Archetypal Theory And Criticism

Archetypal theory and criticism, although often used synonymously with Myth Theory and Criticism, has a distinct history and process. The term "archetype" can be traced to Plato (arche, "original"; typos, "form" , but the concept gained currency in twentieth!century literary theory and criticism through the wor" of the #wiss founder of analytical psychology, C. $. %ung (&'()!&*+& . %ung,s Psychology of the Unconscious (&*&+, -. M. .in"le,s translation of the &*&&!&/ Wandlungen und Symbole der Libido appeared in 0nglish one year after publication of the concluding 1olume with bibliography of the third edition of %. $. 2ra3er,s The Golden Bough: A Study in agic and !eligion (/ 1ols., &'*4, 5d ed., &/ 1ols., &*&&!&) . 2ra3er,s and %ung,s te6ts formed the basis of two allied but ultimately different courses of influence on literary history. %ung most fre7uently used "myth" (or "mythologem" for the narrati1e e6pression, "on the ethnological le1el" ("ollected *, pt. &8 +( , of the "archetypes," which he described as patterns of psychic energy originating in the collecti1e unconscious and finding their "most common and most normal" manifestation in dreams ('8/'( . Thus criticism e1ol1ing from his wor" is more accurately named "archetypal" and is 7uite distinct from "myth" criticism. 2or %ung, "archetype is an e6planatory paraphrase of the Platonic eidos" (*, pt. &8 9 , but he distinguishes his concept and use of the term from that of philosophical idealism as being more empirical and less metaphysical, though most of his "empirical" data were dreams. :n addition, he modified and e6tended his concept o1er the many decades of his professional life, often insisting that "archetype" named a process, a perspecti1e, and not a content, although this fle6ibility was lost through the codifying, nominali3ing tendencies of his followers. At mid!century, Canadian critic ;orthrop 2rye (&*&/!*& introduced new distinctions in literary criticism between myth and archetype. 2or 2rye, as <illiam =. <imsatt and Cleanth -roo"s put it, "archetype, borrowed from %ung, means a primordial image, a part of the collecti1e unconscious, the psychic residue of numberless e6periences of the same "ind,

and thus part of the inherited response!pattern of the race" (Literary "riticism (4* . 2rye fre7uently ac"nowledged his debt to %ung, accepted some of %ung,s specifically named archetypes!!"persona and anima and counsellor and shadow" !!and referred to his theory as %ungian criticism (Anatomy /*& , a practice subse7uently followed in some handboo"s of literary terms and histories of literary criticism, including one edited by 2rye himself, which obscured crucial differences and contributed to the confusion in terminology reigning today (see C. .ugh .olman and <illiam .armon, A #andboo$ to Literature, )th ed., &*'+; and ;orthrop 2rye, #heridan -a"er, and $eorge Per"ins, The #arper #andboo$ to Literature, &*') . 2rye, howe1er, notably in Anatomy of "riticism, essentially redefined and relocated archetype on grounds that would remo1e him une7ui1ocally from the ran"s of "%ungian" critics by se1ering the connection between archetype and depth psychology8 "This emphasis on impersonal content has been de1eloped by %ung and his school, where the communicability of archetypes is accounted for by a theory of a collecti1e unconscious!!an unnecessary hypothesis in literary criticism, so far as : can >udge" (&&&!&/ . 2rye, then, first misinterprets %ungian theory by insisting on a ?amarc"ian 1iew of genetic transmission of archetypes, which %ung e6plicitly re>ected, and later settles on a concept of "archetype" as a literary occurrence per se, an e6clusi1ely interte6tual recurring phenomenon resembling a con1ention (** . @n a general le1el, %ung,s and 2rye,s theori3ings about archetypes, howe1er labeled, o1erlap, and boundaries are elusi1e, but in the disciplines of literature the two schools ha1e largely ignored each other,s wor". Myth criticism grew in part as a reaction to the formalism of ;ew Criticism, while archetypal criticism based on %ung was ne1er lin"ed with any academic tradition and remained organically bound to its roots in depth psychology8 the indi1idual and collecti1e psyche, dreams, and the analytic process. 2urther, myth critics, aligned with writers in comparati1e anthropology and philosophy, are said to include 2ra3er, %essie <eston, ?eslie 2iedler, 0rnst Cassirer, Claude ?A1i!#trauss, Bichard Chase, %oseph Campbell, Philip <heelwright, and 2rancis 2ergusson. -ut <heelwright, for e6ample, barely mentions %ung (The Burning %ountain, &*)9 , and he, 2ergusson, and others often owe more to #igmund 2reud, 0rnest %ones, &edipus !e', and the @edipus comple6 than to anything ta"en from %ung. :ndeed, myth criticism seems singularly unaffected by any of the archetypal theorists who ha1e remained faithful to the origins and

