Archetypal image in literary criticism - artistic image, accumulating centuries-old cultural experience, allowing for variability, but at the same time recognizable and intuitively reproduced in work of art.
Understanding the archetypal image and literary archetype in literary criticism at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries. in some fundamental points it differs from the concept of archetype in the works of C. G. Jung and his followers. Conventionally, all concepts of the archetype can be divided into “Jungian”, in line with psychoanalysis; “mythological” and literary criticism itself.
The word “archetype” itself was borrowed by C. G. Jung from J. Burckhard, although their interpretations of the archetype were fundamentally different. In 1912, Jung suggested that certain prototypes appeared in the unconscious lives of patients. In 1917, Jung writes about the dominant, impersonal constructs that influence a person. In the article “Instinct and the Unconscious” (1919), Jung, using the term “archetype” for the first time, focuses on the fact that the main thing in the archetype is the unconscious image, the external model, and not the content, which can be subject to change. In the article “On the Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious” (1934), Jung explains in detail his understanding of these terms, pointing to the existence of the concept of “archetype” in medieval mystical treatises. The immateriality and imagery of the archetype, from Jung’s point of view, brings this concept closer to Plato’s “eidos” - innate ideas.
"Archetypes" were understood by Jung as "primary images", "repeating patterns of experience" that were preserved in the collective unconscious. According to Jung, the archetype is manifested in myths that are related to the plot different nations, in the images of dreams and fantasies, in various symbolism. Jung also emphasized the dynamic nature of the archetype and its “matrix”, a well-known formality of content.
Since the 1930s the term “archetype” began to be used in various fields of humanities. The further functioning of this term in literary criticism was associated with one of the theoretical and literary schools in the West - with the so-called archetype (in some works the word “archetype” is translated as “archetypal”) criticism (a branch of mythological criticism in Anglo-American literary criticism). The works of M. Bodkin, R. Graves, J. Campbell, G. Knight, F. Wheelwright, N. Fry and others were written in this vein.
In the Soviet period, through criticism of “bourgeois” literary concepts and schools, the reader nevertheless received the main points of interpretation of the archetype in foreign literary criticism. In particular, S. Averintsev’s article “Analytical Psychology” of C.-G. Jung and the Patterns of Creative Fantasy was written in this vein (1970). In "Literary encyclopedic dictionary"(1987) has already indicated the possibility of using this term in domestic literary criticism. In Russian literary criticism, the term “archetype” was also used in the works of E.M. Meletinsky and S.Ya. Senderovich, who critically revised Jung’s theories; V.N. Toporov, who examined in his works archetypal models in the minds of writers. In the 1990-2000s. In Russian literary criticism, works have appeared that use the concept of “archetype” as a key one, and not as a term of analytical psychology and an element of “primitive” thinking, but as a literary category itself.
Bolshakova A.Yu. Literary archetype // Literary studies. - 2001. - No. 6. - P. 169-173.
Meletinsky E.M. Literary archetypes and universals. - M., 2001.
Esalnek A. Archetype // Introduction to literary criticism / Ed. L. Chernets. - M., 2000. - P.30-37.
Frye N. Anatomy of criticism. - Princeton, 1957. - 383 p.
The result of the processing of psychoanalysis by Carl Gustav Jung was the emergence of a whole complex of complex ideas that were fed from various fields of knowledge: philosophy, mythology, literature, psychology, archeology, theology. This breadth of mental search, combined with the author’s complex, mysterious style, is the reason for the difficult perception of his psychological theory, which is based on such concepts as archetype and symbol.
Interpretation of the concept in question
Archetypes are translated from Greek as “prototypes”. This term is quite widely used within the framework of theoretical analysis of mythology. It was first introduced by the Swiss psychoanalyst Gustav Jung. In addition to psychology, he also studied existing myths.
According to Jung, archetypes are primary schemes of various images that are reproduced unconsciously and a priori form the activity of the imagination, as a result of which they are embodied, as a rule, in myths, beliefs, dreams, delusional fantasies, works of literature and art.
