"It Happened Not Too Far from Here...": A Survey of Legend Theory and Characterization
Author(s): Timothy R. Tangherlini
Source: Western Folklore, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Oct., 1990), pp. 371-390
Published by: Western States Folklore Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1499751 .
Accessed: 07/05/2013 16:09
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Western States Folklore Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Western
Folklore.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:09:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
"It Happened Not Too
Far From Here ...":
A Surveyof Legend
Theoryand
Characterization
R.
TIMOTHY
TANGHERLINI
One of themainconcernsof folklorists
studying
legendhas been
new
and
classificatory
systems
revisingpreviousdefinideveloping
tions(Hand 1965; Bodker1965:253-261).In 1975,in an articleentitled"The Legendand theSparrow"Linda D6gh observedthefailwouldbe betterspent
and proposedthatefforts
ingsoftheseattempts
the
obstacles
to
a
characterization
of the"genus"
examining
deriving
legend (D6gh 1975:188). Both the congressesof the International
conSocietyforFolk NarrativeResearchand theseriesof Sheffield
ferenceson contemporary
held
since
have
made
1982
legend
great
headwayin addressingtheconcernsDegh voicedin herarticle.The
goals of thispaper are to providea historicalsurveyof the earlier
forcurrentdiscuslegendscholarshipthathas laid thegroundwork
sionsand to developa characterization
of thelegendgenrebased on
a synthesis
of previousscholarship
in a mannerthatdoes notdelimit
therangeof thegenrebutratherexplainsthebasiccharacteristics
of
thefolklegend.
JacobGrimmwas perhapsthefirstto begintheprocessof legend
istpoetischer,
whenhe observedthat,"Das Mairchen
characterization,
This
die Sage historischer"
characterization
influ(Grimm1865:v).
Western
Folklore49 (October 1990): 371-390
371
This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:09:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
372
WESTERN FOLKLORE
enced the entirecourse of legend scholarship.Earlyscholarswho
on literary
legendfocussedtheirefforts
approachesto
investigated
and psythe genre,withdisregardforsocialcontext,performance
to
examine
the
in
preferring
legend relation
chologicalmotivations,
narrative
the
folktale.
tootherfolk
forms,
primarily
Examplesofsuch
approachesmaybe foundin Karl Wehrhan's(1908) earlystudyof
Peuckert's
legend,as wellas FriedrichRanke's(1971) and Will-Erich
on
In
the
1950s
and
works
scholars
1960s,
(1965)
legend.
began to
from
a
broader
considerations
considerlegend
including
perspective,
to the 1962 congressof the
of contextand performance.
Referring
International
SocietyforFolkNarrativeResearch,Leopold Schmidt
had begun(L. Schmidt
declaredthata newera in legendscholarship
This
Peeters
new
era
envisioned
boththe develop1969:53;
1963).
mentof an international
legend catalogueas well as the new apto
which
included
and psychological
anthropological
proaches legend
Stefaan
that
declared
Conversely,
Top
perspectives.
legendresearch
had been plungedinto a crisis(Top 1969). He was joined in this
assessmentby Lutz Rohrich(1973:13). The crisiswas mainlyone of
based in thedifficulty
scholarsfacedwhentheytriedto
classification,
Most
reliedheavilyon questionsof
categorizelegend.
categorizations
to
a
establish
content,trying
legendtypeindexsimilarto theAarneindex.Catalogsofthistypenecessarily
overlooked
Thompsonfolktale
considerations
of
context
and
mode
of
performance,
important
being
of thegenre.A synthetic
based on a contentual
characterization
view
of legend,one thatconsideredlegendfromliterary,
anthropological
was missing.
and psychological
viewpoints,
oflegendare themostabunLiterary
approachesto thedefinition
ofthesestudiesconsideraspectsoflegendformin
dant.The majority
relationto othertypesof folknarrative.One of the earliestdistinctionsmadewastherelativelackof formlegendexhibitedin comparison to folktale(de Boor 1928). ROhrichfurther
delineatedthe distinctionbetweenthe two formswhen he examinedtheirrelative
treatment
of reality(Rohrich1956:9-26). Max Luithialso considers
thissamequestion(Ltithi1961).Whilethefolktaleuses realityin an
ironicway,legendtriesto reconstruct
realityin a believablefashion.
is
linked
narrative
to
outer
Legend
reality,
opposed to theinnerreof
allusions
to
verifiable
ality folktale,makingspecific
topographic
featuresor historical
thecore of a
personages.Also,unlikefolktale,
legend narrativeconsistsof a single experience (Lathi 1961:46-48).
This characteristicaccounts forthe episodic natureof legend. In most
instances,the legend narrationcenterson a singleeventand is mono-
This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:09:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A SURVEY OF LEGEND
373
episodic.Finally,whilefolktaleconsidersman himself,legendconsiderswhathappensto man(Liithi1966).Althoughbothformsmay
in orientation
thisdifference
leads todiffering
includesimilarmotifs,
of folktaleand legendmotreatments
of thesemotifs.The similarity
morehistorical
thanfolktale
tifsimpliesthatlegendis notnecessarily
(Heiske 1962).As similarmotifsappear in bothnarrativeforms,the
is notrelationto reality,
characteristic
butratherpredistinguishing
of protagonists.
worldviewand portrayal
sentationof motifs,
In thecomparisonto folktale,
consideredto
legendwasfrequently
be formless.
D6gh noticed,however,thatthe observedlackof form
was more a resultof impropercollectionthan an actual aspectof
legend character,legends oftenbeing truncatedby editorializing
fieldworkers
(D6gh 1965:84).GillianBennethas addressedtheproblemsthefieldworkerfacesin collecting
legendnarrative,
mentioning
... and
that"thenaturallegendtellingcontextis largelyinaccessible
is
an
induced
natural
difficult
create"
context
to
...
(Benparticularly
of"The
net 1987:16).BillEllisprovidesan analysisofa performance
Hook" as an exampleof boththe problemsinherentin providinga
of a legendperformance
verbatimtranscript
as wellas the benefits
in
such a transcript
the
of
analysis legendfunction,
provides
noting
that"itis throughanalysisof wholeperformances
thatwe comprehend wholelegends"(Ellis 1987:57).Whileacknowledging
thediffithe
field
worker
encounters
both
and
trancollection
culty
during
he
of
"the
...
do
that
texts
scription, posits
majority printedlegend
not representlegend tellingbut ratherlegend summarizing"
(Ellis
1987:34).To remedythisproblem,he suggeststhatlegendcollections
becauseitis in
includenotationsof thesubtleaspectsof performance
theselinguistic
and paralinguistic
detailsthatlegendmeaningis encapsulated(Ellis 1987).
In 1934,Carl Wilhelmvon Sydowdifferentiated
between"memorate"and "fabulate"(von Sydow1934:261).The basic tenetof this
distinction
was thatfirsthand accountsof supernatural
experiences
are a different
typeof folknarrativethansecondor thirdhand accounts.To avoid the exclusionary
natureof such a distinction,
von
considered
the
of
movement
memorate
across
the
border
into
Sydow
fabulate, labeling this group of cross-overnarratives"Erinnerungssage (minnessaigen)..."
