MYTHOS AND LOGOS

Author(s): ROBERT L. FOWLER

Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 131 (2011), pp. 45-66
Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41722132
Accessed: 15-08-2017 23:11 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41722132?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies

This content downloaded from 189.34.1.126 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:11:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of Hellenic Studies 131 (2011) 45-66 doi:10.1017/S0075426911000048

MYTHOS AND LOGOS

ROBERT L. FOWLER
University of Bristol*

Abstract: While the simplistic thesis of Greek progress from mythos to logos in the form stated by Wilhelm
rightly rejected, some aspects of the emerging new consensus are open to challenge. ' Mythos ' correspo
important ways to modern 'myth' and Greek logos , with which it is contrasted, stands at the beginning of an
tradition of Western rationalism. The semantic history of the terms is freshly analyzed, with particular attent
contribution of pre-Socratic philosophers, Herodotos and Sophists, but looking forward also to Hellenistic an
writers. The 'invention of mythology' is dated to the middle of the fifth century, not the end. Plato's complic
on the issue is interpreted as a reaction to Sophistic views.

The defeat of myth by reason, of mythos by logos, was once considered a central part
'Greek miracle'. Critics for some time now have debunked this simplistic notion of triu
progress, on good grounds; but as often happens in such cases, there is a risk of going to
the other direction. One part of the new consensus, for instance (insofar as one exists),
denial of any essential relationship between the ancient idea of mythos and modern not
myth.1 Other aspects too seem open to challenge. Though one or two recent writers have
to move the pendulum back to the centre,2 the whole territory needs a fresh survey to s
much, if anything, of the old story might be worth saving. The abiding importance of t
is clear, not only for understanding Greek culture but for historicizing rationality.
I begin with the old story and its difficulties, which are well illustrated by the
Herodotos. Section II begins the re-evaluation, surveying the mythos/logos dichotomy o
ancient vulgate from the fourth century BC on; this vulgate is broadly consistent, in innu
texts, and justifies the appropriation of the terms by modern proponents of the traditional sch
This vulgate has been underappreciated in these discussions; the point is it was not crea
nihilo, but developed from classical roots. Section III then traces the history of the term
and its sociology in the Classical period, it is hoped more accurately and profitably than h
Section IV focuses on the crucial contributions of the Sophists and their nemesis Plato,
further thoughts on Herodotos. We shall find that the 'invention' of mythology must be
two generations earlier than often thought, in the middle of the fifth century, not at it
Section V offers conclusions and reflections on the history of this debate.3

* robert.fowler@bristol.ac.uk. This paper has not concepts native to the Greek language' (V. Pirenne-
taken
several forms over the last decade, having first Delforge,
been 38; I agree about 'religion' but am less
delivered as a keynote address at the Classical
concerned than others about the supposed difficulty); 'In
Association of Canada meeting at the University ancient
of Greece, myth never was recognized as a
particular
Waterloo in May 2001. I am grateful for discussion with narrative category or form of thought' (C.
Caíame, 658; I agree about 'form of thought' if it means
the audience on that occasion, as later at Bristol, Harvard,
'mentality').
Thessaloniki and Tokyo. For useful criticism I thank also Struck's paper, 'The invention of mythic
Richard Buxton, Robert Parker and J HS' s readers. truth in antiquity', outlines strategies of thoughtful
1 Three quotations from a recent volume, U. Dillancients
and to deal with - the category of myth.
2 B. Williams, Truth and Truthfulness (Princeton
C. Walde (eds), Antike Mythen: Medien, Transform-
ationen und Konstruktionen (Festschrift F. Graf) 2002);
(BerlinD. Feeney, Caesar's Calendar. Ancient Time and
and New York 2009), seem representative:the
'It Beginnings
is of History (Berkeley and Los Angeles
commonly understood that the Greek term mythos2007).
means
something entirely different from modern definitions3 of
In spite of the disagreement about first stages, I
owe most,
"myth"' (P.T. Struck, 25; 'entirely' is the issue); 'We among all treatments of this subject, to M.
Detienne,
must underline once more that "myth" and "religion" areL'invention de la mythologie (Paris 1981) =

This content downloaded from 189.34.1.126 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:11:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
46 FOWLER

I. Mythos and logos : H

The traditional story -
journey to rationalism
According to this story
mythology: various tale
nation of how the Greek
shall not say whether th
man whom I personally
account [logos], telling
Kroisos, king of Lydia,
mid-sixth century, a tim
True, Herodotos does no
his own account a logos
these stories are true or
a methodological princip
the outset of his histor
suppose that he is sayin
A critical space is openi
required because they ar
of things, according to
Herodotos elsewhere us
mid-sixth century: 'Poly
sea - except for Minos o
so-called human age, P
offspring of gods: an ag
back to the opening pr
'...great and small cities
small, whereas those wh

The Creation and

of London
Mythology,19
London 1986);Reason
later thoughts
? Studie
2005) = The Greeks
(Oxford and 1999); Us,
2007). See alsoMytho-Logos: L'Écriture Z ď
The Writing ihrem of Orpheus.
Umgang
Context , tr. (eds),J. Lloyd Form(Balt und
chapters 1-4, und 14. Though
modernen ac
'mythology' schriften in the mytho 41) (B
especially Thucydides,
4 1.5.3: 'Eycb Deti
Plato its èpecov
inventor, in cbs part outb
surviving sources)
to v 5èto óí5a use the
cx
the epycov
comprehensiveness èç of toth
influential "rrpoßriaoiiai
studies are W. N
Logos (Stuttgart UiKpà 1940); Kai B. íaeS
Geistes (Hamburg (Rosen's 1946, Teubne 1975
Mind , tr. T. Rosenmeyer
5 On Herodoto (Ox
Les origines tions
de la for
pensée the gre c
The OriginsVannicelli,
of Erodoto e la storia dell' alto e medioThou
Greek
Vernant, Mythe
arcaismo (Rome 1993).et pensée c
19852) = Myth 6 3.122.2:
and T7oÀuKpccTr|ç yáp èoTi TrpcoToç tcov
Thought a
1983); J.-P. tÍIíeTs i5|íev *EXXr|vcov, ôç
Vernant, SaXaaaoKpaTEEiv
Mythe e
(Paris 1974) = ETTEvor|0r),
Myth TrápEÇ Mívcoand
te tou KvcoaaíouSociety
Kai eí 5r|
Lloyd Tiç áXXoç TTpÓTEpoç
(Hassocks 1979,toutou řjp^E t fjç 0aXáaar|ç
New Y
Grecs ont-ilsTfjçcru
5è àv0pcoTrr|ír|ç
à XEyo|iévr|ç
leurs yEVEfjç myt
Greeks T7oXuKpáTT|ç
Believe in TrpcòToç...
their Myth

