2 7  S T U D I A  M Y T H O L O G I C A  S L AV I C A  2 0 2 4
67 – 83 |  h t tps: / /doi .org/10.3986/SMS20242706 |  CC BY 4.0
Those Infinite, Multiform Stories 
without Fixity : Myth and History, 
a Very Long Engagement
Gregor Pobežin
Pričujoče besedilo obravnava problematično razmerje med antičnim zgodovinopisjem in 
mitologijo oziroma mitološkimi zgodbami kot virom za zgodovinopisne raziskave. Čeprav 
se je namreč grško zgodovinopisje na neki način že v 5. stol. pr. Kr. soočilo s problematiko 
mitoloških vrivkov v snov metodološko dobro razdelanih zgodovinopisnih postopkov, 
je rimsko zgodovinopisje še dolgo na kritičen način raziskovalo in prečiščevalo zgodbe 
ustanovnih mitov. Besedilo našteje in v daljših odlomkih obravnava nekatere metodološko 
pomembne pasuse, ki razodevajo odnos posameznih grških in rimskih zgodovinopiscev do 
mita kot (ne-)vira, obenem pa skozi analitično branje filozofskega traktata Seksta Empirika, 
filozofa iz 2./3. stol., preizprašuje odnos (zgodnjega) rimskega zgodovinopisja do mitov.
KLJUČNE BESEDE: historiografija, zgodovina, mitologija, mit, logografi, mitografi, 
Herodot, Tukidid, Polibij, analisti
This paper deals with the problematic relationship between ancient historiography and my-
thology, or mythological stories as historical sources for historical research. Although Greek 
historiography had, in a sense, already been confronted with the problem of mythological 
intrusions into the substance of methodologically well-developed historical procedures (as 
early as the 5th century BC), Roman historiography continued for a long time to critically 
investigate and purify the stories of the foundation myths. This paper presents a detailed 
analysis of some methodologically relevant passages that reveal the attitudes of individual 
Greek and Roman historiographers towards myth as a (non-)source. At the same time, it 
questions the attitude of (early) Roman historiography towards myth by examining the 
philosophical treatise of the 2nd/3rd century philosopher Sextus Empiricus.
KEYWORDS: historiography, history, mythology, myth, logographers, mythographers, 
Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, annalists
This paper is essentially about three things:1 the (problematic) relationship between myth 
and Greek and Roman historiography, the critique of the use of myth by ancient historians, 
1 This paper represents a further development of the line of thought initiated in my paper published three 
years ago in the book Worldview in Narrative and Non-narrative Expression (Pobežin 2021). The hypothesis 
put forth in that paper was that early Roman historiography was not only genre-bound (Timpe 2001: 17), but 
also context-bound (Rome as a Mediterranean powerhouse – an emerging empire proper – being the context), 
and that the historians themselves could have been governed by the so-called world–mind conditionals (Piller 
2009: 207). The question of why myth was not only employed but also meticulously explored has not been 
addressed in the above text. This question will be revisited here, with the intention of providing context through 
the use of longer quotations from a variety of authors.
GREGOR POBEžIN68 
and a tentative formulation of a research question (to which we will unfortunately fail to 
provide a convincing answer) about why some Roman historians kept employing myth, 
despite the existence of convincing rationalisations against such literary and methodo-
logical practices put forth by Greek writers.2
One of the key arguments presented in this paper challenges the widely held belief 
that the incorporation of myths into historical narratives by ancient historians indicates 
traditionalism, a lack of rigour and an inclination towards fictionality. We contend that this 
perception stems from a modern, rationalist perspective that fails to appreciate the literary 
conventions and historical context of ancient writings.3 This reliance on mythological 
sources, as we argue, was both natural and necessary given the context in which these 
narratives took shape, as well as the prevailing literary traditions. Prior to the advent of 
formal historical writing, the majority of prose and poetic works consisted primarily of 
myths and mythological narratives.4
It should be clear from the outset that the use of two terms employed frequently in 
this essay – “mythographer” and “logographer” – exploits their etymological capacity 
for play on words. With regard to the various types of historical work, “mythography” 
is, strictly speaking, genealogy, which is primarily concerned with establishing lines 
of descent and does not refrain from investigating the mythical period.5 The term “my-
thographer” is derived from the word “logographer”, which was used polemically by 
Herodotus and Thucydides in their works. This does not imply that Greek historians did 
not use the terms mythographia or mythographos.6 We will examine both terms before 
turning to the main problems related to the phenomenon of mythistoria7 outlined at the 
beginning of this section.
INCIPIT PROLOGUS
In his Institutio oratoria, Quintilian identifies three types of narrative: fabula, argumentum 
and historia. While fabula was used in tragedy and poetry, and argumentum in comedy, 
historia was the form of narrative used for things that had actually happened:
Now there are three forms of narrative, without counting the type used in 
actual legal cases. First there is the fictitious narrative as we get it in trag-
edies and poems, which isn’t merely not true but has little resemblance to 
truth. Secondly, there is the realistic narrative as presented by comedies, 
2 Hawes 2014: 6–13.
3 See Darbo-Peschanski 2007: 27–38.
4 See Wardman 1960 for further discussion.
5 Marincola 2004: 1.
6 It is assumed that the majority of the audience reached by this paper will not be fluent in Latin and Greek. For 
this reason, all quoted passages are given in the English translation. When the context so requires, the original 
text is given in the footnote or, in the case of shorter sentences and phrases, within the body of the text.
7 Wiseman 2010: 73–86.
THOSE INFINITE, MULTIFORM STORIES WITHOUT FIxITY 69 
which, though not true, has yet a certain verisimilitude. Thirdly there is the 
historical narrative, which is an exposition of actual fact.8
The translation provided here is of some significance in relation to the subject matter 
of this paper.
For the purpose of this treatise, another author will be more thoroughly consulted. In 
his work “Against the Professors” (Adversus mathematicos), Sextus Empiricus (2nd/3rd 
century AD)9 presents an important observation regarding the art of history: “… there 
is no technical knowledge either of things infinite or of things which vary from hour to 
hour. But particular histories are both infinite, because of their great number, and with-
out fixity, because the same facts are not recorded by all respecting the same person. 
[…] Thus, of an assumption which begins with a falsehood and is so multiform that it 
cannot be checked, and changes its shape at each man’s fancy, there can be no technical 
treatment. Moreover, since of the subjects of history one part is history, another legend, 
another fiction, – and of these history is the recording of certain things which are true 
and have happened …”10
We may be tempted to interpret both texts with the focus on their two keywords, ver-
itas/ἀλήθεια. Yet Sextus Empiricus’ reasoning11 absolves him (and Quintilian) from any 
possible accusations of naivety.12 As we shall demonstrate subsequently, Sextus’ argument 
did not concern the opposition of truth and untruth or even fiction and non-fiction (fabula 
– gestae rei expositio; πλάσμα – ἀληθῶν τινῶν […] καὶ γεγονότων ἔκθεσις). Instead, 
it focused on the cognitive potential of a narrative. We shall revisit this observation in 
our concluding remarks.
8 Inst. 2,4,2: et quia narrationum, excepta qua in causis utimur, tres accepimus species,fabulam, quae versatur 
in tragoediis atque carminibus, non a veritate modo sed etiam a forma veritatis remota; argumentum, quod 
falsum sed vero simile comoediae fingunt; historiam, in qua est gestae rei expositio.
9 Very little is known about Sextus Empiricus, a Pyrrhonian sceptic who reveals virtually nothing in his (many) 
works. Nothing of certainty can be asserted about him, not even where he was born. For further details see 
House 1980.