(von Sydow 1934:261).1 Gunnar
distinction,
Granbergbuilt on von Sydow'smemorate/fabulate
by
equating legend with the categoryfabulate and suggestingthat leg1. Von Sydow firstuses the term"minnessigner"in 1931 (von Sydow 1931:98).
This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:09:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
374
WESTERN FOLKLORE
end, like fabulate,is a "kurze, ein-episodischeErzaihlung"(Granberg
1935:120). Legend springsfromthe imaginationof the folkand exhibitsa fixed form in tradition(Granberg 1935:121). The defining
featureof memorateis the personal focus of the account, even if the
narrativeis related by someone other than the person who experienced it (Granberg 1935:121). Reidar Christiansenprovided a theoretical modificationof the distinctionwhen he observed that memorate derives importance from the narrator having personally
experienced the related event (Christiansen 1962:99). Fabulate, on
the other hand, derivesimportancefromthe narratedevent. In 1968,
Juha Pentikaiinenpresented a clear summary of the memorate/
fabulate distinction,statingthat fabulates,in contrastto memorates,
exhibita more fixed form,withanonymous characters(Pentikainen
1968).
D6gh and Andrew Vizsonyi successfullychallenged the memorate/
fabulatedistinction,notingthe progressiveliberalizationof the memorate definition,withfirsthand accounts being supplanted by second
and thirdhand accounts (Degh and Vaizsonyi1974:226-228). At any
time,a fabulate can take the formof a memorate and, more importantly,vice-versa,simplyby changing narrativevoice. A primaryreason for thischange is the tendencyto performlegend as a true narrative.A legend preceded by "A friendof a friendof a friendtold me
..." has essentiallyno credibility(Degh and Vazsonyi 1974:230-231).
In his discussionof the folkbeliefstory,Otto Blehr limitsthe number
of transmissionallinks to two (Blehr 1974:42). Any more transmissional links seriously compromise the believabilityof the account.
During performance,the narratoris thereforemotivatedto reduce
the number of transmissionallinks, possibly to the extent that he
would relate it as a first-handexperience. This brings into question
the definitionof tradition.In thiscontext,a narrativeshould be considered in traditionwhen original authorship is no longer verifiable
and transmissionis stillactivelytaking place-this could occur in as
link. Any narrativethathas ever been
fewas a single transmissionary
in traditioncan be said to be a traditionalnarrative.Point by point,
Degh and Viazsonyidiscreditedvon Sydow's distinctionof memorate
and fabulate,showingthat legend cannot be characterizedby narrative voice or other internalmanifestationsof transmissionallinks.2
2. The studyof memorateshas been supported by various scholars,and may be quite useful in
understanding folk belief (Honko 1964; Klintberg 1976). Concerning the relationshipbetween
memorate and legend, Klintbergmentionsthat "signen och memoratetar tvAgenrer som lever
tillsamansi traditioneni en standig vaxelveskan"(af Klintberg1976:269).
This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:09:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A SURVEY OF LEGEND
375
Legend has also been considered in relation to rumor. Both of
these narrativeformsare believable and oftenpresentedas true,with
a single event formingthe core of the narrative. Ernst Bernheim
touched on the similarityof legend and rumor when he suggested
that legend is simplya survivalof rumor (Bernheim 1920:97-108).
Gordon Allport,in his celebrated workon rumor,agreed and added
"Legends persistbecause theyembody undyingstatesof mind" (Allport 1947:164). Edgar Morin studied the genesis,life and disappearance of a rumor in the French cityof Orleans, showingthat temporalityand extremelocalizationare twofactorsthat,ifnot overcomeby
widespread transmissionor adaptation of the narrative to a fixed
form,may cause the rumor to disappear ratherthan remain in tradition (Morin 1982). A similarstudyby Carsten Bregenhoj supports
many of Morin's conclusions (Bregenhoj 1978). To account for the
brief life of some narratives,WilliamJansen suggested that legends
which disappear quicklybe termed "short-termlegends" and those
with more staying power be termed "long-termlegends" (Jansen
1976:270). This effectivelyeliminates the rumor/legenddistinction.
The only remainingdistinctionis thatwhile legend is alwaysa narrative,rumor maybe but a shortstatement.As such, rumor exhibitsan
even more elastic formthan legend does.
Both the legend and rumor are closelyrelated to questions of belief. Rumor, like legend, relies on popular belief as a generativeimpetus (Shibutani 1966:156). Importantto the formationof rumor is
ambiguityor a lack of officialinformation,which helps precipitate
accounts whichreflectboth commonlyheld beliefsand interests(Shibutani 1966:157; Allport 1947:33-36). Once a rumor no longer reflectscollectivebiases,it disappears fromtradition.Bengt af Klintberg
considered this reliance on folk belief in the two formsof folk narrative (af Klintberg 1976). He points out that the category,"Urban
Legend," is oftena reflectionof rumor (af Klintberg1976:270). If a
narrativerumor persists,it is a legend. Thus, a more suitable characterizationis that rumor narrativeexperiences a hyperactivetransmissionin a shorttimespan, oftenwithinan extremelylocalized area.
Narrativerumor is a transmissionarystate of legend-a state which,
despite its intensity,does not guarantee longevity.
Legend style and internal aspects of composition and structure
have also been examined as a means fordescribingthe legend genre.
Mathilde Hain included in her view of legend considerationsof the
internal landscape and localization of the narratives (Hain 1937
the internallandscape of the legend
[1969]). Through itsbelievability,
This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:09:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
376
WESTERN FOLKLORE
reinforces the believabilityof the narrative (Hain 1937[1969]:99).
Peuckertpursued a similarexamination of the internallandscape of
natureofthenarratives,
thelegendand thehistorical
that
suggesting
thesetwo forcescombinedresultin an accountbelievableto both
narratorand audience (Peuckert1938[1969]:151-152). Siegfried
Beyschlagconcursin thisevaluationof theroleofa credibleinternal
worldin developingthebelievability
ofthenarrative
(Beyschlag1941
This
world
in
the
[1969]).
distinguishes
portrayed legendfromthose
in
and
folktale
portrayed
myth.
elementshave
Legend morphologyand the studyof structural
in
roles
the
of
a
of
view
playedimportant
development
legendand its
Axel
Olrik
identified
laws"
whichgovern
composition.
eighteen"epic
thecomposition
all
of folknarrative(Olrik1908 and 1921).Johann
Folkersmodifiedthisapproachspecifically
to fitlegends,developing
a morphological
to
the
elementsof legend,
approach
compositional
and attempting
to establisha groupof functions
servingas thegrammar for the narrative(Folkers1910). OldfichSirovtka also propounded a morphological
approachin a muchlaterarticle,witha
focuson legend motifsto help develop a legend index (Sirovitka
1964).Unlikefolktalemotif,legendmotifis a moreautonomousentityand subjectto greatervariation(Sirovtka 1964:101).This autonomousmotifcoupledwiththetendencyof legendnarrativetowards
and contentual
leads to theelasticformlegincorporation
instability
end exhibits.Ina-MariaGreverussuggestedthata systematic
analysis
of type,motifand themewouldresultin a clearerunderstanding
of
legend, concludingthat FriedrichHebbel's (1839) "Ideen-alfabet"
shouldbe applied to the analysisof legend morphology(Greverus
1965[1969]:401).VilmosVoigtalso suggesteda morphological
approachas a meansfordevelopingthegrammaroflegends,suggesting
thata veryshortformulacoulddescribethesyntagmatic
structure
of
legend (Voigt 1973:80). Pentikainenlater explored the link between
and legendfunction
(Pentikainen
1976). He discovlegendstructure
eredthatlegendstructure
differs
to
each
according
particular
legend
function
W.
