Legends can make for some dramatic stories, but they also offer pitfalls for the writer. They're fantastic stories, sometimes true, but sometimes just crazy, mixed-up fish tales. Follow the legend too closely, and the story loses credibility. Depart too far from it, and you lose the heart of the story, the reason it became a legend. Either way, you lose your audience. How do you know what to change and what to keep?
Knowing the historical background makes it much easier to decide. If you know the time and place surrounding your story, you know what fits the facts and what was likely embellished or confused over time. For example, as I'm writing a novel on the legend of St. Nicholas, I read that he was appointed a bishop as a very young man, then he was imprisoned for seven years during the anti-Christian edicts of Diocletian.
Now this seven years imprisonment is one of the most consistent features of the Nicholas legend. Nicholas is said to have been released under the Edict of Toleration (under Galerius), which history tells us came in 311 AD. Counting backward, Nicholas was arrested in 304. Could he have been a bishop prior to this? Most likely not, because in the summer of 303, Diocletian issued an edict to imprison all church leaders, too early for Nicholas. And in November of 303 Diocletian issued another edict that released them if they sacrificed to the Roman gods (by torture or by the governor deeming it so). This wouldn't allow Nicholas to remain in prison for seven years. And if he had been released with the other bishops, he likely would not have survived, because the next edict in 304 enforced public sacrifice to the Roman gods on pain of death. So history tells me his time in prison most likely saved his life, and the chronology of his becoming bishop got confused or embellished.
Writing a historical legend is a bit like putting together a big puzzle, but having good historical background is like having all the corners and side pieces in place. It makes the other pieces a lot easier to fit in place.
Now this seven years imprisonment is one of the most consistent features of the Nicholas legend. Nicholas is said to have been released under the Edict of Toleration (under Galerius), which history tells us came in 311 AD. Counting backward, Nicholas was arrested in 304. Could he have been a bishop prior to this? Most likely not, because in the summer of 303, Diocletian issued an edict to imprison all church leaders, too early for Nicholas. And in November of 303 Diocletian issued another edict that released them if they sacrificed to the Roman gods (by torture or by the governor deeming it so). This wouldn't allow Nicholas to remain in prison for seven years. And if he had been released with the other bishops, he likely would not have survived, because the next edict in 304 enforced public sacrifice to the Roman gods on pain of death. So history tells me his time in prison most likely saved his life, and the chronology of his becoming bishop got confused or embellished.
Writing a historical legend is a bit like putting together a big puzzle, but having good historical background is like having all the corners and side pieces in place. It makes the other pieces a lot easier to fit in place.
No comments:
Post a Comment