"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 [email protected].

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
TIMOTHY R. TANGHERLINI

One of themainconcernsof folklorists studying legendhas been

developing new classificatory
systems and revisingpreviousdefini-
tions(Hand 1965; Bodker1965:253-261).In 1975,in an articleen-
titled"The Legendand theSparrow"Linda D6gh observedthefail-
ingsoftheseattempts and proposedthatefforts wouldbe betterspent
examining the obstaclesto derivinga characterization of the"genus"
legend (D6gh 1975:188). Both the congressesof the International
SocietyforFolk NarrativeResearchand theseriesof Sheffield con-
ferenceson contemporary legend held since 1982 have made great
headwayin addressingtheconcernsDegh voicedin herarticle.The
goals of thispaper are to providea historicalsurveyof the earlier
legendscholarshipthathas laid thegroundwork forcurrentdiscus-
sionsand to developa characterization of thelegendgenrebased on
a synthesisof previousscholarship in a mannerthatdoes notdelimit
therangeof thegenrebutratherexplainsthebasiccharacteristics of
thefolklegend.
JacobGrimmwas perhapsthefirstto begintheprocessof legend
characterization,whenhe observedthat,"Das Mairchen istpoetischer,
die Sage historischer" (Grimm1865:v). This characterization influ-
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

investigated legendfocussedtheirefforts on literary approachesto
the genre,withdisregardforsocialcontext,performance and psy-
chologicalmotivations, preferring to examine the legend relation
in
tootherfolk narrative forms, primarilythe folktale. Examplesofsuch
approachesmaybe foundin Karl Wehrhan's(1908) earlystudyof
legend,as wellas FriedrichRanke's(1971) and Will-Erich Peuckert's
(1965) works on legend. In the 1950s and 1960s, scholars began to
considerlegend from a broader perspective, including considerations
of contextand performance. Referring to the 1962 congressof the
International SocietyforFolkNarrativeResearch,Leopold Schmidt
declaredthata newera in legendscholarship had begun(L. Schmidt
1969:53; Peeters 1963). This new era envisioned boththe develop-
mentof an international legend catalogueas well as the new ap-
to
proaches legend which included anthropological and psychological
perspectives. Conversely, Stefaan Top declared that 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
classification, scholarsfacedwhentheytriedto
categorizelegend. Most categorizations reliedheavilyon questionsof
content,trying to establish a legendtypeindexsimilarto theAarne-
Thompsonfolktale index.Catalogsofthistypenecessarily overlooked
important considerations of context and mode of performance, being
based on a contentual characterization of thegenre.A synthetic view
of legend,one thatconsideredlegendfromliterary, anthropological
and psychological viewpoints, was missing.
Literary approachesto thedefinition oflegendare themostabun-
dant.The majority ofthesestudiesconsideraspectsoflegendformin
relationto othertypesof folknarrative.One of the earliestdistinc-
tionsmadewastherelativelackof formlegendexhibitedin compar-
ison to folktale(de Boor 1928). ROhrichfurther delineatedthe dis-
tinctionbetweenthe two formswhen he examinedtheirrelative
treatment of reality(Rohrich1956:9-26). Max Luithialso considers
thissamequestion(Ltithi1961).Whilethefolktaleuses realityin an
ironicway,legendtriesto reconstruct realityin a believablefashion.
Legend narrative is linked to outer opposed to theinnerre-
reality,
of
ality folktale,makingspecific allusions to verifiable topographic
featuresor historical personages.Also,unlikefolktale, thecore of a
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,legendcon-
siderswhathappensto man(Liithi1966).Althoughbothformsmay
includesimilarmotifs, thisdifference in orientation leads todiffering
treatments of thesemotifs.The similarity of folktaleand legendmo-
tifsimpliesthatlegendis notnecessarily morehistorical thanfolktale
(Heiske 1962).As similarmotifsappear in bothnarrativeforms,the
distinguishing characteristicis notrelationto reality, butratherpre-
sentationof motifs, worldviewand portrayal of protagonists.
In thecomparisonto folktale, legendwasfrequently consideredto
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 addressedtheprob-
lemsthefieldworkerfacesin collecting legendnarrative, mentioning
that"thenaturallegendtellingcontextis largelyinaccessible ... and
... an induced natural context is particularly difficultto create" (Ben-
net 1987:16).BillEllisprovidesan analysisofa performance of"The
Hook" as an exampleof boththe problemsinherentin providinga
verbatimtranscript of a legendperformance as wellas the benefits
such a transcript provides in the of
analysis legendfunction, noting
that"itis throughanalysisof wholeperformances thatwe compre-
hend wholelegends"(Ellis 1987:57).Whileacknowledging thediffi-
culty the fieldworker encounters both during collection and tran-
he
scription, posits that "the of
majority printedlegend texts ... do
not representlegend tellingbut ratherlegend summarizing" (Ellis
1987:34).To remedythisproblem,he suggeststhatlegendcollections
includenotationsof thesubtleaspectsof performance becauseitis in
theselinguistic and paralinguistic detailsthatlegendmeaningis en-
capsulated(Ellis 1987).
In 1934,Carl Wilhelmvon Sydowdifferentiated between"memo-
rate"and "fabulate"(von Sydow1934:261).The basic tenetof this
distinction was thatfirsthand accountsof supernatural experiences
are a different typeof folknarrativethansecondor thirdhand ac-
counts.To avoid the exclusionary natureof such a distinction, von
Sydow considered themovement of memorate across the border into
fabulate, labeling this group of cross-overnarratives"Erin-
nerungssage (minnessaigen)..." (von Sydow 1934:261).1 Gunnar
Granbergbuilt on von Sydow'smemorate/fabulate
distinction,
by
equating legend with the categoryfabulate and suggestingthat leg-