F.
H.
Nicolaisen
has
also
consid1976:149).
(Pentikaiinen
eredmorphological
on
aspectsoflegendstructure,
focusingprimarily
his
on
William
Labov's
(1972)
contemporary
legend. Basing
study
vernacularnarrative,
he suggeststhatlegend
studyofAfro-American
narrativeconsistsat a minimumlevelof threestructural
elementsorientation, complicating action, and result (Nicolaisen 1987:72).
However, he allows that the legend may encompass as many as six
This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:09:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A SURVEY OF LEGEND
377
distinct
structural
elementsor as fewas two(Nicolaisen1987).Despite
thepromiseof thesestructural
approachesto legendstudy,none has
been able toestablishanysetrulesoflegendmorphology.
Partof the
ofthelegend
failureoftheseapproachesliesin theextremeelasticity
narrativeand its highdegree of ecotypification.
Also, mostof the
approachesare forcedto ignoreimportantaspectsof contextand
on considerations
ofcontent.Howperformance,
centering
primarily
as
such
Nicolaisen's
and
Pentikainen's
do provide
ever,morphologies
bothmuchneeded insightintothe structural
between
relationships
and
other
forms
of
oral
narrative
as
well
as
of
the
minlegend
maps
imumstructural
elementsthatmakeup a legendnarrative.
has alsobeenconsideredas a basis
The stylistics
oflegendnarrative
Andr6Jolles'influential
forgenredefinition.
Formen
includes
Einfache
a shortdiscussionof legend based on its formand content(Jolles
however,linkslegend to conceptsof
1958:50-74). His definition,
clan
and
blood
relations,a somewhatmisleadingviewof the
family,
genre.A moreproductive
approachconcernslegendstyleratherthan
content.
Friedrich-Wilhelm
Schmidtexploredthe particular
legend
features
of
stylistic
legend,concludingthat,likefolktale,it is an artisticfolkexpressionwitha definite
form,usinga narrativeframeto
the account(F. W. Schmidt1929[1969]:64).He mentions
structure
thatthe legend is often"episch-dramatisch"
and exhibitsa poetic
that
Wilhelm
Wisser's
observation
on thenature
lyricism,
concluding
"Mitdem Inhaltder Geschichten
of folktale,
istdie Formtiberliefert,
die gleichsam
vonselbstaus diesemhervorwachst,"
also holdstruefor
W.
Schmidt
Wisser
(F.
1929[1969]:64-65;
1925). Carl Herlegend
mannTillhagenlatersharedthissameview(Tillhagen1967). However,a majorproblemof analyzingtheformand styleof thelegend
is thelackofclearand consistent
fordescribing
thenarterminology
ratives(Ferenczi1966).It is oftenforgotten
thata definition
refersto
an ideal type,ratherthan being an exact representation
(Honko
1968). In part,it was the breakdownin the abilityto clearlyand
adequatelycharacterize
legendwhichled to thefailureof theinternationallegendcatalogue.In theprocess,however,a greatdeal was
discoveredaboutlegendstyleand form.
and survives
Legendhasan elasticform;itexpands,contracts
great
variation.Lee Doo Hyon mentionsthatthiselasticity
is one of the
ofthegenre(Lee 1983:361).Partoftheprocess
uniquecharacteristics
of variationmaybe linkedto von Sydow'sconceptof ecotypification
(von Sydow 1932[1948]:16). Herbert Halpert observed that "each
This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:09:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
378
WESTERN FOLKLORE
geographical and culturalarea tends to ascribe supernaturallegends
to its dominant supernatural figure"(Halpert 1971:50). This observation is directlyrelated to Albert Eskerod's concept of "tradition
dominants" (EskerSd 1947:81). Klintbergnoticed the ethno-and sociocentricnature of Swedish contemporarylegends, suggestingthat
each individual culture places its own ethnicity,conventions and
norms in opposition to groups whichdo not conformand are therefore threatening(af Klintberg 1976:271 and 278). This process of
can be extended to the entirelegend genre, whereby
ecotypification
the narrativeis variatedto fitthe needs of thecultureand itstradition.
Because of the effectof social and psychologicalforces,a definition
based solely on contentor formcannot possiblyadequately describe
the genre. However, these literaryconsiderationsmust play a role in
such a finalcharacterization.
The Grimmsoriginallycharacterizedthe legend as historical.The
general trend in legend research in the late nineteenthand early
twentiethcenturies was to consider both the historicalcore of the
legend as well as the worthof legends as sources for archaeological
and historicalstudies(Cederschiold 1932). In 1888, Franz Muth commented on the connection between legend and rumor, noting the
focus of both narrativetypeson historicalevents,and folkinterpretation of these events (Muth 1888). KristofferNyrop continued the
reasoningthatlegends are accurate reflectionsof the past,statingthat
legends provide insightto the ancient past, and could be used as a
means for studying ancient history(Nyrop 1907-1933). Wilhelm
CederschiWldwas perhaps more perceptive in his view of legend,
proposingthatthe legend containsan historicalcore whichis an accurate recordingof an historicalevent (Cederschiold 1924). The legend
narrativesurroundingthiscore may distortthe historicalcontentsof
the narrative(Cederschiold 1924). The belief thatoral traditionmay
be used as a historicalsource was solidifiedbyJan Vansina's workon
oral traditionand historicalmethodology(Vansina 1985). Unlike earlier works,he advocated caution in dealing withthese narratives,as
the historicalveracityof the accounts varies greatlyand is oftennonexistent.
It was not untilthe 1970s thatthe historicity
of the legend was truly
into
Heda
in
brought
question.
Jason, writing theJournalofAmerican
that
the
Grimms' "historischer"definitionwas
Folklore,suggested
flawedand should be reconsidered (Jason 1971:134). Bjarne Hodne
This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:09:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A SURVEY OF LEGEND
379
continued this line of examination with a thorough analysis of the
historicalvalue of legends as opposed to their entertainmentvalue
(Hodne 1973). At best,legends should be used as secondaryhistorical
sources, since the reliabilityof their historicalvalue is questionable.