10 S.E. M. 1,259–263: οὔτε τῶν ἀπείρων οὔτε τῶν ἄλλοτε ἄλλως γινομένων ἔστι τις τεχνικὴ γνῶσις. αἱ δέ 
γε κατὰ μέρος ἱστορίαι ἄπειροί τε διὰ τὸ πλῆθός εἰσι, καὶ οὐχ ἑστῶσαι διὰ τὸ μὴ τὰ αὐτὰ περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ 
παρὰ πᾶσιν ἱστορεῖσθαι. […] οὐ τοίνυν τῆς οὕτως ἀπὸ ψευδοῦς ὑποθέσεως ἀρχομένης καὶ ἀδιεξιτήτου κατὰ 
πλῆθος καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἑκάστου προαίρεσιν μεταπλαττομένης γένοιτ’ ἄν τις τεχνικὴ θεωρία. Πρὸς τούτοις ἐπεὶ 
τῶν ἱστορουμένων τὸ μέν ἐστιν ἱστορία τὸ δὲ μῦθος τὸ δὲ πλάσμα, ὧν ἡ μὲν ἱστορία ἀληθῶν τινῶν ἐστι καὶ 
γεγονότων ἔκθεσις […]
11 One might argue that it is inappropriate to mention Quintilian and Sextus Empiricus on the same page, given 
that their lives may have been separated by a whole century. Nevertheless, it has been suggested that much of 
Sextus Empiricus’ thought, particularly with regard to the criterion of truth, was derived from the 1st century 
BC (see Sedley 1992: 24–25).
12 See Nicole Loraux’s influential paper (Loraux 1982) on the concept of truth as inherently different from the 
modern categories. This should be taken into account when examining the work of 5th century BC historians 
such as Herodotus and, in particular Thucydides, as well as that of the 2nd century BC Roman annalists.
GREGOR POBEžIN70 
MYTH AND (EARLY ROMAN) HISTORY: A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT
In his 27th book, Livy makes observations about the annalist Lucius Coelius Antipater 
(acme: 2nd half of the 2nd century BC) and his investigative capabilities:
I should make too long a digression about one solitary fact, if I were to 
go through all the accounts of the death of Marcellus. I will only cite one 
authority, Coelius. He gives three different versions of what happened, 
one handed down by tradition, another copied from the funeral oration 
delivered by his son who was on the spot, and a third which Coelius gives 
as the ascertained result of his own researches.13
It feels like we should refrain from quoting passages from Livy’s Ab urbe condita, 
given that the majority of his first book is replete with mythical accounts, particularly the 
narrative covering the events preceding Aeneas’ arrival in Italy. However, Livy makes 
it quite clear that he distinguishes between the events preceding the foundation of the 
city and those of later periods. He regards the former as poeticae fabulae rather than 
incorrupta rerum gestarum monumenta. He ensured that when he introduced the more 
fabulous moments, he made his readers aware of it (inseritur huic loco fabula).
We consider Livy here because his work came after the rational revision of the Ro-
man historiographical method in the 1st century BC. Prior to this period, we see little 
restraint in employing myth as a historical source. It was embraced as an integral part 
of narrative.14 According to Plutarch, the first known Roman historian Fabius Pictor (ca. 
254 – after 200 BC) employed the foundation myth:
But the story which has the widest credence and the greatest number of 
vouchers was first published among the Greeks, in its principal details, by 
Diodes of Peparethus, and Fabius Pictor follows him in most points. Here 
again there are variations in the story, but its general outline is as follows.15
According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, other early Roman historians followed 
Pictor’s suit. Lucius Cincius Alimentus, Calpurnius Piso and even Porcius Cato readily 
incorporated mythological material in their oeuvres. Another interesting passage follows 
in Dionysius:
13 Liv. 27,27,12: multos circa unam rem ambitus fecerim si quae de Marcelli morte uariant auctores, omnia 
exsequi uelim. ut omittam alios, Coelius triplicem gestae rei †ordinem edit, unam traditam fama, alteram 
scriptam in laudatione filii, qui rei gestae interfuerit, tertiam quam ipse pro inquisita ac sibi comperta affert.
14 Our biggest problem here is the lack of textual evidence; almost all of it is secondary, having been preserved 
by later writers for various reasons (cf. Poucet 1976, Verbrugghe 1981).
15 Plut. Rom. 3: τοῦ δὲ πίστιν ἔχοντος λόγου μάλιστα καὶ πλείστους μάρτυρας τὰ μὲν κυριώτατα πρῶτος εἰς 
τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἐξέδωκε Διοκλῆς Πεπαρήθιος, ᾧ καὶ Φάβιος ὁ Πίκτωρ ἐν τοῖς πλείστοις ἐπηκολούθηκε. γεγόνασι 
δὲ καὶ περὶ τούτων ἕτεραι διαφοραί· τύπῳ δ᾽ εἰπεῖν τοιοῦτός ἐστι.
THOSE INFINITE, MULTIFORM STORIES WITHOUT FIxITY 71 
But concerning the babes born of Ilia, Quintus Fabius, called Pictor, whom 
Lucius Cincius, Porcius Cato, Calpurnius Piso and most of the other historians 
have followed, writes thus: By the order of Amulius some of his servants 
took the babes in an ark and carried them to the river, distant about a hundred 
and twenty stades from the city, with the intention of throwing them into it.16
Before we move on, we should make it clear that we are confronted with a challenging 
question regarding the literary strategies of the early Roman historians. It is not possible to 
ascertain the exact attitude of the early Roman historiographers – the annalists – towards 
myth. It is plausible that they were as critical of the historicisation of myth as some later 
authors (whose works we do have at our disposal) and their Greek predecessors and 
contemporaries discussed below.17 There are many explanations for why myths were not 
scrutinised as critically in early Roman historiography as they were by Greek writers. 
However, it would be an oversimplification to say that while Greek historians from the 
tradition of Thucydides to Polybius regarded anything that could not be verified first-
hand as implausible, early Roman historiography emerged from a tradition of collective 
storytelling rather than individual criticism. In any case, it is prudent to leave the ques-
tion open to the argument of tradition, as this is a relatively safe approach. The issue is 
directly related to the question of how early Roman historians perceived themselves,18 
and to the educated guess about the extent to which they were familiar with the method-
ological advances of their Greek predecessors and counterparts.19 It is possible that their 
literary strategies had a lot to do with reassuring the political identities of the elites and 
the state.20 However, it is also true that they operated within a cultural context that was 
largely unchanging and which they were unable to break away from.21
16 Dion. Hal. 1,79,4: περὶ δὲ τῶν ἐκ τῆς Ἰλίας γενομένων Κόιντος μὲν Φάβιος ὁ Πίκτωρ λεγόμενος, ᾧ 
Λεύκιός τε Κίγκιος καὶ Κάτων Πόρκιος καὶ Πείσων Καλπούρνιος καὶ τῶν ἄλλων συγγραφέων οἱ πλείους 
ἠκολούθησαν, γέγραφε· ὡς κελεύσαντος Ἀμολίου τὰ βρέφη λαβόντες ἐν σκάφῃ κείμενα τῶν ὑπηρετῶν τινες 
ἔφερον ἐμβαλοῦντες εἰς τὸν ποταμὸν ἀπέχοντα τῆς πόλεως ἀμφὶ τοὺς ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι σταδίους.
