论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】Herman Northrop Frye，a Canadian literary critic and literary theorist， is considered one of the most influential of the 20th century. This essay attempts to give a brief explanation for central literature criticism as Myth-Archetype of Northrop Frye and by doing so， to probe into the limitations of his theory.
This essay consists of four parts：Part one introduces the background knowledge about Herman Northrop Frye， his representative works and the reason for writing this paper. The second part is a brief presentation of his theory and significance of the whole theory system. Part three analyzes the limitation of his theory， mainly from four aspects： his defective deductions， impaired aestheticism， futile researches and limited range of application. The last chapter makes a conclusion to this thesis. It can be concluded that Frye unified the synchronic circle of the literature frame with the diachronic development of literary themes and the Myth-Archetype theory is comprehensive and ground-breaking. Yet his defective deductions， impaired aestheticism， and limited range of application confine his theory to formalism and to some extent， dilute aesthetic feelings in literary works.
【Key words】Northrop Frye； archetype； limitation
1 Introduction
The Canadian scholar Herman Northrop Frye was born in Sherbrooke， Quebec but raised in Moncton， New Brunswick， went to Toronto to compete in a national typing contest in 1929. He studied at Merton College， Oxford， before returning to Victoria College， where he spent the rest of his professional career.
Frye adapt his theory by melting Jung’s and Frazer’s theories with literature criticism. Though he opened a door for the reader， asking them to step into a wonderland and try to find the connection between archetypes and the primitive rituals， his theories are defected.
2 Brief Introduction to Frye’s Myth-Archetype Criticism
Frye made a great contribution to Myth-Archetype criticism. He placed myth under spotlight and redefined it. In Anatomy of Criticism， which presupposes that literary criticism is a discipline in its own right， independent of literature， Frye claimed that “the axiom of criticism must be， not that the poet does not know what he is talking about， but that he cannot talk about what he knows. To defend the right of criticism to exist at all， therefore， is to assume that criticism is a structure of thought and knowledge existing in its own right， with some measure of independence from the art it deals with”（Frye， P5） Frye’s Myth-Archetype theory is closely related to the dilemma of literary criticism in the 20th century. In Frye’s eyes， scholars who were devoted to biographical criticism， psychological criticism and historical criticism were trying to search out the basic meaning in literature from non-literary disciplines. At the same time， New Criticism was losing its edge and became subjective for it focuses on rhetoric without noticing the wide range of structure in literature and the deep meaning in sociocultural context. Frye tried to find a road of criticism between two extremes and made literary criticism a real discipline.
“Archetype” is the core of Frye’s theory. He believes that Myth is essential in infusing power to the world and it gives rituals archetypal meaning. Therefore， myth is archetype and archetype is a typical or recurring image. Frye believes that rituals are inclined to be narrative—instead of imitating certain kind of action， they are imitating all human behaviors. But Frye was against the Myth-Ritual School. He confirmed that rituals is the source of poetry logically， but not chronologically. Frye believes that literature comes from myth and the essential rule is to consider myth as one structural factor in literature since literature as a whole is a displaced myth. Displacement here means “the adaptation of myth and metaphor to canons of morality or plausibility” （Frye，P365） and he pointed out that “the devices used in solving these problems may be given the general name of displacement.”（Frye， P136）In the context of literary criticism， the ultimate meaning of myth could find its etymology in the word “mythos”. Just like myth narrative as a whole acts as the background， all literature as a whole frames every work. The forms of literature originates in literature tradition and are rooted in myth. Hence Frye believes that “total literary history gives us a glimpse of the possibility of seeing literature as a complication of a relatively restricted and simple group of formulas that can be studied in primitive culture” （Frye， P17）.
Frye’s obsession with the Bible enables him to build a narrative frame. The U-shaped narrative in the Bible consists of a quest myth—in Genesis， human beings lose the tree of life and water of life， but they get the two back in the Apocalypse， and between the loss and recovery is the story of Israel. Based on this， the world is divided into four parts， the highest level where the God rules， the world of innocence， the world of experience and the world of chaos. Mountains， towers， trees and stairs are images of ascending； on the contrary， caves and springs are images of descending. 3 The Limitations of Frye’s Myth-Archetype Theory
Firstly， because Frye kept emphasizing the recurring mythical patterns and devoted in searching archetypes， original myth and literature formula， the characteristics of writers and his works may be ignored. Researches done with the help of Frye’s theories may turn out to be predictable and to some extend apriori rather than aposteriori. When we try to analyze George Eliot’s Mill on the Floss， the eidetic memory of archetypes will ruin the impression of the novel. Also， his argument is not based on cause-and-effect demonstration， instead， the argument follows the course based on faith， the belief that the union of Man and Nature is the truth.