Marta ?rimkovaisupported earlier suggestionsthatlegend is a reflection of folk history,in that it records what the "folk"consider to be
important,pointingout that legends relyon the connectionbetween
the narrativecontentand locality,both in space and time,for their
survivalin tradition(?raimkovi 1975). Rudolf Schenda concurred in
the folk historyhypothesis,statingthat in legend one can find a reflectionof the socio-historicalcontext one needs to understand the
historyof sixtyto eightypercentof the population ignored by official
history(Schenda 1982:186).
While legend may appear to be a historicalnarrativebecause of
referenceto readilyverifiabletopographic and geographic features,
as well as a reliance on culturallycredible characters,legend has been
misinterpretedas a fundamentally"true" narrative.Simplybecause it
is often performedas "true," the narrativecontentitselfis not necessarily an actual reflectionof historical events. Studies such as
Hodne's have shown thatthe historiccore of the legend is oftenhard
to find, and then of dubious historicalvalue when finallyisolated.
narrative.The process
Legends are bettercharacterizedas historicized
of historicizationmay be likened to diachronic ecotypification.The
believabilityof the narrativeis underscored by the historicizationof
the account.
Connected to the historicizednature of legend is the relationbetween legend and folk belief. At the root of this relationshipis the
"trueness"of the legend narrative.Legend may be characterizedas a
reflectionof folk belief: commonly held values and beliefs in the
communityin which a given legend exists (Domiotr 1977). Peuckert
examined the relationshipbetween legend and belief, although he
also viewed legend as a primarilyhistoricalnarrative(Peuckert 1965).
ROhrichpresenteda more balanced view of the relationshipbetween
legend and belief, centering his study on the demonic and magic
(Rbhrich 1949). He suggeststhatlegend narrativeboth reiteratesand
reinforcesbelief. Blehr expanded on RJOhrich's
hypothesis,using accounts of both legends and beliefs to illustratetheir symbioticrelationshipin tradition(Blehr 1974). Legend and folkbelief,especially
concerningthe supernatural,reinforceeach other,neitherbeing uni-
This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:09:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
380
WESTERN FOLKLORE
laterally
dependenton theother.In tradition,
legendderivespartof
fromthefolkbeliefsit reflects,
whilefolkbeliefsare
itsbelievability
narratives.
supportedbylegend
of legend,the belieflegend,was proposedas a
A subcategory
meansforcategorizing
legendswhichdepend largelyon folkbelief.
These legendsor folkbeliefstoriesoftenrelateencounterswiththe
and are toldwithfirstor secondhand authority
(Blehr
supernatural
how
has
shown
1965:32-47). Degh
contemporary
legendsincorporate beliefsabout the supernaturalin a mannerconsistentwitha
worldview,ratherthan discardthosebeliefs(Degh
contemporary
It
is
1971).
possiblethatlegendswhichare noteasilyrecognizedas
folkbeliefsmakeuse of thesebeliefsin a moresubtle
incorporating
way.Whiletheterm"folkbelief"has been limitedto beliefsconcernan analysisof leging supernaturalphenomenain pastscholarship,
of tabooand genend based on beliefshouldincludeconsiderations
eralizedbelief(Mullen1971).A broadviewofthisnatureis necessary
to understandhow legend derivesbelievability
by tappingalready
a symbolicreality
establishedbeliefsand values. By constructing
whichencompassesthesevaluesand beliefs,thelegendnotonlymainin tradition,
tainsitsvitality
but also reinforces
thoseverybeliefsit
makesuse of.As thecomplexforcesat workon societychangebeliefs
in the legendnarrative(Degh
and values,the changesare reflected
the
its
narrative
loses
Otherwise,
1971).
viability.
The psychological
studyoflegendis a longneglectedfield(Dundes
of leg1971). An earlypsychological
approachto theunderstanding
end waspresentedbyGerhardGesemannin whichhe consideredthe
in legendnarraquestionof sociologicaland psychological
continuity
the
formal
of
his
tive,abandoning
(Geseapproach
contemporaries
on the Alpine
mann 1928). GotthilfIsler,in his 1971 dissertation
is itself
legend"die Sennenpuppe,"suggeststhatthelegendnarrative
not the narratedexperience,but servesa deeper religiousfunction
of eventscombinedwiththearche(Isler 1971:247).The singularity
unconsciousundoubtedly
accountforthe
typesfoundinthecollective
episodicnatureofthelegend(Isler 1973).Experiencescombinewith
of theunconsciousand elementsof folkbeliefin thegenarchetypes
esis of legend (Isler 1971:247). Legend,accordingto Isler,reflects,
"die aktuellen Tendenzen des kollektivenUnbewuBten"(Isler
oflegendsuggeststhatlegendis
1971:251).ThisJungianperspective
a symbolic
of universalsmoldedbycollectiveexperiences.
reflection
This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:09:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A SURVEY OF LEGEND
381
The immediate reason a person tells or remembersa legend well
enough to perpetuate it is psychological(Crane 1977). BeverlyCrane
concentratedon the legend cycle of "The Roommate's Death," and
suggested thatit persistsbecause of "itsabilityto organize a complex
set of environmentalfactors,whichappear to be contributinganxiety
and tension to the lives of the individuals concerned" (Crane
1977:147). Gary Alan Fine, in his discussionof "urban" legends, suggests that it is the socio-psychologicalsituation of the present-day
whichimbues contemporarylegends withtheirurbanness(1980:223).
Since legends are intended to be believable and believed, theyact as
an unconsciousfictionizing
(Ranke 1971:202-203). Legend addresses
real psychologicalproblemsassociated withthe geographic and social
environments,actingas a reflectionof commonlyfeltpressures.However,it is not onlyfearswhichare addressed but also desires. Much of
folk narrativeis the human fantasyengaging in wishfulthinking.
Legend, thus, acts as a symbolicrepresentationof collectiveexperiences and beliefs, expressing fears and desires associated with the
common environmentaland social factorsaffectingboth the active
and passive traditionbearers.
Contemporarylegends, referredto as "urban" or "modern" legends, have become a major focus of those interestedin legend psychology.The term"modern urban legend" received broad exposure
as a result of Jan Harold Brunvand's popular collections of these
"urban belief tales" (Brunvand 1981, 1984, 1986 and 1989). In contrast,Klintberg,in his collectionof Scandinavian variantsof the legends, refersto them as "folksaigner"
(af Klintberg1986). The debate
over the suitabilityof the term,whichsuggeststhatthese legends are
both modern, and thereforedivorced fromearlier tradition,and urban, and thereforedifferentfromtheirrural counterparts,has been
fought out in journals throughoutthe world. One camp views the
"modern urban" legend as a distinctgenre, with Daniel Barnes assertingthat "[the] everpresentimpulse to redefinethe roles of dramatispersonae-of villains,victim,hero- . .. finallymakes the urban
legend ... distinctlydifferentfrom most other formsof traditional
narrative"(Barnes 1984:77). Fine also defends the use of the term,
assertingthat "urban" is not a geographic signifierbut rathera referent to a socio-psychologicalcondition (Fine 1980). Georgina Smith
also viewsthe genre as unique, citingthe mode of performanceas the
definingfeature,viewing"modern urban legend" as a narrativeform
This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:09:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
382
WESTERN FOLKLORE
detachment
whichis oftentoldwitha certaindegreeof narratorial
(Smith1981:171; 1979:41).