17 They certainly subjected them to critical scrutiny. According to Diodorus of Sicily, who characterizes this story 
as a fabulistic narrative, Pictor offers an alternative mythological story of Aeneas: “As for this story, [Quintus] 
Fabius [Pictor] who wrote the history of Rome offers another version, maintaining that Aeneas became an oracle 
and was led by a quadruped beast to establishing the city. When he was about to sacrifice a pregnant white pig, the 
beast ran away and took refuge under a hill where it bore thirty piglets […]” (Diod. 7,5: Περὶ δὲ τῆς προσηγορίας 
ταύτης Φάβιος, ὁ τὰς Ῥωμαίων πράξεις ἀναγράψας, ἄλλως μεμυθολόγηκε· φησὶ γὰρ Αἰνείᾳ γενέσθαι λόγιον, 
τετράπουν αὐτῷ καθηγήσεσθαι 3 πρὸς κτίσιν πόλεως· μέλλοντος δ’ αὐτῷ θύειν ὗν ἔγκυον τῷ χρώματι λευκήν, 
ἐκφυγεῖν ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν, καὶ διωχθῆναι πρός τινα λόφον, πρὸς ᾧ κομισθεῖσαν τεκεῖν τριάκοντα χοίρους.).
18 It may be that these historians, generally members of the governing elite, were in search of literary confirma-
tion of their political role (cf. Timpe 2002: 18). However, we are arguing here that early Roman historiography 
was not only genre-bound. Also, as we are arguing that the “empire” in which the early Roman historians 
operated became culturally diverse by the end of the 2nd century BC, we shall try to point out that this new 
circumstance called for universalist literary strategies (Wiseman 2010).
19 Marcus Porcius Cato (234–149 BC) likely drew inspiration from Thucydides, whose works may have reached 
Rome shortly after the Third Macedonian War (Canfora 2006: 721–723; see also Wiseman 2007). If we accept 
that Rome and early Greek poetry were not isolated from each other, as Wiseman (2007: 68) suggests, then it 
is likely that early Roman and Greek historiography also had a close relationship.
20 Timpe 2001: 18.
21 Spiegel 2009: 4.
GREGOR POBEžIN72 
“ONE CAN NO LONGER EMPLOY THE EVIDENCE 
OF POETS AND FABULISTS”
In essence, the Greeks believed that myth could not have sprung ex nihilo; not all “myth” 
was considered to be fabula.22 They also believed that the gods took interest in human 
affairs23 and even the most prominent champions of reason were seen to be no exception 
(xen. Mem. 1,2). In Socrates’ reassuring arguments that the Athenians had every reason 
to be proud of their grand past, he invoked the example of Theseus (xen. Mem. 3,5,10), 
juxtaposing the mythical and the rational. It was theatrical. However, this particular effect 
is also indicative of the fact that political (and cultural) identities relied on myths,24 which 
goes beyond the Roman world.
In historiography,25 Herodotus’ euhemeristic introduction to his Histories functions, 
perhaps not intentionally, as a rationalistic attempt at demystifying myth with regards 
to the “truth”, although the dismissal of mythological explanations for the animosities 
between the Greek and Persian worlds, which eventually culminated in the Persian wars, 
is not exactly convincing:
These are the stories of the Persians and the Phoenicians. For my part, I 
shall not say that this or that story is true, but I shall identify the one who 
I myself know did the Greeks unjust deeds, and thus proceed with my 
history, and speak of small and great cities of men alike.26
As one of the most defining myths of the Greek world was too far in the past to be 
investigated using a historical method, Herodotus preferred to begin his narrative from 
an empirically palpable vantage point. However, the rationale seems to be diluted by 
mythological substance.27 Subsequently, Greek historiography gradually steered away 
from involving myth in historical texts. As we shall see further on, there were consistent 
attempts at rationalization.28
22 Marincola 2004: 118–119.
23 However, we must not lose sight of the (numerous) Greek thinkers whose line of thought was borderline 
atheism. See Whitmarsh 2017.
24 Walbank 2002: 179; Saïd 2007: 80.
25 Finley 1959: 3–4. For the purpose of this textual illustration of the subject matter, we shall limit ourselves 
to a handful of Greek historiographers, although there is also evidence of critique among Roman writers, 
particularly Plutarch, Seneca, Quintilian, Lucian etc. (for further reading, see Finley 1965, Bosworth 2003, 
Marincola 2004: 118–127).
26 Her. 1,5: ταῦτα μέν νυν Πέρσαι τε καὶ Φοίνικες λέγουσι· ἐγὼ δὲ περὶ μὲν τούτων οὐκ ἔρχομαι ἐρέων ὡς 
οὕτω ἢ ἄλλως κως ταῦτα ἐγένετο, τὸν δὲ οἶδα αὐτὸς πρῶτον ὑπάρξαντα ἀδίκων ἔργων ἐς τοὺς Ἕλληνας, τοῦτον 
σημήνας προβήσομαι ἐς τὸ πρόσω τοῦ λόγου, ὁμοίως σμικρὰ καὶ μεγάλα ἄστεα ἀνθρώπων ἐπεξιών.
27 Herodotus’ scepticism seems feeble, but recent scholarship has demonstrated that previous criticism of 
Herodotus was not always well placed (Jouanno 2018: 10–15; see also Baragwanath and de Bakker 2012: 1–10 
for the history of scholarship on Herodotus and particularly on the “Herodotean paradox”.)
28 Hawes 2014: 6–13.
THOSE INFINITE, MULTIFORM STORIES WITHOUT FIxITY 73 
In this respect, Thucydides’ short story about the tyrannicidae (Thuc. 1,20) performs 
a two-fold function. It tames the mythological matter in the ἀρχαιολογία (archaiologia),29 
but also distances the narrative from the realm of everything that was out of reach of 
serious historical research:
All men show the same uncritical acceptance of the oral traditions hand-
ed on to them, even about the history of their own country. […] Anyone 
accepting the broad facts of my account on the arguments I have adduced 
will not go wrong. He will put less faith in the glorified tales of the poets 
and the compilations of the prose chroniclers, whose stories are written 
more to please the ear than to serve the truth, are incapable of proof, and 
for the most part, given the lapse of time, have passed into the unreliable 
realms of romance. He will conclude that my research, using the clearest 
evidence available, provides a sufficiently accurate account […]30
What are Herodotus and Thucydides concerned with? Hecataeus, Herodotus’ pre-
decessor, wrote that he has “written things as they seemed true (alethes) to him”, thus 
opening the gate for all the writers to inherit the genre. However, it was Thucydides who 
perfected this techne. Herodotus himself applied the term logopoioi to his predecessors, 
including Hecataeus, but seemingly without any prejudice. Meanwhile, Thucydides had 
already applied the term logographers in a somewhat derisive manner:
On the whole, however, the conclusions I have drawn from the proofs quoted 
may, I believe, safely be relied on. Assuredly they will not be disturbed 
either by the lays of a poet displaying the exaggeration of his craft, or by 
the compositions of the chroniclers that are attractive at truth’s expense; 
the subjects they treat of being out of the reach of evidence, and time having 
robbed most of them of historical value by enthroning them in the region 
of legend. Turning from these, we can rest satisfied with having proceeded 
upon the clearest data, and having arrived at conclusions as exact as can 
be expected in matters of such antiquity.31
29 Marincola 2004: 119.
30 Thuc 1,20–21: οἱ γὰρ ἄνθρωποι τὰς ἀκοὰς τῶν προγεγενημένων, καὶ ἢν ἐπιχώρια σφίσιν ᾖ, ὁμοίως 
ἀβασανίστως παρ᾽ ἀλλήλων δέχονται. […] ἐκ δὲ τῶν εἰρημένων τεκμηρίων ὅμως τοιαῦτα ἄν τις νομίζων 
μάλιστα ἃ διῆλθον οὐχ ἁμαρτάνοι, καὶ οὔτε ὡς ποιηταὶ ὑμνήκασι περὶ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ μεῖζον κοσμοῦντες 
μᾶλλον πιστεύων, οὔτε ὡς λογογράφοι ξυνέθεσαν ἐπὶ τὸ προσαγωγότερον τῇ ἀκροάσει ἢ ἀληθέστερον, ὄντα 
ἀνεξέλεγκτα καὶ τὰ πολλὰ ὑπὸ χρόνου αὐτῶν ἀπίστως ἐπὶ τὸ μυθῶδες ἐκνενικηκότα, ηὑρῆσθαι δὲ ἡγησάμενος 
ἐκ τῶν ἐπιφανεστάτων σημείων ὡς παλαιὰ εἶναι ἀποχρώντως. Translations of quotes from Thucydides’: 
Thucydides, Hammond, Rhodes 2009 (bold text mine).
