Thinking Activity:Northrope Frye's The Archetype of Literature

Hello Monks,

I am Riddhi Bhatt. You know...what is today's blog ?This blog is about Thinking Activity on: Archetypal Criticism. This task is assigned by Prof. Dr. Dilip Barad sir, Head of the English Department of Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavsinhji Bhavnagar University (MKBU). As a part of the syllabus, students of English department are learning the paper called The Literary Theory and Criticism and Indian Poetics(paper-109). So, let’s start friends. But before we start I want to give short information about what kind of things we see here…

So first we see brief introduction of Herman Northrop Frye. Herman Northrop Frye (July 14, 1912–January 23, 1991) was misunderstood for decades as a literary taxonomist or member of the archetypal school of literary criticism. Since the late 1970s his work has been subjected to wide reappraisal, revealing not only that his entire output was the result of a highly personal project but also that a spiritual quest and social mission runs throughout.Frye, these notations providing the most recent primary texts for Frye scholars to dig through for fresh material and insight. Despite his enormous output, Frye tells the same story over and over, of the revelatory and redemptive power of the written word. Frye believed that an education in the humanities was the basis of a democratic society. His “concern and freedom” thesis promotes a stance that is both imaginative and critical; laying between the two extremes of conservatism and radicalism, it promotes thinking beyond the simple reiteration of societal norms and values, without tipping into a potentially hazardous laissez-faire. Politically, Frye can be best described as a left-leaning liberal who, so committed to his belief in the social mission of literary criticism, frequently produced populist and accessible versions of his key ideas to disseminate these to a general audience.

Here I am giving to answer the questions asking by our professor..

1. What is Archetypal of Criticism? What does the Archetypal Critic do?

There are different meanings of Archetypal Criticism.

According to Dictionary - Archetype, (from Greek archetypos, “original pattern”), in literary criticism, a primordial image, character, or pattern of circumstances that recurs throughout literature and thought consistently enough to be considered a universal concept or situation.

Archetypal criticism aims at establishing a unified body of literature by studying the recurrent signs and symbols of literary texts, i.e Archetypes, from which the theory derives its name. In critical study, an archetype denotes all those images, plots, techniques, etc, which are used in literary compositions through the ages and have thus helped in the shaping of the individual's perspective towards literary texts.

2 What is Frye trying to prove by giving an analogy of 'Physics to Nature' and 'Criticism to Literature'.

Northrop Frye has given a very unique idea of Archetypal Criticism by comparing the human emotions or human characteristics with the cycle of seasons.Northrop Frye's Archetypes of Literature, provided a structural study of literature and its recurrent themes, techniques, symbols, etc in order to establish "literature as an organized body of knowledge and to distinguish it from its study i.e criticism". Just as Physics is the study of nature, criticism is the study of literature. However, one can't possibly 'learn literature'. And therefore through this analogy Frye tries to prove that in order to establish literature as an organized body of knowledge, criticism should be treated as a science and subsequently be separated from literature. Hence criticism should be treated as an individual branch of knowledge, just as Physics, and not as a sub topic of literary studies as it is often considered.

• Spring - Comedy
• Summer - Romance
• Autumn - Tragedy
• Winter - Irony & Satire

3. Share your views of criticism as an organised body of knowledge. Mention relation of literature with history and philosophy.

It is quite convincing when Frye argues that students often feel a centrifugal force when it comes to criticism because of pseudo propositions and in order to change this, it is necessary for criticism to be established as an body of knowledge. It is often observed that while analysing a work of art, a critic has to rely on either historical evidence and facts, or on philosophical truths.History deals with the events of past and the actions, while Philosophy deals with idea and shows the way to wisdom. Using History and Philosophy both, the writer creates literature. Thus, literature is connected with History and Philosophy. Thus the individuality and potentiality of the literary or artistic work is questioned. Frye points out that in order to establish criticism as an organized and individual field of knowledge, it is necessary for the critic to focus on the work in question, rejecting and ignoring all the other influences in the process. Literature, to a certain extent combines the elements of history and philosophy. It includes ideas as well as facts.

4. Briefly explain inductive method with illustration of Shakespeare's Hamlet's Grave Digger's scene.

Observation > Theory

Particular     > General

The inductive method, to put it in Frye's words is the process of 'backing up'. In order to come up with a general inference which defines one's argument, one needs to back up from all the particular instances. Let's take the grave digger's scene from Shakespeare's Hamlet into consideration for this explanation.

The closest look on the scene would reveal what Frye calls 'an intricate verbal texture' filled with the puns of the first clown and the reflection of the danse macabre in the Yorick soliloquy of Hamlet. If we take one step back from this position the scene would reveal what the critics like Wilson Knight have argued the scene reflects corruption and decay in the socio-political scenario of the times. One more step back and we will find the dramatic context of the scene i.e the Elizabethan audience's love for sensational scenes. The last step back would reveal the archetype of the Liebestod hero, sacrificing himself for his beloved.

Hamlet represents Archetypal hero who is ready to die for his love.This method moves from “Particular to General”.

5. Briefly explain deductive method reference to an analogy to music, painting, rhythm and pattern. Give examples of the outcome of deductive method.

General > Particular

Theory > Observation

Universal > Specific

Music has rhythm and Painting have pattern. We might not understand music at once and we might understand painting at first look.The deductive method in some sense resembles the application of a theory to analyze a work of art. It is the process of going from particular to general. Frye explains this method through the examples of music and painting. Just as music some arts move in time whereas others move in space like painting. The 'organizing principle', to put in Frye's words, in both the cases is 'recurrence', which, when it comes to temporal arts is called rhythm and for spacial arts is called pattern. Literature, in Frye's opinion seems to intermediate between the temporal and spatial as it combines the elements of both. The rhythm of literature can be the narrative whereas the pattern can be the simultaneous mental grasp of meaning and significance.

6. Refer to the Indian seasonal grid (below). If you can, please read small Gujarati or Hindi or English poem from the archetypal approach and apply Indian seasonal grid in the interpretation.

Religion, and in that case any social institution, relies on literature for promoting and propagating its ideology. In order to reach a large number of people, religion constructs a narrative, which, as time goes on, is documented in the form of a scripture or a "Myth". Now this myth, according to Frye, is the archetype; containing all the recurring socio-culturally accepted symbols of a culture or society. However, because of people's blind faith and sentimental attachment towards religion, they tend to accept the religious narratives as ultimate truths. This is where the literary critic finds a problem. As Frye mentions,"God for the critic, whether he finds him in 'Paradise Lost' or 'The Bible', is a character in a human story; and for the critic all epiphanies are explained, not in terms of the riddle of a possessing god or devil, but as mental phenomena closely associated in their origin with dreams."

people consider them atheistic or 'bad'. Today, among the rising misconceptions as well as misinterpretation of religious texts and narratives, Frye's opinion and idea  on the relationship of literature and religion is crucial to take note of.

It is interesting how Nagarjuna is able to portray the emotions before and after the beginning of the monsoon season. A close look at the poem would reveal how he uses the animal world for both tragic and comic visions of monsoon to put it in Frye's terms. It provides a good example of archetypal usage in the Indian context.

कल और आज – नागार्जुन

अभी कल तक

गालियां देते थे तुम्हें

हताश खेतिहर,

अभी कल तक

धूल में नहाते थे

गौरैयों के झुंड,

अभी कल तक

पथराई हुई थी

धनहर खेतों की माटी,

अभी कल तक

दुबके पड़े थे मेंढक,

उदास बदतंग था आसमान!

और आज

ऊपर ही ऊपर तन गए हैं

तुम्हारे तंबू,

और आज

छमका रही है पावस रानी

बूंदा बूंदियों की अपनी पायल,

और आज

चालू हो गई है

झ्ींगुरों की शहनाई अविराम,

और आज

जोर से कूक पड़े

नाचते थिरकते मोर,

और आज

आ गई वापस जान

दूब की झुलसी शिराओं के अंदर,

और आज

विदा हुआ चुपचाप ग्रीष्म

समेट कर अपने लव लश्कर।

THANK YOU......