A Look at Archetypal Criticism

Author(s): Daniel Russell Brown

Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Summer, 1970), pp. 465-
472
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The American Society for Aesthetics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/428486 .
Accessed: 04/06/2012 03:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing and The American Society for Aesthetics are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism.

http://www.jstor.org
 DANIEL RUSSELL BROWN

A Look at Archetypal Criticism

MUCH OF THE DIFFICULTY with myth mankind in order to discuss the powerful
criticism is with myth itself, for the term is attraction of poetry-"the images are
far from stable in the minds and mouths valued because they give-even though
of those who use it: this function remains unrecognized-ex-
There is no doubt that Myth is one of the most pression to feelings that were seeking a
muddled and abused concepts in our critical language to relieve their inner urgency." 3
vocabulary.It has been defined as a lie, a popu- C. S. Lewis has maintained that historical
lar delusion, as mystical fantasy, as primitive diffusion of stories is more important than
science, as a record of historical fact, a symbol these inherited primordial images,4 but
of philosophical truth, a reflection of uncon-
scious motivations, indeed, any unconscious as- the major point would seem to be that
sumption.l there are some motifs in literature that
satisfy readers and listeners in quite dis-
Obviously, then, since the term myth similar societies, no matter what the origin
varies so greatly, the attitudes of myth of the motifs. It is the task of archetypal
critics will too. To obviate the most per- criticism to excavate these mental symbols,
nicious ambiguities, perhaps the term idols, and temples in literature to see if
archetypal criticism should be used. One important aspects have been overlooked.
avoids the confusions and likewise the bad The task, however, is complicated by
connotations that myth and mythical have certain real and potential shortcomings in
attained in some minds-that is, that such a critical investigation. A very serious
these concern nonsense and untruths. If one is the danger of reductionism, or the
archetypal criticism is to be condemned, insistence on the archetypal analysis as
let it at least be for what it actually is, not the only valid interpretation. As with any
for what it is not.
dogma, this one can quickly become un-
What it is has been well stated by bearable. There are times when the myths
Walter K. Gordon: "The basic contention in a work of art are not especially relevant;
of archetypal criticism is that literary ex- other qualities ought to be stressed, like
pression is an unconscious product of the rhetoric or intellectual argument. The
collective experience of the entire species. critic thus should watch himself carefully
As such, literature is therefore integrally so that he does not attempt to mold every-
related with man's cultural past." 2 Maud thing into a myth at the cost of gross dis-
Bodkin, probably the most famous expo- tortion. If some archetypal critics have
nent of this critical approach, has relied on overindulged themselves in this sort of
Jung's formulations, although not slav- tyranny, they are not the first critics, nor
ishly, about the collective unconscious in the last, to do so. Furthermore, the whole
DANIEL RUSSELLBROWNteaches in the Far East approach ought
not to be dismissed be-
Division of the University of Maryland; he has cause some fanatics have been extreme.
published articles on John Steinbeck, Edward Al- Those possessed by devils do not neces-
bee, and Sinclair Lewis. sarily speak with authority-or with truth.
 466 DANIEL RUSSELL BROWN

