This paper first critically discusses the doxa concerning the origin of exegesis in Greece, the existence of so called “mythical thought”, and the use of the terms allegory and rationalization, which are misused by researchers when applied to ancient texts related to mythology. There is no special approach that can be called rationalist and set apart from other exegetical practices. We try to propose another characterization of the mythographic tradition: it distinguishes between the allegorical interpretation of a (usually poetic) text, which conceives of myth as an intentional disguise, and the “allomythic” reformulation of a (popular) narrative, which conceives of myth as the distortion over time of a historical experience. Then we discuss the singular features of Palaephatus' work - the only systematic attempt to transpose/translate Greek myths into historical screenplays. The ancient author does not adopt the suspicion of lying that traditionally weighs on myths in antiquity, and that is accompanied by criticism of poets. It is language and its ambiguities that constitute, according to him, the main root of the myths: the account given by the first witnesses of certain events was misinterpreted by the listeners. This semiological etiology is original, and leads Palaephatus to seek the palimpsest of myths and to propose a rewriting of the myth (remythification), following a familiar (and often dull) scenario, in an idealized primitive cultural context. This recycling process gives rise to a new version of the myth and paradoxically reinforces - as is probably the author's intention, - the popular belief in its “truth”.