31 Thuc 1,21: ἐκ δὲ τῶν εἰρημένων τεκμηρίων ὅμως τοιαῦτα ἄν τις νομίζων μάλιστα ἃ διῆλθον οὐχ ἁμαρτάνοι, 
καὶ οὔτε ὡς ποιηταὶ ὑμνήκασι περὶ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ μεῖζον κοσμοῦντες μᾶλλον πιστεύων, οὔτε ὡς λογογράφοι 
ξυνέθεσαν ἐπὶ τὸ προσαγωγότερον τῇ ἀκροάσει ἢ ἀληθέστερον, ὄντα ἀνεξέλεγκτα καὶ τὰ πολλὰ ὑπὸ χρόνου 
αὐτῶν ἀπίστως ἐπὶ τὸ μυθῶδες ἐκνενικηκότα, ηὑρῆσθαι δὲ ἡγησάμενος ἐκ τῶν ἐπιφανεστάτων σημείων ὡς 
παλαιὰ εἶναι ἀποχρώντως.
GREGOR POBEžIN74 
Thucydides’ use of the term logographers calls for reflection. In Hobbes’ version,32 
this term is translated as “prose writers”. In Jowett’s translation33 the term “chronicler” 
is used, and the same is found in Crawley’s version.34 It is not our intention to assess 
the suitability of these translations. However, it is possible to suggest that they have 
overlooked a significant aspect of the term and that they have written their accounts in 
a manner that is lacking in certain respects. This could be described as either “at truth’s 
expense” or perhaps without a comprehensive narrative framework. Inseritur huic loco 
praemonitio: according to extant sources, the “logographers” composed various texts, 
including the logoi, of which too little is known. However, there is nothing to say they 
completely lacked sound historical material, as both Herodotus and Thucydides relied 
on these same sources.
Polybius uses the term μυθογράφος (mythographos) on several occasions, perhaps 
most eminently when he makes a statement that in the “present day in which every sea 
and land has been thrown open to travellers […] one can no longer employ the evidence of 
poets and fabulists (ποιηταῖς καὶ μυθογράφοις χρῆσθαι)”.35 In the latter instance, the use 
of the term is clearly pejorative. According to Polybius, a mythographer is a fabulist who 
presents “tainted witnesses to disputed facts” (ἀπίστους ἀμφισβητουμένων παρεχόμενοι 
βεβαιωτὰς).36 Strabo clearly associates the term “mythography” (μυθογραφία) with epic 
poetry but also mentions attempts at hypercriticism towards mythography (3,4,4):
So no one could be surprised if […] some men, having believed in these 
stories [about Odysseus] themselves and also in the wide learning of the 
poet, have actually turned the poetry of Homer to their use as a basis of 
scientific investigations, as has been done by Crates of Mallos and certain 
others as well. Other men, however, have greeted all attempts of that sort 
with such ferocity that they not only have cast out the poet, as though 
he were a mere ditch-digger or harvest-labourer, from the whole field of 
scientific knowledge […]37
32 The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury. Thucydides. Translated by Thomas Hobbes. London: 
Bohn, 1843.
33 Thucydides translated into English; with introduction, marginal analysis, notes and indices. Volume 1. 
Thucydides. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1881.
34 Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War. Translated by Richard Crawley. London: Everyman, 
1998.
35 Pol. 4,40,2: τοῦτο γὰρ ἴδιόν ἐστι τῶν νῦν καιρῶν, ἐν οἷς πάντων πλωτῶν καὶ πορευτῶν γεγονότων οὐκ ἂν 
ἔτι πρέπον εἴη ποιηταῖς καὶ μυθογράφοις χρῆσθαι μάρτυσι περὶ τῶν ἀγνοουμένων […]
36 In defence of these fabulists, if such a thing is called for, it is necessary to acknowledge that the canonized 
historians often explored and wrote about the contemporary events, some of which they may have even expe-
rienced first-hand (e.g. Thucydides and xenophon).
37 Strabo 3,4,4: οὐ δὴ θαυμάζοι τις ἂν […] οὔτ᾽ εἴ τινες αὐταῖς τε ταύταις ταῖς ἱστορίαις πιστεύσαντες καὶ τῇ 
πολυμαθείᾳ τοῦ ποιητοῦ καὶ πρὸς ἐπιστημονικὰς ὑποθέσεις ἔτρεψαν τὴν Ὁμήρου ποίησιν, καθάπερ Κράτης 
τε ὁ Μαλλώτης ἐποίησε καὶ ἄλλοι τινές. οἱ δ᾽ οὕτως ἀγροίκως ἐδέξαντο τὴν ἐπιχείρησιν τὴν τοιαύτην ὥστε οὐ 
μόνον τὸν ποιητὴν σκαπανέως ἢ θεριστοῦ δίκην ἐκ πάσης τῆς τοιαύτης ἐπιστήμης ἐξέβαλον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς 
ἁψαμένους τῆς τοιαύτης πραγματείας μαινομένους ὑπέλαβον· συνηγορίαν δὲ ἢ ἐπανόρθωσιν ἤ τι τοιοῦτον 
ἕτερον εἰς τὰ λεχθέντα ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνων εἰσενεγκεῖν οὐκ ἐθάρρησεν οὔτε τῶν γραμματικῶν οὔτε τῶν περὶ τὰ 
μαθήματα δεινῶν οὐδείς. καίτοι ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ δυνατὸν εἶναι καὶ συνηγορῆσαι πολλοῖς τῶν λεχθέντων καὶ εἰς 
THOSE INFINITE, MULTIFORM STORIES WITHOUT FIxITY 75 
In the first chapter of his Theseus, Plutarch elaborates on the concept of mythogra-
phy: “Now that I have traversed those periods of time which are accessible to probable 
reasoning and which afford basis for a history dealing with facts, I might well say of the 
earlier periods ‘What lies beyond is full of marvels and unreality, a land of poets and 
fabulists, of doubt and obscurity.’”38 Like Polybius and Strabo, Plutarch clearly associates 
the term mythography with poets and fabulists (and, indeed, with the remote past beyond 
the scope of rationalist analysis). Mythography qualifies as a fabulist narrative with little 
or no evidentiary value, which deals with earlier periods that lie beyond the point in time 
which is accessible to historical reasoning and verification.
