The myth (III): The myth and the legend

antropomitica (47)in #science • 7 years ago

Image created with PowerPoint

Introduction

In the previous post we explained the similarities between the myth and the tale and how, from those similarities, we can find the differences between these narratives. Today we will retake the comparison between the myth and other genres of the oral tradition, focusing this time in the legend.

The legend and its difference with the myth

The legend is a type of narrative that is based in a historical fact or character (Willis, 1996: 15). It is the oral tradition's genre that generated more confusions between the scholars due to its similar function from the myth, i.e. the narration of events from a far past.

Nevertheless, is precisely this use of the temporality what makes them different: The myth makes reference to an archaic period but the time where the hero's actions or the events that gave birth to the things happen is undefined. In change, the legend refers to a historical era which is or not exactly defined.

Another distinctive aspect worth mentioning is the type of character in the story. While there is uncertainty that surrounds the figure of the hero regarding to his presence within in the myth, in the legend the protagonist is linked to a particular historical time or is itself a character whose existence is documented.

Willis sets the conclusion about this problematic distinction: the myth is a story with global character and cosmic scope which, accordingly to him, records and transmits the meaning in the deepest sense. But the legend, as literary fiction, has elements or mythic themes of lesser territorial extension and chronologically more accurate than the myth itself (1996: 15 - 16).

However, if the legend is a story with historical anchorage, i.e. with some connection to real historical characters, and the tale is a narrative whose wonderful and magical elements have the function to entertain the listener, then what is the myth?