When critics talk about the archetypal theory, three persons must be taken into consideration. They are James Frazer, Carl Jung and Northrop Frye.
In the beginning of 20th century, James George Frazer, the Scottish anthropologist, who first used the concept of archetype in description of myths and rituals. His masterpiece The Golden Bough in Frye’s eyes is not only a great work of anthropology but also a work of literary criticism (Frye, 2009: 109). To some degree, this book can be considered as a foundation of myth-archetypes criticism (Ye Shuxian, 2011: 4). In short, Frazer discovered the repeated phenomena as patterns of archetype occur in the mythical and religious events. Until now his works are still considered as a treasure trove to …show more content…
The contribution Jung made to the archetypal theory was the study of collective unconscious, which was defined by him as the basic mode of human experience since the ancient times (Wang Hanli, 2014: 11). And Jung gave the postulation that “the contents of the collective unconscious, ..., are known as archetypes” (1999: 4). His contemplation about the archetype can be traced back to Platonism, for he borrowed the dianoia about archetype of Plato from Saint Augustinus, and applied it to modern psychology. Briefly, Jung explored the potential connection between collective unconscious and human spiritual heredity, pioneering the development of human …show more content…
In Anatomy of Criticism, he gave his definition that, “the symbol in this phase is the communicable unit, to which I give the name archetype: that is, a typical or recurring image (2009: 99). As archetypes are communicable symbols, so they are conventionalized. That is to say, archetypes as reappearing images in a motley assortment of literary aggregation combine those isolated works, and render literature to be a mode of social communication. Frye claimed that:
“It is not important whether there is any relationship between lit. and reality, nor whether lit. embodies the truths of depth psychology. What is important is that lit., when taken as a whole, reviews inductively the persistence of certain patterns, with the result that lit. is seen to form a highly organized universe of its own. The job of crit., therefore, is to formulate and interpret those patterns (N. F., 1993:
In the beginning of 20th century, James George Frazer, the Scottish anthropologist, who first used the concept of archetype in description of myths and rituals. His masterpiece The Golden Bough in Frye’s eyes is not only a great work of anthropology but also a work of literary criticism (Frye, 2009: 109). To some degree, this book can be considered as a foundation of myth-archetypes criticism (Ye Shuxian, 2011: 4). In short, Frazer discovered the repeated phenomena as patterns of archetype occur in the mythical and religious events. Until now his works are still considered as a treasure trove to …show more content…
The contribution Jung made to the archetypal theory was the study of collective unconscious, which was defined by him as the basic mode of human experience since the ancient times (Wang Hanli, 2014: 11). And Jung gave the postulation that “the contents of the collective unconscious, ..., are known as archetypes” (1999: 4). His contemplation about the archetype can be traced back to Platonism, for he borrowed the dianoia about archetype of Plato from Saint Augustinus, and applied it to modern psychology. Briefly, Jung explored the potential connection between collective unconscious and human spiritual heredity, pioneering the development of human …show more content…
In Anatomy of Criticism, he gave his definition that, “the symbol in this phase is the communicable unit, to which I give the name archetype: that is, a typical or recurring image (2009: 99). As archetypes are communicable symbols, so they are conventionalized. That is to say, archetypes as reappearing images in a motley assortment of literary aggregation combine those isolated works, and render literature to be a mode of social communication. Frye claimed that:
“It is not important whether there is any relationship between lit. and reality, nor whether lit. embodies the truths of depth psychology. What is important is that lit., when taken as a whole, reviews inductively the persistence of certain patterns, with the result that lit. is seen to form a highly organized universe of its own. The job of crit., therefore, is to formulate and interpret those patterns (N. F., 1993: