This study examines central methodological assumptions in the field of the history and critique of ideas, exposing their incoherence. It discusses the ways in which historians and theorists, both classical and modern, interact with classical writings—be they moral, political, religious or social—that inform the history of Western thought. It cites examples that illustrate the way in which interpretations tend to present an image of an author which may be unacceptable to the author himself or herself, or project certain ideas or ideals back onto earlier texts in such a way that what we have in the end is not history, but a collection of myths or legends. Through a detailed explanation of concrete examples, the study diagnoses a set of myths that are driven and controlled by particular considerations, and which lead in turn to nonsensical propositions and interpretative ambiguities that distort the history of ideas.