This content downloaded from 189.34.1.126 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:11:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 MYTHOS AND LOGOS 47

prosperity never abides, I shall tell of bot

of his book; the great and equally progra
There is a human nature, and a human tim
Before that time, the discourse simply b
much criticize myth in his opening page
point is unknowability rather than falseh
true must find it a handicap, to say the
Herodotos' discussion of the flooding of
cations. Famously, he remarks, 'The man
realm of the invisible, and offers no chan
Homer or one of his predecessors, I think
word I have translated 'theory' is |iù0oç, m
concept of falsifiability. The rejected my
better than fantasy, and derives from the
of no stream of Ocean surrounding the w
he uses the word 'myth' in the Histori
Pherekydes of Athens, EGMfr. 17) tell a
ficed strangers to Zeus: a particularly silly t
ignorance of Egyptian character and cust
experience.
On the showing of these passages, thus read, Herodotos does seem to live up to his billing. A
construct emerges in which poetry, imaginative myth, gods and unknowable prehistory are on one
side of a cognitive and chronological line; on the other side are prose, reasoning (logos), humans,
empirical investigation and the verifiable facts of recent history. Such a reading is honestly
enough come by, it must be agreed: it has seemed natural to many good readers. I shall continue
to argue that there is some truth in it. Yet there are obvious difficulties. If Herodotos in 1.5 calls
his account a logos, that is because it is the word he always uses, for his account and others'. The
alleged contradistinction with mythos here is a bold importation: he does not use the word nùSoç;
it happens that the stories he dismisses are stories we call myths, but elsewhere in the Histories
(for example, 2.118-20) it is clear that he regards the Trojan War as historical. We should perhaps
place stress exclusively on the idea of knowability: should the evidence become available that
would allow us to know about these more distant events, Herodotos would admit them to the
discussion. He is not dismissing the whole class of story, only its utility in the present circum-
stances. And is there even a class being delineated; and if so, by what right would one call it
myth? If the Trojan War was in fact historical, it makes it very hard to see what class is in view;
at any rate, its specific difference cannot be in point of historicity, nor therefore in its status as
myth. Even the age of gods should not be dubbed an age of myth, if one means by that that the
gods are an imaginary construct: Herodotos thought they existed, and when he refers to the
'human age' - literally, the 'human generation' ( genee) - perhaps he means no more than a time
when procreation took place by human agency alone.11 So perhaps there is no class at all, only
a few stories which happen to be told in a particular context and which are found wanting. 'Myth'

7 ...óuoícoç utKpà Kai laeyáXa aaxea Tiva ĚycoyE oT8a ttotohòv 'ÌÌKeavòv èóvTa,
àvSpcÓTTcov ètteÇigûv Ta yàp tò TráXai pgyáXa"Omipov 5è ř| Tiva tcòu irpÓTEpov yEVonévcov
Ttoir|TÉcov Sokéco Toüvona EÙpóvTa èç iToiriaiv
f¡v, tò iroXXà oniKpà aÙTcòv yéyovE, tò 8è ètt'
ÈaEVEkaa0ai.
èiaeù flv peyaXa, irpÓTepov r¡v aiaiKpá. tÍ)v
àv0pcoTTr)ír|v cov ètrioTáuEVoç eú5ai|iovír)v 9 See further below.
oúSauã èv TcbuTcp liévouoau èirt|ivr|aoiiai 10 2.45.2: SoKÉouoi... q>úaio$ Kai tcõv vóucov
ànçoTÉpcov ópoícos. irá|iTrav cmeípcoç éxeiv oi "EXXtívej.
8 2.23: o oe TTEpi tou íiKEavou Xeçoç eç acpaveç 11 Yet this already suggests a qualitative and a
tòv HÙ0OV àvEveÍKaç OÙK ĚxEi ĚXEyxov où yáp temporal difference. See below.

This content downloaded from 189.34.1.126 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:11:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
48 FOWLER

is, after all, our term:

only twice, in spite of
loaded meanings; in the
differ no more from lo
The problems multiply
position in Greek intell
a continuum formed at o
Thucydides, the master
Thucydides rebukes po
mythõdes ); he makes H
but has (on the comm
history, while thankin
among the fabulists. A
Few historians have pos
his rhetoric justified. B
one considers the irrati
to claim that he put his
its actual practice. Th
reading is rather unfair
remark of his gives no
and certainly gives no w
means to accuse someon
very superficial unders
different psychology on
should have been scept
unreasonably chide us.
different ages to assess
Moving beyond histori
in which the Greeks m
mathematics, medicine
ments, a simple linear p
to a wholly civilized an
staggers under the wei
clearly those of the Enl
sustained criticism in t
crude idea of 'primitiv
(best known from the br
notion of a 'mythical a
regard fascism as a sin
for perfection through
mythos - * logos narrat
1940, equated the Greek

12 M. Wçcowski,
fable, that 'Friends philo
Thucydides' preface', to
measure, in the
J.
Herodotos. Greek
further and G.W. RomM
Related Genres
(n.3). (Newcastle u
13 Williams 14 On (n.2) 151
page 6 of his book. See Most (n. 13) 30. Most quot
notes that Nestle
populousness of himself does notancient
seem to have been a n
Thucydides is, in
Nazi and thought my
his book would opinion
be a force for good in
history. All preceding
his time; but one sees how easily ideas are perverted, narrat

This content downloaded from 189.34.1.126 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:11:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 MYTHOS AND LOGOS 49

benign,15 but it remains a very strong th

perhaps good to think with, but impossible to
for each topic - historiography, philosophy
science, for instance, could not but continu
and imagination until well into the moder
different for different kinds of people and
nalism' and 'myth' themselves mean will ha
the discussion. Even technically defined in
forms in the Western tradition; applying t
tions - and the term 'Western' reminds us
different perspective.17 Finally, the propri
as imposing a modern category of thoug
Buxton remarks, 'we might seem to hav
achievement" mi have about it more of the
without a vocabulary for describing the e
achievement'.18 Needless to say, the scholar
describing the phenomena, so this conclusi
a very long way from what seemed obviou
well advised to abandon this talk of mytho

II. Beginning the rehabilitation. The anc

And yet, and yet. The traditional narrative
it conforms to Plato's much-quoted defini
false and one true; myths are the false kin
them'.20 Other passages in Plato make it cl
of distinction between mythos and logos
reality, fictional narrative vs. logical analy
ours in obvious ways. Mythoi and logoi
meaning, at Gorg. 505cl0 and Phd. 61b4; in
view (cf. Aesch. jr. 139 Radt). In the same
association between myth and poetry: myth

particularly The Ambitions

teleological ones. of Curiosity:
Nestle Understanding
wrote the World in
an art
'Der Ancient
Führergedanke inGreece
der and China (Cambridge 2002) and
platonischen un
Ancient Worlds , (
aristotelischen Staatslehre' Modern Reflections : Philosophical 48 (1
Gymnasium
73-89) in which he isPerspectives
studiouslyon Greek and Chinese Science and Culture
silent about t
(Oxford 2004), see hisbut
qualities of his own Führer, contribution to Buxton's volume
warns against
dangers of absolute (n.3) 'Mythology:
power. That he reflections
wrote from a two
Chinese article
the Nazi organ Aus perspective',
Unterricht 145-65. und Forschu
Wissenschaftliche 18 Buxton (n.3)
Zeitschrift auf 11 (hisnationalsozialistisc
emphasis). I owe much to
Grundlage is worrying, particularly
Buxton's lucid the
introduction (which makes several of the secon
'Thukydides als politischer Erzieher' (1934) 157f
points in this paragraph).
19 C. Caíame, in Mythe et histoire dans V Antiquité
'Die Juden in der griechisch-römischen Welt' (1
165 ff. I regret I have grecque seen
not (Lausanne 1996) = Myth and History in Ancient
these.
15 Bruno
and Greece Snell
Jean-Pierre
, tr. D. Berman (PrincetonVernant
2003); see also 'The (n.3
scholars who advocatedrhetoric
the of muthos
mythos and logos : forms
- ► of figurative
logos thes
different ways, risked discourse', lives
their in Buxton (n.3)
in119-43
the and 'Greek
fight myth and
against
Nazis. Greek religion', in R. Woodard (ed.), The Cambridge
16 On this term, see, for example, N. Morley, Writing Companion to Greek Mythology (Cambridge 2008)
Ancient History ( London 1999) 97-131, 143-50. 259-85, with further references. Caíame would speak
17 The works of G.E.R. Lloyd demonstrate the care instead of narrative/discursive symbolic representations.
one must take in assessing these topics from a mono- 20 a5: cós Tò öAov eìtteTv yeuSos, svi 5è Kai
cultural point of view. Apart from monographs such as àXriSf].