To judge the whole by the lunatic fringe of contradiction but operates under the
is quite unfair: law of participation...." 7 Hence occa-
Inevitably misreadings, distortions, and over-
sionally one finds a character possessing
simplications result and they are, of course, re- qualities that do not seem to belong to-
grettable, but they do not constitute the really gether, attitudes conflicting with each
significant feature of myth criticism. What does other, as in dreams. But the primary
is that there should be so much responsible, blame, frequently, should be placed on
illuminating, and exciting criticism in a field the material, not on the critical approach,
whose boundaries, principles, and methods are
just beginning to be explored.5 the "intellectual disorder" of Jungian no-
tions as Norman O. Brown calls it.8
Another trouble some readers find with "You archetypal people are so vague!
archetypal critics is the seeming willing- You don't have any proof, real, scientific
ness to change the rules of the game as the proof, of your contentions." One's first
game progresses. To put it bluntly, the reaction is to agree completely with this
critics leave in what fits and leave out what attack. But when one begins to think of
does not: the empirical bias underlying the
If Morgan le Fay, or if anything else for that mat- reprimand, one becomes less acquiescent.
ter, does not fit in with the myth and the arche- "So what?" might be a more appropriate
type, then it is denounced as a late addition or response. Despite Fechner, Helmholtz, and
put down as an example of the poet's failure to Wundt, and the army of experimentalists
understand the myth involved, and so done away since them, not every reality can always be
with as irrelevant to the proper study of the
recorded on a machine. That does not
poem."
mean that collective images do not
Such a procedure is not scholarly, but it is exist. In fact, Clyde Kluckhohn, the an-
understandable, since human beings like to thropologist, says they exist cross-cultur-
see patterns and orderliness-even in ally, if in an unclear manner.9 No one
places where they do not reside. Other wants to return to the days of believing in
forms of criticism do the same thing, ac- witches and goblins (we know they are
tually, when they marshall "evidence" to there even though we can't see them!). But
produce a loaded argument in favor of perhaps Joseph Campbell is right in
this or that interpretation-Chaucer as taking the offensive: "To criticize the
allegorist, Chaucer as Protestant, and so method as unscientific is ridiculous, since
on. As a matter of fact, the arbitrariness of objective scholarship, in this particular
the archetypal critic may not be because of field, has shown itself helpless-and ab-
intentional deceit, as it may be with some solutely so; helpless by definition; for the
critics, but rather because of the enormous materials are not optically measurable, but
confusion which exists in the material must, on the contrary, be experienced.
available for study. He cannot be excused .. 10 So, then, perhaps the fault is not
for omitting relevant parts; yet he can be in our starry notions, but in our science
sympathized with in his errors, as long as that it is an underling. However, maybe in
he mentions the parts that he cannot un- the future the two fields will be able to
derstand or that work against the pattern work together to help illuminate each
he sees. A grave mistake comes from word- other.
ing conclusions more firmly than the find- It is not necessary to carry the above
ings warrant. The temptation is to go from argument too far. Although for some
possibilities to assurances without any minds the irrational and the cloudy are
more proof than the critic's audacity. One preferable to reason, as a critical ap-
must remember that assertion does not proach, impressionism and woolliness are
equal demonstration. But it really is not not very helpful. What is required is an
begging the question to state that the rules acknowledgment of "a flowing-into-one-
of archetypes are not the same as those of another and disappearing-into-one-another
the logical mind. "Myth implies a prelogi- of distinctions" 11 without believing that
cal mentality that is not bound by the law non-logic is automatically superior to
A Look at Archetypal Criticism 467
logic. Nor is literature itself more expres- that may have much validity. He sees
sive merely because it is confusing. modern ideas about myths as a kind of
What often remains unsaid in criticiz- pseudo-religion: myths have "all sorts of
ing the archetypal critics (though it is hard intriguing suggestions of holiness and
to believe any criticism has been left un- sacramental significance" while "circum-
said) is that, in addition to being vague, venting the all-too-definite and perhaps
they are mystical. To Western brains, this embarrassing demands of orthodoxy even
immediately makes them suspect. A long while enjoying an emotional rapport witlh
period of conditioning has made us wary it."13 In this way, the investigators of
of anything that smacks of the mysterious myths can have their cake and eat it too-
or the occult. We have too many stereo- a kind of vicarious participation in a reli-
typed notions of Indian fakirs (read gious life while watching themselves par-
fakers) and snakes in baskets, too many ticipate with the more "rational" part of
images of nightclub mind readers to make thle mind. While Rahv makes such crit-
us very susceptible to oriental modes of icism sound like a thing to be ridiculed,
knowing. Thus when a critic begins dis- from another perspective it might be tlhe
cussing the Nourishing Earth Mother, the best answer to the fact that most people
Androgynous Godhead, or the Divine are unable to live a life of pure reason,
Cow, he instantaneously alienates most that is, providing they have reason to be-
Westerners, even educated ones. They gin with. Freud wanted to put ego where
would prefer what they call straightfor- id is, but Jung is probably more knowl-
ward words, not all those "poetical" edgeable about mankind's need to experi-
terms. It seems to them unmanly somehow ence the non-rational. Most men want to
for somebody to take seriously such un- believe in something greater than them-
familiar, fuzzy concepts. This attitude selves, even if it is only a collective uncon-
may indeed be changing at present, but scious, a unity with other minds. If they
still today one can be certain of more discover the "rational" meaning of one
snickers than acceptance. At times it prob- myth, they will create new forms for it.
ably is best for archetypal critics to avoid Probably the approach of the archetypal
such expressions if they truly want to critics is one of the best solutions for com-
win converts; a good critic must work bining the various demands of human
within the prejudices of his readers, at thinking-the analytical and the spiritual.
least at the beginning. Once convinced, That men nowadays are different from
the readers will begin to see the justifica- men of former ages should certainly not
tion for the terms and for the mystical be the commonplace that it is. We have
thinking; they will realize the psychologi- not passed beyond the myth-making pe-
cal reality of the human mind which is riod. The real and only difference is that
symbolized through them. Myths do today's myths have newly named charac-
possess truth and are not just funny de- ters and details. We simply do not recog-
scriptions of things. As David Bidney has nize them as myths because we are living
remarked, "In this sense myth is real, just them. The psychological impulses inherent
as every psychological experience is real to in husband-wife, child-parent relation-
the subject." 12 ships, in sun, moon, and seasonal changes,
Of course it is accurate to maintain that in birth, growth, and death, and hopes for
tossing about unidentified expressions does an afterlife are as much alive at present
little to clarify the meanings for the un- as they ever were. Moreover, each culture
initiated, maybe even for the initiated; fashions minor myths to help the society
these expressions might even cover up an cohere to achieve its goals. Ours is no dcif-
unwillingness to think through the con- ferent. Many well-informed persons hate
cepts to see if they add up to more than to think that they share any qualities witil
mere self-indulgence in abstract and blub- so-called primitive, or even illiterate, peo-
bery notions. ples; they like the illusion that their minds
Philip Rahv has touched upon a point are quite differently constructed, that they
 468 DANIEL RUSSELL BROWN

function on a "higher level." No doubt ogy and rite to supply the symbols that carry the
much of this feeling of superiority is human spirit forward, in counteraction to those
other constant human fantasies that tend to tie
caused by a basic assumption most of us it back. In fact, it may well be that the very high
make-that is, that a technologically su- incidence of neuroticism along ourselves follows
perior society is consequently superior in from the decline among us of such effective spir-
all other ways. A few minutes of examina- itual aid.'8
tion of this premise will reveal its short- But myth is not a panacea. No doubt for
comings; a few minutes of examination of every man saved from neuroticism, there
Western society's wars and cruelties will has been a man sacrificed to uniformity.
reveal no difference in interpersonal rela- Furthermore, finding the links with the
tions and might even reveal distressingly past may not always be as profitable as the
ugly inferiorities. As Levi-Strauss puts it, more optimistic of the archetypists would
stressing the more positive side, like to believe. "Surely, a vast number of
the same logical processes are put to use in myth the world's myths are extraordinarily
as in science, [and] man has always been think- empty, vapid, and boring. Celtic myth,
ing equally well; the improvement lies, not in an except as it centers around King Arthur,
alleged progress of man's conscience, but in the is a very foolish and vague body of litera-
discovery of new things to which it may apply its
unchangeable abilities.14 ture. Teutonic myth is a sort of dim and
monstrous comedy. And so with many
Another charge brought by Rahv other mythologies."'1 Richard Chase's
against archetypal investigation is that the words are only half-true, however. He is
enjoyment of the mythic is a fear of his- making fun of myths that he happens not
tory: to believe in. For the Celts, for the Teu-
Myth is reassuring in its stability, whereas history tons, the myths obviously fulfilled a need,
is that powerhouse of change which destroys cus- just as the myth that causes a man to write
tom and tradition in producing the future-the essays for the esoteric audience of the
future that at present, with the fading away of Partisan Review must
the optimism of progress, many have learned
satisfy a contem-
to associate with the danger and menace of the porary need, although to a later age it may
unknown. In our time the movement of history seem trivial and foolish. As for the com-
has been so rapid that the mind longs for noth- forting power of myths for all men, one
ing so much as something permanent to steady ought to beware of expecting too much,
it.L5 lest he be greatly disappointed.
What Rahv says is true, but then all be- Archetypal criticism falls noticeably
liefs take their truth or falseness from their short in the area where it is equivalent to
utility for human beings. The acceptance source hunting. Too frequently, the critic
of the idea of progress or of the benefits of only points and says, "That's the Quest,
science can be interpreted as the will to that's the Initiation, that's the Scapegoat,"
believe that men can make themselves just as once the critic pointed and said,
into what they wish instead of remaining "There's an analogue and there's an
locked in unchanging categories of uni- analogue and that looks like a source!"
versal duration. In other words, one can- The discovery of the presence of mythic
not say with finality what the basis is from elements is a beginning, but identification
which to view this so-called escapism from is not the end of criticism. As Moorman
reality. Moreover, men must create the notes, "the myth is not the poem...." 18
means to protect themselves from too This idea cannot be overemphasized.
much instability, even if what they create "Too often, anthropological criticism has
is out of tune with the facts. One might substituted the discovery of analogies for
say that "truth" is not necessarily good for the examination of artistic structures. In
mankind. According to Joseph Campbell, this way, literature becomes for the critic
myth might actually serve to keep our little more than it is for the anthropolo-
minds healthy: gist: an artifact-an index of cultural be-
havior." 19 After discounting the self-inter-
It has always been the prime function of mythol- est and jealousies of critics who would de-
A Look at Archetypal Criticism 469
fend literature as literature, one can go with the human mind and emotions in
on to see that these remarks are of consid- general. Leslie Fiedler has put into his
erable importance. For archetypal critics usual direct words the limitations of the
sometimes forget that myth alone does not New Criticism: "There is no 'work itself,'
a poem make. Poetic rearrangements no independent formal entity which is its
transform the mythic elements, and hence own sole context; the poem is the sum
the artistry of the creator is probably more total of many contexts, all of which must be
important in the final effects of a literary known to know and evaluate it." 3 Of
piece than the myths themselves. Perhaps course he is right. We do not read works
the tradition has been accentuated at the with exclusive aesthetic attention, at least
expense of the craftsmanship so that "the not for very long. Moreover, we can verify
inflators of myth are able to credit it with the reasonableness and intelligibility of
properties that really belong to art." 20 In what is inside the work only by a com-
addition, archetypes might become inflexi- parison with what we know from outside
ble categories: it. We should also admit that in many
cases what pleases or annoys us in litera-
They may, in fact, arrest the process of articulating ture is what appeases or conflicts with our
psychic tensions and they may oversimplify the
results. Whatever one may say by way of crediting real-life attitudes, however much we decry
Jung's ingenuity and the vigor of his imagination, this as a principle of appreciation. We
the archetypal process, by enlarging and deper- create the justifications for likes or dislikes
sonalizing the expressive experience, threatens after the fact. It is almost impossible to
to destroy both its individuality and its com-
plexity.21
separate "literary" components from the
maze of ingredients in a novel or a poem.
Some artists, we cannot forget, employ Archetypal criticism can aid in pointing
the materials in more exciting ways than out many of these non-literary aspects. No
others do; some select specific details that critic should exclude anything that might
bring vitality to a form; some are satisfied add to an understanding of literature. He
with the thin shell, and thin shells usually does not have to surrender entirely to
break with the slightest bump. Some archetypes, but why insist on strapping
writers use the myths that are especially at- one arm down and poking out one eye?
tractive to their own particular time; some The battle of the books is difficult enough
use more enduring ones; some understand fully armed.
their sources better than others. It must The advantages of archetypal criticism
not be overlooked that the artist is not in- depend to a considerable extent upon an
variably the victim of his materials, but we acceptance of areas of the mind that most
the readers may be. American readers probably do not accept,
Critics of the formalist persuasion in that is, regions of consciousness different
particular have objected to archetypal from the logical. If people do not grant
analyses for not paying enough attention the ability of myth itself to invigorate the
to the works themselves, for enclosing human mind, they most likely will reject
them in "simplistic" patterns, as W. K. criticism which attempts to reveal myth.
Wimsatt puts it.22 They prefer to stay as What is needed is a re-thinking of basic
close to the text as possible, to stay within assumptions about what maturity means,
the poem. One can certainly agree with about what intelligence means. We have
them in their wish to exclude the extrane- been too one-sided. Wayne Shumaker's
ous, but by never lifting the eyes from the argument helps to re-orient our beliefs:
printed page one sometimes cannot see the In proportion as the reader himself has the crea-
forest for the ambiguities. At some point tive temperament-that is to say, is not cut off
it is necessary to see a sonnet, for example, from the racial past but is potentially a whole
in the context of a whole series of lovers' man, capable both of discursive thought and of af-
confrontations to determine its originality fective response to his perceptions-he too is
stirred and reintegrated. A study of literary
or lack of it. At some point a reader wants language thus supports the hypothesis that the