It is important to note, however, that while it may be tempting to view myths as purely 
fictional or even frivolous, even the most respected historians, such as Thucydides and 
Polybius recognized that there was a kernel of truth to be found within these stories, often 
hidden beneath layers of poetic language.39 In any case, myths may serve as markers in 
historiographic narrative, indicating the lost “true account” of whatever was supposed 
to be in their place.40 Furthermore, in the Roman and Greek worlds, the past (even the 
distant past that had been relegated to the realm of legend and mythology41) was deeply 
ingrained in every aspect of public and private life.
BUT THERE IS ANOTHER STORY, A MORE FABULOUS ONE …
According to Strabo, Lucius Coelius Antipater (acme in the 2nd half of the 2nd century) 
related a story about Evander from Arcadia as the founder of Rome:
When Heracles was driving the cattle of Geryon he was entertained by 
Evander; and since Evander had learned from his mother Nicostrate (she 
was skilled in the art of divination, the story goes) that Heracles was 
destined to become a god after he had finished his labours, he not only 
told this to Heracles but also consecrated to him a precinct and offered a 
sacrifice to him after the Greek ritual, which is still to this day kept up in 
honour of Heracles. And Coelius himself, the Roman historian, puts this 
down as proof that Rome was founded by Greeks – the fact that at Rome 
the hereditary sacrifice to Heracles is after the Greek ritual.42
ἐπανόρθωσιν ἄγειν καὶ μάλιστα ταῦτα ὅσα Πυθέας παρεκρούσατο τοὺς πιστεύσαντας αὐτῷ κατὰ ἄγνοιαν 
τῶν τε ἑσπερίων τόπων καὶ τῶν προσβόρρων τῶν παρὰ τὸν ὠκεανόν. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ἐάσθω λόγον ἔχοντα 
ἴδιον καὶ μακρόν.
38 Thes 1: οὕτως ἐμοὶ περὶ τὴν τῶν βίων τῶν παραλλήλων γραφήν, τὸν ἐφικτὸν εἰκότι λόγῳ καὶ βάσιμον ἱστορίᾳ 
πραγμάτων ἐχομένῃ χρόνον διελθόντι, περὶ τῶν ἀνωτέρω καλῶς εἶχεν εἰπεῖν· ‘τὰ δ᾽ ἐπέκεινα τερατώδη καὶ 
τραγικὰ ποιηταὶ καὶ μυθογράφοι νέμονται, καὶ οὐκέτ᾽ ἔχει πίστιν οὐδὲ σαφήνειαν.’
39 Jouanno 2018: 17.
40 Frazer 1990: 5–6.
41 Calame 2003: 9.
42 Stra. 5,3,3: αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἡ μάλιστα πιστευομένη τῆς Ῥώμης κτίσις ἐστίν. ἄλλη δέ τις προτέρα καὶ μυθώδης 
Ἀρκαδικὴν λέγουσα γενέσθαι τὴν ἀποικίαν ὑπ᾽ Εὐάνδρου. τούτῳ δ᾽ ἐπιξενωθῆναι τὸν Ἡρακλέα ἐλαύνοντα τὰς 
GREGOR POBEžIN76 
Strabo is quite clear on this point: the story offered by Antipater is μυθώδης (myth-
odes) – fabulous, although Antipater enjoyed a good reputation.43
Antipater’s contemporary Cnaeus Gellius engaged with the same mythological cycle:
After punishing Cacus, Hercules dedicated the altar to Pater Inventor, 
which he had vowed if he found his lost cows. This Cacus lived in the 
place called Salinae, where the porta Trigemina now is. Cacus, as Gellius 
related, was imprisoned by the Etruscan Tarchon, to whom he had been 
sent as an ambassador by King Marsyas, accompanied by Megales the 
Phrygian. Cacus escaped from his chains and, having returned to the place 
from which he started, seized a kingdom in the area of the river Vulturnus 
and Campania with forces of some size. While he was daring to lay his 
hands in addition on the lands which had passed into the control of the 
Arcadians, he was overwhelmed under the leadership of Hercules, who 
happened to be present at the time. The Sabines took in Megales, after 
learning the methods of augury from him.44
Both accounts, which we examine here as the alternative ktisis story, can be read 
in parallel to provide a more comprehensive account of Cacus, Hercules and Evander. 
This account was later picked up by several other authors.45 The discrepancies could 
suggest that Antipater and Gellius (much like other early Roman historians) engaged in 
a critical46 and careful47 evaluation of the mythical material. The question remains as to 
Γηρυόνου βοῦς· πυθόμενον δὲ τῆς μητρὸς Νικοστράτης τὸν Εὔανδρον (εἶναι δ᾽ αὐτὴν μαντικῆς ἔμπειρον, ὅτι 
τῷ Ἡρακλεῖ πεπρωμένον ἦν τελέσαντι τοὺς ἄθλους θεῷ γενέσθαι, φράσαι τε πρὸς τὸν Ἡρακλέα ταῦτα καὶ 
τέμενος ἀναδεῖξαι καὶ θῦσαι θυσίαν Ἑλληνικήν, ἣν καὶ νῦν ἔτι φυλάττεσθαι τῷ Ἡρακλεῖ. καὶ ὅ γε Κοίλιος, 
ὁ τῶν Ῥωμαίων συγγραφεύς, τοῦτο τίθεται σημεῖον τοῦ Ἑλληνικὸν εἶναι κτίσμα τὴν Ῥώμην, τὸ παρ᾽ αὐτῇ 
τὴν πάτριον θυσίαν Ἑλληνικὴν εἶναι τῷ Ἡρακλεῖ.
43 For Valerius Maximus, Antipater was a certus Romanae historiae auctor (Val. Max. 1,7,6); according to 
Priscianus, Antipater only used trustworthy sources (Prisc. 8,383: ex scriptis eorum qui veri arbitrabantur).
44 Cornell 2013: F17 (= Peter F7, Chassignet F6). Solin. 1.7–9: quippe aram Hercules, quam uouerat si amissas 
boues repperisset, punito Caco Patri Inuentori dicauit. (8) qui Cacus habitauit locum, cui Salinae nomen est, 
ubi Trigemina nunc porta. hic, ut Gellius tradidit, cum a Tarchone Tyrrheno, ad quem legatus uenerat missu 
Marsyae regis, socio Megale Phryge, custodiae foret datus, frustratus uincula et unde uenerat redux, praesidiis 
amplioribus occupato circa Vulturnum et Campaniam regno, dum adtrectare etiam ea audet quae concesserant 
in Arcadum iura, duce Hercule, qui tunc forte aderat, oppressus est. (9) Megalen Sabini receperunt, disciplinam 
augurandi ab eo docti.
45 According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1,39), Cacus (Κάκος) steals Hercules’ cattle while the hero is 
asleep, dragging them backwards by their tails. When Hercules wakes up and realizes that his cattle are miss-
ing, he confronts Cacus in front of his cave. The latter refuses to allow Hercules to search the area and instead 
calls upon his neighbours to help. However, when the cattle start mooing, Hercules kills Cacus and then builds 
an altar to Zeus Heueresios (Ζεὺς Εὑρέσιος) – Father Inventor –, and is finally led by the locals to Evander 
(Εὔανδρος), the king of the region. See March 2009: 204–205 for a more detailed recap of the story. See Secci 
2013 for versions in Livy, Ovid and Propertius (p. 196, footnote 3) and particularly Virgil.
46 Plut. Rom. 3 τοῦ δὲ πίστιν ἔχοντος λόγου μάλιστα καὶ πλείστους μάρτυρας τὰ μὲν κυριώτατα πρῶτος εἰς 
τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἐξέδωκε Διοκλῆς Πεπαρήθιος, ᾧ καὶ Φάβιος ὁ Πίκτωρ ἐν τοῖς πλείστοις ἐπηκολούθηκε.