1. 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 ex-
hibitsa 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 experi-
enced it (Granberg 1935:121). Reidar Christiansenprovided a theo-
retical modificationof the distinctionwhen he observed that memo-
rate 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 mem-
orate 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 impor-
tantly,vice-versa,simplyby changing narrativevoice. A primaryrea-
son for thischange is the tendencyto performlegend as a true nar-
rative.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 transmis-
sional 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 con-
sidered in traditionwhen original authorship is no longer verifiable
and transmissionis stillactivelytaking place-this could occur in as
fewas a single transmissionary link. Any narrativethathas ever been
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 narra-
tive 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" (All-
port 1947:164). Edgar Morin studied the genesis,life and disappear-
ance of a rumor in the French cityof Orleans, showingthat tempo-
ralityand extremelocalizationare twofactorsthat,ifnot overcomeby
widespread transmissionor adaptation of the narrative to a fixed
form,may cause the rumor to disappear ratherthan remain in tra-
dition (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 narra-
tive,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 be-
lief. Rumor, like legend, relies on popular belief as a generativeim-
petus (Shibutani 1966:156). Importantto the formationof rumor is
ambiguityor a lack of officialinformation,which helps precipitate
accounts whichreflectboth commonlyheld beliefsand interests(Shi-
butani 1966:157; Allport 1947:33-36). Once a rumor no longer re-
flectscollectivebiases,it disappears fromtradition.Bengt af Klintberg
considered this reliance on folk belief in the two formsof folk nar-
rative (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 char-
acterizationis that rumor narrativeexperiences a hyperactivetrans-
missionin 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
[1969]). Through itsbelievability, the internallandscape of the legend

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
thelegendand thehistorical natureofthenarratives, suggestingthat
thesetwo forcescombinedresultin an accountbelievableto both
narratorand audience (Peuckert1938[1969]:151-152). Siegfried
Beyschlagconcursin thisevaluationof theroleofa credibleinternal
worldin developingthebelievability ofthenarrative (Beyschlag1941
[1969]).This distinguishes the world in
portrayed legendfromthose
portrayed in folktaleand myth.
Legend morphologyand the studyof structural elementshave
playedimportant roles in thedevelopment of a viewof legendand its
composition. Axel Olrik identifiedeighteen"epic laws"whichgovern
thecomposition all
of folknarrative(Olrik1908 and 1921).Johann
Folkersmodifiedthisapproachspecifically to fitlegends,developing
a morphological approach to the compositional elementsof legend,
and attempting to establisha groupof functions servingas thegram-
mar for the narrative(Folkers1910). OldfichSirovtka also pro-
pounded a morphological approachin a muchlaterarticle,witha
focuson legend motifsto help develop a legend index (Sirovitka
1964).Unlikefolktalemotif,legendmotifis a moreautonomousen-
tityand subjectto greatervariation(Sirovtka 1964:101).This auton-
omousmotifcoupledwiththetendencyof legendnarrativetowards
incorporation and contentual leads to theelasticformleg-
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 ap-
proachas a meansfordevelopingthegrammaroflegends,suggesting
thata veryshortformulacoulddescribethesyntagmatic structureof
legend (Voigt 1973:80). Pentikainenlater explored the link between
legendstructureand legendfunction (Pentikainen 1976). He discov-
eredthatlegendstructure differsaccording to each particularlegend
function(Pentikaiinen 1976:149).W. F. H. Nicolaisenhas also consid-
eredmorphological aspectsoflegendstructure, focusingprimarily on
contemporary legend. Basing his study on William Labov's (1972)
studyofAfro-American vernacularnarrative, he suggeststhatlegend
narrativeconsistsat a minimumlevelof threestructural elements-
orientation, 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

