Thinking activity : Northrop Frye

What are you waiting for!

 Let's see how "archetypal criticism" forms its ways through various approaches, an archetypal image/symbol/pattern/rhythm can be analysed from different perspectives, where at times it feels as something has been stick as static while soon afterwards it gets fluctuated in vivid interpretations!

ARCHETYPAL CRITICISM

1. Introduction of "Archetypal Criticism":

• Definition of Archetypes:

A "mental primitive image" inherited from earliest human ancestors, and supposed to be present in "collective unconscious".

It seems as a personality/person as a model, having some deep seated influence of culture, beliefs, thoughts of his/her ancestrals, which as the time passes, becomes dormant. But when a person is happened to involve in any situation/relation/circumstances, it surfaces consciously and according to which a person has his reaction, as per the thing, coming in front of him/her.

As per "Jungian theory" of 'Psycoanalysis' as prescribed in it the same concept of "Archetypes". Where he also denounce that "archetypes" can be seen in person/personality and society. In personally it surfaces in dream, while in "collectively" it spreads its legs mythology.(According to Northrop Frye in "myth, fiction and displacement" essay: it is said to have "self-containment and autonomous elements in it").

"A recurrent symbol in literature, art and mythology":

Exemplifying the aforementioned quote, it literally suggests that a symbol, when keeps on recurring, it has an allegory in it. Which can't be seen at surface level, but when it is justified, it strikes into our mind and "we" people are used to say that "see as I was telling, according it had occurence", But isn't the case. It is represented as such in any movie/literary text/belief that we are just binding ourselves with that belief and as it is said "what is thought is encountered", same happens. It is a human psycology which leads to good or bad consequences. If incase something bad is happening as per our suspicion and we start believing in this illusion blindly then it would have its dire consequences or else it can be removed by our "encyclopedic understanding".

• Define Criticism: 

The analysis or judgement of the merits and faults of literary or artistic work.

If a critic is to analyze or pass a judgement on literary text, it should be in constructive manner, constructive manner in the sense that he should analyze any work on both aspects, negative as well as positive but it is harmful if a judgement is passed in negative manner then it will destruct the critical work. Hence it should be at "intermediate level" between music and painting as said by "Northrop Frye"  in his essay "The archetypes of literature".

• "Archetypal Criticism":

When both is merged into one, then various outcomes are assumed whether the archetypal image symbolises what? If it will have negative or positive effect, or one has to face dire consequences or a movie/ work has "happy ending".

For example: In "Mobydick" we have seen that water is transforming into whirlpool and it keeps on happening from scene to scene. While actually it was symbolizing that "Ahab" is going to be swallowed likewise by the white whale and it was happened.

In "Satyam Shivam Sundaram" we see the conflict between flood as an archetypal symbol and temple, where flood is for destruction while the temple symbolizes triumph over all hardships, faced by the couple in movie.

Hence we learnt here how "archetypal criticism" is and how it has an organized body, which has a specific constitution in it.

2. What does an "Archetypal Critic do":

He studies its specific science, relating to it and as shell is uncovered, he unfolds it's all layers to bring it to the specific root level:

An archetypal critic studies various motifs or symbols, represented in any work/movie and categorised those as per his "collective unconscious". He took a symbol as a part of his study, he doesn't like average kind of any work, but it should be complex and complicated so it can be resolved out with the two pillars of literature called "Philosphy and History". If a critic is "Historian" he will evaluate the specific work historically, and if a philosopher he will analyze it likewise.

For example "Milton's Paradise lost":

Where we not only see the complexity but also much history and philosphy interwoven in it. 

Lay floating many a rood, in bulk as huge

As whom the fables name of monstrous size,

Titanian, or Earth-born, that warred on Jove,

Briareos or Typhon, whom the den

By ancient Tarsus held, or that sea-beast

Leviathan, which God created of all his works

Created hugest that swim th' Ocean stream.

We see in the aforementioned quote how it has various historical and philosophical(as depiction of God is represented here with almighty power) connotative meanings, associated with this work.

It seems when analysed it will become a skeleton/as "Structuralists" do concerning "the study of the structure of work" only remaining thing will be its grammar, nothingelse.

If it doesn't have quality and complexity in it then how it can be evaluated, that is a question mark? And a critic must have something additional of himself to add into it.

Hence we learnt here how an "Archetypal Critic" starts his journey from highland to the valley and retain his own significance.

3. What "Frye" is trying to proove by the analogy: "physics to nature" &"criticism to literature":

PHYSICS IN ITSELF IS NATURE, but if a student of physics says that he is learning nature then it doesn't have any specificity, that what type of nature, nature can be differentiated to give its specific name like, every field has connection with naturen

He says that "a student of physics will always say that he has learned physics" not that he has learnt nature. We see here "Physics" as an organized body of knowledge, which is based on "science" and if it has science, it obviously has nature and science is an "embryo" in each field(meant to say act as underdeveloped element) Because when attempting anything based on science one has to study the nature of different substances applied in any field; chemistry, botany, biology, business, arts etc.

All have their specific nature, from where they have to process on, they had many levels to pass through. At first they are as raw material, then gradually crossing one after another level those are transforming into solidity, otherwise it isn't possible. 

As we "humanbeings" as are self-automated, we have to pass through many circumstances in life, and have to retain that courage and ability/capacity of coming out of any particular situation. As "humanbeings" first phase is "child" same can be compared with raw material of any particular field, and as the first phase develops gradually, so the organised body and it would be only introduced by its present status not how it has been proceed from its primitive phase.

While "criticism to literature": It is an art itself, because here a critic first have to develop the understanding of the specific work and with many "multidisciplinary approaches" he has to initiate "a critical work". If it is then he must have multidimensional knowledge of things, then only he can operate such a work, understand it with that aspect and accordingly criticize it, or else it can't be done. Then perhaps it will lead to "a new structure" (with critic's own additional information and ideas in it)as told by "Structuralsits" - Gerard Gennette.

It travels at intermediary level between rhythm and pattern, a sequential rythmic constitution of words(sounds), while the pattern, mirroring the vivid images in readers mind, where obviously he hear and listen but also he grasps with its total understanding as put forward by "Northrop Frye".

Hence we learnt here that why only an organised body is taken into consideration and not its process and we also found that it has it's own significance, it is the success, that interests people not its procedure or its experiments which have interwoven so many failures in it.

4. Views on "Criticism-an organized body of knowledge" and its relation with "History" and "Philosophy":

Criticism: "Remains an embryo within the body of some other subject".

As we discussed in aforementioned question's answer, it has the same nature, which criticism retains in itself.

As a simple/complex literary work, contains many aspects in it, marine science, sociology, psycology, technical science etc. The critic also need the same "multi-dimensional knowledge" of everything then only he would be able to know, how the work is constituted by any particular writer.

For example: "Mobydick":

In this novel, we saw various behavioural patterns of human, concerning Ahab, Ishmael, Quikeg and many supportive sailors, there they should also have the knowledge of technicality, where they are to work as technician(how to throw a rope to catch a whale, where to drive the ship, the map reading, navigation, and specific knowledge of the supernatural power[philosophical one] Chapel's sermons, Christian religion and also some sailors belonging to some specific type of religiously beliefs) to know we must have knowledge of particular region's geography, culture, rituals and many things constituting or representing a specific identity. 

If a critic is lacking in, then perhaps he won't be able to give his required input and if it's not there then we can't expect the expected outcome for any particular work.

Its relation with philosophy and history:

If a critic is well equipped with both pillars of literature, then only he can, basing on these two pillars, analysed any work, it is required in least manner(as Eliot says in his "Traditional and Individual talent" essay: that a critic should have the whole understanding of history, in constructive manner(where one is to use such a thing in a way, that it will benefit to society as well as literary field, though it has some traditional particles). So is the literature has relation with Philosophy as well as History.

Its relation with religion: 

If seen in this respect, here "divinity" is presented in terms of religion, but a critic should cultivate that tendency, to critique on God as a "humanartifact".

For example: "Paradise lost": where Milton has taken the character of "Eve" as a mouthpiece to condemned the God(humanartifact). While it seems as "Adam" surrendering to God because perhaps the law of God is favouring him. We also have an example of "Dr. Faustus": who is obsessed with necromancy, and wants to overcome the God, for gaining excessive knowledge, which according to him is exceptional.

Such as "criticism is an organised body of knowledge" as well as it has relation with "Philosophy and History" along with religion, constitutes an ample of contexts in it, inspite of this the critic is free to include something on his own, it isn't abounded with any bias, though some cautions are to be taken.

5. Inductive method :  with an example of Shakespeare's "Hamlet" grave digger scene:

A word for inductive method: 
"From particular(intricacy) to general(conclusion)":

Let's have some scenes in monologue form from "Hamlet":

When looking into the end part of the story, that starts with "Grave-digger scene"  where he has just arrived with "Horatio". When he saw the two grave-diggers, they approach nearby, and a talk on "Yorick's skull" goes on, where one of tge grave diggers, also spars him with his question, when he asks him, for whom he is digging the grave..

Here in grave-digging science when he saw that "the funeral procession came(Caludius, Gertrude and Laertes) with Ophelia to rest her in, he breaks down, and his rash and anger pours out and then he confesses his love for "Ophelia" that: "forty thousand brothers couldn't with all their quantity of love make up my sum"!