Secondly， constructing a myth criticism system depends on finding myths and archetypes， so his theory cannot be used to analyze all literary works. In highly cultured or extremely realistic literary works， this kind of criticism may find itself out of its depth. Also， for example， in George R. R. Martin’s A Game of Thrones， one could easily find archetypes like Motherhood， Prophet and Scapegoat， but in Theodore Dreiser’s Sister Carrie， one cannot find enough archetypes to justify himself. Furthermore， the same archetype may have different meanings in different cultures. In China， dragon means auspiciousness and braveness， but in Western culture， dragon represents evil spirit.
Also， Frye’s Myth-Archetype criticism is a cozy nest， which offers readers a refuge. We may find archetypes， roles and modes， as well as their connections with the primitive rituals， however， the moment we trace back to the ancient times， we get lost.
Finally， it is also dangerous to be overly keen on finding archetypes in a book and neglect the aesthetic elements in it. When one use Frye’s theory to analyze Gabriel Garc€韆 M€醨quez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude， the history of American colonies and the techniques like magic realism may be overlooked—for the focus of the reader will be the rituals and archetypes in Macondo.
4 Conclusion
In Conclusion， Frye’s Myth-Archetype Criticism builds a new world for literary criticism， and asks readers to step outside the field of history and aestheticism， to shuttle back to the primitive rituals and beliefs， to find the source， to return to the dreamland. However， his defective deductions， impaired aestheticism， and limited range of application confine his theory to formalism and to some extent， dilute aesthetic feelings in literary works. Frye’s theory only helps the reader to escape， but it offers no spiritual encouragement. He disregards the aestheticism of social meanings and ideology of literature. But still Frye connected archetypes with literature criticism， and made a great contribution to literature. His theory keeps reminding us the importance of returning back to Nature and remembering the ancient world， a world nurtured all human beings.
Bibliography：
[1] David Cook. Northrop Frye： A Vision of the New World. Toronto： Toronto University Press
[2] Northrop Frye. Anatomy of Criticism. New Jersey： Princeton University Press
[3] 陈萍： 《“只有批评之路敞开”——诺斯洛普·弗莱的<批评之路>》， 《国外文学》 2001 （3），P15-16
[4] 杨建军：论弗莱的神话理论[D]. 山东：山东师范大学，2002： 5-6
（作者单位：东北林业大学）
This essay consists of four parts：Part one introduces the background knowledge about Herman Northrop Frye， his representative works and the reason for writing this paper. The second part is a brief presentation of his theory and significance of the whole theory system. Part three analyzes the limitation of his theory， mainly from four aspects： his defective deductions， impaired aestheticism， futile researches and limited range of application. The last chapter makes a conclusion to this thesis. It can be concluded that Frye unified the synchronic circle of the literature frame with the diachronic development of literary themes and the Myth-Archetype theory is comprehensive and ground-breaking. Yet his defective deductions， impaired aestheticism， and limited range of application confine his theory to formalism and to some extent， dilute aesthetic feelings in literary works.
【Key words】Northrop Frye； archetype； limitation
1 Introduction
The Canadian scholar Herman Northrop Frye was born in Sherbrooke， Quebec but raised in Moncton， New Brunswick， went to Toronto to compete in a national typing contest in 1929. He studied at Merton College， Oxford， before returning to Victoria College， where he spent the rest of his professional career.
Frye adapt his theory by melting Jung’s and Frazer’s theories with literature criticism. Though he opened a door for the reader， asking them to step into a wonderland and try to find the connection between archetypes and the primitive rituals， his theories are defected.
2 Brief Introduction to Frye’s Myth-Archetype Criticism
Frye made a great contribution to Myth-Archetype criticism. He placed myth under spotlight and redefined it. In Anatomy of Criticism， which presupposes that literary criticism is a discipline in its own right， independent of literature， Frye claimed that “the axiom of criticism must be， not that the poet does not know what he is talking about， but that he cannot talk about what he knows. To defend the right of criticism to exist at all， therefore， is to assume that criticism is a structure of thought and knowledge existing in its own right， with some measure of independence from the art it deals with”（Frye， P5） Frye’s Myth-Archetype theory is closely related to the dilemma of literary criticism in the 20th century. In Frye’s eyes， scholars who were devoted to biographical criticism， psychological criticism and historical criticism were trying to search out the basic meaning in literature from non-literary disciplines. At the same time， New Criticism was losing its edge and became subjective for it focuses on rhetoric without noticing the wide range of structure in literature and the deep meaning in sociocultural context. Frye tried to find a road of criticism between two extremes and made literary criticism a real discipline.