distinctstructuralelementsor as fewas two(Nicolaisen1987).Despite

thepromiseof thesestructural approachesto legendstudy,none has
been able toestablishanysetrulesoflegendmorphology. Partof the
failureoftheseapproachesliesin theextremeelasticity ofthelegend
narrativeand its highdegree of ecotypification. Also, mostof the
approachesare forcedto ignoreimportantaspectsof contextand
performance, centeringprimarily on considerations ofcontent.How-
ever,morphologies such as Nicolaisen'sand Pentikainen's do provide
bothmuchneeded insightintothe structural relationships between
legend and other forms of oral narrativeas well as maps of the min-
imumstructural elementsthatmakeup a legendnarrative.
The stylistics
oflegendnarrative has alsobeenconsideredas a basis
forgenredefinition. Andr6Jolles'influential EinfacheFormen includes
a shortdiscussionof legend based on its formand content(Jolles
1958:50-74). His definition, however,linkslegend to conceptsof
family, clan and blood relations,a somewhatmisleadingviewof the
genre.A moreproductive approachconcernslegendstyleratherthan
legend content. Friedrich-Wilhelm Schmidtexploredthe particular
features
stylistic of legend,concludingthat,likefolktale,it is an ar-
tisticfolkexpressionwitha definite form,usinga narrativeframeto
structure the account(F. W. Schmidt1929[1969]:64).He mentions
thatthe legend is often"episch-dramatisch" and exhibitsa poetic
lyricism,concluding thatWilhelm Wisser'sobservation on thenature
of folktale,"Mitdem Inhaltder Geschichten istdie Formtiberliefert,
die gleichsam vonselbstaus diesemhervorwachst," also holdstruefor
legend (F. W. Schmidt 1929[1969]:64-65; Wisser 1925). Carl Her-
mannTillhagenlatersharedthissameview(Tillhagen1967). How-
ever,a majorproblemof analyzingtheformand styleof thelegend
is thelackofclearand consistent terminology fordescribing thenar-
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 theinter-
nationallegendcatalogue.In theprocess,however,a greatdeal was
discoveredaboutlegendstyleand form.
Legendhasan elasticform;itexpands,contracts and survives great
variation.Lee Doo Hyon mentionsthatthiselasticity is one of the
uniquecharacteristics ofthegenre(Lee 1983:361).Partoftheprocess
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 obser-
vation is directlyrelated to Albert Eskerod's concept of "tradition
dominants" (EskerSd 1947:81). Klintbergnoticed the ethno-and so-
ciocentricnature of Swedish contemporarylegends, suggestingthat
each individual culture places its own ethnicity,conventions and
norms in opposition to groups whichdo not conformand are there-
fore threatening(af Klintberg 1976:271 and 278). This process of
ecotypification can be extended to the entirelegend genre, whereby
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 com-
mented on the connection between legend and rumor, noting the
focus of both narrativetypeson historicalevents,and folkinterpre-
tation 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 accu-
rate 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 ear-
lier works,he advocated caution in dealing withthese narratives,as
the historicalveracityof the accounts varies greatlyand is oftennon-
existent.
It was not untilthe 1970s thatthe historicityof the legend was truly
brought into question. Heda in
Jason, writing theJournalofAmerican
Folklore,suggested that the Grimms' "historischer"definitionwas
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 reflec-
tion 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 re-
flectionof 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 nec-
essarily 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.
Legends are bettercharacterizedas historicized narrative.The process
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 relationbe-
tween 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 ac-
counts of both legends and beliefs to illustratetheir symbioticrela-
tionshipin 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