to know the connection of a literary piece cognitive function of literature, whatever it may
 470 DANIEL RUSSELL BROWN
be, is not identical with the cognitive function the otherwise hidden appeal of many of
of such intellectual disciplines as science and the stories that we continue to tell each
philosophy. The range of literature is wider and
its function either different or more complex.24 other. We might better appreciate the
connections between fairy tales and sophis-
If Shumaker is correct, then archetypal ticated works of art, like Shakespeare's
critics will have to continue to spend much dramatic romances. We will be able to
effort convincing readers that there are distinguish the poet's craftsmanship with-
things undreamed of in their philosophy- out having to deceive ourselves about the
tlhe readers' philosophy. Like Wordsworth, similarities between Shakespeare's plots
critics sometimes have to create the taste and those of tales we call silly or childish
which they wish to cater to. People may when not written by Shakespeare. In other
not know what they are lacking unless words, we will not have to re-adjust our
the absence is pointed out to them. The criteria so blatantly and inconsistently
archetypal critics' responsibility is largely when we differentiate between what we
to create the mental set that will allow the like and what we are supposed to like
critical commentaries to be considered for and what we learn to like. Instead of
their individual merit about individual accusing the critics of running away from
works instead of, as is so often true, for the real work of the writer, we will praise
tihe seeming limitations of the whole ap- them for coming closer to the heart of
proach. The task is a formidable one, since many stories and poems. We will not leave
most people are unwilling to believe that large blanks in our understanding, for we
reason is not the proper-and only-way will better appreciate the persistence of
of understanding reality. We need a dragons, knights, monsters, and so on, in
loosening up of our conceptions of truth, literature without resorting to saying use-
time, and space, until we can appreciate less things like, "That's the way it is. I
the validity of different ways of perceiving. wonder why." Henceforth we will not
People may be afraid to do so because leave unvalued the numinous qualities
they might lose the certainties that they that art stings us with. It may be true
have built during a lifetime. Yet even a that knowledge kills-that if we know
small change is a gain. We might become why we are moved by literature, the effect
more catholic in becoming more oriental. will be lost. Most likely, however, if the
We might discover that "primitive" tribes mind is constructed as the Jungians say it
are not invariably muddle-headed because is, the myths will simply alter their im-
they think that time is not a continuum mediate contents but retain the patterns
from then to now, as we do, but rather a unchanged because the mind must of
wlheel or an oval or an ellipse or some necessity go on satisfying its perennial
other shape. We might learn, in a vibrant, psychic demands.
not an academic, way that subjective, psy- The categories suggested by such a
chological truths are every bit as real as critic as Northrop Frye might appear at
other facts, perhaps more real, because they first glance too neat, too precise to capture
(lirect and form thinking and behavior. these non-rational aspects of the human
Then possibly some of us may not insist on mind that the archetypists claim exist: 1)
forcing our categories of reality upon the archetype of romance and of most
others. Quite decidedly even today much of dithyrambic and rhapsodic poetry, 2) the
the missionary zeal of the nineteenth cen- archetype of comedy, pastoral, and idyll,
turly lingers on in our attitudes toward 3) the archetype of tragedy and elegy, 4)
people unlike ourselves; hence it is the job the archetype of satire.25 One might
of the archetypal critic to convince read- wonder about the symmetry of this pat-
ers that in epistemology, as in sex, there is terning. The answer is what the arche-
nothing "sacred" or "natural" in the mis- typal critics have been maintaining all
slonary position. along-that people are subject to seasonal
If the archetypists can create this greater rhythms, to physical and mental regulari-
receptivity, they wvill be able to point out ties despite the confusions caused by thle
A Look at Archetypal Criticism 471
multiplicity of embodiments which these evil, a bit of nostalgia for our past, and a
traditional frameworks display. Once we bit of mockery toward a pattern that
penetrate the almost bewildering array, sometimes creaks. Therefore the arche-
we can see that the basics are uniform and typal critic must give credit to the spirit
consistent. The Hero, The Devil Figure, of the times as much as to the spirit.
The Temptress, The Journey, Death and One likewise runs into the question of
Rebirth, and similar major categories can what difference the increased awareness of
aid, not hinder, the reader in comprehend- archetypes makes to writers of post-Freud-
ing literature. There may be a danger ian and post-Jungian days. Thomas Mann
that the archetype will be superimposed and James Joyce, for example, used myths
artificially or that some readers will let the with recognition of thleir effects. Have the
critics do the reading for the reader. But effects thus somehow been tampered with,
these are problems that any critical ap- so that modern readers are not really ex-
proach, even the sociological, formalistic, periencing the myths with full force but
or imagistic, encounters in the hands of only images of myths, a sort of literary
readers who want to be told what to see allusion? One must wonder if it is pos-
instead of what tools to use to enlarge sible for men to ignore, voluntarily, the
their sensitivity to literary art. knowledge they now have about their
Doubtless some authors and epochs lend psychic roots in mythic beliefs in order to
themselves more readily than do others to gain the sustenance those roots give. Per-
tlhe use of archetypes. As David Daiches haps that paradise has been lost by the sin
has said, perhaps Spenser, Blake, Cole- of consciousness. It is a part of the task of
ridge, and Yeats are quite suitable be- the archetypal critics to discover the an-
cause of the nature of their writing.26 swers. Stanley Edgar Hyman's remark in-
For these writers deliberately employed dicates the variety available in the use of
the mythic; they were conscious of their myth: "Just as there are varying degrees of
attachments to the unconscious even if consciousness, so are there varying degrees
they were not always aware of the full of fruitfulness in these traditional pat-
meaning of their subject matter. In more terns, ranging from dishonest fakery at
naturalistic authors, the primordial ele- one extreme to some of the subtlest ironic
ments might be more difficult to decipher, and imaginative organizations in our
but they may very well be present any- poetry at the other." 27 The fact remains
way. As for epochs, one must be sensitive that some writers employ their materials
to historical realities. The Middle Ages, better than others; some are more creative.
for instance, lends itself to archetypal criti- But the ability is not dependent merely
cism because of the mythical and mystical on the fact of living before or since Jung.
nature of some of its beliefs; but one ought Subtlety was not invented in the twentieth
to be certain he does not mix literary century.
conventions, like the dream, the allegory, Richard Chase has mentioned a worth-
and the confession, with unwitting psy- while contribution of archetypal criti-
chlological revelations on the part of the cism that should be aired-it can provide
authors-at least not in all cases. Writers something comparable to the ideas of the
often must work within the confines of a Imagination of Wordsworth and Cole-
genre even though they themselves would ridge. "As the psychoanalyst learns about
prefer not to or would prefer another type. the workings of the normal mind from the
The careless critic might mistake the study of neurosis, so the literary critic
writer's obligations to his audience for the learns about the literary imagination from
writer's total mind. Moreover, literary tra- the study of myths."28 The process of
litions linger on past the time when they combining fragments from the writer's
are deeply meaningful to the writers or personal life, his reading, his moral be-
thle readers. In our own age, the Western liefs, as well as from the collective past
probably represents a blending of psychic is yet today quite unclear. Surely anything
satisfaction in the pitting of good against that helps illuminate the act of creation
 472 DANIEL RUSSELL BROWN