This content downloaded from 189.34.1.126 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:11:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
50 FOWLER

society is nearly coterm

tentious and commonpl
a choice of mythos and
arguments. At Gorg. 5
he expects his interlocu
the Timaios , the Egypti
of a mythos , it is true w
of veracity at Rep. 522
of fiction, plastheis my
passages (to which I re
are exceedingly tricky
ground that will not bu
is not cancelled or neut
They are to be interpret
Plato's subtle approach
is comparable to that f
already in evidence bef
invented, but not for all
logos , to which they are
which logos can turn t
decode the stories (sub
primeval truth subsequ
Johansen's analysis.22 By
branch of prose literat
routinely use myth- wor
Herakleidai (the differe
such as Theseus, but af
as a question mark hang
mythical accretions (fo
purposes. Polybios, for

21 T.K. Johansen,
57-60; 'Myth
D. Russean
Buxton (n.3) 279-91
Problems (this
(Atlap
(eds), 'L'usage
Vassilacou-Fassea, The Ca
Kernos 15 (2002) 67-74.
(Cambridge 20
22 For an overview
23 R. of the
Fowler, Gr
ization, see J. Stern,
(2000) Palaep
133-42.
Unbelievable Tales
Authority (Waucon
and
on Palaiphatos, J. Stern,
(Cambridge 'R
19
and motives ography',
in Palaephatus'
in J.
Euhemeros in particular,
and Roman M. Hi
Messene. at
Leben, 78.Werk und
Leipzig 2002).24 On the
Not strate
only hi
tation, beginning according
teacher Plato's
of Rhegion's his own of
reading strateg
Hom
see, for example, D. Dawso
truthfulness, on
Cultural Revision
he in Ancien
stresses the
Angeles and Oxford
all sides to1992)
inst
Keaney (eds),
TheHomer's An
passages a
1992); Lamberton,
'The R. Home
rhetoric o
and Los
Angeles
from 1996);
cancellin
Metaphor, Allegory,
logos, and
they the
see
2003); J. Stern, 'Heraclitus
Otherwise, why
'Attíotcov', TAPhA
and the 133
use of

This content downloaded from 189.34.1.126 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:11:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 MYTHOS AND LOGOS 51

by various myths.25 His subject did not

Diodoros, on the other hand, chose to inc
first five books he uses myth-words hund
to book 4, he tells us how some historians
of investigating it: the enormously influ
Herakleidai, and Kallisthenes and Theopo
cation in the old stories, in whose fundamen
doubt. Yet his stress on moral and symb
symbolic truth, a point more explicit, an
on the same topic in his proem. Dionysios
of investigation (AR 1.8.1) and also about
study of myth (2.20.1); but his langu
themselves, myths are fictions. He con
example, AR 1.39.1, 1.79.1, 2.61.1) and us
heroes; once he applies it to tales of the a
fables (AR 6.83.2), once to a folktale abou
children (De imit. verb. 31.1). He regards
period' (mythikoi chronoi, AR 1.2.2) and
of its preoccupation with local history a
Strabo's usage is along similar lines (seve
contrasts 'myth' with 'history'.26 He is e
distinct, he says;27 old, fictional tales abo
aims at truth, 'whether about the old or
with the argument (above) that Herodoto
really say nothing about their truth: uncert
The author of the Parallela minora in th
'Most people think the tales of olden time
the action.'28 In 'olden times' he includes
his spatium mythicum (or rather, the one h
which some critics have used to question
of 'old', 'fiction' and mythoi is what matt
be expected if knowability is the problem
In practice, the boundary doesn't vary mu
'story about the heroic period', but never, s
the Herakleidai, except where it means 'f
good Academician, he often contrasts my
orac. 420f; De sera. num. vind. 563b; De g
De Is. et Osir. 365c, logos is the allegory o
that he is passing beyond the boundary of

25 P. Pédech, La Kai historique

méthode jaúôouç Tuyxáveiv.
de Polybe (Pa
1964) 391-97; F.W. Walbank, 'Polybios'
zy Cf. Dion. Sicht
Hal. AR 1.13
Vergangenheit', Gymnasium 97 (1990)
and passim 15-30.
598 Radt, Antio
26 1.1.10, 1.1.19, 1.2.10, 1.2.17,
156. C. 1.2.35,
Pelling 1.2.36
('"Making
I.2.40, 1.3.23, 3.2.12, Plutarch's
5.1.9, 9.1.17, 9.3.11, 10.3.2
Theseus-Romulu
II.6.3, 13.1.48. Eighteen Studies (London
argues that
27 The case of the Amazons is a Plutarch
rule-provina
exception: in this case Atthidographers,
the efface
same fantastic tale wastht
old, and is still told. across it; but the point is tha
28 tcxç àpxocíaç icrropíaç 5ià xà
that allow them toirapáSo
make t
Tfjç TrpáÇecoç oi ttAeTotoi
perfectlyvoiaíÇouai TrXáa
aware (as Pelling

This content downloaded from 189.34.1.126 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:11:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
52 FOWLER

he expresses the hope t

work thereby take on
reasonable readers who
The boundary between
boundary it remains. T
ignorant, says the Egy
constantly recurring p
and often interchangeabl
a quality. The boundary
but our writers clearly
that among historians t
Strabo, who tells us tha
readers truth not myt
which gained its name
Though we can detect
general understandin
perspective, it is clear
'unverifiable', mythos,
method, and decision to
distinction is taking sh
On the other hand, the
all old material. The wo
Logos is not found at al
The fifth century wa
been sufficiently appr
words, denoting autho
find that we can trace
texts in a variety of gen
dichotomy: I shall argu
platform, and that Plat
basic opposition. The S
revolution.

III. Mythos to logos : t

The Archaic uses of my
verb denoting speech;
often raises questions
without a context and

30 This
stance problematic would not na
using could
and
rationally not criticizin be w
his history; 31 G. ParticularlyParmeg
historicum nelle
Speech Storie and di Per E
FGrHist 70 B. T 8)',
Lincoln, Rivista The
(1999) 107-25) Scholarship makes too (C m
must offer aNesselrath
forced reading (n.
successful is K.
exception Clarke, of M u
Local HistoryOd. 13.295: this
andwell suits that character's
the moral Poli
spatium mythicum,
ambiguity). I.J.F. de Jong in her review ( spatiMnem . 4.45
historians (1992) 392-97) offers
could hardlysome important qualifications
disp of
meaningful Martin's
traditions,
arguments, but the tendency with respect and to
to believe them
mythos remains clear. or some

This content downloaded from 189.34.1.126 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:11:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 MYTHOS AND LOGOS 53