laterallydependenton theother.In tradition, legendderivespartof

itsbelievability fromthefolkbeliefsit reflects, whilefolkbeliefsare
supportedbylegend narratives.
A subcategory of legend,the belieflegend,was proposedas a
meansforcategorizing legendswhichdepend largelyon folkbelief.
These legendsor folkbeliefstoriesoftenrelateencounterswiththe
supernatural and are toldwithfirstor secondhand authority (Blehr
1965:32-47). Degh has shown how contemporary legendsincorpo-
rate beliefsabout the supernaturalin a mannerconsistentwitha
contemporary worldview,ratherthan discardthosebeliefs(Degh
1971). It is possiblethatlegendswhichare noteasilyrecognizedas
incorporating folkbeliefsmakeuse of thesebeliefsin a moresubtle
way.Whiletheterm"folkbelief"has been limitedto beliefsconcern-
ing supernaturalphenomenain pastscholarship, an analysisof leg-
end based on beliefshouldincludeconsiderations of tabooand gen-
eralizedbelief(Mullen1971).A broadviewofthisnatureis necessary
to understandhow legend derivesbelievability by tappingalready
establishedbeliefsand values. By constructing a symbolicreality
whichencompassesthesevaluesand beliefs,thelegendnotonlymain-
tainsitsvitality in tradition,but also reinforces thoseverybeliefsit
makesuse of.As thecomplexforcesat workon societychangebeliefs
and values,the changesare reflected in the legendnarrative(Degh
1971). Otherwise, the narrativeloses itsviability.
The psychological studyoflegendis a longneglectedfield(Dundes
1971). An earlypsychological approachto theunderstanding of leg-
end waspresentedbyGerhardGesemannin whichhe consideredthe
questionof sociologicaland psychological continuity in legendnarra-
tive,abandoning the formal approach of his contemporaries (Gese-
mann 1928). GotthilfIsler,in his 1971 dissertation on the Alpine
legend"die Sennenpuppe,"suggeststhatthelegendnarrative is itself
not the narratedexperience,but servesa deeper religiousfunction
(Isler 1971:247).The singularity of eventscombinedwiththearche-
typesfoundinthecollective unconsciousundoubtedly accountforthe
episodicnatureofthelegend(Isler 1973).Experiencescombinewith
archetypes of theunconsciousand elementsof folkbeliefin thegen-
esis of legend (Isler 1971:247). Legend,accordingto Isler,reflects,
"die aktuellen Tendenzen des kollektivenUnbewuBten"(Isler
1971:251).ThisJungianperspective oflegendsuggeststhatlegendis
a symbolic reflection of universalsmoldedbycollectiveexperiences.

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, sug-
gests 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.How-
ever,it is not onlyfearswhichare addressed but also desires. Much of
folk narrativeis the human fantasyengaging in wishfulthinking.
Legend, thus, acts as a symbolicrepresentationof collectiveexperi-
ences and beliefs, expressing fears and desires associated with the
common environmentaland social factorsaffectingboth the active
and passive traditionbearers.
Contemporarylegends, referredto as "urban" or "modern" leg-
ends, have become a major focus of those interestedin legend psy-
chology.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 con-
trast,Klintberg,in his collectionof Scandinavian variantsof the leg-
ends, refersto them as "folksaigner" (af Klintberg1986). The debate
over the suitabilityof the term,whichsuggeststhatthese legends are
both modern, and thereforedivorced fromearlier tradition,and ur-
ban, and thereforedifferentfromtheirrural counterparts,has been
fought out in journals throughoutthe world. One camp views the
"modern urban" legend as a distinctgenre, with Daniel Barnes as-
sertingthat "[the] everpresentimpulse to redefinethe roles of dra-
matispersonae-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 ref-
erent 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

whichis oftentoldwitha certaindegreeof narratorial detachment

(Smith1981:171; 1979:41).
On theotherend of thespectrumone findsthecampwhichviews
theterm"modernurbanlegend"as botha misnomer and an unnec-
essaryattachment to the alreadybulkybaggage of folkloregenre
terminology. This grouppreferstheappellation"contemporary leg-
end,"thereby situating accordingto theirpresentstate
thenarratives
in tradition.Anylegendviablein traditionmaybe viewedas a con-
temporary legend.The Sheffieldconferencesmentionedabove are
published under the rubricPerspectives Legend,reveal-
on Contemporary
ing the generalorientationof thesescholarsin thisterminological
debate(Nicolaisen1985:214).Noel Williamshas triedto characterize
thecontemporary legend,notingthat"whatwe mayregardas a dis-
tinctgenreis actuallynotdistinct
fromtraditional legend,exceptby
virtueof our ownattitudesas participantsin thecultureof itstrans-
mission"(Williams1984:228).Nicolaisenstraddlestheviewpoints of
thetwocampswell,suggesting that"modernurbanlegend"be con-
sidereda "blurred"genre,containingelementsnotonlyoflegendbut
also of the personalexperiencestory,a view also held by Bennet
(Nicolaisen1985:216; Bennet 1985:222). Nevertheless, Jacqueline
Simpson'sproposal thatcontemporary legend is a "clevertransfor-
mation of ... old rural supernatural motif[s]into modern, urban
rationalizedform[s],"deservesconsideration (Simpson1981:203).In
a well knownstudy,ShirleyMarchalonisprovidedthreemedieval
analoguesto a commoncontemporary legend,"Spidersin thehair,"
proving thata highlevelof continuityexistsin legendtradition even
over greatlengthsof time(Marchalonis1976). Bennet,in a similar
study,showeda highlevelofcontinuity betweencontemporary "Rep-
tilein thestomach"legendsand earliervariants(Bennet1985).These
two studiesconfirmthe process of historicization or diachronic
ecotypificationmentioned above.
UlrikaWolf-Knuts providesthe mostconvincingrebuttalof the
term"modernurbanlegend,"proposingthattheselegendsbe con-
sideredinsteadas migratory legends(Wolf-Knuts1987). She com-
pares Brunvand's of
definition "modernurbanlegend"to Klintberg's
of
definition legendand notes thesimilarities:"bothformpartof a
collective theyare bothrelatedin a seriousmannerinorder
tradition,
to providemoreor less authenticinformation, and theyare spread
orallyor by mass communication"(Wolf-Knuts1987:173). In suggest-
ing 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

