Claude Macnaughton
27/11/15
"
"
“Greek drama makes no distinction between myth and history.” Discuss.
"
1
The telling of mythical stories is central to Athenian drama, in particular in the case of tragedy, as almost
every single extant tragedy uses a mythical legend as its main plot-line, the comedies of Aristophanes also
include mythical aspects, but it is less common and far less central to the plots of the plays. Despite the
constant use of myth, tragedies and comedies also deal with real “history” and at times it is hard to
distinguish the two, as it is a popular opinion that the Greeks made no distinction between the two,
incorporating what they viewed to be the real past with the mythical realm of gods and legends.1
Nevertheless it is not quite this clear as the complexities of tragedy and the intentions of the playwrights add
many more ambiguities, this is because tragedians knew exactly what they were doing when they wedded
myth and history, as they took stories and moulded them according to what they wanted to express about the
present, thus they fundamentally incorporated the two to put forward a message, not because the two were
viewed as the same. Moreover the concept of what constituted a myth and what constituted history in Athens
is also important to understand whether a distinction would be needed.
"
To understand what distinction is made between myth and history it is important to understand what both of
these terms would mean in the mind of an Athenian. In fact their concept of a myth is very different to how
we would see it, as to us myths are a certain set of fantastical tales belonging to a specific culture which are
used to explain certain aspects of their culture, such as their customs or history, or as Burkert describes them
“a traditional tale with secondary, partial reference to something of collective importance”.2 In Greek culture,
however they played a more important role than this, as they were always more politicised than we could
imagine now, no longer merely consisting of etiological tales but also containing commentary on life at the
time, which means that they are impossible to understand without a good sense of the context. Moreover
they are not timeless, as we would probably be inclined to see them, but their impact and their motivation
must be understood from looking at social, political and religious contexts.3 This can be seen plainly in the
Ion as without knowledge of Athens’ attempts to justify itself as head of other Ionian states, the impact of
this play is largely lost. On the other hand, the idea of history is probably harder to judge within the context
of drama. This is because myth was history, in so far as the basic tales which were told were considered to be
historical in their basic forms. This can be seen is so far as the essence of Oedipus at Colonus, the burial of
Oedipus at Athens, was considered history but the suppliant pattern added by Sophocles was distinctly not
part of the history.4 This shows how what we consider mythical stories did make it into the Greek idea of
1
Huxley (1981) p.225
2
Bowie (1993) p.7
3
Morales (2007) p.32
4
Companion to Greek Tragedy p.189
Claude Macnaughton
27/11/15
2
history to an extent, visible from the stories in Herodotus’ Histories, but that they mythical take on them in
drama does distinguish them, albeit not entirely.
"
In Greek drama history and myth are very much linked, as on stage history is often portrayed in the form of
a mythical story, and so a distinction is less obvious. The plots of tragedies which concerned myth were plots
which would have already been widely known by the audience, and in fact they were recycled heavily, as there
were over the course of the 5th century 12 different plays entitles Oedipus, 8 entitles Thyestes and 7 entitled
Medea, which demonstrates how the subject matter was pretty much established already, as these stories were
well known.5 What this meant was that fundamentally the tragedian could not deviate too far from the
original story, fundamental details could not be changed merely due to the fact that they were also a form of
history and so had to be kept in this way, for example as previously mentioned, the fundamental story-line of
the Oedipus at Colonus could not be changed, only the characterisation and certain unimportant events
could be adapted by the writer. More strikingly though is the situation in Euripides’ Ion, as here we are
presented with an origins story that is meant to have historical basis. The importance here is on the
autochthony of the Athenian people, something they stressed dearly in Athens due to a sense of national
pride. This can be seen in the Ion through the contrived genealogy if his family, which Euripides has to
mould to fit him into the canonical list of ancient Athenian kings, of which he was not generally considered
to be a member, and this is created through the link to Erechtheus, his supposed grandfather, who was one of
the most famous founding kings of Athens.6 Here Euripides successfully links history and myth as he creates
the historical view in the eyes of his audience that the Ionian subjects of Athens deserve this role because
their founding hero was a pure Athenian himself. A similar image is seen in the Eumenides of Aeschylus as a
historical precedent is given for the future Athenian council, the Aereopagus, presented in a mythical past,
which does not mean to claim to be the creation of the very specific Athenian judicial body, but rather sets
out to present it in the past to explain where the Athenian version would come from. Moreover both these
plays create a mythical promise for prosperity in Athens, which could be seen as a historical precedent for
Athens’ greatness, portrayed here by goddess’.7 Furthermore in the Acharnians we see festivals described
through their mythology, such as the Anthesteria, which is described through the myth of Orestes, who came
to king Demophon, but to avoid pollution due to the murder of his mother, but instead gives him his own
table and jug, and then does the same to everyone else.8 What this shows is the play using the mythical
example to explain the festival coherently to the audience, thus making it a part of the festival’s “history”.
