Northrop Frye - The Methodology

 NORTHROP FRYE – THE METHODOLOG

 

 

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. 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 essay into three parts.

 

 The concept of Archetypal Literature

 The Inductive method of analysis
 The Deductive method of analysis 

 Here I define only two part of the essay second part THE INDUCTIVE METHOD OF ANALYSIS and the third part THE DEDUCTIVE METHOD OF ANALYSIS.

PART: 2) THE INDUCTIVE METHOD OF ANALYSIS:-

STRUCTURAL CRITICISM AND INDUCTIVE ANALYSIS:

 

     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 work. At times the author himself may be unconscious of the myths, symbols etc., which he has exploited I his work, and the critic “discovers” such things.

            HISTORICAL CRITICISM AND IDUCTIVE 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 culture 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 the 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 ad analysis symbols, images and mythologies used by a writer in 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 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 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 ad their origin is inn primitive cultures. Literature is produced I this manner over the years.

      ARCHITYPAL 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 analysis the narrative pace; a philologist scrutinizes the choice ad 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 Saxon, 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: 3) 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 in music is temporal ad pattern in paintings is spatial. In literature both rhythm ad 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) pattern 

(meaning).

 
 The world of nature is governed by rhythm and it has got a natural cycle. The seasonal rhythms in a solar year are sprig, winter, autumn ad 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 log gap and it has 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 explain 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 “epiphany moments.” That is, a writer gets the concept 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 ad etiological folktales. Such things have already an element of narrative and they add further to the narrative of writer in his work. A writer expresses what he has “perceived,” ad he uses myths either deliberately or unconsciously, ad it is the critic who discovers the archetypes, the myths, in a work and explicates the patterns I the work. Both pattern ad rhythm 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 centers on a figure 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
2. The Zenith, summer and marriage or Triumph phase
3. The sunset, autumn and death phase
4. The darkness, winter and desolation phase 

  LITERARY CRITICISM AND RELIGION

      There is close relation 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.