NORTHROP FRYE: THE ARCHETYPES OF LITERATURE
Introduction
Northrop Frye was born in Canada
in 1921 and studied at Toronto University and Merton College, Oxford University.
Initially he was a student of theology and then he switched over to literature.
He published his first book, Fearful Symmetry: A Study of William Blake in
1947. The book is a highly original study of the poetry of Blake and it is
considered a classic critical work. Northrop Frye rose to international
prominence with the publication of Anatomy of Criticism, in 1957 and it firmly
established him as one of the most brilliant, original and influential of
modern critics. Frye died in 1991. On the whole, he wrote about twenty books on
Western literature, culture, myth, archetypal theory, religion and social
thought. The Fables of Identity: Studies in Poetic Mythology is a critical work
published in 1963. The present essay, “Archetypes of Literature,” is taken from
the book. In the essay Frye critically analyses literature against the backdrop
of rituals and myths. He interprets literature in the light of various rituals
and myths. Frye has divided the easy into three parts. The first part deals
with the concept of archetypal criticism. The second part throws light on the
inductive method of analysis of a text. The third part focuses on the deductive
method of analysis. All the methods fall under structural criticism.
Part-I THE CONCEPT OF
ARCHETYPAL CRITICISM
Literature can be interpreted in
as many ways as possible, and there are different approaches to literature, and
one among them is the archetypal approach. The term “archetype” means an
original idea or pattern of something of which others are copies. Archetypal
approach is the interpretation of a text in the light of cultural patterns
involved in it, and these cultural patterns are based on the myths and rituals
of a race or nation or social group. Myths and rituals are explored in a text
for discovery of meaning and message. In recent times this type of critics.
approach to a text has gained popularity. James George Frazer and Carl Gustav
Jung are the two great authorities who, have greatly contributed to the
development of archetypal approach. Frazer was a social anthropologist and his
book The Golden Bough makes a study of magic, religion and myths of different
races. Jung was a psychologist associated with Freud. The “collective
consciousness” is a major theory of Jung. According to Jung, civilized man
“unconsciously” preserves the ideas, concepts and values of life cherished by
his distant forefathers, and such ideas are expressed in a society’s or race’s
myths and rituals. Creative writers have used myths in their works and critics
analyze texts for a discovery of “mythological patterns.” This kind of critical
analysis of a text is called archetypal criticism. T.S. Eliot has used mythical
patterns in his creative works and The Waste Land is a good example of it.
Northrop Frye in his essay does not analyze any particular myth in a work and in
fact, he presents an analysis of “mythical patterns” which have been used by
writers in general.
Two Types of
Criticism and the Humanities
Like science, literary criticism
is also a systematized and organized body of knowledge. Science dissects and analyses
nature and facts. Similarly literary criticism analyses and interprets
literature. Frye further says that literacy criticism and its theories and
techniques can be taught, but literature cannot be taught, rather it is to be
felt and enjoyed. Indeed, literary criticism is like science and it can be
creative. There are two types of literary criticism: a significant and
meaningful criticism, and a meaningless criticism. A meaningless criticism will
not help a reader in developing a systematic structure of knowledge about a
work of literature. This kind of criticism will give only the background
information about a work. A meaningless criticism will distract the reader from
literature. Literature is a part of humanities and humanities include
philosophy and history also. These two branches of knowledge provide a kind of
pattern for understanding literature. Philosophy and history are two major
tools- for interpretation of literature and archetypal criticism is based on
philosophy and history of a people. Archetypal criticism is meaningful
criticism.
Formalistic Criticism
& Historical Criticism
There are different types of
criticism and most of them remain commentaries on texts. There is a type of criticism,
which focuses only on an analysis of a text. Such a criticism confines itself
to the text and does not give any other background information about the text.
This type of formalistic or structural criticism will help the readers in
understanding a text only to some extent. That is, a reader may understand the
pattern of a text, but how the pattern is evolved, he cannot understand without
the background information, which may be called historical criticism.
Structural criticism will help a reader in understanding the pattern of a text
and historical criticism will make the reader’s understanding clearer. What the
readers require today is a synthesis of structural criticism and historical
criticism. Archetypal criticism is a synthesis of structural criticism and historical
criticism.
Literary Criticism is
a Science
Science explores nature and
different branches of science explore different aspects of nature. Physics is a
branch of science, which explores matter and natural forces of the universe.
