In
his essay named “The Archetypes of
Literature”, Northrop Frye has
dealt with some of the important questions such as what is criticism and what
are the unifying categories of criticism? It is important to note that Northrop
Frye’s criticism is not textual; he has connected one text with some other text
in order to identify the archetypes of the text.
The archetypes in the text
represent a unifying category of criticism; and it is a key to understanding the
text. Northrop Frye has introduced
and perfected a new theory in the literary arena of literary criticism by studying
James George Frazer’s famous work “The Golden Bough” published in 1890, and
Carl J. Jung’s depth psychology for
his literary theory.
 |
| Archetypes of Literature-Summary |
Northrop
Frye has paid utmost attention to the archetypes. It is important to note that Thomas Stearns Eliot and James Joyce had already employed myths in
their literary works before Northrop Frye. They gave vent to their pent of
feelings in their works, for example, the mythical background of T.S. "The Waste Land"" vividly
reflects his concern about the chaos and disorder of the modern civilization.
The writers did this in order to bring order and coherence in the modern civilization.
Northop Frye's Archetypal Criticism
Northrop Frye has studied and analyzed myths {archetypes} in literary works in
order to bring order and unity to the modern literary criticism and theory
which is in chaotic state. his theory is also known as mythical criticism.
Frye's Views on Criticism and Literature:
Northrop Frye states that it is
very difficult to learn and teach literature because what we learn and teach as
literature is merely criticism of literature. According to Frye criticism is a
systematic and organized study as a science. It should be treated like that; but
literature is not studied as science; or deemed as science. It is so
because criticism has qualities and characteristics of a science.
Northrop
Frye thinks that we are carried away by other disciplines while studying this
kind of science {criticism}. It happens because our attention is diverted and disturbed
by other objects like religion, philosophy and history {centrifugal movement}
and in this course; we put aside the critical science in the background. In
this way philosophical views, and historical facts and ideas overwhelm our mind
and we forget our aim of enquiry.
Frye's Attack on Contemporary Critics:
Northrop
Frye states that criticism has become nothing but ‘sonorous nonsense’ because
criticism has become merely a commentary on others works. Critics comment on
literary works of others; pass judgement on writers and their literary works. Frye
has called it as ‘sonorous nonsense’, the critics judgement contributes nothing
to a systematic framework of knowledge.
Casual
judgements are not the part of criticism but they belong to history of taste. The
activity of admiring, appreciating, upgrading and downgrading of poets renders their so called evaluation 'absurd’, for example, T.S. Eliot’s views on John Milton.
Criticism becomes an activity of stock exchange of literary reputations and not
a scientific study.
Northrop Frye on Structuralism:
In Structuralism, critics
claim that their approach is antithesis of
centrifugal or background criticism. They think that their study of literature
is centripetal and their method is based on a structural analysis of literary
works. Northrop Frye opines that their analytical procedure has some defects
because the structuralist critics don’t have a coordinating principle; or a
central hypothesis.
Frye thinks that a literary
work under examination should not be treated as individual work but it should be
deemed as a part of the vast whole. A critic should not study or examine a work
of art as a single phenomenon. A work of art should not be studied in parts but
a critic should analyze it taking into account its structural regularities.
Frye calls his own theory as
archetypal criticism. He further defines archetypes as ‘recurring images or
symbols that connect one text with another and constitutes a source of the intelligibility
of the text'. According to Northrop Frye, archetype provides a central
hypothesis and a coordinating principle.
What is an Archetypal Criticism?
It is possible that a reader sometimes
gets much more information that the poet has actually conveyed in the work of
art. This clearly indicates that the work of art has not been composed solely
by the will of the artist. The poet produces his work art describing his
memories and desires in his work and cut loose from his work of art. The critic
takes over it where the poet leaves off.
Frye states that though the
poet is only an official cause and source of a poem, the poem having a form has
a formal cause that is to be found out. Frye finds this formal cause to be the
archetype.
The formal cause of a poem is tightly
associated with the genres. There are two conceptions of genres but they are fallacious.
The one is the pseudo-platonic conception genres and the other is pseudo-biological
conception which is evolving species. the pseudo-platonic conceptions of genres
thrive independently, and exist prior to creation such as Sonnet and Ode.
Northrop Frye thinks that truth
lies somewhere between these two conceptions: pseudo-platonic and
pseudo-biological conceptions. The social conditions and cultural demands and
conventions produce genres and we inquire into their origin. It makes the
readers peep deep into literary history.
The question comes into our
mind if genre has a historical origin why does the genre of drama springs from
medieval origin? And why does the medieval religion based on Greek religion
centuries before? It deals with the problem of structure rather than origin. It
hints at there may be archetypes of genres and images. An archetype should be not
only a unifying category of criticism, but itself an integral part of a total
form.
Frye tries to find out how ‘random
and peripheral is the critical experience which is produced by average work of
art while the skilled master seems to draw as to a point at which we can
observe an huge number of converging patterns of significance’.
Examples of Archetypes in Literature:
Frye analyses the
grave-diggers’ scene in William
Shakespeare’s problem play “Hamlet” in order to find specific and
larger pattern in it. The scene can be studied from different angles. For
example, the reader can study the intricate verbal texture of the grave-diggers’
scene, he can dwell upon psychological complexities examined by Bradley, it can
be studied in terms of the theatrical conventions of the Elizabethan drama. The
critics like Spurgeon and Wilson Knight have thrown light on the stream of
imagery in the play.
All the above mentioned
scholarly and critical analyses vividly give idea of the archetype of the
scene. The grave-diggers’ scene also unveils the themes of birth, death, and
rebirth, for example, Hamlet’s leap into the grave; and his fatal fight with
Laertes and Hamlet’s views on the nature of life and death throughout the play.
From the scene the readers can get a larger view of the patterns {archetypes}
in the play. The reader goes on studying the scene from the particular to the
general.
The anthropological critic gets
closer to Shakespeare by analyzing Saxo’s pre-Shakespearean play and then to
nature myth; he gets clear idea about the archetypal pattern in the play. The Grave-diggers’ scene is a
fine example of inductive method. In addition to this, Frye has examined the
archetypes from the deductive end {from the general to particular}.
Harry Blamires comments, “When he traces limited patterns of
significance by correlating the phase of dawn, spring, and birth with myths of revival,
resurrection and creation and finding therein the archetype of romance; or by
correlating the phase of zenith, summer an marriage with myths of entry into paradise
and finding therein the archetype of comedy, pastoral, and idyll the reader cannot
but feel that an elaborate schedule of the obvious is being manufactured.”
Northrop Frye has paid
attention to structural patterns which collect and unite a great, diverse and
large works together into a kind of genre.
Cleanth Brooke remarks, “In Frye’s world,
the critic actually becomes the midwife or nurse, who ties off the cord, tells
the mother the infant is a boy or a girl, washes it up for presentation to the
outside world and presumably gives it an anthropological classification.”
Conclusion:
Though
Northrop Frye’s work is extraordinary and interesting, it has aroused great
controversy. David Lodge comments, “His scorn for value judgements, which he
consigns to the history of taste has aroused deep hostility among those critics
for whom evaluation has always been the raisen d’etre {purpose} of literary studies.”
In
fact Frye’s difference with such critics is not as irreconcilable as it might
seem for he has simply transferred the concept of value from the individual
work to the collective work the total order of words that is literature. It is
the greatness of Northrop Frye.
You may also like:
No comments:
Post a Comment