De Facto Times

“Angry words ensues, followed all too soon by blows, and in the course of the affray, Remus was killed” (Livy 37).

What is a founding myth? How does a founding myth arise? Founding myths are a common motif among civilizations, past and present. Founding myths are just as relevant to us in 2025 as they were to the ancient Romans. They portray an undergirding story, one that serves to establish a motive for a civilization and sometimes to explain its origin. The founding myth is not only influenced by the culture from which it is born but sets the moral trajectory that its citizens will follow. That is to say, the founding myth often emphasizes an aspect of its culture and is produced for this purpose. First, I find it most appropriate to provide examples of founding myths. Second, I shall substantiate the claim that founding myths set the trajectory of their culture through these examples. Third, I will demonstrate the modern effects of the founding myth and prescribe a solution to its problems.

It is also worth examining who the founding myth is being applied to, as founding myths differ based on their subject. The founding myths of the universe, of man, of the nation, and of the state can be and are very different. Even founding myths of the nation tend to be divisible on the basis of genealogy versus ideology, as Anthony D. Smith has outlined. So, when I say founding myth, I am very specifically talking about the founding of a perceived nation with less emphasis on genetics and more emphasis on cultural-political unity. For example, an empire that is composed of many nations may still be viewed as a nation itself; it is a more encompassing cultural zone with subzones within.

I shall note that the existence of one founding myth within a culture does not preclude others. Many founding myths can and do exist at the same time, whether they are divergent or subsequent from one another. Divergent founding myths may spur difference among the community, whereas subsequent ones serve to further elaborate on the identity of the nation in a new, often ideological manner.

ITERATIVE MYTH

Often, the founding myth is forced to adapt to shifting cultural sentiments and demands through iterative myth. Whether the founding of the state left integral aspects unaddressed or external influences have turned the people against certain aspects of their culture, iterative myth often takes the shape of major reformers with some level of respect for their founding myth. Hence, an iterative myth that dispenses with the founding myth entirely or bears little to no relation may be its own founding myth. Iterative myths may subtract from founding myths, but their primary purpose is to build off of them.

ROME

Arguably, the most famous of the founding myths is that of Rome. Two twins, Romulus and Remus, are birthed by Rhea Silvia after she is raped by Mars, the god of war. The Alban king sentences the infant twins to death by drowning after imprisoning their mother. Alas, the river banks of the Tiber were overflowing that day, and the twins were unable to drown from where the soldiers had placed them. A she-wolf (or a prostitute) rescued and raised the twins upon hearing their young cries. The king’s herdsman, Faustulus, discovered the twins with the wolf and gave them to his wife Larentia to nurse. The Roman historian Livy suggests that Larentia could have been a prostitute—the she-wolf of the story refers to—as the Latin word for she-wolf and prostitute are the same (lupa). As boys, Romulus and Remus hunted. Their appetite for action grew, so they began attacking and looting robbers. During a festival, Remus fell for a trap and was captured by a man named Numitor. Faustulus and Numitor discovered that Romulus and Remus were of royal blood, leading them to conspire and overthrow the king, killing the king by surprise during a false alarm. Upon controlling Alba Longa, the twins were struck with the inspiration to found a settlement in the spot where they nearly drowned. Two questions brought the twins into conflict—who shall rule and settlement, and from whom shall the settlement derive its name? The twins agreed to settle this conflict via augury, a process wherein a prophetic sign was gleaned from the behavior of birds. So, the twins set out to separate hills with bands of their own supporters. First, Remus saw six vultures; then, Romulus saw a dozen. This contentious outcome instilled rage in the brothers, which transpired into a brawl. Romulus killed Remus, becoming the first king and eponym of Rome.

