Vishakha Khajuria

The Archetypes of Literature (1951)

By- Northrop Frye

SUMMARY:

The given essay “The Archetypes of Literature” is divided into three parts. The first part begins
with Frye expressing his view about criticism. He believes that “Art” or “Literature” cannot be
learned or taught. The only thing that can be directly taught is criticism. Criticism is close to a
science though not the “exact” science. Frye further adds to this by giving different pieces of
evidence like prosody being scientific, a text (when edited) is dealt with scientifically, etc.
Criticism is given the central position with history on one side and philosophy on the other. Frye
also talk about critical commentaries that have assumed a central position in criticism. There is a
need for removal of such “meaningless criticism” or “pseudo criticism.” Frye compares pseudo-
criticism with stock exchange where literary “chit-chat” makes the reputation of one writer go up
and then crash. Such pseudo-criticism cannot add to a systematic study or build systematic
knowledge. The study of a literary work has to be done with the help of structural analysis. Frye
further talks about the limitations of the structural approach. The structural analysis only talks
about the form of the work and not how that form is achieved. There is a need for “classifying
principles” that are a must for any kind of scientific study. This can be done in two ways-
Inductively or Deductively.

The second part of the essay deals with the Inductive study. This part defines Frye’s take on what
constitutes the archetypes of literature. He first starts by discussing the problem that critics face
when analyzing a poem. After a poet writes a poem, it strives to cut itself off from the personal
associations of the poet. Criticism is unable to function without knowing the psychology of the
poet within that poem. This happens because a poet unconsciously uses a band of symbols or
personal mythologies to form that text. And to study a text we need to study these symbols and
myths that the poet uses, those symbols are called archetypes of literature. A similar problem is
observed in the case of the study of genres. Criticism according to the essay has nothing much to
say about it. To study genres, one needs to study its literary history. This inquiry gives rise to a
“history of ideas” that view philosophy and history from a critical viewpoint. The attempt at a
study of genres leads to the study of the pre literary categories like folklore, myth, and ritual.
Thus Frye informs us about the archetypes of genres as well as images. To further add to the
explanation, Frye takes the example of the grave scene from the play Hamlet. For the structural
analysis of the scene, we would first need an editor to “clean up” the text. Then a literary
historian, literary philosopher, student of “history of ideas” and an anthropologist would be
required to trace back the images or set of symbols. With the formation of Archetypal Criticism,
all of this would converge to one critical approach for the analysis.       

The third part of the essay deals with the deductive study. This part talks about the rhythms and
patterns in literature. Here the example taken is of music where rhythms and patterns form a very
essential part. As literature resembles music, it also constitutes rhythms and patterns in the form
of repetition of images, forms, words or narratives. Rhythms find their way into any work
voluntarily. Patterns, on the other hand, are sometimes introduced unconsciously by a writer.
Frye believes them to be archetypal. Myths are considered central to understanding archetypes.
To explain further Frye provides us with four phases of myth:
1. The dawn, spring, and birthplace
2. The zenith, summer and marriage or triumph phase
3. The sunset, autumn and death phase
4. The darkness, winter and desolation phase

Besides this, Frye also talks about the “quest myth.” He believes that it also forms a major part of
the archetypal study. The next point that Frye discusses in the essay is the relation between
criticism and religion. Both religion and criticism have no scientific actuality but work on
conceivability. According to Frye’s proposed theory, the image of God can be considered as an
Archetype. It has been used in works like Paradise Lost.

In the concluding part of the essay, Frye gives us a second table that explains the central patterns
of comic and tragic visions. Here he gives us a list of archetypal images. It sets forth two
versions- one of a comic vision of life and other is the tragic vision of life in the world of
humans, animals, vegetables, minerals or the unformed ones. To explain it further, an example of
Yeats’ poem “Sailing of Byzantium” is given and images of comic vision are highlighted. Frye
closes the essay by saying that a ground plan of a systematic and comprehensive study can be
formed where the inductive and deductive study finds a common point.