traditions of depth, especially analytical, psychology!!%ames .illman, .enri Corbin, $ilbert Curand, Bafael ?ope3!Pedra3a, 01angelos Christou. This article, then, treats the only form of literary theory and criticism consistent with and deri1ed directly from the psychological principles ad1anced by %ung. @ther forms pre1iously labeled "%ungian" are here subsumed under the term "archetypal" because whate1er their immediate specific focus, these forms operate on a set of assumptions deri1ed from %ung and accept the depth!psychological structure posited by %ung. 2urther, %ung termed his own theory "analytical psychology," as it is still "nown especially in 0urope, but %ungian thought is more commonly referred to today in all disciplines as "archetypal psychology." The first systematic application of %ung,s ideas to literature was made in &*59 by Maud -od"in in Archetypal Patterns in Poetry: "An attempt is here made to bring psychological analysis and reflection to bear upon the imaginati1e e6perience communicated by great poetry, and to e6amine those forms or patterns in which the uni1ersal forces of our nature there find ob>ectification" (1ii . This boo" established the priority of interest in the archetypal o1er the mythological. The ne6t significant de1elopment in archetypal theory that affected literary studies grew out of the effort made by D.#.! born, Eurich!trained analyst %ames .illman (b. &*/9 "to mo1e beyond clinical in7uiry within the consulting room of psychotherapy" to formulate archetypal theory as a multidisciplinary field (Archetypal & . .illman in1o"es .enri Corbin (&*45!(' , 2rench scholar, philosopher, and mystic "nown for his wor" on :slam, as the "second father" of archetypal psychology. As .illman puts it, Corbin,s insight that %ung,s "mundus archetypalis" is also the "mundus imaginalis" that corresponds to the :slamic "alam al!mithl" (5 was an early mo1e toward "a reappraisal of psychology itself as an acti1ity of poesis" (/9 . .illman also disco1ers archetypal precursors in ;eoplatonism, .eraclitus, Plotinus, Proclus, Marsilio 2icino, and $iambattista Fico. :n !e()isioning Psychology, the published te6t of his &*(/ Gale Terry ?ectures (the same lecture series %ung ga1e in &*5( , .illman locates the archetypal neither "in the physiology of the brain, the structure of language, the organi3ation of society, nor the analysis of beha1ior, but in the processes of imagination" (6i . Archetypal theory then too" shape principally in the multidisciplinary >ournal refounded by .illman in &*(4 in

Eurich, Spring: An Annual of Archetypal Psychology and *ungian Thought. According to .illman, that discourse was anticipated by 01angelos Christou,s Logos of the Soul (&*+5 and e6tended in religion (Ca1id ?. Miller,s +e, Polytheism, &*(9 , philosophy (0dward Casey,s -magining: A Phenomenological Study, &*(+ , mythology (Bafael ?ope3! Pedra3a,s #ermes and #is "hildren, &*(( , psycholinguistics (Paul =ugler,s Alchemy of .iscourse: An Archetypal Approach to Language, &*'/ , and the theory of analysis (Patricia -erry,s /cho0s Subtle Body, &*'/ . These archetypalists, focusing on the imaginal and ma"ing central the concept that in 0nglish they call "soul," assert their "inship with #emiotics and #tructuralism but maintain an insistent focus on psychoid phenomena, which they characteri3e as meaningful. Their discourse is conducted in poetic language; that is, their notions of "soul!ma"ing" come from the Bomantics, especially <illiam -la"e and %ohn =eats. "-y spea"ing of soul as a primary metaphor, rather than defining soul substanti1ely and attempting to deri1e its ontological status from empirical demonstration or theological (metaphysical argument, archetypal psychology recogni3es that psychic reality is ine6tricably in1ol1ed with rhetoric" (.illman, Archetypal &* . This burgeoning theoretical mo1ement and the generally unsatisfying nature of so much early "%ungian literary criticism" are both lin"ed to the problematic nature of %ung,s own writing on literature, which comprises a handful of essays8 "The Type Problem in Poetry," "@n the Belation of Analytical Psychology to Poetry," "Psychology and ?iterature," "Ulysses: A Monologue," and ":s There a 2reudian Type of PoetryH" These essays re1eal %ung,s lac" of awareness as a reader despite his sense that they "may show how ideas that play a considerable role in my wor" can be applied to literary material" ("ollected &)8&4*n . They also attest to his self! confessed lac" of interest in literature8 ": feel not naturally drawn to what one calls literature, but : am strangely attracted by genuine fiction, i.e., fantastical in1ention" (Letters &8)4* . This e6plains his fascination with a te6t li"e Bider .aggard,s no1el She: The #istory of an Ad1enture (&''+!'( , with its unmediated representation of the "anima." As %ung himself noted8 "?iterary products of highly dubious merit are often of the greatest interest to the psychologist" ("ollected &)8'(!'' . %ung was also more preoccupied with dreams and fantasies, because he saw them as e6clusi1ely (purely products of the unconscious, in contrast to literature, which he oddly belie1ed,