urbanlegendand migratory legendspreadvertically fromgeneration

to generation forhundredsofyearsand horizontally fromcountry to
country over very wide geographical areas" (Wolf-Knuts 1987:178).
Ratherthanviewing"modernurbanlegend"as an isolatedexpression
of a particularage, thesescholarschooseto viewthe contemporary
legendas partofthecontinuing legendtradition. Byeffectively elim-
the
inating proposed distinctions that separate "modern urban leg-
end" fromlegendin general,a broad,encompassing characterization
ofthegenreis closerat hand.Sucha characterization, in turn,should
in
help understanding the function of legend in the largersocietal
context.Understanding thefunction of narrative 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(Abra-
hams 1975). Arnoldvan Genneprecognizedtheimportance of con-
'
textin defining legend:"De nosjours on se demande:oit,quand et
qui se raconteune historied6terminee?" (vanGennep1912:306).He
also examinedthesocialfunctionand internalpsychological aspects
of the narratives, as a meansforunderstanding contextforlegend
genesis(van Gennep 1912:305-306).FriedrichRanke'searlydefini-
tionof legend was not based solelyon formand content,but also
includeda consideration of performance: "Volkssagensindvolklau-
figeErz~ihlungen objektivunwahren,phantasiegeboren Inhalts,der
als tatsaichlichesGeschehnisin der Formdes einfachenEreignisbe-
richteserza*hlt wird"(Ranke 1925[1969]:4).D6gh voiced the com-
plaintthatmostlegenddefinitions weretoo literarily based,and no-
ticedthatmostlegendshad beencollectedimproperly, lackingcritical
contextualinformation (D6gh 1965:78). Legendshave been printed
as continuous,cohesivenarratives. In context,legendis not a neat,
compartmentalized narrative performedfor a captive audience.
Rather,duringperformance, legendexhibitsno predetermined be-
ginningor end,butprogresses infitsand starts, interrupted byothers'
observations or linkedtojokes,and oftenservingrhetorical purposes
(D6gh 1965 and 1976). In a studywhere D6gh examinedlegend
performance ina Hungarianemigrant community, hertranscriptions
an
reveal interesting view of how various conversational narrative
formscommingleduringtransmission, particularly the relationbe-
tweenjoke and legend (D~gh 1976:109). GaryButler'sstudyof Terre-
neuvienne 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
of the narrativeand its functionas a mechanismfor reaffirming be-
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 Krzy-
zanoski's,whichsuggesteda divisionof legend into threemain classes,
namely religious,historical/local and belief,failed due to the lack of
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(Lit-
legend'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 the-
oretical approaches to legend could lead to a more fundamentalun-
derstandingof legend characteristicson whichone could base a clas-
sificatorysystem (Sirovaitka1964). Sirovaitkaproposes the use of
computersto help plot the characteristics of a givenlegend; one could
therebyclassifymulti-dimensionally (Sirovitka 1964). The need fora
classificationsystemis certainlyan importantissue. Tillhagen, how-
ever, 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 perfor-
mance, motivation,functionand structureratherthan attemptingto
pigeonhole the vast numbers of collected variants.Through contin-
ued 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 Leg-
end 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 consid-
erations of all characteristicsof the genre, fusingthe approaches of
earlier scholarship.Althougha great deal has been discovered about
the underlying relationships-textual, psychological and sociologi-
cal-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,historicizednarra-
tiveperformedin a conversationalmode, reflectingon a psychological
level a symbolicrepresentationof folk belief and collectiveexperi-
ences and servingas a reaffirmation of commonlyheld values of the
group to whose tradition it belongs. The promisingwork on contem-
porarylegend has revived a fieldthat onlytwentyyearsago had been
considered to have reached an impasse-a scholarlycrisis of para-
mount 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 cy-
cles which consider the legend from multiple perspectiveswill un-
doubtedly 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

Abrahams,Roger D. 1975. GenreTheoryand Folkloristics.

