in speeches). Thucydides, who proudly pointed out the lack of mythical element in his work (1.22.4), used them not once - as claimed by the scholiast on 2.29.3 - but many times: in the ‘‘Archaeology,’’ in digressions explaining the present by the most ancient past (2.14), or in allusions to legends associated with a given place (2.102; 4.24; 6.2.1). Ephorus blamed lovers of myths, praised truth, and chose to pass over earliest history because ‘‘it is hardly accessible to investigation’’ (FGrHist 70 F 31b). Yet he occasionally backtracks and is caught telling fabulous stories by the critical Strabo (9.3.11-12). Even Strabo’s statement (9.4.18) - ‘‘I must omit most of what is really ancient and mythical (muthode)’ - and his harsh criticism of those who combine myth and history and attempt to make the myths believable (1.2.35) are equally misleading and contradicted by his own text (Clarke 1999a: 246).
Those who criticize the inclusion of myths in history by their fellow historians claim that their only purpose was to please an audience delighting in the narrative of wonders (Diod. 1.69.7), since the wondrous is known to be pleasant (Arist. Pol. 1460a17). But Polybius has to admit that even ‘‘the most thoughtful of ancient writers were in the habit of giving their readers a rest. . . by employing digressions dealing with myth’’ (38.6.1). Yet they were supposed to ‘‘acknowledge expressly that they were dealing with myths’’ (Str. 1.2.35) and leave the reader free to take the story as they like (Luc. HC 60).
World History
