არქეტიპული კრიტიკა: ტრადიციული და თანამედროვე მიდგომები

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Date
2019
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
უნივერსალი
Abstract
Archetypal criticism that regards research in different recourse, in particular, through universal, repeating images and motifs as the most effective means for understanding of the substance and sense of the literary text was developed in 30s of the past century (first applied by British literature theorist Amy Maud Bodkin – Archetypal Patterns of Poetry: Psychological Studies of Imagination (1934)) and after publication of the Anatomy of Criticism by Northrop Frye it has formed as one of the dominating literary theory. In the scientific literature, archetypal criticism is frequently used as the synonym of mythological criticism and is widely applied for analysis of literary texts till now (archetypal criticism is reasonably regarded as the universal method foe research of the texts of “visional” type). Universal imagery determines the form and function of the piece of literature; it shows the substance of the text. Hence, studying of the repeating archetypes, archetypal motifs in the literary text allow studying and placing on the same plane the texts created in different political, social, cultural and worldview contexts through identification and analysis of the universal imagery and clarify the issue of their interrelation. Archetypal criticism, with its substance, is an interdisciplinary theory relying on social anthropology (Cambridge school – James Frazer) and psychoanalysis (Carl Gustav Jung), results of the most recent studies, here is implied theory of the representative of Cambridge school, James Frazer about existence of similar myths and rituals in different cultures (myth of death and re-born) and research of the collective unconscious, archetypes by Carl Gustav Jung. While structuralism and post-structuralism methodologies have changed the dominating status of archetypal criticism its validity, reliability have never been questioned. Representatives of different schools of archetypal criticism, while sharing general value of the theory, naturally, all representatives agreed that universal models, similar archetypes appear in the literary texts irrespective of the cultural context, though they had different attitude towards the object under study – the archetypes and differently understood the goal of studying of archetypal criticism. In particular, while Northrop Frye contented himself with identification and classification of the universal models, Maud Bodkin studied the reader’s emotional resonance with the archetype, attention of the representatives of the French school archetypal (mythological) criticism (Pierre Brunel, Veronique Gely, Pierre Albouy) was mostly focused on identification of the archetypal image, motif, sense of the literary myth, within the scopes individual text, as well as within the individual thinking space. They are interested in how individual archetype is unfolded in different literary texts, what is the additional content acquired by it. Hence, the most complete strategy of studying of the universal imagery reveals in the works of contemporary theorists, In Georgian literary studies the archetypal criticism, as one of the methods of texts research is not actually applied. We made attempt to compare traditional and modern approaches of archetypal criticism and identify its advantages.
Description
Keywords
universal imagery, archetypal criticism, theory of literature
Citation
III International Symposium for Young Scholars in the Humanities (Symposium proceedings)
Collections