The Archetypal Criticism by Northrop Frye (A2.4)

Name: Rajeshvariba Rana
Roll No: 16
Semester: 2 (Batch 2022-24)
Enrolment number: 4069206420220023
Paper No: 109
Paper name: Literary Theory and Criticism and Indian Aesthetic
Paper code: 22402
Topic: The Archetypal Criticism by Northrop Frye
Submitted to: Smt. S.B. Gardi, Department of English, MKBU
Email Address: rhrana148@gmail.com

The Archetypal Criticism by Northrop Frye

Northrop Frye:

Northrop Frye (1912-1991) was a Canadian literary critic and literary theorist who made significant contributions to the study of English literature. He is considered one of the most important literary theorists of the 20th century and is particularly known for his work on myth and symbolism.

Frye's approach to literary criticism is interdisciplinary, drawing on elements of philosophy, psychology, anthropology, and mythology. He believed that literature is a reflection of the human experience and that it can help us better understand ourselves and the world around us.

Frye is best known for his book "Anatomy of Criticism" (1957), which is considered a landmark in literary theory. In this work, Frye argues that all literature can be classified into four basic genres: romance, tragedy, comedy, and irony/satire. He also introduced the concept of the "archetypal critic," a universal set of symbols and myths that underlie all literature.

Frye's other notable works include "Fearful Symmetry" (1947), which explores the relationship between William Blake's poetry and his religious beliefs, and "The Great Code" (1982), which examines the Bible as a work of literature and explores the role of myth and metaphor in religious language.

Frye's work has had a significant impact on literary theory and criticism, and his ideas continue to be studied and debated by scholars today.

Frye says in the “Introduction” to the Third Essay:

“In this book we are attempting to outline a few of the grammatical rudiments of literary expression, and the elements of it that correspond to such musical elements as tonality, simple and {59}compound rhythm, canonical imitation, and the like. . . . We are suggesting that the resources of verbal expression are limited, if that is the word, by the literary equivalents of rhythm and key, though that does not mean, any more than it means in music, that its resources are artistically exhaustible.”

Rhythm and key are Frye’s metaphors for the conventions of literature; and the particular conventions he explores in the Third Essay are archetypes.1

Frye draws another analogy between literature and the pictorial arts. He notes that when we discuss a painting, we frequently differentiate between its design or stylization and its content or subject matter. These two categories are comparable to the structural principles of literature, and we are more capable of recognizing them when we view the painting from a distance that separates us from the realistic details of its content. Frye states that "when we look at a picture," we can better understand the relationship between design and content in literature.

“We may stand close to it and analyses the details of brushwork and palette knife. This corresponds roughly to the rhetorical analysis of the new critics in literature. At a little distance back, the design comes clearer into view, and we study rather the content represented: this is the best distance for realistic Dutch pictures, for example, where we are in a sense reading the picture. The further back we go, the more conscious we are of the organising design. At a great distance from, say, a Madonna, we can see nothing but the archetype of the Madonna, a large centripetal blue mass with a contrasting point of interest at its center.”

The Mythos of Archetypal Imagery:

The Third Essay's bipolar structure is built on the dianoia-mythos distinction, as we've previously discussed. Using Frye's musical analogy once more, the literary equivalent of key is the structural pattern of imagery, while the narrative pattern of poetry corresponds to musical rhythm. In the latter half of Frye's theory of myths, movement or process is the central category. Frye's primary objective is to reveal the archetypal imagery structures from the perspective of mythos. Movement, a crucial characteristic of mythos, has already been hinted at in the examination of analogical imagery, where there is a dialectic inclination for imagery to gravitate toward the apocalyptic-demonic continuum's poles. This is a type of process. However, cyclical movement is an even more fundamental type, as we will now explore.

The basic shape of this movement is cyclical, showing “the alternation of success and decline, effort and repose, life and death which is the rhythm of process”

The several cycles, Frye observes four main phases:

Seasons of the year:  Spring      Summer     Fall          Winter

Periods of the day:    Morning   Noon         Evening   Night

Aspects of water:      Rains        Fountains  Rivers      Sea, snow

Periods of life:           Youth       Maturity    Old age    Death

Frye proposes that Western culture can be divided into four distinct periods: the Medieval Age, the Renaissance, the Eighteenth Century, and the Modern Period. This fourfold division has significant implications for Frye's argument's overall structure. Essentially, the cyclical paradigm is situated within the order of nature, while the dialectical paradigm progresses from the order of nature towards or into the higher apocalyptic realm. Schematically, this distinction is critical in understanding the different periods of Western culture as well as the overarching themes in Frye's work.

Frye's taxonomy of archetypes is composed of a quadrantal and cyclic pattern of the four mythoi, as well as a dialectical arrangement of the mythical and realistic worlds. However, this provides only a skeletal outline for his theory. The mythos of archetypes is a complex and elaborately conceived section of the Anatomy, comprising practically one-fourth of the entire book despite accounting for only one-half of Frye's theory of archetypes. Its elaborate design is largely due to the theory of phases, which refers to the various literary structures that can be identified in any one mythos. Frye has identified six phases for each of the pre generic mythoi, resulting in a total of twenty-four separate structures.

The argument becomes more intricate due to the merging of adjacent mythoi. Frye explains that "If we think of our experience of these mythoi, we shall realise that they form two opposed pairs. Tragedy and comedy contrast rather than blend, and so do romance and irony, the champions respectively of the ideal and actual. On the other hand, comedy blends insensibly into satire at one extreme and into romance at the other; romance may be comic or tragic; tragic extends from high romance to bitter and ironic realism". Furthermore, it should be noted that irony can also merge imperceptibly into tragedy and comedy, representing a fourth potential relationship. We will explore these connections in greater detail in the following discussion.

“The four mythoi that we are dealing with, comedy, romance, tragedy, and irony, may . . . be seen as four aspects of a central unifying myth. Ago or conflict is the basis or archetypal theme of romance, the radical of romance being a sequence of marvelous adventures. Pathos or catastrophe, whether in triumph or in defeat, is the archetypal theme of tragedy. Sparagmos, or the sense that heroism and effective action are absent, disorganized or foredoomed to defeat, and that confusion and anarchy reign over the world, is the archetypal theme of irony and satire. Anagnorisis, or the recognition of a newborn society rising in triumph around a still somewhat mysterious hero and his bride, is the archetypal theme of comedy. ”

Moving on to the second mythos, romance, the characters tend to be less complex since they are typically aligned either for or against the quest. Frye notes that "If they assist it, they are idealised as simply gallant or pure; if they obstruct it they are caricatured as simply villainous or cowardly". Therefore, these characters follow the dialectical pattern of the plot structure they serve. Frye compares this opposition to the black and white pieces on a chessboard, with the white pieces corresponding to the eirons of comedy whose role is to ensure the success of the quest. Examples of white pieces include the hero, the potential bride, and the wise old man or magician who oversees and often controls the action. The counterpart of the comic amazon is any character who seeks to prevent the hero from achieving his goal. These characters are typically villains and can take on various forms, including evil magicians, witches, traitors, monsters, and so on.

The similarities between second-phase tragedy and romance are based on various characteristics, such as the stage in the life of the hero, the archetype of Adam and Eve, the vision of innocence or inexperience, and the green- and golden-world imagery. Frye uses these criteria to establish parallel relations between the phases, either by appealing to a single criterion, like the size of the social unit in sixth-phase comedy and romance, or to a wide range of criteria.

Although many of the categories Frye uses are borrowed, the Third Essay deals with principles that have long been familiar in the history of criticism, such as imagery, plot, character, theme, and mood. What sets Frye's theory of myths apart is the ordered and schematic structure in which it is presented. Frye himself has emphasised this point in his recent comments on the Anatomy, stating that he sees the book as primarily schematic rather than systematic. According to Frye, this is because poetic thinking is itself schematic, and the Anatomy attempts to provide a schema that can serve as a guide to practical criticism.

Frye's use of the music analogy is similar to Claude Lévi-Strauss, another mythographer who also employs musical analogies to explain his arguments. There are notable parallels between Frye's framework for analysing archetypal forms and Lévi-Strauss's approach to studying myth. Both approaches harken back to the fundamental principles of mythos and dianoia.

Carl Gustav Jung:

Carl Gustav Jung (26 July 1875 – 6 June 1961) was a Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who founded analytical psychology.

Archetypal criticism draws heavily on the work of Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung, who argued that archetypes are inherited from our collective unconscious, a shared reservoir of ideas, memories, and images that all humans possess.

Jung was originally a follower of Sigmund Freud. The relationship eventually fractured over Jung's criticism of Freud's emphasis on sexuality during development, which led Jung to develop his own psychoanalytic approach known as analytical psychology.

Archetypes are universal, inborn models of people, behaviours, and personalities that play a role in influencing human behaviour. Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung's theory suggested that these archetypes were archaic forms of innate human knowledge passed down from our ancestors.1

In Jungian psychology, these archetypes represent universal patterns and images that are part of the collective unconscious. Jung believed that we inherit these archetypes much in the way we inherit instinctive patterns of behaviour.

Contained within this lowest level of the unconscious are what Jung called the archetypes.

The collective unconscious man is linked not only with the past of the human species , but with the long stretch of organic evolution , a deduction borne out by the fact that contained within the present human brain are three distinct brains : the reptilian brain ; the paleomammalian brain ; and our present brain , the neomammalian.

According to Jung, the ego represents the conscious mind, and the personal unconscious contains memories—including those that have been suppressed.

All the most powerful ideas in history go back to archetypes.

Conclusion:

The theories of Frye and Jung provide us with significant insights into the significance of archetypes in literature and culture. By examining archetypal patterns and symbols, we can acquire a more profound comprehension of the universal human experiences that shape our existence.

(Words 1872; Images 04)

Works Cited

Mueller, Carl R. “Jungian Analysis.” The Drama Review: TDR, vol. 22, no. 3, 1978, pp. 73–86. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1145189.

Adler, Gerhard, and R. F.C. Hull. Collected Works of C.G. Jung: Structure & Dynamics of the Psyche. Edited by Gerhard Adler, second ed., vol. 8, Princeton, 1970.

Denham, Robert D. “Northrop Frye and Critical Method: Theory of Genres.” macblog, https://macblog.mcmaster.ca/fryeblog/critical-method/theory-of-genres.html. Accessed 28 March 2023.

Frye, Northrop. Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays. Princeton University Press, 2000.

Leach, Edmund, editor. The Structural Study of Myth and Totemism. Routledge, 2010.