Theory of Archetypes

Archetypal literary criticism is a type of analytical theory that interprets a text by focusing on recurring myths and archetypes.Archetypal criticism argues that archetypes determine the form and function of literary works, that a text's meaning is shaped by cultural and psychological myths.

The concept of the archetype is a venerable philosophical principle that came into new prominence and usage in the twentieth century with the development of archetypal literary criticism through the theories of psychologist C. G. Jung and literary theorist Northrop Frye.

Northrop Frye was the critic who described various theories regarding archetypes. Though the concept of archetypes was precisely given by a Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung. Jungian archetypes study the human personality and psyche, whereas Frye's archetypes study the patterns and symbols of literature. 

Archetypes are different patterns through which we read various things. Through archetypes, we can make a better picture of various things in mind. E.g., we are reading a novel in which we read various symbols like water, fire, palace, landscape, animals, etc. These are the markers that create a pattern in our minds to make an image of something. In a Bollywood movie Aakhree Raasta, in which Amitabh Bachchan is in a double role. A particular scene of the graveyard in the movie can be considered as an archetype because it signifies that something tragic can happen in the plot. Archetypes psychologically refer to one's psyche. There is also an interesting study of the psyche in which three parts are there, conscious, subconscious, and unconscious. It is our collective unconscious that records the patterns, images, and actions.

Archetypal criticism emphasizes the symbols, images, patterns, and actions of the characters, etc. The archetypal critics' work is to give critique on the narrative and to bring out the commonly used archetypes used in a work of art. To see this in a wider context we can study various films, web series, and TV shows also.

By giving the analogy of Physics to Nature and Criticism to Literature, Frye is trying to emphasize giving proper justice to literature. Nature is the foundational core of physics, a branch of science. In the same manner, literature is the base on which criticism is being taught. But when mentioned, it is said that physics is taught, through nature. Similarly,  criticism is taught through various works of literature. It can be said that whatever we learn through literature is a criticism of life. Rather than stating that I am a student of literature, it should be said that I am studying criticism through literature.

Just the way science and technology, physics, chemistry, commerce are considered as an organized body of knowledge, criticism is also an organized body of knowledge, because it studies various works of art in a particular method, methods given by various respective critics, and theorists. Critics just like scientists, try to prove their views with reason and arguments. Being a part of literature, criticism is also worth studying the branch of knowledge. 

For ages, it has been a firm and strong relationship of literature with history and philosophy. When a creative writer sits down to write something he always has some historical sense in the background. Just like some mobile applications run in the background on smartphones. Literature is criticized with the historical sense and philosophical approach. 

Spring : 

Comedy is Allied with Spring because the genre of comedy is characterized by the birth of the Hero, Revival, and Resurrection. Also symbolizes defeat of winter and darkness.

Summer : 

Romance and Summer are paired together because summer is the culmination of life in the calendar. genre culminates with some sort of triumph usually a Marriage 

Autumn :

Autumn is the dying stage of the seasonal calendar which parallels the tragedy genre because it is known for fall or demise.

Winter : 

Satire is a dark genre disillusioned and mocking noted for the darkness dissolution, Return of chaos, the defeat of heroic figures.

Two Methodology to understand Archetypal criticism closely,

1) Inductive Method 

2) Deductive method

1) Inductive method 

for eg. 

Gravedigger scene from particular to the general. It is the method of looking at things with a wide view or in a larger context. E.g., looking at a picture with a very close view will not show the fullest version of it. But if we step a few steps back we see a better and clear picture. Thus this method is applicable in Hamlet's gravedigger scene. Hamlet is in a graveyard and he is holding a skull of a jester, Yorick. He communicates with diggers. It generalizes that whatever or whoever we are, death will make everybody general and common. Because death is common and general for all.

2) Deductive Method 

This method moves from general to particular. Music moves in time because it opens up with rhythms, words, and melody. Just one word after another, second by second. Painting moves in space because it appears directly and wholly at a time. We see the full pattern of painting all at once. In music rhythms are temporal and in paintings, patterns are spatial. When a critic applies those things in any work, he mixes up both the thing. Arts move with both the things temporally and spatially. We can say that literature is made up of words. Words can have both, rhythm and words bound together to create a picture. 

 Indian season also has similarities with archetypes because seasons are also considered as archetypes, such as winter as death, summer as meeting time, spring as birth or beginning, etc. In the Indian concept also there are three mains seasons, each having two sub-seasons.