20世纪西方文论原文
更新时间:2024-03-05 01:23:01 阅读量: 综合文库 文档下载
20世纪西方文论原文
Myth and Archetypal Criticism
Sigmund Freud says in ―Creative Writers and Day-dream‖ that myths are ―distorted vestiges of the wishful fantasies of whole nations, the secular dreams of youthful humanities.‖ But we have to wait for an elaborate theory of myth and archetype from his student, the Swiss psychologist Carl G. Jung.
―Myth‖ in its most ordinary meaning refers to stories of gods or other supernatural beings handed down from ancient times. A collection of traditional myths in a culture or nation reflects, allegorically, its cultural or national history. The stories of the Genesis, Exudes and Apostles in Jewish mythology, for instance, are part of the constitution of Jewish nation or culture. Being read and re-read by generations of people in a nation /culture these myths are often regarded as its spiritual identity. Writers also turn to myths as sources of inspiration, mythos in Greek meaning narration and plot. As the verbal expression of ancient dreams and rituals, the myth is also the structural principle of imaginative literature when it gives meaning to rituals and form to dreams.
In the long tradition of mimesis, the myth occupied a low position for its obvious irrationality and distortion. Giambattisha Vico, however, helped to restore the importance of the myth in his new sciences (1725): ―The first science to be learned should be mythology or the interpretation of fables; for…all the histories of the gentiles have their beginnings in the fables, which were the first histories of the gentile nation. By such a method the beginnings of the sciences as well as of the nations are to be discovered.‖ The eighteenth century Romanticists also placed the myth, the wisdom of poetry, on the same footing with science and reason.
The word ―archetype,‖ according to Jung, was much used in ancient Greek, arche meaning ―root‖ and ―origin‖ while typos ―pattern‖ or ―model‖. The modern concept of the archetype appeared in the late nineteenth century, referring to the recurring literary phenomena such as motifs, themes, and narrative designs. The first one to use the concept in the sense it now appears in contemporary archetypal criticism is cultural anthropologist James G. Frazer at the turn of the century, to explain the structural principles behind the archetypal myths and rituals in the tales
1
and ceremonies of diverse cultures. Myths and archetypes thus offered the literary critic one more alternative, in addition to the generic or the historical, to questions concerning literary convention or genre. Because of its more or less universal nature, the archetype is important for constructing macro structures of literature connecting different times and geographical locations.
As archetypes usually include myths (tales, rituals, totems, taboos, etc.), so ―archetypal criticism‖ is often used for myth and archetypal criticism. However, archetypal criticism owes especially to the following three people for their separate contributions: Frazer in the late nineteenth century revealed the recurring mythical patterns in tales and rituals; Jung in 1930’s and 1940’s developed a theory of archetypes out of it; and Frye proposed, based on the previous two, a whole system of literary archetypal criticism in the 1950’s.
James Frazer is a most prolific and influential anthropologist in his fifty year of research on myth. For twenty-five years he worked on The Golden Bough, his masterpiece in twelve volumes (an abridged one volume was issued in 1922). Frazer studied classical literature when he was an undergraduate, and his interest in literature contributed a great deal to his anthropological study. In The Golden Bough he tried to show a general development of modes of thought from the magical to the religious and, finally, to the scientific, or the traces of human consciousness from the primitive to the civilized. This evolutionary sequence now seems unsatisfactory, but the synthesis and comparison of a wide range of information about religious and magical practices alone have made Frazer immortal. A major magic he observed was performed in an ancient Italian land Nemi where a runaway slave might break off a branch from the tree in the sanctuary and then slay the old priest for the title of ―the King of the Wood‖(Frazer 1994:12-14). Such a practice, according to Frazer, derived from the belief that the well-being of the social and natural orders depended upon the king, who must therefore be slain when his powers began to fail him and be replaced by a vigorous successor.