StudiaFennica
20:13-19.
Allport,Gordon. 1947. The Psychology
of Rumor.New York: Holt.
Barnes,Daniel R. 1984. Interpreting
UrbanLegends.Arv40:67-78.
Bennet,Gillian.1985.What's"Modern"AbouttheModernLegend?Fabula
26:219-229.
Bennet,Gillian.1987. Problemsin Collectingand Classifying
Urban Leg-
ends: A Personal Experience. In Perspectives
on Contemporary
Legend2, ed.
GillianBennet,Paul Smith,and D. D. A. Widdowson,pp. 15-30. Shef-
field:CECTAL.
Bernheim, Ernst. 1920. Einleitungin derGeschichtswissenschaft.
Berlin: Walter
de Gruyter.
Siegfried.1969.WeltbildderVolkssage.In Vergleichende
Beyschlag, Sagenfor-
ed.
schung, LeanderPetzoldt,pp. 189-216. Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft.
Blehr, Otto. 1965. Noen synspunkter
pd analysenav folketrofortellingen.
Oslo:
Universitetets Museum.
Etnografiske
Blehr,Otto. 1974.Folketro Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
ogsagnforskning.
Boor, Helmut de. 1928. Mairchenforschung.Zeitschrift
fiir Deutschkunde
42:561-581.
Bregenhoj,Carsten.1978.Terrorisme,
appelsinerog folkesagn. 8:
Tradisjon
65-78.
Brunvand,Jan Harold. 1981. TheVanishing
Hitchhiker:
AmericanUrbanLegends
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.
Butler,GaryR. 1980.Participant Truthand Beliefin theLegend
Interaction,
Process. Cultureand Tradition5:67-78.
Bodker,Laurits.1965.Folkliterature
(Germanic).
(International
Dictionaryof
RegionalEuropeanEthnology and Folklore
2.) Copenhagen: Rosenkilde
og Bagger.
Wilhelm.1924.Saigenochsanning.Nordisk
Cederschiold, tidskriftfor
vetenskap,
konstoch industri1924:449-466.
Cederschiold,Wilhelm.1932.Sant ochosantifolksdignerna.Stockholm: Wahl-
stromoch Widstrand.
ReidarTh. 1962.Fabulatochmemorat
Christiansen, (Innledning).In Nordisk
Seminari Folkedigtning
I, ed. LauritsBodker,pp. 86-106. NordiskInstitut
forFolkedigtning 2. Copenhagen:Rosenkildeog Bagger.
Crane,Beverly.1977.The Structure ofValue in 'The Roommate'sDeath':A
Methodology forInterpretive Analysisof FolkLegends.Journal
oftheFolk-
loreInstitute14:133-151.

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.
D6gh,Linda. 1965. Processesof LegendFormation. 22:77-87.
Laographia
D6gh,Linda. 1971.The 'BeliefLegend'in Modern Form,
Society: Function
and Relationshipto Other Genres. In American A Symposium,
Folklegend: ed.
oftheUCLA Centerforthe
WaylandDebs Hand,pp. 55-68. (Publications
Studyof ComparativeFolkloreand Mythology.) of
Berkeley:University
CaliforniaPress.
D6gh,Linda. 1975.The Legendand theSparrow.Volkskunde 76:177-189.
ofJokeand Legend:A Case of Conversational
D4gh,Linda. 1976.Symbiosis
Folklore. In FolkloreToday:A Festschrift
forRichardDorson,ed. Linda D6gh,
pp. 101-122. Bloomington:
IndianaUniversityPress.
D6gh,Linda, and AndrewVAzsonyi. 1974. The Memorateand the Proto-
Memorate.JournalofAmericanFolklore87:225-239.
Domotor,Tekla. 1977.A tipizilasa nepmondaban. 88:529-539.
Ethnographia
Dundes,Alan. 1971.On thePsychology FolkLegend:
of Legend.In American
A Symposium, ed. WaylandDebs Hand, pp. 21-36. (Publicationsof the
UCLA Centerforthe Studyof ComparativeFolkloreand Mythology.)
Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress.
Ellis,Bill. 1987. WhyAre VerbatimTranscripts of LegendsNecessary?In
on Contemporary
Perspectives Legend2, ed. Gillian Bennet, Paul Smith,and
D. D. A. Widdowson,pp. 31-60. CECTAL ConferencePapersSeries5.
Sheffield:CECTAL.
Eskero6d,Albert. 1947. Aretsiring.Etnologiska
studieri skirdensochjulenstrooch
sed.(Nordiskamuseetshandlingar26.) Stockholm:Nordiskamuseet.
Ferenczi,Imri. 1966. Mondateminol6giak Neprajz6s
6s mfifajkrit&riumok.
10:5-18.
Nyelvtudomdny
Fine,GaryAlan. 1980.The Kentucky
FriedRat: Legendsand ModernSo-
ciety.JournaloftheFolkloreInstitute17:222-243.
Fine,GaryAlan. 1988.The ThirdForcein AmericanFolklore:FolkNarra-
tivesand SocialStructures.
Fabula29:342- 353.
Folkers,
Johann 1910.
Ulrich. ZurStilkritik
derVolkssage.
Dissertation:
Kiel.
Gennep,Arnoldvan. 1912.Laformation Paris:E. Flammarion.
desldgendes.
Georges,RobertA. 1971.The GeneralConceptof Legend:Some Assump-
tions to be reexamined and Reassessed. In AmericanFolklegend:A Sympo-
sium,ed. WaylandDebs Hand,pp. 1-20. (Publications
of theUCLA Cen-
ter for the Studyof ComparativeFolkloreand Mythology.) Berkeley:
Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Gesemann,Gerhard.1928. Soziologischeund psychologische Zusammen-
haingein der Sagenforschung.Zeitschriftfiir 4:19-43.
V61kerpsychologie
Granberg,Gunnar.1935.Memoratund Sage. Einigemethodische Gesichts-
punkte.Saga ochSed 1935:120-127.
Greverus,Ina-Maria.1969. Thema, Typus und Motiv.Zur Determination
der Erzaihlforschung.In Vergleichende ed. Leander Pet-
Sagenforschung,
zoldt,pp. 390-401. Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft.
Grimm, Sagen.Berlin:Nico-
JacobLudwigKarl. 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 Sagen-

forschung,ed. Leander Petzoldt,pp. 99-107. Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft.
Halpert, Herbert. 1971. Definitionand Variationin Folk Legend. In American
Folklegend:A Symposium, ed. Wayland Debs Hand, pp. 47-54. (Publications
of the UCLA Center for the Study of Comparative Folklore and Mythol-
ogy.) Berkeley: Universityof California Press.
Hand, Wayland Debs. 1965. Status of European and American Legend
Study. CurrentAnthropology 6:439-446.
Heiske, Wilhelm. 1962. Das Marchen ist poetischer,die Sage historischer.
Versuch einer Kritik.Deutschunterricht 14:69-75.
Hodne, Bjarne. 1973. Personalhistoriske sagn. En studiei kildeverdi.
Oslo: Uni-
versitetsforlaget.
Honko, Lauri. 1964. Memoratesand the Study of Folk Beliefs.Journalofthe
FolkloreInstitute1:5-19.
Honko, Lauri. 1968. Genre Analysisin Folkloristicsand Comparative Reli-
gion. Temenos3:48-66.
Isler, Gotthilf.1971. Die Sennenpuppe. Eine Untersuchung iiberdie religioseAl-
pensagen. (Schriften der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft fur Volkskunde.)
Basel: Verlag G. Krebs.
Isler, Gotthilf.1973. Tiefenpsychologieund Sagenforschung.In Probleme der
Sagenforschung, ed. Lutz R6hrich, pp. 149-164. Freiburg im Breisgau:
ForschungsstelleSage.
Jansen,William Hugh. 1976. Legend: Oral Tradition in the Modern Expe-
rience. In FolkloreToday:A Festschrift for RichardDorson,ed. Linda D6gh,
pp. 265-272. Bloomington: Indiana UniversityPress.
Jason, Heda. 1969. A Multi-DimensionalApproach to Oral Literature.Cur-
rentAnthropology 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.
Luthi, Max. 1961 [1966]. Volksmiirchen und Volkssage. Zwei Grundformen erzdh-
lenderDichtung.Bern: Francke Verlag.
Luthi, Max. 1966. Aspekte des Marchens und der Sage. Germanisch-
Romanische Monatsschrift 16:337-350.