On theotherend of thespectrumone findsthecampwhichviews
and an unnectheterm"modernurbanlegend"as botha misnomer
of
the
to
folklore
attachment
genre
alreadybulkybaggage
essary
This grouppreferstheappellation"contemporary
legterminology.
thenarratives
end,"thereby
accordingto theirpresentstate
situating
in tradition.
Anylegendviablein traditionmaybe viewedas a conlegend.The Sheffieldconferencesmentionedabove are
temporary
on Contemporary
Legend,revealpublished under the rubricPerspectives
ing the generalorientationof thesescholarsin thisterminological
debate(Nicolaisen1985:214).Noel Williamshas triedto characterize
thecontemporary
legend,notingthat"whatwe mayregardas a disfromtraditional
tinctgenreis actuallynotdistinct
legend,exceptby
in thecultureof itstransas participants
virtueof our ownattitudes
of
mission"(Williams1984:228).Nicolaisenstraddlestheviewpoints
that"modernurbanlegend"be conthetwocampswell,suggesting
elementsnotonlyoflegendbut
sidereda "blurred"genre,containing
also of the personalexperiencestory,a view also held by Bennet
(Nicolaisen1985:216; Bennet 1985:222). Nevertheless,
Jacqueline
is
a
"clever
transforthat
legend
contemporary
Simpson'sproposal
mation of ... old rural supernatural motif[s]into modern, urban
rationalized
deservesconsideration
form[s],"
(Simpson1981:203).In
a well knownstudy,ShirleyMarchalonisprovidedthreemedieval
legend,"Spidersin thehair,"
analoguesto a commoncontemporary
of
in legendtradition
a
exists
that
level
even
continuity
high
proving
over greatlengthsof time(Marchalonis1976). Bennet,in a similar
betweencontemporary
study,showeda highlevelofcontinuity
"Reptilein thestomach"legendsand earliervariants(Bennet1985).These
two studiesconfirmthe process of historicization
or diachronic
above.
mentioned
ecotypification
UlrikaWolf-Knuts
providesthe mostconvincingrebuttalof the
term"modernurbanlegend,"proposingthattheselegendsbe consideredinsteadas migratory
legends(Wolf-Knuts1987). She comof
definition
"modernurbanlegend"to Klintberg's
Brunvand's
pares
of
notes
"bothformpartof a
definition legendand
thesimilarities:
collective
tradition,
theyare bothrelatedin a seriousmannerinorder
to providemoreor less authenticinformation,
and theyare spread
orallyor by mass communication"(Wolf-Knuts1987:173). In suggesting the use of the termmigratorylegend, she pointsout that"modern
This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:09:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A SURVEY OF LEGEND
383
fromgeneration
urbanlegendand migratory
legendspreadvertically
forhundredsofyearsand horizontally
fromcountry
to
to generation
wide
areas"
over
(Wolf-Knuts
1987:178).
country
very
geographical
Ratherthanviewing"modernurbanlegend"as an isolatedexpression
of a particularage, thesescholarschooseto viewthe contemporary
elimByeffectively
legendtradition.
legendas partofthecontinuing
the
distinctions
that
"modern
urban
leginating proposed
separate
characterization
end" fromlegendin general,a broad,encompassing
in turn,should
ofthegenreis closerat hand.Sucha characterization,
in
the
in
function
of
the
largersocietal
legend
help understanding
of narrative
context.Understanding
thefunction
tradition
as partof
themacro-context
has been labeledby Fineas thegoal of the"third
forcein AmericanFolklore"(Fine 1988:352-353).
The studyofcontextand socialfunction
oflegendperformance
is
anothercriticalbutoftenneglectedaspectofthelegendgenre(Abraof conhams 1975). Arnoldvan Genneprecognizedtheimportance
'
textin defining
legend:"De nosjours on se demande:oit,quand et
(vanGennep1912:306).He
qui se raconteune historied6terminee?"
also examinedthesocialfunctionand internalpsychological
aspects
of the narratives,
as a meansforunderstanding
contextforlegend
genesis(van Gennep 1912:305-306).FriedrichRanke'searlydefinitionof legend was not based solelyon formand content,but also
includeda consideration
of performance:
"VolkssagensindvolklauInhalts,der
figeErz~ihlungen
objektivunwahren,phantasiegeboren
als tatsaichliches
Geschehnisin der Formdes einfachenEreignisberichteserza*hlt
wird"(Ranke 1925[1969]:4).D6gh voiced the comweretoo literarily
based,and noplaintthatmostlegenddefinitions
ticedthatmostlegendshad beencollectedimproperly,
lackingcritical
contextualinformation
(D6gh 1965:78). Legendshave been printed
as continuous,cohesivenarratives.
In context,legendis not a neat,
narrative
compartmentalized
performedfor a captive audience.
beRather,duringperformance,
legendexhibitsno predetermined
infitsand starts,
ginningor end,butprogresses
interrupted
byothers'
observations
or linkedtojokes,and oftenservingrhetorical
purposes
1965
and 1976). In a studywhere D6gh examinedlegend
(D6gh
ina Hungarianemigrant
hertranscriptions
performance
community,
an
view
of
how
various
reveal interesting
conversational
narrative
formscommingleduringtransmission,
the relationbeparticularly
tweenjoke and legend (D~gh 1976:109). GaryButler'sstudyof Terreneuvienne legends supports the assertion that legend is a conversa-
This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:09:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
384
WESTERN FOLKLORE
tional genre (1980). During legend performance,the boundary of
narratorand audience blurs, transmissiontaking place interactively.
The conversationalnature of legend, in turn,adds to the believability
beof the narrativeand its functionas a mechanismfor reaffirming
liefssince the narrativeis not set offby any distancingformula.
