Archetypal Criticism: An Annotated Bibliography

Since the beginning of human civilization, we have reveled in the creation and sharing of stories.  It is the art form from which all others stem.  Cave drawings created by ancient humans were not merely paintings meant for gawking.  The paintings are consistently found in recesses where acoustic resonance is most powerful.  This hints at these being one part of a grander display of artistry.  Multimedia ceremonies in which stories are shared through both artwork and music.  This history lesson is not a digression, but rather a reinforcement of archetypal criticism’s origins in cultural anthropology.

Archetypal criticism did not begin with bookworms mulling over new ways to analyze their texts, but with an anthropologist named Sir James George Frazer.  In 1890, Frazer completed his seminal works, The Golden Bough, a compilation consisting of 12 volumes detailing the beliefs, myths, superstitions, and patterns found in various cultures.  One of these being the death-rebirth myth that is present in almost every mythology.  Then along came Jung with a theory of a collective unconscious, and after him Mary Bodkin who applied his ideas to poetry, followed by Frye who expounded upon the idea brought it into popular culture.  

With the collective efforts of these four great minds, we are left with Archetypal Criticism as we know it today, which is: An analytical theory that focuses on myths and other archetypes in a narrative and their interpretation.  As mythology is inherently tied with humanity’s history in storytelling, it’s important to understand the sources of those while attempting to understand archetypal criticism.  Religion, like storytelling, is a way for humanity, clueless as we are, to make sense of the inexplicable world around us.

 

Primary Source 1: On the Relation of Analytical Psychology to Poetry by C.G. Jung

Jung, Carl. “‘On the Relation of Analytical Psychology to Poetry’ by C.G. Jung.” “On the Relation of Analytical Psychology to Poetry” by C.G. Jung, 1922, www.studiocleo.com/librarie/jung/essay.html

“The primordial image, or archetype, is a figure be it a daemen, a human being, or a process - that constantly recurs in the course of history and appears wherever creative fantasy is freely expressed. Essentially, therefore, it is a mythological figure.”

• Carl Jung

Jung, the impetus for archetypal criticism, details in this essay the idea of a collective unconscious: The idea that within all of our minds lie common memories, instincts and other mental concepts.  What’s important to note here is that Jung was a psychologist, and thusly applied this theory (or the psychoanalytical equivalent to it) to his field of expertise.  But to understand archetypal criticism, one must first understand what Jung’s idea of a “collective unconscious” is.  As mentioned earlier, it’s the idea that we share memories and impulses as part of the human condition.  Just as we each have our own personal unconscious, there is an unconscious that we all share – a collective unconscious.  Myths and archetypes are a part of that collective unconscious. And thus there are experiences and thoughts that each of us share regardless of culture.  Thus: The Archetype.  Usually shared across religions, such as the death and resurrection story prevalent across religions.  Just as we must look at all of those cases as coming from one source, the same must be applied to other cross-cultural impulses.

 

Primary Source 2: Character Analysis in The Silence of the Lambs by Scott Meyers
Myers, Scott. “Script Analysis: ‘The Silence of the Lambs’ — Part 3: Characters | by Scott Myers | Go Into the Story.” Medium, 28 Oct. 2016, gointothestory.blcklst.com/script-analysis-the-silence-of-the-lambs-part-3-characters-dc2a11f85b8e.

“This exercise of switching Protagonists is one of the most powerful tools a writer has when working with archetypes because it helps the writer dig into each character and experience the story universe through their eyes.”

• Scott Meyers

Above is the character breakdown portion of a script analysis on The Silence of the Lambs.  As archetypal criticism is also largely a psychological practice, it seems apt that this movie should be used.  The author of the article, Scott Meyers, breaks the main characters down into five self-explanatory archetypes:

The Protagonist (Clarice Starling), The Nemesis (Buffalo Bill), The Attractor (Catherine Martin), The Mentor (Hannibal Lecter) and the Trickster(s) (Jack Crawford and Dr. Alex Chilton).  

Fitting for the themes of the movie, Meyers imparts an empathetic practice unique to archetypal criticism: The act of switching the archetypes and the characters inhabiting them.  He then presents a scenario where Hannibal Lecter is the protagonist.  The roles are not shifted into assorted spots as if on a conveyor belt, the entire structure of the story changes.  The Nemesis is now Chilton.  The attractor is Clarice.  The mentor is Buffalo Bill.  And the Trickster is still Crawford.

Secondary Source 1: Archetypal Criticism – Northrop Frye by Kavisha Alagiya

Alagiya, Kavisha. “ARCHETYPAL CRITICISM - Northrop Frye.” Kavisha Alagiya, 26 Dec. 2019, kavishaalagiya.blogspot.com/2019/12/blog-post_26.html

In this essay, student author Kavisha Alagiya, among other things, goes through great lengths to break down both the inductive and deductive methods to archetypal criticism as well as other contributions to the field given by Northrop Frye – who is not to be ignored.  While the last in the quartet, he is by far the most applicable to archetypal criticism as we know it, as opposed to Jung with his largely intangible posits into the realm of psychoanalytic theory.  As Alagiya puts it, Frye established a ”skeleton of literature” hence: The mythos grid.   Just as every story is a reflection of our own lives – an experience with a beginning, a middle and an end.  And as such, the laws of nature work in the same way.  Not by coincidence, but through conditioning.  And just as a story is a cycle of a beginning (life) and end (death), nature goes through the same process with seasons.  Spring symbolizing birth/renewal and therefore happiness and comedy.  Summer symbolizes inexperience/climax and burgeoning maturity, and as such represents Romance.  Autumn symbolizes Tragedy or the “fall” (get it?), and winter symbolizing the end/death and vicariously satire and irony.