From here perhaps he has started to approach his death. The grave-digger scene(an archetypal image), the confession of love for Ophelia, then his scuffle with Laertes in grave, then an arranged duel between Laertes and Hamlet, again his repentance for "Claudius's brutal death committed by him, confesses in front of Laertes and at the end both Laertes and Hamlet are wounded of "poisoned rapier" and Laertes gets died, after killing Claudius, he also dies, 'the readiness is all' leaving his only friend "Horatio" to tell his story to the new "Fortinbras". As it was in "Aakhree raasta" hindi movie, where after this scene "the father Amitabh Bachchan" gets died by shot of gun.

"I'm dying, I died or even I'm dead"!

So it seems as "the grave-digger  scene" led him to death, likewise this inductive method can be illustrated, as how to reach for a conclusion  particularly of Hamlet's life incident, where we came to know the archetypal symbol, which suggested his death ultimately.

6. Deductive method : Explain with an analogy of music, painting, rhythm and pattern:

"A word for deductive method-
Opposite to inductive method,
Generalizations to Particular:

Our aim is to see how "experimental writing" comes into being, with the help of these four analogies:

Experimental writing:

To reach to this platform one has to pass through the analogical process of literary art. As here "Northrop Frye" has told that "Arts" moves in time, like music; and others in space. Both of which are based on the same organising principle called "recurrence". So it is that "music" is to "rhythm" and "painting" is to "pattern" and subsequently "temporal" and "spatial". Now a question arises in mind that how it reaches to "experimental writing"!

It is the literature, which travels through music and painting at intermediatory level, where the words form rhythm, which approaches "the musical sequence of sound, while through pattern, it approaches to the hieroglyphic or pictorial image at another level. As one approaches as near as possible one will get the main body of "experimental writing" can be compared with "new criticism" approach.

Thus this "analogy process" is such which helps in forming "experimental writing".

7. Give examples of the outcomes of its method:

As a result what will happen: we may call "the rhythm of literature"(narrative[in the form of music, or any simple folklore narration etc, seems to be superficial, only to tune up the ears) gives soothing like effect. While the "pattern"  the simultaneous mental grasp of the verbal structure, the meaning or significance(seems to be the essence of the literature). Likewise is told in approachable statement that : We hear or listen to a narrative, but when we grasp a writer's total pattern we "see"(understand) what he means.

For example: "Listen to many speak to a few"! The meaning can be literally extract from this quote, but it is when we see it superficially, but with pattern's grasping sense, one after another  image will start framing in our mind, and then at the end of the sentence we will be able to get its meaning, that "we should cultivate the habit of listening". "We shouldn't be much talkative". And if we are able to cultivate these two habits, perhaps its resultant result would be something extraordinary and exceptional(which is also connected with life skills)

Thus we saw here with example, the outcome of the analogical process of; music, painting, pattern and rhythm and how its outcome is very essential for the one, who has connection with literature.

Applying "Indian seasonal grid" in poetry:

Taken to apply an archetypal approach regarding, Indian seasonal grid

First of all in first stanza, it is asked to the referee that which is his/her favourite season, one should choose out of four. But we know that every season has it's own significane and essentiality and all are necessarily, especially for the farmers, but it should be in equal measure, not with fluctuated tendency.
All four are represented as archetypal images, it depends on what a person  chooses.

"Winter has holiday cheer and bright white snow".

Here "winter" is represented as an "archetypal image" which has it's own significance, then it is said what is its significance: It has a holiday(students/Job workers etc.) Cheer(revelry/any joyous experience/congregation/gathering)bright(crystality) white snow(white snow pours on inanimate things, animate things will find their possible ways, of coming away from it, probably won't at first jump into it.

The another line shows the springing tendency of the poet, as it is connected with growing and birth, it also has according to the archetypal significance an ability to create, suggests romance , resurrection, revival and death of winter, the archetype of "dithyrambic and most Rhapsodic poetry".

The fifth line indicates summer season: Myths of Apotheosis(it is the myth of divine people, who are rewarded posthumously) is applicable, the triumph and sacred marriage. The archetype is comedy(as mostly in this genre marriage happens at the end, or in between but has a happy/fruitful ending) Pastoral and idyll ( an example from "far from the madding crowd" where the rustic people are idyll and representing rustic life.

The sixth line indicates "Autumn": The sunset, autumn and death phase. Myths of fall(Jonah's myth in Mobydick), of the dying God, of violent death and sacrifice and of the isolation of the hero(may have an example of "Hyder" from indian Kashmirian movie and also from the movie called "Hamlet" himself).

Then in last two line, it suggests how the year ends with the ending of "Autumn season" and arrival of "Winter season" also suggests as put forward by "Northrop Frye" the nature cycle.

Hence we learnt here how "archetypal approach is applied" in the respective poem, with all its connected tools, nicely.

Thankyou 

Samiya Kagdi

A learner at PG center

Department of English

MKBU

Applied Sources:

1.https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deductive%20method.

2.https://dilipbarad.blogspot.com/2014/12/northrop-frye-archetypes-of-literature.html

3.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

4.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maud_Bodkin