('seductive words') are epic formulae,32 an

with the word pseudea, 'lies'.33 Lincoln
primary characteristics, given her by
words'. His general conclusion is that 'the
of women, the weak, the young, and the
charming, and alluring, but one that can
are manly. The warrior's ideal is to be a
denotes the speech of the powerful, who
panies the noun in a standard formula w
introduces a weighty or peremptory spee
apt to be used of lies, myth- words are g
speak the truth') occurs as a formula five
mythoi are associated with misleading or
litigants and judges who make 'crooked
logos is deceptive, disingenuous and sly
against; but the crooked mythos - shoc
corrupt villain who shamelessly delivers
for being delivered in a forum where one ex
at all.
Mythos is significant speech; it is speec
utterance. It is an act. In linguistic terms,
of the latter is much broader than the fo
speech. This situation means that one
alongside myth- words casually to refer t
substituted for the other in all contexts,
marked/unmarked, genus/species dist
(mythologeuõ, mythologeõ, mythologëm
things, but there is no verb logomytheist
in quick succession just as Odysseus fi
12.450, 453); the ponderous verb is sign
moment.36
Mythos denotes the whole package, the l
is in play, something is at stake. When at
as speaking a mythos to him, it is metap
mythos.37 Much the same is the open
Hu0eTtc(i* tó5e ypácpco, coç |ioi Sokeï
Kai yeXoToi, coç è|joi <paívovTai, eíoiv
follows as it seems true to me; for the s
foolish').

famous
32 Horn. Od. 1.56; Hes. speech
Th. 890; of 789;
Op. 78, the Hym
Mu
Horn. Herm. 317; Theognis
which 704.
they say they can b
33 Horn. Od. 19.203~Hes.
whichTh. 27; Hes.
resemble Th.
the 229; an
truth, O
78, 789; Hymn. Horn. 1.5-6.
other hand, etujíoç ('true')
34 Lincoln (n.31) 10. Àéyeiv/Àóyoç (Stesich. P
35 Horn. II. 6.382; Od. 14.125, 17.15,
Xenophan. jr. 8.418.342; Hym
W2; Pind. P
Horn. Dem. 121; cf. in
Horn. Od.
Horn. 11.507
Od. àXr|0
19.203~Hes.
liu0r|GO|aai; Hes. Op. 10 ÈTT|TU|aa
word, Aéyeivnu0rjaai|ar|v;
can be used reaH
Horn. Dem. 44 è*rr|Tuiia nu0rioaa0ai;
36 Horn.
Lincoln (n.31) Od.
23. |au2
^0os èttítuhoç. At Hes. Th. 28,
Sappho (Jr.àAri0éa |au0TÍaa
18.4); there is un
is a variant reading for
37 àXrj0éa yr|púaaa0ai
Lincoln (n.31) 23-25. in

This content downloaded from 189.34.1.126 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:11:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 54 FOWLER

This passage too has su

mythoi and logoi. But
authority - not the Mu
old epic sense. This is a
hand, are merely logoi
his book 'EKaTaïoç MiX
have made the same po
different too. The statu
century. Until it was, s
- would have to criticiz
people say, but the way
of such a statement (th
are many). Applied to l
a sensible criticism: tr
More than one writer h
but logos denotes false
seen; myth- words supp
ity suggests how and
depends on the big man
question such men's au
structures of authority
process may accelerate
hand to back them up,
of the Persian king sen
mythoi just as powerfu
a tempting opportunity
what happened in the
that we arrive eventual
Athens, in which all ta
going-in assumption is
Hekataios asserts his a
Herodotos, who picks up
you call your mythos, I
now but an account wit
involved he was in cont
elaborate posturing, claim
a word like mythos woul
can imagine Herodotos de
Now this does not mean
could not decry others' m
But where mythos had

38 K. Nickau,(Cambridge 2000);'Mythos
various contributions in the recent un
W. Ax (ed.), spate
Memoria
of Companions: E.J. Bakker, I.J.F. de Jongrerum
and H.
Carl Joachim Wees (eds), Brill's Companion to Herodotus zum
Classen (Leiden 6
32) (Stuttgart
2002); C. Dewald and1990)
J. Marincola (eds), The 83-1
dismisses in the
Cambridge Companion toother
Herodotus (Cambridge pla
(2.45.1) is probably also
2006); A. Rengakos and A. Tsakmakis (eds), Brill's f
Suzanne Said for this reference. Companion to Thucydides (Leiden 2006); and other
39 Marincola (n.23); R. Thomas, Herodotus in references in Wçcowski (n.12) 35, n.4.
Context. Ethnography, Science and the Art of Persuasion

This content downloaded from 189.34.1.126 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:11:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 MYTHOS AND LOGOS 55

disrespect. Hesiod was scandalized at the th

faith in the mythoi , not from doubt. A
routinely came in for questioning, sooner
In this context a fragment of Anakreon is
of Samos about 525, he remarks that myt
= fr. 21 Gentili). Whatever the precise m
proposed 'chatterers'),40 the political
Hesychios, |iú0apxor oi ttpoeotcoteç tc
Mythoi appear to be the programme of a
are not separable from the people who
rebellion, and are open to challenge them
understood and explicit. Mythoi are put i
stronger mythos will silence the weaker.
severely tested. Like modern-day commu
the first instance to be motivated by
presumably a partisan of his patron Poly
scholion which quotes the fragment tells
On the evidence, we should not however
stage of generalization about mythos. If w
'big men, whose talk is mythos , often tal
in the middle, Herodotos saying of Hekat
Anakreon saying of the fishermen 'these
possibilities as 'that other big man with h
Such a diagnosis of in-between-ness wo
Pindar. In three passages, myth- words ar

Kai Trou ti Kai ßpcnxov cpcmç írrrèp T

èÇaTiaTcõvTi |iü0oi

The talk of men - mythoi , embroidered be

1.28-29)

aocpía Sè kâetttei Trapáyoioa nú0oiç

Art deceives, leading astray with mythoi (Nem. 7.23)

èxQpcx 5' apa "rcápcpaoiç řjv Kai uáXai, aijauAcov |aú0cov óiacxporroç, 8oÁocppa8r|ç, kokottoiòv
õveiSoç

Odious deception there was long ago too, fellow-traveller of wily words, treacherous-scheming,
maleficent slander (Nem. 8.32-33)

40 C. M. Bowra, Greek Lyric Poetry from Aleman to simplv 'rhetor'.

Simonides (Oxford 1936) 290. For a recent discussion
of this fragment see F. Marzari, 'MuSifjxai: i ribelli di
Anacreonte', SIFC 4 (2006) 201-09. Very recently the
word has turned up in a papyrus fragment of a (?)comic
poet, perhaps Krates, and perhaps with reference to the
partisans of Samos: POxy 4951 i 9 cpíXoiç irapà
Hu[0i<rj>]Taiç. See H.-C. Günther ad loc., referring also
E. Lobel, CQ 21 (1927) 50, who however overlooked
Phoenix fr. 7.1 Powell, where the word appears to mean
41 For logos as 'account', see below. The contrast of
mythos and logos here must be considered fortuitous,
not a theorized dichotomy, but the passage shows the
potential latent in the traditional semantic fields.
Pindar's own myth criticism has its logical side: D.
Loscalzo, 'Pindaro tra |iO0os e Aóyoç', in M. Cannatà
Fera and G.B. D'Alessio (eds), I lirici greci . Forme
della communicazione e storia del testo (Messina 2001)
165-85.