citing %oyce,s Ulysses as an e6ample, was created "in the full light of consciousness" (&)8&/5 . :ssues of genre, period, and language were ignored or sub>ected to gross generali3ation as %ung searched for uni1ersals in te6ts as disparate as the fourth!century Shepherd of #ermas, the .i1ine "omedy, 2rancesco Colonna,s #ypnerotomachia Poliphili (&9** , 0. T. A. .offman,s tales, Pierre -enoit,s L0Atlantide (&*&*!/4 , and .enry <adsworth ?ongfellow,s ".iawatha," as well as wor"s by Carl #pitteler and <illiam -la"e. -ut the great literary te6t for %ung,s life and wor" was %ohann <olfgang 1on $oethe,s %aust, not because of its literary 7ualities but because he sensed that the drama e6pressed his own personal myth (Letters &854*!&4 . 2urther, the te6t offered confirmation (and poetic representation of the only direct contribution %ung made to literary theory8 a distinction between "psychological" and "1isionary" te6ts ("ollected &)8'*!*4 . This heuristic distinction was formed, howe1er, solely on psychobiographical grounds8 Cid the te6t originate in, and remain principally shaped by, the author,s e6perience of consciousness and the personal unconscious or his or her e6perience at the le1el of the archetypal collecti1e unconsciousH And concomitantly, on which of these le1els was the reader affectedH Confirmation of this theory was %ung,s reading of %aust: part & was "psychological"; part /, "1isionary." Thus %ungian theory pro1ided no clear a1enue of access for those outside of psychology, and orthodo6 %ungians were left with little in the way of models for the psychological analysis of literature. Many fell prey to %ung,s idiosyncrasies as a reader, ranging widely and nai1ely o1er genres, periods, and languages in search of the uni1ersal archetypes, while sweeping aside culture! and te6t!specific problems, ignoring their own role in the act of reading and basing critical e1aluation solely on a te6t,s contribution to the ad1ancement of the reader,s indi1iduation process, a "ind of literature!as! therapy standard. This way of proceeding had the effect of putting, and "eeping, archetypal criticism on the margins of academic discourse and outside the boundaries of traditional academic disciplines and departments. -ettina =napp,s &*'9 effort at an authoritati1e demonstration of archetypal literary criticism e6emplified this pattern. .er *ungian Approach to Literature attempts to co1er the 2innish epic The 2ale1ala, the Persian Atar,s The "onference of the Birds, and te6ts by 0uripides, <olfram 1on

