Those Infinite, Multiform Stories without Fixity : Myth and History, a Very Long Engagement

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.

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 methodological 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. 3This 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. 4t 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. 5The term "mythographer" 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. 6We will examine both terms before turning to the main problems related to the phenomenon of mythistoria 7 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 tragedies and poems, which isn't merely not true but has little resemblance to truth.Secondly, there is the realistic narrative as presented by comedies, which, though not true, has yet a certain verisimilitude.Thirdly there is the historical narrative, which is an exposition of actual fact. 8e 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 without 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, veritas/ἀλήθεια.Yet Sextus Empiricus' reasoning11 absolves him (and Quintilian) from any possible accusations of naivety.12As 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.

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 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 Roman 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.14According 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. 15cording 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: 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. 16fore 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.17There 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 firsthand 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 question 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 methodological advances of their Greek predecessors and counterparts. 19It is possible that their literary strategies had a lot to do with reassuring the political identities of the elites and the state. 20However, 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

"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. 22They also believed that the gods took interest in human affairs 23 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 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. 27Subsequently, Greek historiography gradually steered away from involving myth in historical texts.As we shall see further on, there were consistent attempts at rationalization. 2822 Marincola 2004: 118-119. 23However, we must not lose sight of the (numerous) Greek thinkers whose line of thought was borderline atheism.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). 26Her.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. 27Herodotus' 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".) 28Hawes 2014: 6-13.
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 handed 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' predecessor, 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. 31hucydides' use of the term logographers calls for reflection.In Hobbes' version, 32 this term is translated as "prose writers".In Jowett's translation 33 the term "chronicler" is used, and the same is found in Crawley's version. 34It 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)". 35In 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). 36Strabo 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 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 experienced first-hand (e.g.Thucydides and xenophon). 37Strabo 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 In the first chapter of his Theseus, Plutarch elaborates on the concept of mythography: "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.'" 38Like 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. 39In any case, myths may serve as markers in historiographic narrative, indicating the lost "true account" of whatever was supposed to be in their place. 40Furthermore, in the Roman and Greek worlds, the past (even the distant past that had been relegated to the realm of legend and mythology 41 ) 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. 42ἐπανόρθωσιν 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. 38Thes 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.' 39Jouanno 2018: 17. 40 Frazer 1990: 5-6. 41Calame 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 Strabo is quite clear on this point: the story offered by Antipater is μυθώδης (mythodes) -fabulous, although Antipater enjoyed a good reputation. 43ntipater'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. 44th 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. 45The discrepancies could suggest that Antipater and Gellius (much like other early Roman historians) engaged in a critical 46 and careful 47 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. 43For 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). 44Cornell 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. 45According 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 missing, 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. 46Plut.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. 47Dionysius 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).Incidentally, Tubero was appreciated by Cicero who deemed him worthy of imitation (Cic.Q. Fr. 1,1,3: Tubero, quem 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). 48This approach unnecessarily leads us astray and down the path of morality 49 and neglects the specific aspect of historiography-as-literature where plausibility/credibility played a central role. 50efore we propose a different perspective on this matter, let us revisit Sextus Empiricus' 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). 51The 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. 49Potter 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.Nicolai 2007: 15-17.It also shifts our focus -perhaps too radically -on the question of how much "historical 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). 51S.E.M. 1,259.
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 legends 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). 54The multiplicity of accounts pertaining to a single individual or event precludes the possibility of conducting a methodologically 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. 56In our case, this suspension would apply to distinguishing 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. 54Ibid.1,260. 55Ibid.1,263. 56See Svavarsson 2011: 29.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 Livywho 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. 58The 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. 59BLIOGRAPHY