Myth, History, and Theory
Author(s): Peter Heehs
Source: History and Theory, Vol. 33, No. 1, (Feb., 1994), pp. 1-19
Published by: Blackwell Publishing for Wesleyan University
Stable URL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/2505649
Accessed: 28/05/2008 21:56

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We enable the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

M ytha n d h is to r y a r e g e n e r a llyc o n s id e r e da n tith e tic a lm o d e s o f e x p l a n a t i o n . W r i t e r s of each tend tod i s t r u s tt h e d a t a ofthe other.M a n y h is to r ia n s ofthe m odernperiod see theirt a s k as o n e o f r e m o v in ga ll tr a c e o f m y th fr o mth e h i s t o r i c a lr e c o r d . M a n y s t u d e n t so fm y t h c o n s i d e rh i s t o r y t oh a v e l e s sexplanatoryp ow er t h a ntr a d itio n a ln a r r a - t iv e s .S i n c e t h e G r e e k s ,l o g o s ( w o r d a s d e m o n s t r a b l et r u t h )h a sbeenopposedto m ythos (w ord as a u th o r ita tiv epronouncem ent).

In m ore generalterm sm yth m ay be defined as any set of unexam ineda s s u m p t i o n s .S o m e m o d e r n h i s t o r i a n shave becom eaw are thatm uchs o -c a lle d fa c tu a lh is t o r y isi n t e r f u s e d w ithsucha ssu m p tio n s.W hatw e call h is to r y isa t b e s t m y t h i s t o r y .S o m e even suggestthat therecan b e n o r e a l d is tin c tio n betw eenthed is c o u r s e s of m y tha n dhistory,betw een fact a n d fic tio n . T h eA gastya- A u r o b in d on a r r a t i v ei s a n e x a m p l eo fa n a c c o u n tb a s e d o nf a c t u a lm a t e r i a l st h a t g r a d u - a lly b e c a m etransform edin to fic tio n . I t i s a c c e p t e db y s o m e a s h i s t o r i c a lt r u t h ;h o w e v e r w h e n itsdevelopm enti s studiedc r i t i c a l l y , o n e c a n s e e t h a t s u c c e s s i v e n a r r a t o r s" e u p h e - m istica lly "transform edits constituentp r o p o s itio n s .T h eR a m ja n m a b h u m i

(a tth ec e n te ro f s e c ta r ia nc o n flic t in India)to o kf o r m in m uchth esam ew ay.It is not p o ssib let oa c c e p t th e sele g e n d sa s h i s t o r i c a l t r u t h , t h o u g h t h e r e isno reasonw h y th e y couldn o t be used as the basisof a r tis ticc r e a tio n s .T o a v o id c o n flic tb y a tte m p tin gto keepm ytha n d h is to r ye n tir e lys e p a r a t em a y n o tb e p o s s ib leb e c a u s et h e tw oin te r p e n e - tr a te .T hem o s t f r u i t f u la p p r o a c ht o t h e p r o b le m m ig h t b e t o w orktow ards ad ia le c tic a l r e s o lu tio n .

M ytha n d history are o fte nc o n s i d e r e d a n tith e tic a l m o d e s o f e x p la n a tio n .T h o s e w h ostu d y th ed a ta o f o n ef i e l d te n dt o lo o kdow n o n o r exclude those o f th e other. T hereh a v e a lw a y s been historians-

th in k it perm issible to take m yths e r i o u s l y as m y th ,' but this is n o t th e sam e a sta k in gi t a s a r e lia b le a c c o u n to fh is to r ic a l o c c u r r e n c e s . B u r c k h a r d t m ig h t c o n s id e r ap e o p le 's " fir s t h e r o ice p ic " to b e a " v a lu a b le p o s s e s s io n ," b e lie v in g fo re x a m p le th a t th e m y th o fT u is to a n d M a n n u s in d ic a te d th a t th e G e r m a n ic tribesth o u g h t th e y had a" g r e a t future"ahead of th em .2 Butth is d o e s not m ean

