It may be empty and meaningless, but it’s nevertheless the answer to the (presumably empty and meaningless) question that you asked.
No, Romulus and Remus are quite different. One of the claims for them - well, for Romulus in particular - is the foundation of the City of Rome. The claim that somebody founded a city isn’t a supernatural claim, but it’s certainly a distinguishing one.
Suppose two brothers called Romulus and Remus were instrumental in establishing the settlement that became the City of Rome. There’s nothing supernatural, or even fundamentally improbable, about that, so it’s something that could be true. And, if it were true, then in principle the historicity of Romulus and Remus could be demonstrated (although in practice it seems unlikely that it could be done). Which would mean that we could show that the two people who are the subject of the Romulus and Remus stories actually existed. That’s not the same thing, as already noted, as showing that the stories are true. In this example, the story that they founded Rome would be true; other stories might or might not be true.
No. Historicity, by definition, is something which does have a definite objective answer. Alexander the Great either did, or did not, live. John F Kennedy either was, or was not, shot in Dallas on 22 November 1963. Richard III either did, or did not, order the murder of the princes in the Tower. The problem is that in some cases it is difficult or impossible for us to ascertain what the objective answer is. But that tells you something about us and our limitations, not about the objective truth or falsity of the historical claim we are investigating. On some of these claims historical controversy rages; on others nobody is bothered by the fact that we do not know the objective truth. But, again, that tells you something about the subjective significance or interest the claims have for us, but nothing about the objective truth or falsity of the claims themselves.
My bone of contention has nothing to do with the supernatural in particular, it has to do with the arbitrary nature of the minimum set of defining features that are sufficient to determine whether a real historical person corresponds meaningfully to a mythical figure.
You’ve made and entirely arbitrary declaration that if we can find two real people whose only resemblance to the legendary R & R is that they played some role in the founding of Rome, then the legendary R & R “actually existed”. I say nonsense - “playing a role in founding Rome” is not sufficient, and all you’ve done is shown that two other people existed. After all, somebody surely founded the place. And there’s no way to resolve our difference of opinion, since it’s entirely subjective.
Asserting this does not make it so. A legendary figure described in myth has a certain set of characteristics. Exactly how many of those characteristics must a real historical person possess in order for us to declare that the real historical person “was” the person described in the myth, as opposed to somebody who just bears some vague resemblance?
Unless you are looking at recent events recorded in massive detail (the assassination of Kennedy, say), then there will almost never be 100% concordance between a mythical figure and reality. And it’s entirely arbitrary what percentage concordance there must be between the characteristics of the mythically described figure and the facts about a real documented historical figure in order to justify the claim the mythical figure was “real”.
That’s not a question about historicity, though. “Corresponds meaningfully” is a subjective notion; what is meaningful for you may be less so (or more so) for me. A question about whether A “corresponds meaningfully” to B is not a question about historicity, or about the objective existence of either A or B.
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that if Rome really was founded by two brothers called Romulus and Remus, then the story that Romulus and Remus, the founders of the City, were suckled by a wolf is a story about two persons who did exist. It may be a false story about them, but nevertheless the subjects of the story did exist; they are historical figures.
If it’s objectively true that Romulus and Remus founded the City of Rome, then our difference is not “entirely subjective”.
Consider the alternative; suppose there was absolutely certainly no historical figure who corresponded in any way to the subject of any of the R&R stories. Suppose we conclusively demonstrated the truth of an entirely different account of the foundation of the City by different people at a different time and in different circumstances. Would you not then agree with me that, as an objective truth, Romulus and Remus did not exist, and the R&R stories deal with imagined/mythical/fictional characters?
If it can be objectively true that a character who is the subject of a story did not exist, it can equally be objectively true that a character who is the subject of a story did exist. This is independent of the truth or reliablity of the story itself.
I think you’re asking the wrong question. A story we have about a real person may reflect many, or few characteristics of the person. There are several pharaohs of Egypt of whom we know literally nothing but the name, and that because it is recorded in a single monument or inscription somewhere. Assume for the moment that those Pharaohs did actually exist (which in fact is likely to be the case; that’s the parsimonioius explanation for the exisence of the monument/inscrption). Do we say that the monuments/inscriptions are not about real Pharaohs because the only correspondence between the historical figures and the inscriptions is a single detail - the name? We do not. We say that the monuments/inscriptions relate to real people, but tell us very little about them. If the monuments also added the claim that the Pharaoh concerned was a direct descendant of the Sun (a claim made by all the Pharaohs, if I recall correctly) we might add that what little they tell us is not entirely reliable. But it still wouldn’t mean that the monuments didn’t refer to real Pharaohs.
The question is not how many characteristics, or what percentage of characteristics, must be shared between the actual person and the story person for us to accept that they are the same person. The real question is, what’s the origin of the story? When it arose, did it refer to the actual person? If so, then it does indeed refer to an actual person, and the addition or accretion of fictional or metaphorical or prophetic or propagandistic or whatever detail doesn’t change that. The story that Hitler had only one big ball does indeed refer to the historical Adolf Hitler, and we don’t change our view about this when we find out that he had the usual complement.