This content downloaded from 189.34.1.126 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:11:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 56 FOWLER

In the first two of the

whose authority Pind
thrasymythos ; this is no
thrasylogos would be f
of this prevents Pindar u
of these places, great a
worthy of respect.
Amongst pre-Socratic p
instance, at Vors. 28 B8
correct dizësis ('investig
as it as at B 2.1: 'hear m
to be near the beginnin
false, which this mythos
as testimony of our in-
says at Vors. 31 B62.3 t
B23.il that his mytho
couples mythos with al
find what he says hard
Xenophanes, in a passa
to hymn the gods with
have nothing of battle
Mythoi are clearly we
context; one would like
in truth one can say lit
are synonyms; mythoi h
logoi the other parts; o
performed and the ter
one presumes, obvio
Xenophanes' criticism o
of the word mythoi, ev
later to link immoralit
'myths' in view, then o
omened, and myth itse
other hand, some other
could engender object
religiosity that Xenoph
to the term mythos.
Yet if mythos is still am
made logos the centre
Herakleitos logos meant
surviving fragments co

42 The Inwood, The Poems

earlier
B2.8, 6.10, 8.6. See R. Fowler, 'Herodotus and his
prose predecessors', in Dewald and Marincola (n.39)
29-45 at n.14.
43 B62.3 où yàp pô0oç òttógkottoç
áSaťiucov; B23.il öeoö Trápa nö0ov àxoúaas;
B114.1-2 co cpíÀoi oTSa uèv oüuek' ótXr|0eír| irápa
HÚ0O15 ouç ÈÇepáco. Inwood reasonably places the
latter fragment near the beginning of the poem: B.
term of Empedokles (2nd edition)
for ioT
(Toronto 2001) 82. Cf. also B17.14-15, B24.2.
See J.H. Lesher, Xenophanes of Colophon
(Toronto 1992) 48 for a variety of opinions.
oùB' 45 And poets, like Herakleitos (Vors. 22 B 40, 42, 56,
57, 104). For Xenophanes and myth, see briefly K.
Morgan, Myth and Philosophy from the Presocratics to
Plato (Cambridge 2000) 48-53.

This content downloaded from 189.34.1.126 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:11:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 MYTHOS AND LOGOS 57

reason',46 it nonetheless refers at once to

a correct and coherent account of reality
That we are dealing here with the beg
Herakleitos' theories threw logos into the
the power of logos ensued; Parmenides an
even if these were incompatible with e
however, that there are always two logoi
certain communion with reality is possibl
Without it his stance was inconceivable.

IV. Enter the Sophists; back to Herodotos

The 'in-between' character of Herodotos' stance requires further unpicking, but to do that it is
necessary first to assess the contribution of the Sophists.48 Logos, the power of speech and
argument, was for them almost a fetish. The ability to compose opposing logoi on any proposition,
though indispensable to progress in human arts and science and crucial for the fair administration
of justice, nevertheless had explosive implications for morality which on the commonest reading
of the evidence the Sophists did not fail to exploit.49 Górgias offered a challenging theory, or rather
aporia, on the relationship of logos to reality (Vors. 82 B3) and famously praised its power in his
speech exonerating Helen (Bll): if she succumbed to the witchcraft of logos, she could hardly be
blamed. Górgias' whole art revolved around logoi (Plato Gorg. 450b = Vors. 82 A27). Model
speeches exemplified the tricks of style and argument one might use to win one's point.
The centrality of logos in Sophism is well known, but in the present context two points need
to be made. (1) Sophism studies the power of logos in and of itself. It is logos that persuades
and deceives, not the speaker; the speaker learns how to use logos. This view of logos arises
naturally from the traditional neutrality of the word as denoting 'speech' pure and simple. Mythos
is logos plus other things and so is not suited to bear this emphasis. (2) The social and political
context of Sophistic rhetoric is the increasing importance of public debate in democratic Greek
cities. Here too it is not the mythos an individual pronounces but a logos he expounds which is
to be judged right or wrong on its own merits. Though the straightforward meaning of logos as
'account' is already implied in the Homeric verb KctTaÀéyeiv ('to recount accurately'; for
example, II. 10.413, 24.407; Od. 16.235), the fifth century saw logos emerge as both a socio-
logical phenomenon and a methodological problem. I refer again to Herakleitos' logos. Logos,
logoi and logioi are a central preoccupation for Herodotos. Like him, the Sophists were profes-
sional account-givers.

46 See W.K.C. Guthrie, A History of Greek and Górgias', in Long (n.47) 290-310; R.W. Wallace,
Philosophy I (Cambridge 1967) 419-34 for a close 'Plato's Sophists, intellectual history after 450, and
discussion of the history of the word Aóyoç and of Sokrates', in L.J. Samons II (ed.), The Cambridge
Herakleitos' logos. Guthrie is doubtful that the meaning Companion to the Age of Perikles (Cambridge 2007)
'faculty of reason' is found before the fourth century, 215-37. Though there are important differences
but acknowledges that his meanings (3) and (4) are between thinkers labelled 'Sophists', they may be
closely related to it; see the passages cited by Diels- considered for our purposes as a coherent intellectual
Kranz in the index to Vors., III 261 ('menschliche movement.
Vernunft'). 49 A. Ford ('Sophists without rhetoric: the arts of
47 E. Hussey, 'Heraclitus', in A.A. Long (ed.), The speech in fifth-century Athens', in Yun Lee Too (ed.),
Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity (Leiden 2001)
(Cambridge 1999) 89-112. See also Morgan (n.45) 85-109) rightly stresses the range of Sophistic work and
54-56 on Herakleitos' logos. Morgan well notes that their place in aristocratic education, and decries
the shared, public, unitary nature of logos is contrasted excessive credence in the traditional picture (deriving
by Herakleitos with the private, Muse-inspired, from Plato and Aristophanes) of Sophists as nothing but
multiplex and contradictory stories of supposedly wise immoral rhetors; however, one may find his reading of
poets. In this respect he resembles Hekataios. the evidence supporting the usual picture excessively
48 P. Woodruff, 'Rhetoric and relativism: Protagoras sceptical.

This content downloaded from 189.34.1.126 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:11:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
58 FOWLER

So the Sophists, in an
reasonable speech; but b
the fact, they aroused
ontology. Did they also
The word mythos occu
unhelpful is Górgias Vo
tragedy; apparently the
stories are fictive; the d
the audience feel vario
might or might not hav
Górgias defends the dec
logos and mythos (ind
'stories', however, if co
Aristotle's word for 'pl
as we have seen.50 In a
excess and unloose thei
usage, to be sure, but c
logoi). Curiously, in his
of gods (Vors. 88 B25 =
question is exactly the
a myth in his eponymo
fiction. But line 26, v|/
gives a clue: like mytho
logos that is the more a
The clearest evidence f
Protagoras, already m
former is the sort of ta
the choice to him, and h
'Once upon a time', he
324d6 Protagoras expl
demonstrations (though
(a 'logical proof) in supp
be taught are designate
sents the hated Sophist
corpus (769-72) to the o
Sophist's own work.51
prominent part of their
This is the most famo
learn that either myth
exclusive but compleme
opposed to reasoned a
Protagoras' speech (1) th
(2) the adoption of an
commitment as to whi

50 In the Pers. 713;

traditional PV of
uses 6
Aóyoç can be a narration us
interestingly of
11.368 of i Aischylos
Odysseus' (
tales; Ch
A
narration to 51 R.
that Fowler,
of a bard)
word means JHS 116
'account (1996
of even