To us modernites, Romulus killing his brother, Remus, exudes a brutal savagery. To the antiquitites, however, the moral ills of such savagery were more complicated. Some were surely uncomfortable with the tale, but this fratricidal murderer was the hero of their state and its supposed founder. War was the way of Rome, and the glory of war drove Roman expansion. Such a positive view of war was supported by the Roman founding myth. Romans came from the son of Mars, the god of war; war was in their nature. Militaristic expansion characterized the empire, granting it its territory. Superstition is commonly ascribed to the Italians, and rightfully so. The roots of superstition grew throughout the peninsula and the empire in Rome. The pervasiveness of augury as a legitimate means of decision-making best exemplifies this. Aside from seeing signs in birds, other Roman leaders have been chosen in the wake of other superstitious signs, most notably Servius Tillius. Servius Tillius was a slave of the Tarquin family until a nimbus of flames surrounded his head, convincing the family that he had been divinely chosen. Why a nimbus of flames means one should be and is destined to be a leader is unclear. Rape in Rome is rather complicated. The supposed god that fathered the nation was believed to be a rapist, and Romulous himself is said to have ordered the rape of the Sabine women. However, Brutus overtly rejected rape. In spite of the morally dubious aspects of the Roman founding myth, it is not without its merits. Instilled in Rome was an acceptance and open-mindedness as a result of the actions of Romulus. Romulus’s acceptance of criminals is symbolic of Rome’s acceptance of outside cultures and intermingling, cultural open-mindedness. It was a multicultural body, with citizenship offered to all. Macedon defended such an idea while arguing that those from Gaul should be senators.

MODERN FOUNDING MYTHS

The modern founding myth brings with it a unique set of challenges. Not only have conventions changed around myth wherein the truth of stories is considered far more important than it once was, but the real basis of a modern founding myth will likely be highly documented and scrutable. In texts of the antiquitites, it is rather evident that whether or not the story was true was ancillary to its purpose. The ends justified the means. Untruth was servicable for the cause of truth. In lieu of new developments buttressing the pervasion of information, man has become more concerned with the actual validity of stories. Because fictionalization is often fundamental in creating a founding myth, this means that modern founding myths must be different than ancient founding myths in their historical accuracy or at least their historical believability and the difficulty required to disprove them. The scant details available on the characters of old founding myths gave them room to be the personifications of virtue.

A crucial factor to consider is that as cultures shift with time, so do their values. Thus, any myth is automatically susceptible to falling out of favor depending on how values shift, being unable to withstand modern scrutiny. This factor is not specifically a facet of modern myths or a result of the pervasion of information, but the pervasion of information changes value-shift based scrutiny in the following two ways: first, that the modern myth is less removed from our current hour than the ancient myth and therefore more likely to be aligned with our values, and second, that the modern myth can seldom rely on the vagueness of the ancient myth and tends to have more material subject to scrutiny. So, while a modern founding myth could be more in line with our values, it no longer holds the same interpretative range to allow for its conformity and is much more likely to have small unsavory details worth discounting the myth over. The old myths benefitted from their selectiveness in the information they chose to portray, with many of them being one of only a few sources to portray details about their characters to the public. In the age of information, the amount of sources for any event of significance has dramatically increased, often with varying motives and perspectives that show an “ugly side” of mythicized characters that could have easily been excluded in the past. This is not to say that modern founding myths are worse, but only to demonstrate that their nature has necessarily evolved.

Has this shift in standards of myths towards accuracy been positive or negative? With each new development in communication, such as the printing press, the viability of something approximating journalism became more apparent. The newfound emphasis on accuracy reveals the rise of journalistic instinct—the increased scrutiny of validity to break the news of an underlying scandal that will ensure profit. Even if the incentive for weeding out inaccuracies is ultimately selfish, its effect is nonetheless positive. Falsities in fiction, although serving a greater truth, can be misleading when interpreted as truths unto themselves. Hence, the myths that are taught as truths may carry unforeseen negative consequences in their minutiae. Striving towards accuracy, by contrast, tends to carry unforeseen positive consequences in its minutiae. Real or realistic events tend to offer the best insights because they reflect the reality we live in, and focusing on specific parts of us may better prepare us to approach our futures. On the contrary, unrealistic fictions may promote false expectations and thereby upset wellbeing.

AMERICA

The American founding myth (I shall continue to call it a myth due to its function even though it is largely verifiable) is, despite its relative recency, one of the most pertinent. The Americans, being a colony of the British, felt that they were not being properly represented despite paying taxes. Their priority was secondary to that of the mainlanders, who constituted the parliament and passed legislation on their behalf, such as the Stamp Act and Townshend Acts. This lack of representation was worsened by the fact that only a couple of years prior, Americans had put their lives on the line during the Seven Years’ War (or more specifically, the French and Indian War) and suffered casualties. The taxes that followed seemed like an unappreciative means of paying for the expenses incurred during the war, with the rising tensions in the colonies eventually culminating in the increased military presence and the much-execrated Boston Massacre, which occurred during a protest. In the antecedent events to the war, the Tea Act spurred the Boston Tea Party, a riot in which 342 chests of tea worth over a million dollars were dumped into the tea by protestors dressed in Mohawk costumes. These costly actions ushered in a series of punitive laws: the Intolerable Acts, which closed Massachusetts off from trade and instituted widespread British military control. This unfairness rallied the Thirteen Colonies together and led to the creation of the First Continental Congress, wherein the colonies boycotted the British in a unified cry. When the British came to arrest rowdy colonists, Paul Revere notified an armed defense force, leading to the Battle of Lexington and Concord and the beginning of the war. Colonist General George Washington, who had previously fought as a commander during the French and Indian War at the age of 22, led the new Continental Army established by the Second Continental Congress.