Therefore it is clear that Athenian plays incorporated history, as the Persians by Aeschylus is itself a historical
play in essence, thus blurring the distinction to an extent.
5
Ibid. pp.183-4
6
Winkler p.179
7
Ibid. p.206
8
Bowie p.36
Claude Macnaughton
"
27/11/15
3
Despite this, in drama there is a strong distinction between what constitutes a myth and what is historical,
especially in the eyes of the playwright. Although a degree of the mythical stories told do include historical
material, especially in the retelling of Athenian kings and their lives and exploits, but fundamentally the myth
is not meant to convey a true background, but the idea is to present a commentary on a certain aspect of the
city at the very time of the play’s production, thus meaning that the mythical side is merely a tool to
accomplish this, as this is largely the side of the play which the dramatist has added in his own interpretation
of events. The can be seen in comedy where the role of tragedy is less central than in tragedy, but still of
importance, such as the use of the myth of Telephus by Aristophanes and Dicaeopolis to show his fall from
from grace through the beggar costume is by no means historical, rather to emphasise his role through people
knowledge of such famous stories. The Ion is the key example of this, though. As discussed, the autochthony
of Athens is the main point, as well as the justification of imperialism, but they are awkwardly fitted into the
story. The tragedy attempts to incorporate political history through imaginary roots of citizenship,9 but what
Euripides is doing here is clear and it does not fit into the story, as the know version was that Xuthus was
Ion’s father and Apollo’s role is created by the dramatist as he was the patron god of the Ionians, as well as
the fact that the lineage of the Athenians had to be pure, and with Xuthus not being an Athenian, a divine
alternative was the only option, thus creating a story with much political meaning but little attempt to
actually hold itself up historically, but this is not Euripides’ intent, as the play is not a device to teach history
but to underline key values in Athenian culture. In fact here he presents not a picture of a historical Athens
but of on the present, where citizenship is valued so highly, as can be seen in Ion lament about the treatment
of foreigners in Athens as well as the attitudes of the chorus and Kreousa’s servant towards him.10 This
similar principal is visible in Oedipus at Colonus, in which Athens is portrayed as the just city in contrast to
Thebes, as we see Creon attempt to bring Oedipus back to punish him while Theseus counters this by
protecting him and saying: "You have come to a city that practices justice, that sanctions nothing without
law.”11, and here Sophocles is not trying to teach that Athens had the same democratic judicial principles in
the time of Oedipus (and it is the same in the case of the Aeropagus in the Eumenides), but rather he is
conveying this message about Athens in a fictitious portrayal, but not one that compromises what historical
aspect there may be to the plot of the play, thus showing how myth and history were distinguished in tragedy.
It is also important to consider the fact that these myths are used to explain facts about the present stat win
Athens which were impaired by a portrayal of recent history and their placement in mythical times gave the
playwright the chance to experiment to truly show his message, thus consciously manipulating a “myth”
adding what he needed and leaving out what he didn’t, thus showing his acknowledgement that these were
10
Winkler p. 180
11
Oedipus at Colonus ll.1040-1
Claude Macnaughton
27/11/15
4
stories, while the need to keep the basic plot which was history for them shows that they knew the two apart
and thought of them separately. 12
"
Ultimately, myths are stories known well to all of the society, and in Athens myths were viewed as having
basis in history, especially when concerning the history of their own city, and so the lines are blurred to an
extent. Nevertheless it is clear that ultimately the message the writer desires to convey and the way he did it
through manipulation and characterisation of myths shows that they were not entirely historical as they could
be changed as the playwright saw fit, thus showing that a difference between historic truth and mythological
fantasy was present in the Athenian mind when concerning drama.
"
"
"
Bibliography:
H. Morales, Classical Mythology: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford 2007)
P. Easterling (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy (Cambridge 1997)
J.J. Winkler and F.I. Zeitlin (eds.), Nothing to do with Dionysos? (Princeton 1990)
A.M. Bowie, Aristophanes: Myth, Ritual and Comedy (Cambridge 1993)
George Huxley (1981). "Myth and History". The Classical Review (Cambridge University Press). New Series,
Vol. 31 (2): 225–227
Sophocles. The Three Theban Plays. Trans. Robert Fagles. New York: Penguin Books, 1984
Christian Wolff, The Design and Myth in Euripides' Ion, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 69
(1965), pp. 169-194
12
Companion to Greek Tragedy p.189