Jung agreed with Frazer that myth was the means by which the primitive people experienced the world, but to him myth concerns humanity in general, including modern men, via a concept called collective unconsciousness. Jung is best remembered for the set of terms and definitions he has made in this area, and for the combination, better than others, of the Frazerian analysis of rituals and tales with the
2
literary and cultural archetypes to be developed by the Canadian scholar Northrop Frye in the 1950s.Although the concept of the collective unconscious may have come from a dream in which Jung found himself in a two-store house where the cave below the basement reminded him of the ―inner drama which the primitive man rediscovered‖(Jung 1965:185-61), the elaborate theory Jung later developed is by no means vague and accidental. The unconscious, in this sense, is divided into two parts, namely, the personal or the superficial layer of the unconscious, and the supra personal or the deep layer, which is the collective unconscious. The later is much more universal in nature as it represents the primordial types of man’s primitive instincts. Here Jung redefines the Freudian concept of instinct in terms of ―archetypes‖, to give credit to Freud and to make it more tangible for ―scientific‖ analysis.
Jung knows that it is not enough to make a science of archetypes by proving that it belongs to the ―domain of medical psychology.‖ To back up the statement that his concepts of the instinct and the archetype are ―neither a speculative nor a philosophical but an empirical matter,‖ he tries to show that these instincts take ―definite forms‖ and are empirically veritable. As the most spontaneous expression of the collective unconscious, dreams seems to be the ideal source of archetypes. Archetypes may also be identified in ―fantasies produced by deliberate concentration.‖ However, Jung admits that ―the diagnosis of the collective unconscious is not always an easy task‖ because the unconscious content is no longer there when being perceived. Take for instance the archetype of the dual mother.
Like Freud, Jung believes that the collective unconscious as the instinctual expression may be accountable for neurosis if a patient suffers, say, from the delusion of the mother complex. But this delusion, Jung argues, is not caused by the Oedipus complex, but by the inability of the patient to cope with the dual mother when this instinct is activated. What is more, the neurosis may go beyond the personal level to make a whole society sick since ―in the last analysis what is the fate of great nations [is] but a summation of the psychic changes in individuals.‖ If, for instance, a nation was reviving an archaic swastika (referring to the emblem of Nazism) or an archaic fasces (the symbol of the fascist Italy), if it was reviving the ―medieval persecution of the Jews‖ and making Europe ―tremble again before the Roman fasces and the tramp of legions,‖ then it only indicates that that nation is affected by a collective neurosis.
3
Jung says that ―there are as many archetypes as there are typical situations in life,‖ but it is impossible to pinpoint ―the contents‖ an archetype refers to. Here Jung is talking about both the form and the contents of the archetype: the form exists only in the unconscious and is therefore beyond conceptualization without certain contents. Jung once compares the form of the archetype to the axial system of a crystal which ―performs the crystalline structure in the mother liquid without having any material existence of its own.‖ This reminds us of the famous analogy made by T. S. Eliot where the author, like the platinum in the chemical reaction of oxygen sulfur dioxide, is the invisible origin of the meaning of the work. The form of the archetype takes shapes only when crystallized by the contents which are, however, so varied that it takes efforts to establish the connection between the two. Jung does provide some basic forms of the archetype, the shadow, for instance, and anima or animus. Jung sees some inner-connection between the collective unconscious, archetypes and literature, just as Freud does between his id /unconscious,Oedipus complex and literature. But Jung is even less certain how collective unconscious may be used in the analysis of literary texts, as he was well aware of the difference between psychology and literature, neurosis and works of art, and admitted that he was not qualified to talk about the deep layers of literature, such as aesthetic experience and literary form.
Jung raised the question of ―what does literature do,‖ but the answer had to be made years later by another archetypal critic. Northrop Frye is one of the few world renowned Canadian humanistic scholars, and the Anatomy of Criticism has been a classic for graduate students ever since. The early influence on Frye includes T. S. Eliot and W. Shakespeare for their images of nature and season, and Frye realized that there might be a tradition of romance and rituals behind these images. Frye differs from Frazer, Freud, and Jung in that literature is the core of his discussion of culture. He believes that literature involves human collectivity rather than individual ego (to exclude much of Freud), and that collective unconscious in the psychological sense has little bearing on literature. Frye tries to give literary criticism an independent status when he blames the other critical approaches for being ―parasitical‖ (to psychology, sociology, etc) and badly in need of a conceptual or theoretical framework (Frey 1957:4-12,112-3). Like formalism, he argues that a science of literary study comprises of literariness and theorization. Frye’s archetypes originate, properly speaking, not from rituals, or religion, or heredity (though he does not deny
4
all these), but from the very nature of literature itself — the cycle (Frye 1970: 584 –6), and it is this inner structure that connects literature to myth.