The proposal of an internationallegend catalogue, similarin scope
to the Aarne-Thompson index, forcedthe crisisin legend researchof
the 1960s (Hand 1965:441-443). One of the mostdifficultaspects of
classifyinglegend was the abundance of specificallusions relevantor
understandable to only relativelysmall groups of people (Tillhagen
1969). Also, it was discovered that,due to the mono-episodic nature
of legend, it spanned a nearlyinfinitenumber of motifs,precluding
classificationaccording only to content.Systemssuch as Julian Krzyzanoski's,whichsuggesteda divisionof legend into threemain classes,
and belief,failed due to the lack of
namely religious,historical/local
any clear distinctionbetween these categories (Krzyianoski 1967;
Hand 1965:444). C. Scott Littleton'smulti-dimensional,synchronic
and diachroniccategorizationof folknarrativedid littleto help clarify
since legend spanned all of his categories(Litlegend's characteristics,
tleton 1965). Jason also suggested a multi-dimensionalapproach to
oral literatureas a whole, plottingwhat she calls "determinants"onto
the "oral literaturespace," withlittlesuccess (Jason 1969). However,
the point thatlegend mustbe classifiedon multiplecriteriais one well
taken.Vibeke Dahll, in her criticalanalysisof Nordic legend catalogue
systems,concurred withthis assertion(Dahll 1973:182). A thorough
analysis of properlycollected legends and a synthesisof earlier theoretical approaches to legend could lead to a more fundamentalunderstandingof legend characteristicson whichone could base a classificatorysystem (Sirovaitka1964). Sirovaitkaproposes the use of
of a givenlegend; one could
computersto help plot the characteristics
(Sirovitka 1964). The need fora
therebyclassifymulti-dimensionally
classificationsystemis certainlyan importantissue. Tillhagen, however, made the most importantobservationon legend classification
when he statedthata legend catalogue is a tool forthe studyof legend
and should not be considered an end in itself(Tillhagen 1969:318).
Scholars' effortsmay best be spent exploring questions of performance, motivation,functionand structureratherthan attemptingto
pigeonhole the vast numbers of collected variants.Through continued studies, the most suitable classificatorysystemwill undoubtedly
presentitself.The earlyattemptsat legend classificationhave brought
This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:09:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A SURVEY OF LEGEND
385
to light the often localized and highlyecotypifiednature of legend.
Each traditioninto which a legend moves exerts a culturalinfluence
on the narrative.Because legend is a reflectionof culturallybased
values and beliefs,the ecotypificationprocess becomes exaggerated,
problematizingthe classificationprocess.
RobertGeorges, in his opening address to the American Folk Legend Symposium,suggeststhat a new definitionbased on the "nature
and structureof the sets of relationshipsthat underlie" legend be
developed (1971:18). Such a definitionwould have tOinclude considerations of all characteristicsof the genre, fusingthe approaches of
earlier scholarship.Althougha great deal has been discovered about
the underlying relationships-textual, psychological and sociological-which affectthe formand functionof legends, these discoveries
have not been synthesizedintoa concise and concretecharacterization
of the genre. The above surveyof legend scholarship bespeaks the
need for such a syntheticcharacterization.Distillingthe main points
of the major theoreticaladvances considered above providesone with
the beginningsof such a characterization.Legend, typically,is a short
(mono-) episodic, traditional,highlyecotypified,historicizednarrativeperformedin a conversationalmode, reflectingon a psychological
level a symbolicrepresentationof folk belief and collectiveexperiences and servingas a reaffirmation
of commonlyheld values of the
to
whose
tradition
it
The
group
belongs.
promisingwork on contemhas
revived
a
field
that
porarylegend
onlytwentyyearsago had been
considered to have reached an impasse-a scholarlycrisis of paramount proportions. With this survey I have hoped to provide an
overview of the main trends which have led to current debates in
legend study,as well as suggestareas forcontinued study.Collection
efforts,classificationsystemsand analyses of legends and legend cycles which consider the legend from multiple perspectiveswill undoubtedly help our understandingof the functionof this complex
folk narrativegenre in the greater context of society.The renewed
vigor in legend scholarship bespeaks the emergence of yet another
"new era" in legend research.
University
of California
Berkeley,
California
This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:09:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
386
WESTERN FOLKLORE
ReferencesCited
StudiaFennica
Abrahams,Roger D. 1975. GenreTheoryand Folkloristics.
20:13-19.
Allport,Gordon. 1947. The Psychology
of Rumor.New York: Holt.
UrbanLegends.Arv40:67-78.
Barnes,Daniel R. 1984. Interpreting
Bennet,Gillian.1985.What's"Modern"AbouttheModernLegend?Fabula
26:219-229.
Urban LegBennet,Gillian.1987. Problemsin Collectingand Classifying
ends: A Personal Experience. In Perspectives
on Contemporary
Legend2, ed.
GillianBennet,Paul Smith,and D. D. A. Widdowson,pp. 15-30. Sheffield:CECTAL.
Berlin: Walter
Bernheim, Ernst. 1920. Einleitungin derGeschichtswissenschaft.
de Gruyter.
Beyschlag,
Siegfried.1969.WeltbildderVolkssage.In Vergleichende
Sagenfored.
schung, LeanderPetzoldt,pp. 189-216. Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft.
Oslo:
Blehr, Otto. 1965. Noen synspunkter
pd analysenav folketrofortellingen.
Universitetets
Museum.
Etnografiske
Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Blehr,Otto. 1974.Folketro
ogsagnforskning.
Boor, Helmut de. 1928. Mairchenforschung.Zeitschrift
fiir Deutschkunde
42:561-581.
8:
appelsinerog folkesagn.
Tradisjon
Bregenhoj,Carsten.1978.Terrorisme,
65-78.
Hitchhiker:
AmericanUrbanLegends
Brunvand,Jan Harold. 1981. TheVanishing
and TheirMeanings.
New York:W.W. Nortonand Co.
Brunvand,Jan Harold. 1984. The ChokingDoberman:And Other"New" Urban
New York:Norton.
Legends.
Brunvand,Jan Harold. 1986. TheMexicanPet: More "New" UrbanLegendsand
SomeOld Favorites.New York: Norton.
Brunvand,Jan Harold. 1989. Curses!BroiledAgain: TheHottestUrbanLegends
Going.New York:Norton.
Truthand Beliefin theLegend
Butler,GaryR. 1980.Participant
Interaction,
Process. Cultureand Tradition5:67-78.
of
Bodker,Laurits.1965.Folkliterature
(Germanic).
(International
Dictionary
and
Folklore
Rosenkilde
2.)
RegionalEuropeanEthnology
Copenhagen:
og Bagger.
Cederschiold,
Wilhelm.1924.Saigenochsanning.Nordisk
tidskriftfor
vetenskap,
konstoch industri1924:449-466.
Wilhelm.1932.Sant ochosantifolksdignerna.
Stockholm:
WahlCederschiold,
stromoch Widstrand.
ReidarTh. 1962.Fabulatochmemorat
Christiansen,
(Innledning).In Nordisk
Seminar
i Folkedigtning
I, ed. LauritsBodker,pp. 86-106. NordiskInstitut
forFolkedigtning
2. Copenhagen:Rosenkildeog Bagger.
ofValue in 'The Roommate's
Crane,Beverly.1977.The Structure
Death':A
forInterpretive
of FolkLegends.Journal
Methodology
Analysis
oftheFolkloreInstitute14:133-151.
This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:09:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A SURVEY OF LEGEND
387
Dahll, Vibeke. 1972. Nordiskesagnregistre
(Nordisk Institut
og sagn systematik.
forFolkdigtning
2.) Copenhagen:NIF.
22:77-87.
Laographia
D6gh,Linda. 1965. Processesof LegendFormation.
in
The
Modern
Function
Linda.
'Belief
1971.
Form,
Society:
D6gh,
Legend'
A Symposium,
ed.
and Relationshipto Other Genres. In American
Folklegend:
oftheUCLA Centerforthe
WaylandDebs Hand,pp. 55-68. (Publications
of
Berkeley:University
Studyof ComparativeFolkloreand Mythology.)
CaliforniaPress.
76:177-189.
D6gh,Linda. 1975.The Legendand theSparrow.Volkskunde
ofJokeand Legend:A Case of Conversational
D4gh,Linda. 1976.Symbiosis
Folklore. In FolkloreToday:A Festschrift
forRichardDorson,ed. Linda D6gh,
Press.
IndianaUniversity
pp. 101-122. Bloomington:
1974. The Memorateand the ProtoD6gh,Linda, and AndrewVAzsonyi.
Memorate.JournalofAmericanFolklore87:225-239.
88:529-539.
Domotor,Tekla. 1977.A tipizilasa nepmondaban.
Ethnographia
FolkLegend:
of Legend.In American
Dundes,Alan. 1971.On thePsychology
ed. WaylandDebs Hand, pp. 21-36. (Publications
of the
A Symposium,
UCLA Centerforthe Studyof ComparativeFolkloreand Mythology.)
of CaliforniaPress.
Berkeley:University
of LegendsNecessary?In
Ellis,Bill. 1987. WhyAre VerbatimTranscripts
on Contemporary
Legend2, ed. Gillian Bennet, Paul Smith,and
Perspectives
D. D. A. Widdowson,pp. 31-60. CECTAL ConferencePapersSeries5.
Sheffield:
CECTAL.
studieri skirdensochjulenstrooch
Eskero6d,Albert. 1947. Aretsiring.Etnologiska
sed.(Nordiskamuseetshandlingar26.) Stockholm:Nordiskamuseet.
6s mfifajkrit&riumok.
Ferenczi,Imri. 1966. Mondateminol6giak
Neprajz6s
10:5-18.
Nyelvtudomdny
FriedRat: Legendsand ModernSoFine,GaryAlan. 1980.The Kentucky
ciety.JournaloftheFolkloreInstitute17:222-243.
Fine,GaryAlan. 1988.The ThirdForcein AmericanFolklore:FolkNarraFabula29:342- 353.
tivesand SocialStructures.
1910.
Ulrich.
ZurStilkritik
derVolkssage.
Dissertation:
Folkers,
Kiel.
Johann
desldgendes.
Paris:E. Flammarion.
Gennep,Arnoldvan. 1912.Laformation
Georges,RobertA. 1971.The GeneralConceptof Legend:Some Assump-
tions to be reexamined and Reassessed. In AmericanFolklegend:A Sympo-
of theUCLA Censium,ed. WaylandDebs Hand,pp. 1-20. (Publications
ter for the Studyof ComparativeFolkloreand Mythology.)
Berkeley:
of CaliforniaPress.
University
ZusammenGesemann,Gerhard.1928. Soziologischeund psychologische
4:19-43.
haingein der Sagenforschung.Zeitschriftfiir
V61kerpsychologie
GesichtsGunnar.1935.Memoratund Sage. Einigemethodische
Granberg,
punkte.Saga ochSed 1935:120-127.
Greverus,Ina-Maria.1969. Thema, Typus und Motiv.Zur Determination
ed. Leander Petder Erzaihlforschung.In Vergleichende
Sagenforschung,
zoldt,pp. 390-401. Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft.
Grimm,
Sagen.Berlin:NicoJacobLudwigKarl. 1905(4thedition).Deutsche
laischeVerlag.
This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:09:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
388
WESTERN FOLKLORE
Hain, Mathilde. 1969. Volkssage und Sagenlandschaft.In Vergleichende
Sagened. Leander Petzoldt,pp. 99-107. Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche
forschung,
Buchgesellschaft.
Halpert, Herbert. 1971. Definitionand Variationin Folk Legend. In American
A Symposium,
ed. Wayland Debs Hand, pp. 47-54. (Publications
Folklegend:
of the UCLA Center for the Study of Comparative Folklore and Mythology.) Berkeley: Universityof California Press.
Hand, Wayland Debs. 1965. Status of European and American Legend
6:439-446.
Study. CurrentAnthropology
Heiske, Wilhelm. 1962. Das Marchen ist poetischer,die Sage historischer.
Versuch einer Kritik.Deutschunterricht
14:69-75.
Oslo: UniHodne, Bjarne. 1973. Personalhistoriske
sagn. En studiei kildeverdi.
versitetsforlaget.
Honko, Lauri. 1964. Memoratesand the Study of Folk Beliefs.Journalofthe
FolkloreInstitute1:5-19.
Honko, Lauri. 1968. Genre Analysisin Folkloristicsand Comparative Religion. Temenos3:48-66.
Eine Untersuchung
Isler, Gotthilf.1971. Die Sennenpuppe.
iiberdie religioseAlder
Schweizerischen
Gesellschaft
fur Volkskunde.)
(Schriften
pensagen.
Basel: Verlag G. Krebs.
der
Isler, Gotthilf.1973. Tiefenpsychologieund Sagenforschung.In Probleme
ed. Lutz R6hrich, pp. 149-164. Freiburg im Breisgau:
Sagenforschung,
ForschungsstelleSage.
Jansen,William Hugh. 1976. Legend: Oral Tradition in the Modern Experience. In FolkloreToday:A Festschrift
for RichardDorson,ed. Linda D6gh,
pp. 265-272. Bloomington: Indiana UniversityPress.
Jason, Heda. 1969. A Multi-DimensionalApproach to Oral Literature.CurrentAnthropology
10:413-426.
Jason, Heda. 1971. Concerning the 'Historical' and the 'Local' Legends and
their Relatives.JournalofAmericanFolklore84:134-144.
Jolles,Andr&. 1958 [1929]. EinfacheFormen.Tuibingen:Max Niemayer.
Klintberg,Bengt af. 1976. Folksigner i dag. Fataburen1976:269-296.
Klintberg,Bengt af. 1986. Rdttani pizzan. Folksagneri vdr tid. Stockholm:
Norstedt.
Krzyianowsky,Julian. 1967. Legend in Literature and Folklore. Fabula
9:111-117.
Labov, William. 1972. Language in theInner City.Studiesin theBlack English
Vernacular.(Conduct and Communication3.) Philadelphia: Universityof
PennsylvaniaPress.
Lee, Doo Hyon, Chang Ju Kun, and I Kwang Kyu. 1983. Hanguk Minsok
Hakkaesol.Seoul: Hak Yon Sa.
Littleton,C. Scott. 1965. A Two-Dimensional Scheme forthe Classificationof
Narratives.JournalofAmericanFolklore78:21-27.
und Volkssage.
Zwei Grundformen
erzdhLuthi, Max. 1961 [1966]. Volksmiirchen
lenderDichtung.Bern: Francke Verlag.
Luthi, Max. 1966. Aspekte des Marchens und der Sage. GermanischRomanische
16:337-350.