This content downloaded from 189.34.1.126 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:11:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 MYTHOS AND LOGOS 59

position, which posed serious problems fo

truth while taking on board the complex
part, Protagoras might have arrived wher
of Herakleitos) but also what it was not; t
dislodge poetry from its throne of sophi
mythos is logos with accoutrements, and
'stories', and 'authoritative pronounceme
importance of (what we call) the Greek m
into being.
If we turn now to Herodotos, two points of contact with Protagoras immediately emerge. The
first has to do with the time of the gods, in which Protagoras sets his tale; this recalls Herodotos'
'so-called human age' (see above). Williams vigorously objects to translations such as 'the
human age' and in a sense he is right;52 but even 'human generation', in the sense that gods are
no longer involved in procreation, marks a significant change of epochs. 'So-called' indicates
that the matter was under discussion not just by Herodotos. When Williams writes (159) 'Such
formulations make Herodotos's work sound like an exercise in palaeontology - as though another
type of hominid, Homo semi-divinus, had walked the earth at one time, and it was a question of
dating the era when it did so', one replies 'that is just what he was doing'; the end of homo semi-
divinus was traditional from Hesiod's Catalogue of Women, and Herodotos was both dating this
epoch and articulating the difficulties about semi-divinity. It is not just piety that prevented
Herodotos from probing too deeply into fully divine affairs; he understood that they are categor-
ically beyond the reach of historié- an acknowledgement that, on the one hand, opened the door
for less pious inquirers to leave the gods out or deny their existence and, on the other, created
certain challenges for Herodotos himself in identifying the role of gods in human history, if not
as begetters of children, yet as guarantors of justice, as he believed them to be.53 Matters became
even more complicated when he grasped the significance of the Egyptian experience, which put
the boundary between the ages very much further back than traditional Greek notions allowed;
his need to find an explanation for the Greek misunderstanding of its date (2.43^4, 53, 146)
significantly implies that, in this passage at least, he assumes the same chronological boundary
everywhere.54

52 Williams (n.2) 155.
53 Cf. R. Fowler, 'Gods in early Greek historio-
graphy', in J. Bremmer and A. Erskine (eds), The Gods
of Ancient Greece : Identities and Transformations
(Edinburgh 2010) 318-34.
54 This point is I believe not addressed by V. Hunter,
Past and Process in Herodotus and Thucydides
(Princeton 1982), 86-87, where after an excellent
discussion she fights shy of saying that Herodotos
distinguishes spatium historicum from spatium
mythicum - a distinction then flatly denied on p. 104,
where see the many authorities she cites au contraire.
See further, E. Vandiver, Heroes in Herodotos. The
Interaction of Myth and History (Studien zur
klassischen Philologie 56) (Frankfurt 1991) for a
critique of Hunter; she well writes, 'His chronological
calculations, far from indicating that he made no
distinction between the heroes and modern men, rather
are themselves an indication of the importance of the
Heroic Age for establishing the borders and boundaries
of modern society, chronological as well as cultural'
(236). Cf. also R. Parker, Polytheism and Society at
Athens (Oxford 2005) 375: 'everybody knew that there
had been a time of myths'. Continuity between the ages
(a point on which deniers of the difference place much
stress) does not negate the ages. It remains the case,
however, that Herodotos' fundamental point is about
knowability, a point well stressed and explored by
Feeney (n.2) chapter 3. In general, see C. Darbo-
Peschanski, Le discours du particulier. Essai sur
l'enquête hérodotéenne (Paris 1987) 25-38; T. Harrison,
Divinity and History: The Religion of Herodotos
(Oxford 2000) 197-207 (rebutted by Feeney); I. Moyer,
'Herodotos and an Egyptian mirage: the genealogies of
the Theban priests', JHS 122 (2002) 70-90; J. Cobet,
'The organization of time in the Histories' , in Bakker et
al. (n.39) 387^12 at 405-11; K. Raaflaub, 'Philosophy,
science, politics: Herodotus and the intellectual trends
of his time', in Bakker et al. (n.39) 149-86 at 159;
Williams (n.2) 149-71. Williams brilliantly and
convincingly describes Thucydides' discovery of
historical time, but does not recognize that Thucydides
succeeded in articulating what Herodotos was trying to
put his finger on (see below).

This content downloaded from 189.34.1.126 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:11:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 60 FOWLER

The second point of co

special branch of publi
arising from the multipl
Dismissing alternative
tòv èóvxa Aóyov ('the
[iuSov. He often uses t
the nominal counterpar
scrutinized); or he u
measure/standard/patte
expression kata logon t
'it stood to reason' that
(8.111.2).57 In this passa
one has just been given;
to speak, that quality b
ableness. A similar fo
2.33.2, 3.45.3, 6.124.2).5
atical way by Herodoto
are learned authorities,
But more important th
the late sixth century t
threw up problems of v
culture was becoming e
dominated by Greek my
and recognized valence i
or religious. What Feen
contemporary present'6

55 Fowler (n.51) 80-86.

Nem. 6.45, however, we might think that the poets too
t or example, z.öö.z the youngster s size are included in the logioi. See E. Cingano on Pyth. 1.94
corresponds to that of the egg', ó veogoòç kcxtq tòvin B. Gentili et al. (eds), Pindaro: Le Pitiche (Verona
Xóyov tou cpou yíVETQl. 1995) 361; Gerber (above) 30; A. Corcella, 'TTie new
57 ÚTTGKpíVaVTO TTpÒÇ TGCUTCC XÉyOVTEÇ GÛÇ KOCTÒ genre and its boundaries: poets and logographers', in
Xóyov r¡aav apa ai 'ASflvai laeyáXai te KaiRengakos and Tsakmakis (n.39) 33-56 at 37. The word
EÙSaiiiovEç Kai 0ecov xpr)OTcbv tíkoiev eu. KaTàalso occurs with uncertain force at Ion fr. 26.2 West, but
Xóyov in the same sense is attributed to Empedoklesit seems reasonable to suppose that the
Vors. 31 A20 and to Górgias at Vors. 82 B3 (77); for himPindaric/Herodotean meaning is operative, that is, he
logos is both speech and argument (Bll (9), Blla (6)).means people learned in tradition. 'Learned' is the
58 At the same time, the expression can mean 'asmeaning also in Demokritos Vors. 68 B30, 299, 300.17;
(my personal) logos takes me', i.e. 'however I wish' cf. Ar. Pol. 1329b8 of mythographical tradition; the early
(1.132.3, 4.127.3, 7.41.1; cf. yvcbmi aipÉEi 2.43.3). use is echoed at Plut. Thes. 3 and Diod. 2.4.3 = Ktesias
59 The true referent of Xóyioi cxvSpEç does not need FGrHist 688 F lb, 2.38.3 = Megasthenes 715 F 4. In the
to be discussed here; see N. Luraghi, 'Local knowledge Diodoran passage tiuSoXoyouoiv oi XoyicoTaToi
in Herodotos' Histories' , in N. Luraghi (ed.), Thenicely encapsulates the history under investigation here,
Historian's Craft in the Age of Herodotos (Oxford 2001) whereby the authoritative Xóyoi were once also
authoritative uu0oi, but for the author of these words
138-60; N. Luraghi, 'Meta -historié, method and genre in
the Histories' , in Dewald and Marincola (n.39) 76-91. (doubtless Diodoros) they are just |iO0oi. If Ktesias used
60 At 4.46.1 the quality of being Xóyioç is linked to
such an expression, it might count as an example of 'in-
wisdom; at 2.3.1 the Heliopolitai are the XoyicoTaToibetweenness'; or it could already postdate, as it would
have done for Megasthenes, the invention of mythology.
of the Egyptians, i.e. the most learned ( cf 2.77.1). Pindar
at Pyth. 1.94 (470 BC) seems to indicate that the Xóyioi 61 As Plato remarks at Crit. 110. a, nu0oXoy(a yàp
àvaÇr|TTiaís te tcov TTaXaicov iíetò axoXfjs aja' ètti
are prose narrators as opposed to poets; cf. Nem. 6.30
(the date is ca. 475; see D.E. Gerber, HSCP 99 (1999)tcxç ttóXeis EPXECJ0OV, ÖTav iSriTÓv Tiaiv rjSTi tou
ßiou
34-36), where Gerber and others defend the mss' cxoiSoi TccvayKaîa KaTEGKEuaajiEva, TTpiv 5è où.
Kai Xóyioi against Pauw's ccoi5a' Kai Xóyoi (of whichMythology happens first with reflection.
the implication is the same for the present purpose); at 62 Feeney (n.2) 71.