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 Ana-

logues. 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.
Muth, Franz Alfred. 1888. Die deutscheSage. Eine litteraturhistorische Studie.
(Frankfurterzeitgemasse BroschOren IX:11.) Frankfurt: Verlag von A.
Foesser Nachfolger.
Nicolaisen, W. F. H. 1985. Perspectiveson Contemporary Legend. Fabula
26:213-218.
Nicolaisen, W. F. H. 1987. The LinguisticStructureof Legends. In Perspec-
tiveson 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 for sagnforskning. (Danmarks folke-
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: Cen-
trumvoor studie en documentatie.
Pentikiinen,Juha. 1968. Grenzprobleme zwischen Memorat und Sage. Te-
menos3:136-167.
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 Sagen-
forschung, ed. Leander Petzoldt,pp. 135-188. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftli-
che Buchgesellschaft.
Ranke, Friedrich. 1969. Grundfragender Volkssagenforschung.In Verglei-
chendeSagenforschung, ed. Leander Petzoldt,pp. 1-20. Darmstadt:Wissen-
schaftlicheBuchgesellschaft.
Rank, Friedrich. 1971. Sage und Mairchen.In KleinereSchriften, ed. Heinz
Rupp and Edvard Studer, pp. 189-203. Bern: Francke Verlag.
Rohrich,Lutz. 1949. Sage und Brauch. Forschungen und Fortschritte
25:251-
254.
R6hrich, Lutz. 1956. Marchenund Wirklichkeit. Eine volkskundliche Untersu-
chung.Weisbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.
ROhrich,Lutz. 1973. Was soil und kann Sagenforschungleisten?Einige ak-
tuelle 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.Niederdeut-
sche Zeitschrift
fiir Volkskunde 7, 129-143, 230-244. Reprinted (1969) in
Vergleichende ed.
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

Leopold.1969.VoreinenneuenAraderSagenforschung.
Schmidt, Osterreich
Volkskunde
Zeitschriftfiir 29:53-74.
Shibutani,Tamotsu. 1966. ImprovisedNews.A SociologicalStudyofRumor.In-
dianapolis:Bobbs-Merill.
Simpson,Jacqueline.1981. RationalizedMotifsin Urban Legends.Folklore
92:203-207.
Sirovtka, Oldfich. 1964. Zur Morphologieder Sage und Sagenkatalogi-
13:99-106.
sierung. ActaEthnographica
Smith,Georgina.1979.Aspectsof UrbanLegendas a Performance
Genre.
Loreand Language 2(10):41-44.
Smith,Georgina.1981. UrbanLegend,PersonalExperienceNarrativeand
Oral History:Literaland SocialTruthin Performance.Arv,37:167-173.
rmkovi, Marta.1975.Mistnia historick6 pov6stiv sourasndmlidov6mpo-
vistnikmoravskj27:62-70.
VlastivAdny
dnin.C. W. von. 1931.Om folkets NordiskKultur9:96-112.
Sydow, saigner.
Sydow,C. W. von.1932.Om traditionsspridning.
Scandia5. Reprintedas "On
theSpread of Tradition"in von Sydow.1948. Selected
Paperson Folklore,
pp. 11-43. Copenhagen:Rosenkildeand Bagger.
Sydow,C. W. von. 1934.Kategorien
der Prosa-Volksdichtung.
In Volkskundli-
che Gaben. Festschrift
J. Meierzum 70. Geburtstag ed. Erich Se-
dargebracht,
mannand HarrySchewe,pp. 253-268. Berlin:W. de Gruyter.
Tillhagen,C. H. 1967.Die Sage als Dichtung.In Folklore
International.
Essays
in traditional beliefand customin honorof WaylandDebs Hand, ed.
literature,
D. K. Wilgus,pp. 211-220. Hatboro:FolkloreAssociatesInc.
Tillhagen,C. H. 1969.Was isteine Sage? Eine Definition
und ein Vorschlag
fir ein europaisches Sagensystem.In Vergleichende ed. Le-
Sagenforschung,
ander Petzoldt,pp. 307-318. Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesell-
schaft.
Top, Stefaan.1969. Sagenproblematiek Anno 1969. Vernieutwing
of stag-
natie.Volkskunde70:123-165.
Vansina,Jan. 1985.OralTradition
as History.
Madison:University
of Wiscon-
sin Press.
Voigt,Vilmos.1973.Die strukturell-morphologisch
Erforschungder Sagen.
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 Per-
spectiveson Contemporary
Legend,ed. Paul Smith, pp. 216-228. CECTAL
ConferencePapersSeries4. Sheffield:
CECTAL.
Wisser,Wilhelm.1925.Das Miirchen
imVolksmund.
Hamburg:QuickbornVer-
lag.
Wolf-Knuts,Ulrika.1987. ModernUrbanLegendsSeen as Migratory
Leg-
ends.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