that he to o k such stories lite r a lly . V ischer m ig h t consider the le g e n d of W illiam T e lla n in te r e s tin gh is to r ic a l d a tu m ;b u t if h is purpose w as toin v e stig a te th e o r ig in s o f th e S w is s C o n fe d e r a tio n , he had toc o r r e c t t h e tr a d itio n a l t a l e a g a in s t "w hatcriticism and research h a v e p r o d u c e d ." 3 The Sw iss h is to r ia n s ' q u a lifie d in te r e s t in m y th is s o m e w h a t e x c e p tio n a l. T he generaltrend of post-E nlighten- m enth is to r io g r a p h y has been the e r a d ic a tio n of m y th from the record of"w hat r e a lly h a p p e n e d ." H e n c e th e m o s t p r e v a le n t u se o fth e w o r d " m y th " a m o n g h is to r ia n s : a n in te r p r e ta tio n th a t isc o n s id e r e d b la ta n tly fa ls e .

M a n y stu d e n ts o f m y th h a v ea sim ila r ly d ism issiv e a ttitu d e to w a r d sh i s t o r y andi t s m ethods. "W heneverthe poetry of m y th is interpreted as biography, h is to r y , o r s c ie n c e , it is k ille d ," a s s e r ts a p o p u la r w r ite r .4M ir c e a E lia d ej u s t i f i e s m y th o lo g y 'sc la im to fr e e d o m

historiography by assertingth ea h is to r ic a l n a tu r e o f tr a d itio n a l s o c ie tie s : " L 'h o m m e d e s c iv ilis a tio n s tr a d itio n n e lle s n 'a c - c o r d a itp a s' a l'e v e n e m e n t h is to r iq u ed e v a le u r e n s o i."

M a n 's(o r w o m a n 's) e x is te n c ei s v a lo r iz e db yth e r e p e titio no f archetypal gestures. F o r " l'h o m m e des cultures tr a d itio n n e lle s n e se reconnaitcom m e reelq u e d a n s la m esureo u i i l cesse d'etrelu i-m em e (pouru n observateur m o d e r n e )e t s ec o n te n te d 'im ite r et de r e 'p e ite rlesg e s te s d'un autre."5Som e "m odern observers" find a h is to r ic a l archetypes eveni nth e contem poraryw o r ld .A n

in flu e n tia l s c h o o l o f s o c ia l a n th r o p o lo g y g iv e s m y th ic structuresp r io r ity over transienthistorical events. A n d a structuralistlite r a r y critic fin d s in the textso fb o u r g e o is" m y th s"-fo r in sta n c e th e repeated gestures o f th e perform ance w restler, w hose function is not to w in but" d 'a c c o m p lir exactem entle sgestes qu'on a tte n d d e lu i"-

a m eans byw h ic h " m a n " escapes responsibility, escapes history.6 B arthes is E lia d e a l'envers,so to speak.W here the m ythologist fin d s m y tha ju stifia b le m e a n s fo r e s c a p in g from the "terreurde l'h is to ir e ," th e criticd e p lo r e s th e pow er of m y th t o

B e fo r e g o in g fu r th e rIw ill p r o v id ew o r k in g d e fin itio n s o f m y te r m s .I ta k e " h is to r y "i n its tw o fam iliar senses: "an account ofw hath a p p e n e d i nth e p a st," a n d" w h a th a p p e n e d in th ep a st." " M y th " is m ore d iffic u ltt o d e fin e . I ts b a s ic m e a n in g , that used b y m y th o lo g is tsa n d a n th r o p o lo g is ts , is " s a c r e d n a r r a tiv e s o f tr a d itio n a l s o c ie tie sg e n e r a lly in v o lv in g superhum an beings, e tc ." T h et e r m is o fte n e x te n d e d (by V ischer, fo re x a m p le ) toin c lu d e o th e r tr a d itio n a ls t o r i e s ,

(P a r is, 1 9 5 7 ), 13-24. B arthes places his essay on catch, the F r e n c h e q u iv a le n t o f A m erican professional w r e s tlin g , a t th e b e g in n in g o f M y th o lo g ie s . J o n a th a n C u lle r c o n s id e r s it B a r th e s 's " m o s t im pressivea n a ly s is o fsecond-order cultural m eaning"-the deeper sense of "m yth" exam ined by B arthes (J.C u lle r , B a r th e s [L o n d o n , 1 9 9 0 ], 3 5 -3 8 ).