is worthwhile; it hardly will be the last criticism does for human beings, but with
word on the topic, but it may add new a knowledge of our links with the past, we
insights into how writers write and readers might become wiser than our fathers.
read.
Each critical approach, it seems, as it
takes over from earlier ones feels com-
1 Haskell M. Block, "Cultural Anthropology and
pelled to dismiss entirely the preceding be-
Contemporary Literary Criticism," in Myth and
liefs and to assert its own tremendous Literature: Contemporary Theory and Practice, ed.
applicability, sometimes even claiming John B. Vickery (Lincoln, Neb., 1966), p. 134; here-
infallihility. This comes from insecurity as after referred to as Vickery.
2 Introduction to Literature in Critical Perspec-
much as from confidence. Archetypal
tives, ed. Walter K. Gordon (New York, 1968), p.
criticism must be very cautious about its 499; hereafter referred to as Gordon.
own excesses. However, it does offer an 3Archetypal Patterns in Poetry (London, 1965),
unusually delicate critical tool, provides p. 104.
numerous places of contact with the art 4 Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature,

work. Wilbur S. Scott has expressed these collected by Walter Hooper (Cambridge, 1966), p. 41.
6 Introduction to Vickery, p. xi.
well: 6 Charles Moorman, "Myth and Medieval Liter-