0schenbach, Michel de Montaigne, Pierre Corneille, $oethe, ;o1alis, Babbi ben #imhah ;achman, and <. -. Geats. And despite fre7uently percepti1e readings, the wor" is marred by the characteristic limitless e6pansionism and psychological utilitarianism of her interpreti1e scheme. $i1en this bac"ground, it is not surprising to find in a &*(+ essay entitled "%ungian Psychology in Criticism8 Theoretical Problems" the statement that "no purely %ungian criticism of literature has yet appeared" (-aird // . -ut %os 1an Meurs,s critically annotated &*'' bibliography, *ungian Literary "riticism, 3456(3476, effecti1ely challenges this claim. Cespite his deliberately selecti1e focus on critical wor"s written in 0nglish on literary te6ts that are, for the most part, also written in 0nglish, 1an Meurs, with the early assistance of %ohn =idd, has collected *4/ entries, of which he identifies slightly o1er '4 as 1alid and 1aluable literary criticism. <hile ac"nowledging the gra1e wea"nesses of much %ungian writing on literature as "unsubtle and rigid application of preconcei1ed psychological notions and schemes" resulting in "particularly ill!>udged or distorted readings," 1an Meurs still finds that "sensiti1ely, fle6ibly and cautiously used, %ungian psychological theory may stimulate illuminating literary interpretations" (&9!&) . The critical annotations are astute and, gi1en their bre1ity, surprisingly thorough and suggesti1e. Fan Meurs also does a ser1ice by resurrecting successful but neglected early studies, such as 0li3abeth Crew,s of T. #. 0liot (&*9* , and disco1ering 1alue e1en in reductionist and impressionistic studies, such as %une #inger,s of -la"e. .e notes that #inger,s Unholy Bible: A Psychological -nterpretation of William Bla$e (&*(4 , though o1ersimplified in its psychobiographical approach and its treatment of characters as psychological pro>ections of the author, does ma"e original use in a literary conte6t of such %ungian techni7ues of dream interpretation as "amplification" and of such fantasy!e1o"ing procedures as "acti1e imagination." Fan Meurs,s bibliography con1eys the great 1ariety of %ungian writings on literature e1en within one language, the increasingly recogni3ed potential for further de1elopment and use of %ung,s ideas, and the growth in numbers of literary scholars falling under the influence of %ung. A few names form a core of writers in 0nglish (including many Canadians !! Martin -ic"man, Albert $elpi, 0lliott $ose, 01elyn .in3, .enry Murray, -arton ?. #t. Armand, .arold #chechter, and <illiam #tein!!though no single figure has attracted the

attention of academic literary specialists, and no persistent commonalities fuse into a recogni3able school critics who draw on %ung,s theories. To date, the -ritish *ournal of Analytical Psychology and the retitled American Spring: A *ournal of Archetype and "ulture are the best resources for archetypal criticism of literature and the arts e1en though only a small percentage of their published articles treat such topics. Thus, with the archetypal theorists multiplying across disciplines on the one hand and the clinically practicing followers ser1ing as (generally inade7uate critics on the other, archetypal literary theory and criticism flourished in two independent streams in the &*+4s and &*(4s. 2rom the theorists, dissertations, articles, and boo"s, often traditionally academic in orientation, appeared; the productions of the practitioners are chronicled and criti7ued in 1an Meurs,s bibliography. And the &*'4s saw a new, suggesti1e, and contro1ersial direction in archetypal studies of literature8 the feminist. <ith some of its ad1ocates supported through early publication of their wor" in the >ournal Spring, feminist archetypal theory and criticism of literature and the arts emerged full!blown in three te6ts8 Annis Pratt,s Archetypal Patterns in Women0s %iction (&*'& , which self!consciously e1o"ed and criti7ued Maud -od"in,s &*59 te6t; 0stella ?auter,s Women as ythma$ers: Poetry and )isual Art by T,entieth "entury Women (&*'9 ; and 0stella ?auter and Carol #chreier Bupprecht,s %eminist Archetypal Theory: -nterdisciplinary !e( )isions of *ungian Thought (&*') . This last te6t e6plicitly named the mo1ement and demonstrated its appropriation of archetypal theory for feminist ends in aesthetics, analysis, art, and religion, as well as in literature. 2eminist archetypal theory, proceeding inducti1ely, restored %ung,s original emphasis on the fluid, dynamic nature of the archetype, drawing on earlier feminist theory as well as the wor" of %ungian 0rich ;eumann to re>ect absolutist, ahistorical, essentialist, and transcendentalist misinterpretations. Thus "archetype" is recogni3ed as the "tendency to form and reform images in relation to certain "inds of repeated e6perience," which may 1ary in indi1idual cultures, authors, and readers (?auter and Bupprecht &5!&9 . Considered according to this definition, the concept becomes a useful tool for literary analysis that e6plores the synthesis of the uni1ersal and the particular, see"s to define the parameters of social construction of gender, and attempts to construct theories of language, of the imaginal, and of meaning that ta"e gender into account.