47 Dionysius says of Aelius Tubero, for instance, that he was “careful in the compilation of his history”: ὡς δὲ 
Τουβέρων Αἴλιος δεινὸς ἀνὴρ καὶ περὶ τὴν συναγωγὴν τῆς ἱστορίας ἐπιμελὴς γράφει (DH 1,80,1). Incidental-
ly, Tubero was appreciated by Cicero who deemed him worthy of imitation (Cic. Q. Fr. 1,1,3: Tubero, quem 
THOSE INFINITE, MULTIFORM STORIES WITHOUT FIxITY 77 
why they chose to include them in their historical accounts in the first place, given the 
methodological criticisms expressed by their Greek counterparts.
If, as previously stated, it would be prudent to consider this literary strategy as a mere 
matter of tradition, there is another safe approach that we will not pursue here, namely 
the question of truth (veritas/ἀλήθεια).48 This approach unnecessarily leads us astray and 
down the path of morality49 and neglects the specific aspect of historiography-as-literature 
where plausibility/credibility played a central role.50
Before we propose a different perspective on this matter, let us revisit Sextus Empiri-
cus’ critical view of mythological stories (as part of history). The core of his criticism, 
relevant to our subject, hinges on the observation that there is no technical knowledge 
either of things infinite or of things which vary from hour to hour (οὔτε τῶν ἀπείρων 
οὔτε τῶν ἄλλοτε ἄλλως γινομένων ἔστι τις τεχνικὴ γνῶσις).51 The cornerstone of his 
scepticism resides on the criterion of scientific method – τέχνη (téchne). We need to look 
more closely at the continuation of the passage that was quoted at the beginning of this 
article. It must therefore be quoted in extenso:
Moreover, since of the subjects of history one part is history, another 
legend, another fiction – and of these history is the recording of certain 
things which are true and have happened […] and fiction is the narrating 
of things which are not real events but are similar to real events […] and 
legend is the narrating of events which have never happened and are false 
[…] – since there exists no art which deals with things false and unreal, 
and the legends and fictions, which form the main subjects of the historical 
part with which grammar is concerned, are false and unreal, it will follow 
that there exists no art which deals with the historical part of grammar. […] 
For, firstly, the Grammarians have not furnished us with a criterion of true 
ego arbitror, praesertim cum scribat historiam, multos ex suis annalibus posse deligere, quos velit et possit 
imitari.). The question of which historian Aelius Tubero is meant by Dionysius and/or Cicero remains open to 
debate (Richardson 2011: 157; see also Weaire 2005: 248); see also Cornell 2017.
48 The attempts by modern scholars to separate historical fact from literary embellishment in the works of 
Greek and Roman historians have been aptly described by T. P. Wiseman (Wiseman 1979: 39) as an exercise 
in futility. It was observed that the quest for absolute historical veracity is ultimately futile (Cawkwell 1997: 
9), for the very nature of these ancient works defies such simplistic categorisation.
49 Potter 1999: 15–16. The act of swearing an oath to the truth places a significant burden on historians to 
ensure the accuracy of their narratives. In any case, even if a historian were inclined to fabricate or exaggerate, 
they would have had to apply layers of what might be called a “veneer of credibility” in order to gain the trust 
and acceptance of their audience (Farrington 2015: 49).
50 Nicolai 2007: 15–17. It also shifts our focus – perhaps too radically – on the question of how much “histor-
ical truth” remains when a narrative text is stripped of its literary merit. See White 1986: 121 for the argument 
about histories as “fictions of factual representation” (cf. also Speigel 2009). Some, e.g. Woodman (1998: 18), 
believe that once the “rhetorical kitsch” is removed from historical narratives, there is very little historical 
value left. For further details on the debate about the factuality of Greek and Roman historiography, cf. Moles 
1993: 114–121 and Bosworth 2009 on the use of sources by ancient historians. See also Potter 1999: 138 for 
arguments against Woodman’s criticism of the “truthfulness” of ancient historical texts. However, this approach 
overlooks the paradigmatic nature of ancient history (Nicolai 2007: 16).
51 S.E. M. 1,259.
GREGOR POBEžIN78 
history, so that we might determine when it is true and when false. In the 
next place, as the Grammarians have no history that is true, the criterion 
of truth is also non-existent […] For we must establish first which of these 
dissentient narrators is telling the truth, and then inquire as to the facts […]52
Notwithstanding the erroneous assumption that “grammarians do not instruct us as to 
how history should rightly be written”,53 the quote is surprisingly modern, particularly in 
postulating the criterion of veritable history. Sextus acknowledges the existence of leg-
ends and fictions within historical narrative, yet he appears to suggest that it is difficult to 
devise a method that would distinguish “recordings of certain things that have happened” 
from fiction. As he observes, particular histories are infinite […] and without fixity (αἱ 
δέ γε κατὰ μέρος ἱστορίαι ἄπειροί […] καὶ οὐχ ἑστῶσαι).54 The multiplicity of accounts 
pertaining to a single individual or event precludes the possibility of conducting a meth-
odologically sound study (τεχνικὴ θεωρία) of these narratives, as they are innumerable 
in number (ἀδιεξίτητοι κατὰ πλῆθος) and subject to arbitrary modification (πρὸς τὴν 
ἑκάστου προαίρεσιν μεταπλαττομέναι).55
IN LIEU OF A CONCLUSION – EPILOGUS
Sextus’ arguments may appear devastating at first glance, but they may offer a form of 
redemption for Roman historiographers through the concept of equipollence. If there is 
no definitive criterion of truth, then multiple accounts may be considered equally credible, 
leading to a suspension of belief.56 In our case, this suspension would apply to distin-
guishing between true and untrue accounts. In this respect, it can be observed that myths 
are explored and exploited in historiography (to the detriment of the historical works) 
not because they are untrue per se, but because there may be no methodologically certain 
way of determining how true or false they are. Does this exonerate historians from the 
52 S.E. M. 1,263–268: Πρὸς τούτοις ἐπεὶ τῶν ἱστορουμένων τὸ μέν ἐστιν ἱστορία τὸ δὲ μῦθος τὸ δὲ πλάσμα, 
ὧ ὧν ἡ μὲν ἱστορία ἀληθῶν τινῶν ἐστὶ καὶ γεγονότων ἔκθεσις […] πλάσμα δὲ πραγμάτων μὴ γενομένων μὲν 
ὁμοίως δὲ τοῖς γενομένοις λεγομένων […] μῦθος δὲ πραγμάτων ̓ ἀγενήτων καὶ ψευδῶν ἔκθεσις […], ἐπεὶ οὐκ
ἔστι τέχνη τις περὶ τὰ ψευδῆ καὶ ἀνύπαρκτα, ψευδῆ δέ ἐστι καὶ ἀνύπαρκτα τὰ περὶ τοὺς μύθους καὶ τὰ πλάσματα, 
περὶ ἃ μάλιστα τοῦ ἱστορικοῦ μέρους ἡ γραμματικὴ καταγίνεται, οὐκ ἂν εἴη τις τέχνη περὶ τὸ ἱστορικὸν μέρος 
τῆς γραμματικῆς. […] πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ οὐ παραδεδώκασιν “ἡμῖν οἱ γραμματικοὶ τῆς ἀληθοῦς ἱστορίας κριτήριον, 
ἵνα καὶ ἐξετάζωμεν πότε ἀληθής ἐστιν αὕτη καὶ πότε ψευδής. εἶτα καὶ μηδεμιᾶς οὔσης “ἀληθοῦς ὗ ἱστορίας 
παρὰ τοῖς γραμματικοῖς οὐδὲ τὸ τοῦ ἀληθοῦς κριτήριον ὑποστατόν ἐστιν […] πρότερον γὰρ δεῖ ὑποστῆναι ἐν 
τοῖς διαφωνοῦσι τὸν ἀληθεύοντα, καὶ τότε ζητεῖν τί ἐστιν·
53 At least one critical and methodological treatise is known from this period, e.g. Lucian’s (ca. 125 – after 
180) Quomodo historia conscribenda sit (Πῶς δεῖ Ἱστορίαν συγγράφειν). Sextus Empiricus’ claim raises some 
interesting questions: either he did not know about Lucian’s work, or it came too late, in which case this could 
be an argument towards a narrower dating of his life. However, since quite a number of historians (some of 
whom are listed in this paper) wrote on how to write history – albeit less explicitly than Lucian – we can, 
perhaps, dismiss Sextus’ claim as a rhetorical rant.