It occupies a curious position among other meth- ature: Sir Gawain and the Green Knight," Vickery,
ods: it requires close textual readings, like the for- p. 173.
malistic, and yet it is concerned humanistically 7Wallace W. Douglas, "The Meanings of 'Myth'
with more than the intrinsic value of aesthetic sat- in Modern Criticism," Vickery, p. 123.
isfaction; it seems psychological insofar as it ana- 8Life Against Death (Middletown, Conn., 1959),
lyzes the work of art's appeal to the audience... p. 313.
and yet sociological in its attendance upon basic 9"Recurrent Themes in Myths and Mythmaking,"
cultural patterns as central to that appeal; it is Daedalus, 88 (Spring 1959).
historical in its investigation of a cultural or 10"Bios and Mythos: Prolegomena to a Science
social past, but nonhistorical in its demonstration of Mythology," Vickery, p. 18.
of literature's timeless value, independent of 11Philip Wheelwright, The Burning Fountain
particular periods.29 (Bloomington, 1954), p. 161.
12"Myth, Symbolism, and Truth," Myth: A Sym-
Part of the difficulty in the struggle for posium, ed. Thomas Sebeok (Bloomington, 1958),
acceptance of archetypal criticism is the p. 12; hereafter referred to as Sebeok.
13"The Myth and the Powerhouse," Vickery, pp.
ignorance of opponents. They may have 109-10.
been trained in another school, or they 14 "The Structural Study of Myth," Sebeok, p. 106.
just do not know very much about an- 15 Ibid., p. 111.