:ronically, as in the feminist re1isioning of e6plicitly male!biased %ungian theory, the rise in the &*'4s of Beader! Besponse Theory and Criticism and the impetus for canon re1ision ha1e begun to contribute to a re1aluation of %ung as a source of literary study. ;ew theoretical approaches appear to legitimi3e orthodo6 %ungian ways of reading, sanction %ung,s range of literary preferences from She to %aust, and support his highly affecti1e reaction to Ulysses, which he himself identified (positi1ely as a "sub>ecti1e confession" (&)8&4*n . And new theories increasingly gi1e credence to the re7uirement, historically asserted by %ungian readers, that each te6t elicit a personal, affecti1e, and not "merely intellectual" response. 01en 2rench feminist %ulia =riste1a has been brought to praise a %ungian contribution to feminist discourse on the maternal8 recognition that the Catholic church,s change of signification in the assumption of the Firgin Mary to include her human body represented a ma>or shift in attitude toward female corporality (&&5 . :n addition, many powerfully heuristic %ungian concepts, such as "synchronicity," ha1e yet to be tested in literary conte6ts. Archetypal criticism, then, construed as that deri1ed from %ung,s theory and practice of archetypal (analytical psychology, is a fledgling and much misconstrued field of in7uiry with significant but still unreali3ed potential for the study of literature and of aesthetics in general. Two publishing e1ents at the beginning of the &**4s in the Dnited #tates may signal the coming of age of this "ind of archetypal criticism through its con1ergence with postmodern critical thought, along with a commensurate insistence on its roots in the depth psychology of %ung8 the reissue of Morris Philipson,s &*+5 &utline of a *ungian Aesthetic and the appearance of =arin -arnaby and Pellegrino C,Acerino,s multidisciplinary, multicultural collection of essays, "8 G8 *ung and the #umanities: To,ard a #ermeneutics of "ulture. Carol Schreier Rupprecht

Notes and Bibliography

#ee also Anthropological Theory and Criticism, 2eminist Theory and Criticism, ;orthrop 2rye, and Myth Theory and Criticism.

%ames .illman, Archetypal Psychology: A Brief Account (&*'5 , !e()isioning Psychology (&*() ; C. $. %ung, "ollected Wor$s (ed. .erbert Bead, Michael 2ordham, and $erhard Adler, /4 1ols., &*)5!(* , Letters (trans. B. 2. C. .ull, / 1ols., &*(5!() . %ames -aird, "%ungian Psychology in Criticism8 Theoretical Problems," Literary "riticism and Psychology (ed. %oseph P. #trel"a, &*(+ ; =arin -arnaby and Pellegrino C,Acerino, eds., "8 G8 *ung and the #umanities: To,ard a #ermeneutics of "ulture (&**4 ; Martin -ic"man, The Unsounded "entre: *ungian Studies in American !omanticism (&*'4 ; Maud -od"in, Archetypal Patterns in Poetry: Psychological Studies in -magination (&*59 ; ;orthrop 2rye, Anatomy of "riticism: %our /ssays (&*)( ; Albert $elpi, The Tenth use: The Psyche of the American Poet (&*() ; ;aomi $oldenberg, "Archetypal Theory after %ung," Spring (&*() ; %ulia =riste1a, "#tabat Mater" (&*((, The 2riste1a !eader, ed. Toril Moi, trans. ?Aon #. Boudie3, &*'+ ; 0stella ?auter and Carol #chreier Bupprecht, %eminist Archetypal Theory: -nterdisciplinary !e()isions of *ungian Thought (&*') ; 0rich ;eumann, Art and the "reati1e Unconscious: %our /ssays (trans. Balph Manheim, &*(9 ; Morris Philipson, &utline of a *ungian Aesthetic (&*+5, reprint, &**& ; Annis Pratt et al., Archetypal Patterns in Women0s %iction (&*'& ; %os 1an Meurs and %ohn =idd, *ungian Literary "riticism, 3456(3476: An Annotated "ritical Bibliography of Wor$s in /nglish 9,ith a Selection of Titles after 3476: (&*'' ; <illiam =. <imsatt, %r., and Cleanth -roo"s, Literary "riticism: A Short #istory (&*)( .

Topics -nde' "ross(references for this $uide entry: analytical psychology (%ung , archetype, biography and biographical criticism, collecti1e unconscious (%ung , feminism, ;eoplatonism