The literary structure of the mythical cycle is elaborated in Anatomy of Criticism : the five basic modes of the hero’s ―power of action‖ (myth, romance, high/low mimetic, and irony); the five layers of symbolic meaning (literal, figurative, formal, mythical, and Biblical); the four mythoi of the archetypes (comedy, romance, tragedy, and irony ) corresponding to the four phase of nature (spring, summer, autumn, winter), which in turn reveal three imageries (apocalyptic, demonic and analogical which may be further divided into innocence and experience). And these structures may be further divided. Here Frye builds the inter-connection between the mythical elements and then interprets it in terms of the contents of the myth. Some critics have questioned the universality experience (the cycle of the season is quite different in Africa, for instance). But this ―structural literary anthropology‖ does delineate a framework for the Western literature from a new perspective.
The Archetype of Literature (Northrop Frey, 1912-1991)
Canadian theologian and literary critic at the U of Toronto, Frye is best remembered for the Anatomy of Criticism (1957), from which the present selection is taken. The work expresses his belief shared by the New Critics and literary psychoanalysts that literary criticism should possess the methodological discipline and coherence of the natural science. For him, the coherence reveals itself in the recurrence of archetypes in literature, and the discipline he works out is the schematic structure of literature.
Some arts move in time, like music; others are presented in space, like painting. In both cases the organizing principle is recurrence, which is called rhythm when it is temporal and pattern when it is spatial. Thus we speak of the rhythm of music and the pattern of painting; but later, to show off our sophistication, we may begin to speak of the rhythm of painting and the pattern of music. In other words, all arts may be conceived both temporally and spatially. The score of a musical composition may be studied all at once; a picture may be seen as the track of an intricate dance of the eye.
5
正在阅读:
20世纪西方文论原文03-05
教师节赞美诗_教师节祝福语03-26
写检讨书的格式范文11-29
七夕节现代诗歌03-30
离职交接管理制度03-15
新课程与教学改革10-19
云南省昆明市第三中学、滇池中学2016届九年级上学期期中考试数学03-03
生物在线研讨专辑简报10-12
《我是余欢水》观后感10-25
室外消火栓设计规范03-29
- 《江苏省环境水质(地表水)自动监测预警系统运行管理办法(试行)》
- 安乐死合法化辩论赛立论稿(浙大新生赛)
- 公共科目模拟试卷公务员考试资料
- 我国固定资产投资FAI对GDP的影响
- 大学生创新创业训练计划项目申请书大创项目申报表
- 完美版—单片机控制步进电机
- 2013资阳中考化学试题
- 18.两位数减一位数退位(397道)
- 工程量计算规则
- 二年级操行评语(下)
- 第3章 流程控制语句
- 浅基桥墩加固技术
- 课题研究的主要方法
- 5100软件说明书 - 图文
- 车间技术员年终总结
- 关于印发《中铁建工集团开展项目管理实验室活动方案》的通知
- 经典诵读结题报告
- 地下水动力学习题答案
- 2018年全国各地高考数学模拟试题平面解析几何试题汇编(含答案解
- 街道办事处主任2018年度述职述廉报告
- 文论
- 原文
- 西方
- 世纪
- 车库回顶施工方案
- 我爱你,中国!-胡景晖
- 一年级日记起步教学系列叙事
- 2014年全国国际商务单证专业考试 国际商务单证缮制与操作试题
- 新小学二年级数学下册第一单元数据收集整理单元测试题 - 图文
- 计算机审计教学大纲(72课时)
- 交通违规代码扣分、罚款明细
- 小学科学实验材料的收集与管理初探 - 图文
- 传承务实创新开创家校工作新局面
- 静态GPS解算步骤
- 能被3整除的数的特征
- 学校交通安全应急预案
- 高二11班运动会暨晚会安全预案
- 学校科教处工作总结
- SumerNETEM 阅读理解 考点词汇1800
- 毛概第六章内容总结及心得体会
- SPSS习题
- 三年级奥数举一反三第25262728周之和倍问题差倍问题和差问题
- 安规试题带答案
- 工程水文学 2014