thropology, biology, or psychology; the 16The Hero with a Thousand Faces (New York,
natural tendency of men is to condemn or 1960), p. 11.
17 Richard Chase, "Myth Revisited," Partisan
even destroy what they do not understand. Review 17 (1950): 888.
With more factual information, these op- 18Moorman, p. 175.
ponents would be forced to grant more to 19 Block, p. 135.
myth than they are willing to now. If they 20Philip Rahv, Vickery, p. 112.
came halfway, worked harder at the 21Frederick J. Hoffman, "Psychology and Liter-
ature," Literature and Psychology 6 (Nov. 1956): 115.
subject (though it is unnecessary to work 22"Northrop Frye: Criticism as Myth," Northrop
their brains to the bone), they would have Frye in Modern Criticism, ed. Murray Krieger, (New
less animosity. Similarly, if archetypal York, 1966), p. 93.
critics were better informed, they might 23"Archetype and Signature," Gordon, p. 518.
convince their enemies more easily. 24 Literature and the Irrational (Englewood Cliffs,

With more knowledge, we might dis- 1960). p. 106.

25"The Archetypes of Literature," Kenyon Re-
cover that the ancients had wisdom, view 13 (Winter 1951): 104.
which is as valid now as it was then, and 26 Critical Approaches to Literature (Englewood
that we have been extremely egocentric in Cliffs, 1956), p. 356.
believing all of the past has merely been 27"The Ritual View of Myth and the Mythic,"
Sebeok, p. 152.
leading up to us, to our particular con- 28Richard Chase, p. 890.
temporary views. It is possible to be too 29Five Approaches of Literary Criticism, ed. Wil-
optimistic about what either literature or bur S. Scott (New York, 1966), p. 247.