The Second Continental Congress delegated John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin to draft the esteemed Declaration of Independence, unanimously ratified on July 4, 1776. These legendary Founding Fathers echoed the Enlightenment sentiment of contractualist philosophers John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau, primarily in the Declaration of Independence’s line, “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Although there are many Founding Fathers, the most commonly referenced tend to be John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington. These characters are the Romulous and Remuses of America. The Founding Fathers themselves have achieved legendary status, being Renaissance Men of their time, deeply knowledgable on philosophy, history, architecture, linguistics, science, and other subjects. Benjamin Franklin, for example, invented the lightning rod and revolutionized the field of electricity before he’d occupied himself with revolutionizing the country. Thomas Jefferson even invented Jeffersonian architecture, a form of neoclassicism that would define aspects of the American architectural tradition. Defying all odds, the American colonists won the war, a symbolic defeat of tyranny. After the unsatisfactory Articles of Confederation, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay published a series of 85 essays arguing for a more centralized government: the Federalist Papers. These documents were incredibly influential contributions to political philosophy in their own right. According to the Forum of Federations, there are roughly 25 federalist countries in the world today, with plenty more influenced by the federalist framework. The Constitution of the United States followed the Federalist Papers, birthing the United States known today. George Washington became the reluctant ruler, establishing a precedent for the limits of executive power. Jefferson and Adams would reinforce this sentiment.

Of course, the United States was not without its need for iteration. Slavery had not only divided the Founding Fathers but American sentiments. Thus, the leadership of figures such as Abraham Lincoln and the influence of Frederick Douglass were necessary in refining the American mission of equality and freedom first espoused by the Founding Fathers. The Union’s victory over the Confederacy in the Civil War and the amendments that followed abolished slavery as it was known. Nonetheless, segregation and high amounts of racist persecutions of former slaves would plague the Union until the Civil Rights Movement and the civil leadership of Martin Luther King Jr.

The founding myth of the United States has launched a politically unique and undoubtedly influential nation, its values concentrated heavily on Enlightenment thought as opposed to nation-statism. Sentiments of freedom, independence/individualism, protest, representation, and novelty were purveyed throughout the New World, with the legendary Founding Fathers embodying these virtues. Although there is sensible reason why such sentiments became embedded into the values of the United States, they are not virtues unto themselves. Such sentiments ideally work to promote virtue. Yet, as a result of the extreme lack of representation despite taxation by the British, the Boston Massacre, and the heavy quartering and restrictions Massachusetts endured, the importance of these values has been heavily emphasized in American culture, even when they are not helpful or are entirely irrelevant. For instance, freedom of speech is commonly inserted in areas where it doesn’t belong, with many citizens failing to grasp that freedom is not a ticket to be ignorant and a rejection of responsibility. And although President John F. Kennedy’s quote, “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country,” has long pervaded American culture, it has not entirely come to fruition. In our foolish drive for freedom over responsibility, we have granted corporations the right to corruption and a pass to stain our land with the ugliness of our territories and souls. Individualism has encouraged the disregard for community and others, being appropriated to support materialistic and hedonistic lifestyles that continue to utterly reject responsibility in any regard. Protest has preceded all thought and research and become an expression of heart over mind. Representation, despite its validity, has somehow failed to be fully realized with the many conflicts of interests that jam the gears of the legislature. And our novelty, though it is wondrous in the opportunities it has provided, can fail to remember the successes of tradition.

In conclusion, America is in dire need of a new iterative myth, one that emphasizes foremost responsibility over freedom, community over individualism, and thoughts over feelings. We should not forget the strengths of tradition while embracing novelty. An iterative myth for the United States should be conducive to the best possible United States; it doesn’t matter whether it’s understood as fact or fiction. We should focus on the encouragement of polymaths in the same manner of the Founding Fathers. We should encourage bold American leaders.