54 Ibid. 1,260.
55 Ibid. 1,263.
56 See Svavarsson 2011: 29.
THOSE INFINITE, MULTIFORM STORIES WITHOUT FIxITY 79 
burden of seeking “the truth”, as if to say that: “since it is impossible to ascertain whether 
a given assertion is true or untrue, and as it may be both, it is meaningless to pursue the 
matter and be content with it”?57 Certainly not. But it does present an argument in favour 
of shifting the focus from the truth to the credibility (appearance) of the mythological 
stories employed by historians. Taken at face value, these stories were both true and 
untrue. In the case of a historian such as any one of the early annalists – or even Livy – 
who engaged in an honest re-examination of stories, such as that of Hercules and Cacus, 
the issue lies elsewhere: cultural context.
By the early 3rd century BC, Rome had already absorbed most of Italy. Consequently, 
the known annalists were already operating in a multicultural empire which, it could be 
argued, imposed itself on them as much as they imposed their political views on it.58 The 
story of Hercules and Cacus, in which the Arcadian prince Evander plays a key role as the 
founder of the first city on the Palatine hill, transcends the exclusive Roman cultural sphere 
(polis). It melds elements of two originally Greek myths (Hercules, Evander) to create 
an alternative ktisis story closely associated with the local Hercules cult celebrated at the 
Ara maxima Herculis invicti, situated near the so-called Forum Boarium. Furthermore, 
Evander also leaves his trace in the Aeneas story, in which he establishes a link between 
the Romanized Hercules cult and the mainstream foundation myth. In examining this 
story, Antipater and Gellius “internationalized” the Roman origin narrative, extending 
the “date” of the empire’s creation by at least one generation.59
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baragwanath, Emily; de Bakker, Mathieu, 2012: Introduction: Myth, Truth and Narrative in Her-
odotus’ Histories. In: Baragwanath, Emily; de Bakker, Mathieu (eds.), Myth, Truth, and 
Narrative in Herodotus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–58.
Bosworth, Brian, 2003: Plus ça change … Ancient Historians and their Sources. Classical Antiquity 
22/2, 167–198.
Byrd, Jeremy, 2023: The Practical Price of Pyrrhonism. Philosophies 8/6, 104, DOI: 10.3390/
philosophies8060104.
Calame, Claude, 2003: Myth and History in Ancient Greece. The Symbolic Creation of a Colony. 
Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Canfora, Luciano, 2006: Thucydides in Rome and Late Antiquity. In: Rengakos, Antonios; Tsak-
makis, Antonios (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Thucydides. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 721–753.
Cawkwell, George, 1997: Thucydides and the Peloponnesian War. London, New York: Routledge.
Cornell, Tim J. (ed.), 2013: The Fragments of the Roman Historians. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
57 Cf. Massie 2013: 226–227; Machuca 2021: 328. See also Byrd 2023.
58 See Pobežin 2021: 100–102 for a more elaborate argument about the annalists and the world-mind condi-
tionals (Piller 2009).
59 This paper is a result of studies conducted in the research project “Empire and Transformation of Genre 
in Roman Literature” (J6-2585) funded by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency, and the research 
program “The (New) Cultural History of Intellectual Heritage: Slovenian Historical Space in Its European 
Context” (P6-0440) funded by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency.
GREGOR POBEžIN80 
Cornell, Tim, 2017: Which One is the Historian? A Neglected Problem in the Study of Roman 
Historiography. In: Sandberg, Kaj; Smith, Christopher (eds.), Omnium Annalium Monu-
menta: Historical Writing and Historical Evidence in Republican Rome. Leiden, Boston: 
Brill, 182–204.
Darbo-Peschanski, Catherine, 2007: The Origin of Greek Historiography. In: Marincola, John 
(ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography. Malden, MA, Oxford, Carlton: 
Blackwell Publishing, 27–38.
Diodorus; Oldfather, C. H.; Sherman, Charles L.; Welles, C. Bradford; Geer, Russel M.; Walton, 
Francis R., 1933–67: Diodorus of Sicily in Twelve Volumes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard 
University Press.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus; Cary, Earnest, 1937–50: Roman Antiquities. Cambridge, Mass.: 
Harvard University Press.
Farrington, Scott, 2015: A Likely Story: Rhetoric and the Determination of Truth in Polybius’ 
Histories. Histos 9, 29–66.
Finley, Moses I., 1959: The Greek Historians; The Essence of Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, 
Polybius. New York: Viking Press.
Finley, Moses I., 1965: Myth, Memory and History. History and Theory 4/3, 281–302.
Frazer, James George, 1990: The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. Basingstoke: 
Palgrave MacMillan.
Hawes, Greta, 2014: Rationalizing Myth in Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Herodotus; Godley, A. D., 1920–24: The Persian Wars. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
House, D. K., 1980: The Life of Sextus Empiricus. The Classical Quarterly 30/1, 227–38.
Jouanno, Corinne, 2018: Homère historien de la guerre de Troie? Regards critiques des historiens 
grecs sur les poèmes homériques. Tangence 116, 9–22.
Livy; Roberts, Canon, 1912: History of Rome. New York: E. P. Dutton and Co.
Loraux, Nicole, 1982: Thucydide n’est pas notre collègue. Langage et societe 22, 69–73.
Machuca, Diego E., 2011: Pyrrhonism and the Law of Non-Contradiction. In: Machuca, Diego E. 
(ed.), Pyrrhonism in Ancient, Modern, and Contemporary Philosophy. Dordrecht, Heidel-
berg, London, New York: Springer, 51–77.
Machuca, Diego E., 2021: Can the Skeptic Search for Truth? Elenchos 42/2, 321–349.
March, Jenny, 2009: The Penguin Book of Classical Myths. London: Penguin.
Marincola, John, 2004: Authority and tradition in ancient historiography. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press.
Massie, Pascal, 2013: Philosophy and Ataraxia in Sextus Empiricus. Peitho Examina Antiqua 14/1, 
211–234. DOI: 10.14746/pea.2013.1.10.
Moles, John L., 1993: Truth and Untruth in Herodotus and Thucydides. In: Gill, Christopher; 
Wiseman, Timothy Peter (eds.), Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World. Exeter: University 
of Exeter Press, 88–122.
Nicolai, Roberto, 2007: The Place of History in the Ancient World. In: Marincola, John (ed.), A 
Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography. Malden, MA, Oxford, Carlton: Blackwell 
Publishing, 13–26.
Piller, Christian, 2009: Desiring the Truth and Nothing but the Truth. Nous 43/2, 193–213.