Monatsschrift
This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:09:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A SURVEY OF LEGEND
389
Marchalonis,Shirley. 1976. Three Medieval Tales and Their Modern Analogues. Journalof theFolkloreInstitute13:173-184.
Morin, Edgar. 1982. La Rumeurd'Orlians.Paris: Ed. du Sevil.
Mullen, PatrickB. 1971. The Relationshipof Legend and Folk Belief.Journal
ofAmericanFolklore84:406-413.
Studie.
Muth, Franz Alfred. 1888. Die deutscheSage. Eine litteraturhistorische
BroschOren
Frankfurt:
von
A.
(Frankfurterzeitgemasse
IX:11.)
Verlag
Foesser Nachfolger.
Nicolaisen, W. F. H. 1985. Perspectiveson Contemporary Legend. Fabula
26:213-218.
Nicolaisen, W. F. H. 1987. The LinguisticStructureof Legends. In Perspectiveson Contemporary
Legend2, ed. Gillian Bennet, Paul Smith,and D. D. A.
Widdowson, pp. 61-76. CECTAL Conference Papers Series 5. Sheffield:
CECTAL.
Nyrop,Kristoffer.1907-1933. Fortidssagn ogsange. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.
Olrik, Axel. 1908. Episke love i folkedigtningen.DanskeStudier1908:69-89.
Olrik, Axel. 1921. Nogle grundsaetninger
(Danmarks folkefor sagnforskning.
minder 23.) Copenhagen: Det Schonbergskeforlag.
Peeters, K. C., ed. 1963. Tagung der 'International
Societyfor Folk Narrative
Research'in Antwerp
(6-8 Sept.,1962). Berichtund Referate.Antwerp: Centrumvoor studie en documentatie.
Pentikiinen,Juha. 1968. Grenzprobleme zwischen Memorat und Sage. Temenos3:136-167.
Pentikaiinen,Juha. 1976. Signens struktur och funktion. Fataburen
1976:141-154.
Peuckert,Will-Erich.1965. Sagen. Munich: E. Schmidt.
Peuckert, Will-Erich. 1969. Die Welt der Sage. In Vergleichende
Sagened. Leander Petzoldt,pp. 135-188. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliforschung,
che Buchgesellschaft.
Ranke, Friedrich. 1969. Grundfragender Volkssagenforschung.In VergleichendeSagenforschung,
ed. Leander Petzoldt,pp. 1-20. Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft.
ed. Heinz
Rank, Friedrich. 1971. Sage und Mairchen.In KleinereSchriften,
Rupp and Edvard Studer, pp. 189-203. Bern: Francke Verlag.
25:251Rohrich,Lutz. 1949. Sage und Brauch. Forschungen
und Fortschritte
254.
Eine volkskundliche
UntersuR6hrich, Lutz. 1956. Marchenund Wirklichkeit.
chung.Weisbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.
ROhrich,Lutz. 1973. Was soil und kann Sagenforschungleisten?Einige aktuelle Probleme unseres Faches. In Problemeder Sagenforschung,
ed. Lutz
Rohrich,pp. 13-33. Freiburgim Breisgau: ForschungsstelleSage.
Schenda, Rudolf. 1982. Remarques sur le contenu socio-historiquedes r&cits
16gendaires.Le MondeAlpinet Rhodanien10:185-188.
Schmidt,Friedrich-Wilhelm.1929. Die Volkssage als Kunstverk.Niederdeutsche Zeitschrift
7, 129-143, 230-244. Reprinted (1969) in
fiir Volkskunde
ed.
Vergleichende
Sagenforschung, Leander Petzoldt,pp. 21-65. Darmstadt:
WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft.
This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:09:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
390
WESTERN FOLKLORE
Schmidt,
Osterreich
Leopold.1969.VoreinenneuenAraderSagenforschung.
Volkskunde
29:53-74.
Zeitschriftfiir
News.A SociologicalStudyofRumor.InShibutani,Tamotsu. 1966. Improvised
dianapolis:Bobbs-Merill.
Simpson,Jacqueline.1981. RationalizedMotifsin Urban Legends.Folklore
92:203-207.
Sirovtka, Oldfich. 1964. Zur Morphologieder Sage und Sagenkatalogi13:99-106.
sierung. ActaEthnographica
Genre.
Smith,Georgina.1979.Aspectsof UrbanLegendas a Performance
Loreand Language 2(10):41-44.
Smith,Georgina.1981. UrbanLegend,PersonalExperienceNarrativeand
Oral History:Literaland SocialTruthin Performance.
Arv,37:167-173.
lidov6mpopov6stiv sourasndm
rmkovi, Marta.1975.Mistnia historick6
vistnikmoravskj27:62-70.
VlastivAdny
dnin.C. W. von. 1931.Om folkets
Nordisk
Kultur9:96-112.
Sydow,
saigner.
Scandia5. Reprinted
as "On
Sydow,C. W. von.1932.Om traditionsspridning.
theSpread of Tradition"in von Sydow.1948. Selected
Paperson Folklore,
pp. 11-43. Copenhagen:Rosenkildeand Bagger.
der Prosa-Volksdichtung.
In VolkskundliSydow,C. W. von. 1934.Kategorien
che Gaben. Festschrift
ed. Erich SeJ. Meierzum 70. Geburtstag
dargebracht,
mannand HarrySchewe,pp. 253-268. Berlin:W. de Gruyter.
International.
Tillhagen,C. H. 1967.Die Sage als Dichtung.In Folklore
Essays
in traditional
literature,
beliefand customin honorof WaylandDebs Hand, ed.
D. K. Wilgus,pp. 211-220. Hatboro:FolkloreAssociatesInc.
und ein Vorschlag
Tillhagen,C. H. 1969.Was isteine Sage? Eine Definition
ed. Lefir ein europaisches Sagensystem.In Vergleichende
Sagenforschung,
ander Petzoldt,pp. 307-318. Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft.
Anno 1969. Vernieutwing
of stagTop, Stefaan.1969. Sagenproblematiek
natie.Volkskunde
70:123-165.
as History.
Madison:University
of WisconVansina,Jan. 1985.OralTradition
sin Press.
der Sagen.
Voigt,Vilmos.1973.Die strukturell-morphologisch
Erforschung
In Probleme
derSagenforschung,
ed. Lutz R6hrich,pp. 66-85. Freiburgim
Breisgau:Forschungsstelle
Sage.
Wehrhan,Karl. 1908.Die Sage.Leipzig:W. Heims.
Noel. 1984.Problemsin DefiningContemporary
Williams,
Legends.In Perspectiveson Contemporary
Legend,ed. Paul Smith, pp. 216-228. CECTAL
ConferencePapersSeries4. Sheffield:
CECTAL.
imVolksmund.
Wisser,Wilhelm.1925.Das Miirchen
VerHamburg:Quickborn
lag.
Ulrika.1987. ModernUrbanLegendsSeen as Migratory
Wolf-Knuts,
Legends.Arv43:167-179.
This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Tue, 7 May 2013 16:09:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions