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).

Rhythm in a Work

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.