This content downloaded from 189.34.1.126 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:11:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 MYTHOS AND LOGOS 61

were thus an inevitable target of investig

myth as effectively its 'textualization'. 'P
writes, 'and a view of myth as a literary p
series of isolated tableaux. Just as the writ
logical storehouse may be raided for attra
form of convention, and it is employed b
textualization, though not produced for s
overlooked work of the mythographers, w
the list with ten books - functioned as com
written texts, and not employed, as myth
social occasion.64 The very existence of su
capital, long before the Second Sophistic a
The text of Herodotos' Histories reached i
of myth was long a fact. That his great s
mythical as opposed to the historical can
analysis of his words and procedures, whic
versed in Sophistic writings, his mythõdes m
of that concept. May we impute the same
it is not only about the textualization of m
building that textualization into one's own
adopting strategies to cope with perceived di
by the new status of myth. The answer, I
{to mythõdes ) and implicit in Herodotos. It i
the great proem and its dismissal of unknow
which is the testing of sources, and the li
how); the prominent and special, nearly te
contemporary intellectual trends; the man
that of Helen - I mean the elimination of
Greek gods first arrived in Greece and th
invented the divine names, which amounts
be, or at least can be, looked at in a new
Homer or some other poet (2.23), this assoc
subject of history clearly anticipates the late
the first articulation of what makes a myth,
about the gods collectively constitute the
then one may even speculate that Herodo
exclude mythoi with which contemporary in
word mythos in his text are signposts of the
But is it not a problem that Herodotos a
would regard as legendary? Not at all. On
that 'the principle is stronger than the ex
example. The historicity of the Trojan
counted as such, in the Greek world to

63 Morgan (n.45) the treatment at Mythe et histoire (n.19) 41 - 42 = Myth

130.
64 R. Fowler, 'How and
toHistory 24-25 is cursory.
tell a myth: genealogy
mythology, mythography', 65 Williams (n.2). In some points 19
Kernos he is anticipated
(2006) 3-4
Fowler, Early Greek Mythography I: Text and by Detienne, L'invention de la mythologie (n.3) 105-22
Introduction (Oxford 2000). Most recently, Calarne, in = 52-62 of the English translation.
Woodard (n.19) 259-60, overlooks early mythography, 66 Williams (n.2) 167.
which would appear seriously to undermine his thesis;

This content downloaded from 189.34.1.126 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:11:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 62 FOWLER

heroes were too deeply

cated at any point in a
attributed to the heroe
interacted with humans
he must remove the off
he ishistoricizing - for
be admitted to history
implies mythology. C
QTrriyriiiccTcov (2.3),
Herodotos' myths.67 In
very strong, being cou
Herodotos does not see
term mythõdes ; he ca
one may say) uncertain
tially the same process
history', one wonders
Thucydides place the li
and ordinary humans, b
Herodotos there is a s
become mythicum and
they chose put the hero

V. After the Sophists

Before turning finally to
century. Except in trag
myth- words are not of
mortals tell false tales a
mythos with tales of th

67 Cf. Fowler Herodotos is(n.53);

in his criticism of myths; R. 'in dieser Fow
and religion Hinsicht', in he early Greek
concludes, 'könnte er sogar der radikalste h
(2009) 21-39. aller griechischer Historiker sein' (296). I do not agree
68 Cf. E. Irwin,with the view that Herodotos
'Thein the end doubts the
politi
"historians" on
possibility first
of historical "thal
truth as some scholars suggest; I
(ed.), Debating the
agree with E. Baragwanath's assessmentAthen
in Motivation
(Cambridgeand 2007) Narrative in Herodotus (Oxford188-223.
2008).
says about Thucydides
69 Including utterances whose content are 'stories' can
about the necessary samenes
(above, n.50) or an 'argument / attempt to persuade' (for
(163-64; L. Bertelli
example, Aesch. Eum. 82, cf. 582; ('"C'era
PV 647; Soph. Ant. u
origini della 226; fr. 314.371; Eur. Hyps. fr. 16.12). In Euripides,gre
storiografìa
degli allievi however, onea Italo
may perhaps detect traces of moreLana recent
80-82) finds this
meanings; the word is usedbelief
somewhat self-consciously alre
personal genealogy of traditional mythology at Ionwhich 265, 994, IA 72 and c
ages); about especially IA 799 with a dig not
events at poets(!); at fr. maki
484 it is
the sort of used of cosmology. Atthey
event Med. 1080-82 we find are al
the awareness XETTTÓTEpoi
that JÌU0OI ('subtleour
disputations, arguments')
prese
(167: cf. Hdt. (cf. fr. 1.5;
924); here we haveW. the notion Rosier,
of competing
des Autors: zur Herodots Stellung zwischen HÜ0OI (cf. Held. 180); at El. 743 the chorus expresses
Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit', Phil. 135 (1991) scepticism about a traditional myth but says that such
215-20); and the remark on p. 168, 'Once the structure cpoßepoi |iO0oi are good for piety, a sentiment like
of historical time is in place, the gods will eventually Kritias', or Kephalos' at PI. Resp. 330d-e (where the
bow out'. H.-G. Nesselrath, 'Herodot und der word |iO0oi is used). At IT 901 the chorus declares the
griechische Mythos', Poetica 28 (1996) 275-96 well
account it has just heard is even more amazing than
stresses how thoroughgoing and uncompromising HÜ0OI.