Physics and Astronomy gained their scientific significance and they were
accepted as branches of science during the Renaissance. Chemistry gained the
status of science in the eighteenth century, and so did Biology in the
nineteenth century. Social Sciences assumed their significance as part of
science in the twentieth century. Similarly, literary criticism, today, has
become systematic in its analysis, and therefore it could be considered as a
science. Based on this concept, a work of literature may be critically (or
scientifically) evaluated, says Northrop Frye. Among the tools of criticism, he
uses the two methods: structural criticism and historical criticism. The two
concepts, he explains in detail in the second and third parts of this critical
essay respectively.
Part-II THE INDUCTIVE
METHOD OF ANALYSIS Structural Criticism and Inductive Analysis
Towards the close of the first
section, Frye contends that structural criticism will help a reader in understanding
a text, and in his analysis, he proceeds inductively. That is, from particular
truths in a work, he draws forth general truths. Owing to jealousy, Othello, in
the Shakespearean play, inflicts upon himself affliction and this is the
particular truth of the drama from which the reader learns the general truth of
life that jealousy is always destructive. This is called the inductive method
of analysis under structural criticism, and Frye discusses this in detail in
this section of the essay. An author cannot intrude into his text and express
his personal emotions and comments. He should maintain absolute objectivity. A
critic studies a work and finds out whether an author is free from textual
interference. This is a sort of psychological approach also, and this method of
criticism helps the reader in understanding an author’s personal symbols,
images and myths which he incorporates in his works. At times the author
himself may be unconscious of the myths, symbols etc., which he has exploited
in his works, and the critic “discovers” such things.
Historical Criticism
and Inductive Analysis
Under the second type of
criticism called historical criticism, a critic interprets the birth of a text
and resolves that it is an outcome of the social and cultural demands of a
society in a particular period. The social and cultural milieus are the causes
responsible for the creation of a work. Quite evidently the historical-critic
plays a major role in the understanding of a text. In fact, both structural
criticism and historical criticism are a necessity in archetypal criticism and
neither can be dispensed with. But either of them alone does not explain a work
completely. A historical critic discovers common symbols and images being used
by different writers in their works, and resolves that there must be a common
‘source from which writers have derived their symbols, images and myths. The
sea is a common symbol used by many writers over the years and therefore it is
an archetypal symbol. Not only symbols, images and myths are archetypal; even
genres are archetypal. For example, the genre of drama originates from Greek
religion. Thus the historical inductive method of criticism helps the readers
in understanding not only symbols, images and myths, but also the very genre
itself.
The Collective
Unconscious or Racial Memory
Archetypal criticism dissects and
analyses symbols, images and mythologies used by a writer in his works, and these
symbols, myths and rituals have their origin in primitive myths, rituals,
folk-lore and cultures. Such primitive factors according to Jung lie buried in
the “collective unconscious” which may otherwise be called “racial memory” of a
people. Since a writer is part of a race, what lies in his “unconscious” mind
is expressed in his works in the form, of myths, rituals, symbols and images.
Archetypal criticism focuses on such things in a work. In archetypal criticism,
under the reductive method of analysis, a critic, while elucidating a text, moves
from the particular truth to the general truth. A particular symbol or myth
leads to the establishment of a general truth. Works of art are created in this
way and their origin is in primitive cultures. Literature is produced in this
manner over the years.
Archetypal Criticism
and Its Facets
Archetypal criticism is an
all-inclusive term. It involves the efforts of many specialists, and at every
stage of interpretation of a text, it is based “on a certain kind of scholarly
organization.” An editor is needed to “clean up” the text; a rhetorician
analyses the narrative pace; a philologist scrutinizes the choice and
significance of words; a literary social historian studies the evolution of
myths and rituals. Under archetypal criticism the efforts of all these
specialists converge on the analysis of a text. The contribution of a literary
anthropologist to archetypal criticism is no small. In an archetypal study of
Hamlet an anthropologist traces the sources of the drama to the Hamlet legend
described by Saxo, a thirteenth century Danish historian in his book entitled Danes,
Gesta Danorum. He further traces the sources of the drama to nature myths,
which were in vogue in the Norman Conquest period. Thus an anthropologist makes
a threadbare analysis of the origins of Hamlet under archetypal criticism.
Part – III DEDUCTIVE
METHOD OF ANALYSIS Rhythm and Pattern in Literature
An archetypal critic, under the
deductive method of analysis, proceeds to establish the meaning of a work from the
general truth to the particular truth. Literature is like music and painting.
Rhythm is an essential characteristic of music and in painting, pattern is the
chief virtue. Rhythm in music is temporal and pattern in painting is spatial.
In literature both rhythm and pattern are recurrence of images, forms and
words. In literature rhythm means the narrative and the narrative presents all
the events and episodes as a sequence and hastens action. Pattern in literature
signifies its verbal structure and conveys a meaning. In producing the intended
artistic effect, a work of literature should have both rhythm (narrative) and
pattern (meaning).
The world of nature is governed
by rhythm and it has got a natural cycle. The seasonal rhythms in a solar year are
spring, winter, autumn and summer. This kind of rhythm is there in the world of
animals and in the human world also. The mating of animals and birds
rhythmically takes place in a particular season every year and the mating may
be called a ritual. A ritual is not performed frequently, but rhythmically
after a long gap and it has a meaning. The mating of animals has the meaning of
reproduction. In the world of nature also rituals are rhythmic. Crops are
planted and harvested rhythmically every year and they have their seasons. At
the time of planting and harvest, sacrifices and offerings are made and they
have a meaning: fertility and consummation of life. In the human world rituals
are performed voluntarily and they have their own significance. Works of literature
have their origins in such rituals and the archetypal critic discovers and
explains them. He explains the rhythm of the rituals, which are the basis of
literature in general.
Pattern in a Work
It has already been established
that in literature pattern is recurrence of images, forms and words. Patterns are
derived from a writer’s “epiphanic moments.” That is, a writer gets the
concepts of his work or ideas of his work in moments of inspiration and he
looks into the heart of things. Then he expresses what he has “perceived” in
the form of proverbs, riddles, commandments and etiological folktales. Such
things have already an element of narrative and they add further to the
narrative of the writer in his works. A writer expresses what he has
“perceived,” and he uses myths either deliberately or unconsciously, and it is
the critic who discovers the archetypes, the myths, in a work and explicates
the patterns in the work. Both pattern and rhythm are the major basic
components of a work.
The Four Phases of
the Myth
Every myth has a central
significance and the narrative in a myth centres on a figure that may be a god
or demi-god or superhuman being or legend. Frazer and Jung contend that in the
development of a myth the central figure or central significance is the most
important factor and many writers have accepted this view. Frye classifies
myths into four categories:
1. The dawn, spring and birth phase. There are myths dealing
with the birth of a hero, his revival and resurrection, defeat of the powers of
darkness and death. Subordinate characters such as the father and the mother
are introduced in the myth. Such myths are the archetypes of romance and of
rhapsodic poetry.
2. The zenith, summer and marriage or triumph phase. In this
phase, there are myths of apotheosis, (the act of being raised to the rank of a
god), of sacred marriage and of entering into Paradise. Subordinate characters in
these myths are the companion and the bride. Such myths are the archetypes of
comedy, pastoral and idyll.
3. The sunset, autumn and death phase. These are the myths
dealing with the fall of a hero, a dying god, violent death, sacrifice and the
hero’s isolation. The subordinate characters are the traitor and the siren.
Such myths are the archetypes of tragedy and elegy.
4. The darkness, winter and desolation phase. There are
myths dealing with the triumph of these powers. The myths of floods, the return
of chaos and the defeat of the hero are examples of this phase. The ogre and
the witch are the subordinate characters here and these myths are the
archetypes of satire.
These are the four categories of
myths, which Frye identifies and they recur in different types of works written
by different writers. Indeed they constitute the bases of many great pieces of
literature.
Quest - Myth
In addition to the four
categories of myths mentioned above, Northrop Frye discusses the quest-myth
also which was supposed to have been developed from the four types of myths. In
the quest-myth, the hero goes in quest of a truth or something else, and this
type of myth recurs in all religions. For example, the Messiah myth is a quest
myth of the Holy Grail (a Christian myth) in the last part of The Waste Land.
Sacred scriptures of all religions have their own myths and an archetypal
critic will have to examine them closely for an appropriate interpretation of
texts. From an analysis of the archetypes of myths, a critic can descend to
make a study of the genres and from the genres he can further descend to the
elucidation of a text in terms of myth. This type of dissension in criticism is
called the deductive method of analysis. That is, the critic moves from the
general truth (a myth) to an elucidation of the particular truth (the truth of
why a character behaves so) in a text. In this way a critic can analyse from
myths how a drama or a lyric or an epic has been evolved. Frye further says
that, almost all genres in every literature have been evolved from the quest-myth
only. It is the duty of an archetypal critic to analyse myths and establish the
meaning and message of a work.
Literary Criticism
and Religion
There is a close relationship
between literary criticism and religion. In his analysis, a literary critic
considers God as an archetype of man who is portrayed as a hero in a work. God
is a character in the story of Paradise Lost or The Bible, and the critic deals
with Him and considers Him only as a human character. Criticism does not deal
with any actuality, but with what is conceivable and possible. Similarly religion
is not associated with scientific actuality, but with how things look like.
Literary criticism works on conceivability. Likewise, religion functions on
conceivability. There can be no place for scientific actuality in both, but
what, is conceived is accepted by all. Both in religion and literary criticism,
an epiphany is at work. It is a revelation of God or truth and it is a profound
insight. It originates from the subconscious, from the dreams. In human life
there is a cycle of waking and dreaming and in nature also, it could be seen
and it is the cycle of light and darkness. Waking and dreaming, and light and
darkness are two antithetic factors, which bring about epiphany in a person. It
is during the day that man develops fear and frustration, and it is in the dark
of the night his libido, the strong force of life, awakens and he resolves to
achieve. It is the antithesis, which resolves the problems and misunderstandings
of man and makes him perceive truth both in religion and literary criticism.
The Comic Vision and
the Tragic Vision in a Myth
Both art and religion are alike
and they aim at perfection. Perfection is the end of all human efforts. In art
it is achieved through dreaming (imagination) and in religion it is through
visualization. Perfection can be achieved in literary criticism also and it is
the archetypal critic who does it through an analysis of the comic vision of
life and the tragic vision as well in a work. The central pattern of the comic
vision and the tragic vision in a myth is detailed below:
1. In the comic vision of life, in a myth, the “human” world
is presented as a community, or a hero is portrayed as a representative of the
desires of the reader. Here the archetypes of images are symposium, communion,
order, friendship, and love. Marriage or some equivalent consummation belongs
to the comic vision of life. In the tragic vision of life, in the “human”
world, there is tyranny or anarchy, or an individual or an isolated man, or a
leader with his back to his followers or a bullying giant of romance, or a
deserted or betrayed hero. In addition to these, there will be a harlot or a
witch or other varieties of Jung’s “terrible mother” in the tragic vision of
life.
2. In the comic vision of life in a myth, the “animal” world
is presented as a community of domesticated animals, usually a flock of sheep,
or a lamb, or one of the gentler birds (usually a dove). The archetypes of images
are pastoral images. In the tragic vision of life, in the “animal” world there
are beasts, birds of prey, wolves, vultures, serpents, dragons and so on.
3. In the comic vision of life, in the “vegetable” world of
a myth, there is a garden, a grove or park, or a tree of life, or a rose or
lotus. The examples of the archetypes of Arcadian images are Marvell’s green
world and Shakespeare’s forest comedies.
In the tragic vision of life, in the “vegetable” world of a
myth, there is a sinister forest like the one in Milton’s Camus or at the
opening of Dante’s Inferno, or a heath or wilderness, or a tree of death.
4. In the comic vision of life, in the “mineral” world of a
myth, there is a city, or one building or temple, or one stone, normally a
glowing precious stone. These are presented as luminous or fiery. The example
of the archetype of image is a “starlit dome.”
In the tragic vision of life, the “mineral” world of a myth
is seen in terms of deserts, rocks and ruins, or of geometrical images like the
cross.
5. In the comic vision of life, in the “unformed” world of a
myth, there is a river, traditionally fourfold, which influenced the
Renaissance image of the temperate body with its four humours. In the tragic
vision of life, this world usually becomes the sea, as the narrative myth of
dissolution is so often a flood myth. The combination of the sea and beast
images gives us the leviathan and similar water-borne monsters.
After discussing the central
pattern of the comic vision and the tragic vision in a myth, Frye introduces
W.B. Yeats’ “Sailing to Byzantium” as a befitting and famous example of the
comic vision which, in the poem, is represented by the city, the tree, the
bird, the community of sages, the geometrical gyre and the detachment from the
cyclic world. It is either tragic or comic vision of life which determines the
interpretation of a symbol or myth, says Frye.
Conclusion
Of the different approaches of
literary criticism, Northrop Frye has established the validity of the
archetypal approach and its relevance in the elucidation of a text. Like works
of literature, criticism is also creative and an archetypal critic discovers
the meaning of a text and the motives of a character. No human endeavor is independent
and the work of an archetypal critic is inclusive of formalistic criticism (or
structural criticism) and historical criticism. Both J.G. Frazer and C.G. Jung
opened up new vistas in archetypal or mythical criticism and Frye has obviated
the impediments in the appreciation of a text. In mythical criticism, both the
inductive method and the deductive method are effective tools and neither can
be dispensed with, according to Frye. If one method explains a text based on
the derivation of a general truth from the particular, the other method does it
the other way round. Both the methods are complementary, and if either of them
is unexploited, archetypal criticism will be incomplete. Archetypal approach to
a text has contributed to the establishment of a systematic and comprehensive
concept of literary criticism.