Actually, Kennedy is a pretty good example to illustrate that you don’t have to be in the realms of myth or ancient history before you can say that there won’t be “100% concordance” between the story and the actuality. There are lots of statements made about Kennedy whose truth is doubted or controverted. That doesn’t change the fact that all those claims - accepted as true, accepted as false, or controversial - are claims about a real person.
And the same is true of mythical figures, or figures from older periods of history. The question of their reality is an objective question, which is independent of the reliablity of the information that we have about them. We may be more or less certain that various people were real. But, if we are satisfied that they are real, we don’t doubt their reality merely because they feature in an implausible story, and we don’t say that the story refers to someone else who happens to have the same name but is entirely fictional. We just say that the story is mythic, or propagandistic, or of doubtful reliability, or whatever. But it’s still a mythic/propganadistic/unreliable story about a real person.
The leaders of the Danish Great Heathen Army that conquered much of England in the 9th century are often known as the Sons of Ragnar. But it’s not certain whether their supposed father, Ragnar Lothbrok, was legendary or real.
Why? Because those are the mundane elements of Moses’ story. Certainly, as independent events, each of those elements occurred many times. It’s plausible that they occurred in conjunction once.
For Noah, I assume I guy saved some people and animals on a watercraft.
I see no reason to reject unremarkable and mundane elements of an oral history because other elements are extraordinary and fantastical.
In terms of the OP, Moses certainly qualifies as someone who may not have existed. But I also think he qualifies as someone who may have existed, as some kernel of truth like Riemann’s Steve.
Pretty well although the man and myth are fairly different.
Throwing out the obvious legends like Pecos Bill my first thoughts were Homer and Robin Hood; the latter because I’ve watched too much cable (TDC and Travel) the last couple months.
Along with that there is Panfilov’s 28. They all supposedly died defending Moscow against a tank assault. It doesn’t quite fit the topic, I think the names all corresponded to real people. Or many of them anyway. But it is certain that their fates were not what the Soviet propaganda machine said. A number of them survived the war. I’m not sure if they knew they were named Heroes of the Soviet Union or not.
Your assumed minimal criteria for the historicity of Romulus and Remus seem to be “people with these names, who played a part in founding Rome”. But you are glossing over the fact that these are subjective minimal criteria.
What if two real people called Tomulus and Jemus founded Rome?
What if two real people called Frank and Harry founded Rome?
What if two real people called Romulus and Remus built three houses on the outskirts of Rome, but did nothing more?
What if two babies called R&R were once really suckled by a wolf, and lived around that time, but had nothing to do with founding Rome?
There are no objective criteria by which you can claim that the figures R&R described in legend were “real historical figures”. “Historicity” is not an objective question.
This is my entire point.
I think “historicity” can be a distracting and sometimes silly concept, because it addresses the issue backwards in a form that can never be answered objectively. The historicity of a legendary figure is not an objective question. We have no objective minimal criteria by which to claim that any real historical person “is” the person described in the legend.
We obviously do have real historical people who did live, and as we discover more about them, we can answer questions like “how much of the legend is true”, or “where did the legend arise from”, “which parts of the legend refer to which combination of different real people and real events”, etc., etc. But none of these things can ever lead to an objective yes/no answer to the question framed the other way around “did the person described in legend exist as a real person?”.
To add to this they are making a movie in Russia that is supposed to be out in November. The plotline is apparently from the Soviet propaganda story and not reality.
It was my understanding that Arthur(*) was an uncommon name, and this uncommonness contributes to the mystery and confusion,
Just like all named Peter are named, directly or indirectly, after one particular man in the Gospels, doesn’t the modern English name derive mainly from the legendary warrior?
Maybe Hercules was a guy who herded some cattle, and the story of the Trojan War all springs from that time some girl eloped with a guy in the next village over.
Sure, if it makes you feel better, you can reduce the biography of a legendary figure to the most unremarkable and mundane elements. But then you’re left with the question of why someone would start telling fantastical stories about someone who was entirely mundane and unremarkable.
(BTW, my favorite summary of the Odyssey that I’ve heard: A guy explains to his wife why he’s late.)
That reminds me of Hengist and Horsa, who are supposedly the leaders of the Anglo-Saxon invaders of Britain. I’d put them in the category of “probably didn’t exist”.
I always wondered if there was any “connection” between these two and the Anglo-Saxon Messengers in Through the Looking-Glass. Well, Haigha and Hatta are really the March Hare and Mad Hatter, of course, but still, all those H’s …
Some of it is based on legend and some of it is just made up. And some of it is based on the history of the Danish invasion of England, but not necessarily in exactly the way it is known to have happened. If the show follows the legend, then Ragnar will die in the snake pit that was shown at the beginning of the series.
One thing that is factual is that that the Duchy of Normandy was founded by a Viking named Rollo, but they totally made up the part where Rollo is Ragnar’s brother.