Secondary Source 2: Archetypal Criticism by Nasrullah Mambrol

MAMBROL, NASRULLAH. “Archetypal Criticism.” Literary Theory and Criticism, 22 Oct. 2020, literariness.org/2020/10/22/archetypal-criticism.

“Archetypal criticism, then, construed as that derived from Jung’s theory and practice of archetypal (analytical) psychology, is a fledgling and much misconstrued field of inquiry with significant but still unrealized potential for the study of literature and of aesthetics in general.”

• Nasrullah Mambrol

For our secondary source, author Nasrullah Mambrol provides us with a short history of the development of archetypal criticism, beginning with Jung’s catalytical essays and works into the field. Sticking with a theme of variability, Mambrol also sheds light on other contributors and great thinkers in the field, including Bettina Knapp and James Hillman.  Also included is a list of detractors and critics of the theory given in excruciating detail.  But most appreciated is perhaps the mention of Maud Bodkin, from whom archetypal theory made its jump to archetypal criticism.  All in all, the article seems scathing in its portrayal of archetypal criticism, but it is more so an objective historical collection of texts from all the great thinkers who both participated in this theory and maligned it.  To truly understand a theory, one must listen to those who oppose it.  There are sound arguments abound in the above article.  Truth be told, many of Jung’s writings are soul-crushingly dense.  For a layman such as myself to find discrepancies in them is a tall order, as it would be for most anybody else.  It’s imminently useful to see dissent on this practice from brilliant minds.  People who oppose anything do half the work for someone on their way to practicing it.

 

Secondary Source 3: The Encyclopedia of Literary and Cultural Theory by Michael Ryan

Ryan, Michael, et al. The Encyclopedia of Literary and Cultural Theory. Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. http://modlit.weebly.com/uploads/6/4/6/5/6465813/archetypal_criticism.pdf

“Beset by so many perils on every side, early communities drew strength and comfort from their collective, and united themselves behind a figure or group of figures on whose shoulders rested the responsibility of protecting the community against their unseen enemies.”

This source is an excerpt from The Encyclopedia of Literary and Cultural Theory that focuses on archetypal criticism with a richly detailed history of how it came to be.  While there are many important figures in the field of archetypal criticism and archetypal theory, the most pivotal to the development of archetypal criticism are Sir James George Fraze, Carl Jung, Maude Bodkin and Northrop Frye.  Fortunately, with the exception of Jung, all of these thinkers are given their own section in which the chronicler of the article details how exactly they contributed to this criticism, along with critiques of their seminal works in the field.

Secondary Source 4: Archetypal Theory

“Archetypal Theory.” Literary Criticism, 2 June 2018, cornsmashers.wordpress.com/2018/06/02/archetypal-theory

“To write an archetypal analysis of a work of literature, you must first determine what archetypes you can identify in a work of literature. If an image, character trait, color, or symbol appear seems familiar and can be connected to other literature, that means it is probably an archetype.”

Among a litany of categorized information concerning archetypal criticism and its origins, this article contains a refreshingly straightforward approach to applying archetypal criticism.  This final source is more or less a quick and concise rundown of the most pivotal figures in this field, with the main focus being on how exactly to assume the mindset required for archetypal criticism, beginning with the question, “How does this story resemble other stories in plot, character, setting or symbolism?”  and moves onto encouraging the archetypal critic in-training to even question the codified meanings of the names of characters and even asking the critic to identify any Christ-figures in the work.  And to sea

In conclusion, the purview of archetypal theory and criticism is widespread enough that it’s hard to quantify what exactly falls into it.  At the end of the day, it seems that humanity itself is tied to the theory of archetypes due to inherited instinct and memory as Jung postulated.  Archetypal theory, like psychology and anthropology, is not an exact science and is thusly not subject to any definitive observation.  But the onus lies on the archetypal critic to find the similarities and to find as many exact and common traits as possible. 

 

Works Cited

 

Primary Sources

1. Jung, Carl. “‘On the Relation of Analytical Psychology to Poetry’ by C.G. Jung.” “On the Relation of Analytical Psychology to Poetry” by C.G. Jung, 1922, www.studiocleo.com/librarie/jung/essay.html
    

2. Myers, Scott. “Script Analysis: ‘The Silence of the Lambs’ — Part 3: Characters | by Scott Myers | Go Into the Story.” Medium, 28 Oct. 2016, gointothestory.blcklst.com/script-analysis-the-silence-of-the-lambs-part-3-characters-dc2a11f85b8e.

Secondary Sources

1. “Archetypal Theory.” Literary Criticism, 2 June 2018, cornsmashers.wordpress.com/2018/06/02/archetypal-theory
    

2. Alagiya, Kavisha. “ARCHETYPAL CRITICISM - Northrop Frye.” Kavisha Alagiya, 26 Dec. 2019, kavishaalagiya.blogspot.com/2019/12/blog-post_26.html
    

3. MAMBROL, NASRULLAH. “Archetypal Criticism.” Literary Theory and Criticism, 22 Oct. 2020, literariness.org/2020/10/22/archetypal-criticism.

 

1. Ryan, Michael, et al. The Encyclopedia of Literary and Cultural Theory. Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. http://modlit.weebly.com/uploads/6/4/6/5/6465813/archetypal_criticism.pdf