“Archetype” is the core of Frye’s theory. He believes that Myth is essential in infusing power to the world and it gives rituals archetypal meaning. Therefore， myth is archetype and archetype is a typical or recurring image. Frye believes that rituals are inclined to be narrative—instead of imitating certain kind of action， they are imitating all human behaviors. But Frye was against the Myth-Ritual School. He confirmed that rituals is the source of poetry logically， but not chronologically. Frye believes that literature comes from myth and the essential rule is to consider myth as one structural factor in literature since literature as a whole is a displaced myth. Displacement here means “the adaptation of myth and metaphor to canons of morality or plausibility” （Frye，P365） and he pointed out that “the devices used in solving these problems may be given the general name of displacement.”（Frye， P136）In the context of literary criticism， the ultimate meaning of myth could find its etymology in the word “mythos”. Just like myth narrative as a whole acts as the background， all literature as a whole frames every work. The forms of literature originates in literature tradition and are rooted in myth. Hence Frye believes that “total literary history gives us a glimpse of the possibility of seeing literature as a complication of a relatively restricted and simple group of formulas that can be studied in primitive culture” （Frye， P17）.
Frye’s obsession with the Bible enables him to build a narrative frame. The U-shaped narrative in the Bible consists of a quest myth—in Genesis， human beings lose the tree of life and water of life， but they get the two back in the Apocalypse， and between the loss and recovery is the story of Israel. Based on this， the world is divided into four parts， the highest level where the God rules， the world of innocence， the world of experience and the world of chaos. Mountains， towers， trees and stairs are images of ascending； on the contrary， caves and springs are images of descending. 3 The Limitations of Frye’s Myth-Archetype Theory
Firstly， because Frye kept emphasizing the recurring mythical patterns and devoted in searching archetypes， original myth and literature formula， the characteristics of writers and his works may be ignored. Researches done with the help of Frye’s theories may turn out to be predictable and to some extend apriori rather than aposteriori. When we try to analyze George Eliot’s Mill on the Floss， the eidetic memory of archetypes will ruin the impression of the novel. Also， his argument is not based on cause-and-effect demonstration， instead， the argument follows the course based on faith， the belief that the union of Man and Nature is the truth.
Secondly， constructing a myth criticism system depends on finding myths and archetypes， so his theory cannot be used to analyze all literary works. In highly cultured or extremely realistic literary works， this kind of criticism may find itself out of its depth. Also， for example， in George R. R. Martin’s A Game of Thrones， one could easily find archetypes like Motherhood， Prophet and Scapegoat， but in Theodore Dreiser’s Sister Carrie， one cannot find enough archetypes to justify himself. Furthermore， the same archetype may have different meanings in different cultures. In China， dragon means auspiciousness and braveness， but in Western culture， dragon represents evil spirit.
Also， Frye’s Myth-Archetype criticism is a cozy nest， which offers readers a refuge. We may find archetypes， roles and modes， as well as their connections with the primitive rituals， however， the moment we trace back to the ancient times， we get lost.
Finally， it is also dangerous to be overly keen on finding archetypes in a book and neglect the aesthetic elements in it. When one use Frye’s theory to analyze Gabriel Garc€韆 M€醨quez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude， the history of American colonies and the techniques like magic realism may be overlooked—for the focus of the reader will be the rituals and archetypes in Macondo.
4 Conclusion
In Conclusion， Frye’s Myth-Archetype Criticism builds a new world for literary criticism， and asks readers to step outside the field of history and aestheticism， to shuttle back to the primitive rituals and beliefs， to find the source， to return to the dreamland. However， his defective deductions， impaired aestheticism， and limited range of application confine his theory to formalism and to some extent， dilute aesthetic feelings in literary works. Frye’s theory only helps the reader to escape， but it offers no spiritual encouragement. He disregards the aestheticism of social meanings and ideology of literature. But still Frye connected archetypes with literature criticism， and made a great contribution to literature. His theory keeps reminding us the importance of returning back to Nature and remembering the ancient world， a world nurtured all human beings.
Bibliography：
[1] David Cook. Northrop Frye： A Vision of the New World. Toronto： Toronto University Press
[2] Northrop Frye. Anatomy of Criticism. New Jersey： Princeton University Press
[3] 陈萍： 《“只有批评之路敞开”——诺斯洛普·弗莱的<批评之路>》， 《国外文学》 2001 （3），P15-16
[4] 杨建军：论弗莱的神话理论[D]. 山东：山东师范大学，2002： 5-6
（作者单位：东北林业大学）