Plutarch; Perrin, Bernadotte, 1914: Plutarch’s Lives. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
THOSE INFINITE, MULTIFORM STORIES WITHOUT FIxITY 81 
Pobežin, Gregor, 2021: Rome as Context: Myth, History and Narrative. In: Czeremski, Maciej; 
Zielinski, Karol (eds.): Worldview in Narrative and Non-narrative Expression. Wiesbaden: 
Harrassowitz, 89–104.
Polybius; Paton, William Roger, 2006: The Histories. Vol. 2. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Potter, David S., 1999: Literary Texts and the Roman Historian. London, New York: Routledge.
Poucet, Jacques, 1976: Fabius Pictor et Denys d’Halicarnasse: “Les enfances de Romulus et de 
Rémus”. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 25/2, 201–216.
Quintilian; Edgeworth Butler, Harold, 1920: The Institutio oratoria. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard 
University Press.
Richardson, James H., 2011: L. Iunius Brutus the Patrician and the Political Allegiance of Q. Aelius 
Tubero. Classical Philology 106/2, 155–160.
Richardson, James H., 2014: “Firsts” and the Historians of Rome. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte 
Geschichte 63/1, 17–37.
Saïd, Suzanne, 2007: Myth and Historiography. In: Marincola, John (ed.), A Companion to Greek 
and Roman Historiography. Malden, MA, Oxford, Carlton: Blackwell Publishing, 76–88.
Secci, Davide Antonio, 2013: Hercules Cacus and Evander’s Myth-Making in ‘Aeneid’ 8. Harvard 
Studies in Classical Philology 107, 195–227.
Sedley, David, 1992: Sextus Empiricus and the Atomist Criteria of Truth. Elenchos 13, 19–56.
Sextus Empiricus; Bury, Robert Gregg, 1949: Against the Professors. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard 
University Press.
Spiegel, Gabrielle M., 2009: The Task of the Historian. The American Historical Review 114/1, 1–15.
Strabo; Jones, H. L., 1917–32: The Geography. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Svavarsson, Svavar Hrafn, 2011: Two Kinds of Tranquillity: Sextus Empiricus on Ataraxia. In: 
Machuca, Diego E. (ed.), Pyrrhonism in Ancient, Modern, and Contemporary Philosophy. 
Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer, 19–31.
Thucydides; Crawley, Richard; Connor, W. Robert, 1998: The Peloponnesian War. London: J. 
M. Dent.
Thucydides; Hammond, Martin; Rhodes, P. J., 2009: Peloponnesian War. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Timpe, Dieter, 2001: Römische Geschichte und Heilsgeschichte. Berlin, New York: W. de Gruyter.
Verbrugghe, Gerald P., 1981: Fabius Pictor’s “Romulus and Remus”. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte 
Geschichte 30/2, 236–238.
Walbank, Frank W., 2002: Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World. Essays and Reflections. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wardman, Alan E., 1960: Myth in Greek Historiography. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 
9/4, 403–413.
Weaire, Gavin, 2005: Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ Professional Situation and the “De Thucydide”. 
Phoenix 59/3-4, 246–266.
White, Hayden, 1986: Tropics of Discourse. Essays in Cultural Criticism. Baltimore: Johns Hop-
kins University Press.
Whitmarsh, Tim, 2017: Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World. London: Faber & Faber.
Wiseman, Timothy Peter, 1979: Clio’s Cosmetics: Three Studies in Greco-Roman Literature. 
Leicester: Leicester University Press.
GREGOR POBEžIN82 
Wiseman, Timothy Peter, 2007: The Prehistory of Roman Historiography. In: Marincola, John 
(ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography. Malden, MA, Oxford, Carlton: 
Blackwell Publishing, 67–75.
Woodman, Anthony John, 1998: Tacitus Reviewed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Woodman, Anthony John, 2008: Cicero on Historiography: “De Oratore” 2.51–64. The Classical 
Journal 104/1, 23–31.
VSE TISTE PREŠTEVILNE IN RAZNOLIKE, VSAKOKRAT DRUGAČNE 
ZGODBE: ZELO DOLGA ZAROKA MED MITOM IN ZGODOVINO
GreGor Pobežin
Kljub temu, da so že grški zgodovinopisci »klasičnega obdobja« razmeroma zgodaj 
koncipirali metodološko utemeljeno skepso do mitoloških zgodb kot zgodovinskih 
virov (Thuc. 1,20; Pol. 4,40), so se zlasti zgodnji rimski zgodovinopisci (»anali-
sti«) še dolgo sklicevali na različne »ustanovne« mite, jih analizirali, primerjali 
in prečiščevali.
Članek izpodbija prepričanje, da vključevanje mitov s strani antičnih (rimskih) 
zgodovinarjev pomeni pomanjkanje kritične distance na eni in izraz politične nuje 
na drugi strani. Ta perspektiva je namreč pregloboko zakoreninjena v sodobnem 
racionalističnem pogledu, ki spregleda zgodovinski in literarni kontekst antičnih 
(zgodovinskih) del: miti so bili zaradi prevladujočih literarnih tradicij pred pojavom 
formalnega zgodovinopisja naravni in nujni del pripovedi, vseskozi pa so ostajali 
eden od temeljev kulturne in politične identitete.
Grški zgodovinopisci, ki so v tem članku posebej izpostavljeni, predstavljajo 
(ob zavesti, da njihova dela predstavljajo zanemarljiv odstotek literarne zapuščine 
grškega zgodovinopisnega slovstva) različne pristope k demistifikaciji in kritiki 
mitov v zgodovinopisju. Prav nasprotno se je zgodnje rimsko zgodovinopisje, na 
katerega so sicer močno vplivale kolektivne narativne tradicije, pogosto sklicevalo 
na mitološko materijo: zgodovinarji analisti, kot so Fabij Piktor, Lucij Celij An-
tipater in drugi, so v svoja dela vključevali in z vso resnostjo pretresali elemente 
ustanovnih mitov (prim. Stra. 5,3; DH 1,39).
Pričujoči članek izpostavlja stališče, da mitoloških vrivkov v zgodovinopisnih 
delih ni mogoče presojati po razmeroma sodobnem kriteriju (ne)resničnosti pri-
čevanj, pač pa je veliko bolj smiselno upoštevati njihovo (literarno) verjetnost. 
Kulturni kontekst, v katerem so omenjeni zgodovinarji delovali, mita ni avtomatično 
postavljal pod vprašaj: kritika, ki jo zasledimo pri Tukididu in Polibiju, se nanaša 
predvsem na (ne)preverljivost in pokvarljivost mitoloških ali celo zgodnejših 
zgodovinskih pričevanj.
THOSE INFINITE, MULTIFORM STORIES WITHOUT FIxITY 83 
Zato pričujoči članek v branje priteguje tudi odlomek iz besedila »Proti učite-
ljem« manj znanega skeptika Seksta Empirika (2./3. stol.), ki v citiranem odlomku 
(S.E. M. 1,259–263) do problema zavzame držo, ki se nujno izteče v ataraksijo: 
njegov skepticizem odpira vrata za več pričevanj, ki se lahko štejejo za verodo-
stojna, in poudarja izzive razlikovanja med resničnimi in lažnimi pripovedmi.
Gergor Pobežin, PhD, Associate Professor, Research Associate, ZRC SAZU, 
Institute of Cultural History, Novi trg 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, University of 
Primorska, Faculty of Humanities, Titov trg 5, SI-6000 Koper, gregor.
pobezin@zrc-sazu.si, gregor.pobezin@fhs.upr.si
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3418-9767