This content downloaded from 189.34.1.126 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:11:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 MYTHOS AND LOGOS 63

hardly be certain about; but lest one think

pseudea (as opposed to sometimes, which is
admonished to alëthomytheein not polylog
manner of rubbish. At A126a he uses the
Demokritos is an example of our 'in-betwe
at this time the meaning '(fictional or imag
not exclusively, the 'Greek myths'. At Aris
amusing tale from Aesop (cf. Pax 131; Plut
Lamia or Kardopion, and Bdelykleon, inter
instead of such mythoi. With this expressi
mythos, 'human mythos', of a story or plot-l
natural tales. The semi-choruses at Lys. 78
legendary characters.70 Diogenes of Apollo
quoting source is accurate, praises Homer a
the divine; in his opinion Homer understoo
but the significance in the present context
nated both 'mythical' and 'false'. We may
he says, exaggerate the old tales, logograph
passage of time these events have 'won th
in his sentence applies to the ancient events
not only for failing to demythologize even
Taken together these texts remind us that th
myths' in this period; but it is important to no
after the qualitative difference in these sto
from Plato and others where 'myth' denote
but mythoi could encompass stories sharing th
examples of mythoi that are not 'myths' are a
the prime instance, and define the category
mythoi were associated, as we have seen fro
Plato provides further evidence for the
reading of the many passages where he spe
not original with him. Rather, he has inhe
his own philosophy and set about explorin
illustrates this well enough. Plato often
distinction; but what is unfamiliar here is
other passages cited above make clear, but the
of all words for Plato. That is the genuine
in the sub-lunar world? We hear next about
tional myth as told by poets and about
progresses it becomes clear too that this sta
is mythos) is more important than first m
all discourse is logos, including mythos, bu
cated relationship with logos in the philos
foreshadowed at 376d, where Sokrates rem
discussion (logos), as though we were tellin

70 See Sommerstein and Henderson in their âvSpaç. For an overview of Plato's use of the stem
commentaries ad loc. mytholog-, see H.-G. Nesselrath, Platon Kritias
" loi ouv, cocnrep ev liuöcoi |iu0oÂoyouvT£ç te (Göttingen 2006) 150-51.
Kai axoXř|v âyovTEç Àóycoi TraiSeúconev toùç

This content downloaded from 189.34.1.126 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:11:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
64 FOWLER

has just been labelled

phrase 'in our logos' c
nonetheless a mythos o
to educate men.72 In d
myth (415a2-3 and c7),
the truth of his dialect
Phaedo HObl, b4 and 11
if the story is true, but
29d2, 72d4-8. At Górgi
true, while acknowledgin
about stories such
(and
the 'myth of Er', thou
s'excuse, s'accuse, he can
something like it (as in
as a logos. The mythos
drawn between the true
falsehood; Plato's episte
is also logos here on ea
philosopher is to follow
elements of our condi
actually be put to good
Note that Plato is sayi
of the two not be perf
two commingle in the
tainted by the irrational
guishing them, only p
without divine revela
inside, as it were, produ
faculty which is itself
I believe this is the re
honesty, calls the statu
challenge in this respec
be, it would imply cert
to designate the Repub
Republic is called a myt
ever to come into exist
otherwise.74 Conversely
strange ( atopos ) one. 75
It is more often called
undercut this to some ex
fully say, if we put un

72 The (Amsterdam
paradox is the 20
sharp
'educate' is TtaiSeúco.
75 Does Myth
Plato p
also at Soph. 242c8;
place' i.e. Polit.
non-e
286a2. The mythos/logos
76 29 times ac
TToXiTEÍa f|v nu0oXoyoO(iE
77 Rowe (n.74)
73 Cf. Gorg. on493a, d;
'probable'Rep.
rat
74 C.J. Rowe,speculations
'The status (h o
Timaeus', in C.
meant Natali
to workan
Physicus. Cosmologia
however (so e
to

This content downloaded from 189.34.1.126 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:11:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 MYTHOS AND LOGOS 65

we are given the tools to realize the super

in which we must turn our mental gaze;
despair would be the only option.
Now all of this constitutes a possible, but
has first invented the mythos/logos dic
already established. Even if 'mythology'
as a recognizable object well before him. G
hardly be surprising if the noun turned
also the first to use the word philosophia,
Plato has indeed performed extraordina
myth, as he defines it; that is because it
myth, like Xenophanes, he has no room;
Phdr. 229c-30a he will not even allow the
rization or rationalization. Such tactics m
myth Platonically understood. His own m
application into a wholly new sphere, wit
older methods. Even his way of working
and the depth of underlying thought. Th
a myth, being an unverifiable account of
Herodotean story to guarantee its bona fi
mark of sustained engagement with the i

VI. Saving the myth

Have we, then, saved the myth with whi
see where the traditional view goes too f
moved majestically from barbarous myth
Greeks as irrational primitives (one of t
humanity as free of mythos. The Greeks h
mythical thought dominated; these are cr

(several times, in fact: usually

29d, calls 59c,
itself logos68d)
in the mundane sense of the
casually, in li
his obsession with it (excluding the word term (so Herodotos constantly, as we have noted; in the
TTapa|iu0éo|iai and derivatives, I find 140 instances ofTimaios , ÀéyETai at 22c7, e5 could be an allusion to an
myth- words in his corpus). I think Plato deliberatelyhistoriographical stylistic tic), but whose claims to
sharpens the dilemma in this dialogue and thus agree 'truth' could only be derided by the philosopher. But
with Morgan that he has dramatized the fundamental this too is speculation. Cf further T. Johansen, Plato's
point about doing philosophy. M. Burnyeaťs importantNatural Philosophy (Cambridge 2004) chapters 2-3.
contribution ('Eikõs muthos', in C. Partenie (ed.), 78 |ju0o]Aóycoi has been suggested as a supplement
Plato's Myths (Cambridge 2009) 167-86) furtherin the Derveni papyrus iv 6, but iepo]Xóycoi seems
clarifies the meaning of eikõs, but I do not see why his likelier to be right: D. Sider, 'Heraclitus in the Derveni
arguments entail the inference that Plato attempts topapyrus', in A. Laks and G. Most (eds), Studies on the
overcome the dichotomy of mythos and logos (179).Derveni Papyrus (Oxford 1997) 135; R. Janko, 'The
That is impossible. Rather, Plato is trying to do the best Derveni papyrus (Diagoras of Melos, Apopyrgizontes
he can under the circumstances. One can also wonder if, logoiì). A new translation', CP 96 (2001) 1-32 at 3.
as a quasi- historia about the distant human past as Note that 'hierologos' need be no more complimentary
opposed to myth (the Egyptian records which guaranteethan 'mythologos', as col. xx of the same papyrus
the truth about antiquity and the picture of Solon theshows; Lucian Astrol. 10 associates lEpoXoyiri with
traveller are clear echoes of Herodotos), there isn't an yof|TEÍr| (and both with Orpheus). The object of the
implicit commentary here on the nature of historical criticism, if it is such, would be Herakleitos' unrecon-
investigation which, having as its object the investi- structed use of the Erinyes; as a sage he ought to know
gation of things in this world, could within its own better. Whichever supplement is correct, its abstract
(earthly) frame of reference have the status of logos (not, counterpart (iepoXoyía / jiuSoXoyia) is implied. Cf.
that is, attempting to say anything about the real world,also Herodotos' ipoi Xóyoi (see above).
but only giving a logos of the images thereof) and indeed 79 See Partenie (n.77) 1-27 for an overview.

This content downloaded from 189.34.1.126 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:11:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
66 FOWLER

mythos/logos contrast,
in the fifth century, a
philosophy in ways tha
the Western tradition.
came into focus as a pr
as a result of the wo
dichotomy ce itself is a
mythos continued to b
invention of the mid-c
of mythographers beca
in retrospect, necessary
What value we may ch
perhaps a matter for f
thought it reasonable t
Like Gilbert Murray o
conscience and consciou
slightly disturbed by 2
lation can be analysed,
power structures played
does not necessarily im
But the trans-periodic,
unusually strong. The i
impossible to pass, in th
tradition to comprehend
impenetrability of that
in the first place. It is
progress, perhaps the m
that rationality is entir
lead a rational person to
consciousness should n
Sokrates, may never con
the better instincts of
myths may be no more
myth of primary irrat

80 Four Stages 81 Cf.

of William
Greek R
London Foucault.
1912) 103-54.

This content downloaded from 189.34.1.126 on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:11:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms