The value of myth and the mythicaJ2 was onc of the major problcms raised in thc development of Greek historical writing. A large part of available material, both oral and written, was mythical in kind; it consistcd of genealogics and storics about the time when gods and men were on closer terms.3 Many such 'facts' were accessible in Homer and Hesiod.4 There were, too, numerous Iocal traditions, dealing with such topics as the founding of cities, anecdotes related by loeal guides and preserved out of patriotic satisfaetion. As historians came to eoncentrate on their own times, or the recent past, making use of oral sources and personal observations," they discovered that their own enquiries were often in confiict with the versions of myth. Not surprisingly, mythicaJ and historical eame to be eonsidered as opposites, and mythical, in the sense of 'untrue', beeame almost a by-word.6 Myth seemed Iikcly to be rejected from all historical work; but since the material was abundant and the stories weil known, critics and historians continued to discuss the pi ace of myth in history. This paper is an attempt to illustrate the ways in which Greek writers tried to save myth for history ; and to indicate briefl)' the validity of myth in historical writinp-as compared to its validity in philosophy and rhetoric.