Concerning the "Historical" and the "Local" Legends and Their Relatives

IT IS EASY TO ASSERT that a particular text is a legend while another is not. The decision is frequently based on experience; one feels that a tale is or is not a legend. But when it comes to producing an exact definition-one which would enable us to decide with certainty whether a given text is or is not a legend-the field is found wanting. The definitions offered thus far have serious flaws. Since, however, the old definition of the Grimm Brothers constitutes the basis of subsequent thinking in the field, it will be useful to reexamine this definition, noting its components and their interrelationships, and the merits it may possess. It is hoped that such an examination will yield new insights. As we have noted, the best known definition of the legend, and the one on which all other definitions are based, is that of the Grimm Brothers: a legend is a story that is believed and that is told about a definite (real or fabulous) person, event, or place. The definition includes three main factors: I. the legend fits within the narrator's concept of historical time; a. the legend is connected with a definite historical (real or fabulous) event, b. the legend is connected with a definite person, that is, a named historical (real or fabulous) figure; 2. the legend fits the narrator's concept of geographical space, that is, it is con