Archetypal images and motifs are identical in nature (for example, the ubiquitous ancient myth, telling about the Flood) and are found in mythologies and spheres of art that are nowhere in contact with each other, which is why one can exclude the explanation of their appearance by borrowing.
But still, archetypes are, first of all, not images themselves, but only their diagrams. In other words, psychological prerequisites, possibility. According to Jung, archetypes have limited possession of not content, but exceptional formal characteristics.
The schematic image receives its first characteristic only after penetrating into the area of consciousness, while being filled with the material of experience. Jung identifies the form of the archetype with a certain system of axes of a certain crystal, transforming it to a certain extent in the mother solution, despite its lack of material existence. In this regard, the process of myth-making is the transformation of the concept in question into an image. According to the researcher, these are involuntary statements regarding mental events that are unconscious in nature.
Despite its formality, extreme generality, vacuity, a schematic image (archetype) has the property. Psychologists believe that, depending on the degree of their clarity and emotional intensity, they can impress, captivate, and inspire due to the fact that they strive for familiar principles within the framework of human nature. As a consequence, the significance of prototypes for creativity (artistic) arises.
Based on Jung's statements, the secret of the influence of art is special ability the artist to experience certain archetypal forms, and subsequently display them in his works.
One of the best succinct formulations of the concept of archetype belongs to Thomas Mann, according to which the typical consists largely of the mythical, since myth is a priori a pattern, so to speak, the original life form, a scheme outside of time, a formula given by distant ancestors, complete with self-conscious life, and implicitly aimed at reacquiring the signs that were once foreshadowed for her.
Heredity of prototypes
Jung assumed the inherent nature of the concepts under consideration to the entire race (humanity as a whole, its community). In other words, the archetypes of the collective unconscious are inherited. He “gave” the role of the container (“dimensions of the soul”) for prototypes directly to the deep unconscious, which goes beyond the boundaries of the individual.
This concept, in the process of studying myths, aims at searching among the ethnic, typological diversity of corresponding plots, motives of the archetypal core (invariant), which is expressed by them (mythologems) through metaphors, but which cannot be exhausted either by scientific explanation or poetic description.
Examples of archetypes
Nevertheless, Gustav wanted to outline the taxonomy of the concepts under consideration. To do this, he formulated, for example, such archetypes of the unconscious as “ Shadow"(the subhuman unconscious component of the psyche, which Jung identified with the heroes of literary works: Goethe's Mephistopheles in Faust, Sturluson's Loki in the Prose Edda, Hegni in the German epic poem"Song of the Nibelungs"), " Anima"(the human unconscious principle of the opposite sex, conveyed in the form of images of bisexual creatures from primitive myths, Chinese categories of Yin-Yang, etc.), " Wise old man"(the prototype of the spirit, the meaning hidden behind the chaos of life and presented as a wise wizard, shaman, Nietzsche's Zarathushtra). The mythologeme of the Great Mother was archetypally interpreted in various variations (Goddess, witch, norm, moira, Cybele, Demeter, Mother of God, etc.). All these examples reflect the prototype of a higher female being, which embodies the (psychological) feeling of generational change, immortality, and overcoming the so-called power of time.
Jung presents the archetypal role of the images of Prometheus and Epimetheus as opposition in the psyche “ Selves"(individual-personal beginning), in particular its part facing outward (" Person»).
The meaning of the concept in question and the provisions of the doctrine about it
Both of these quite strongly influenced the thoughts and creativity of researchers of religion, myth (Carl Kerenyi, who collaborated with Gustav, Romanian mythologist Mircea Eliade, Indologist Heinrich Zimmer, Islamic scholar Henri Corbin, American mythologist Joseph Campbell, Hebraist Gershom Scholem), literary scholars (Canadian mythologist Northrop Fry, English mythologist Monty Bodkin), theologians, philosophers (German scientist Paul Tillich) and even non-humanitarian scientists (biologist Adolph Portman), prominent figures of art and literature (Herman Hesse, Federico Fellini, Thomas Mann, Ingmar Bergman).
Jung himself was inconsistent in revealing the existing interdependence of archetypes, acting as elements of psychostructures, and mythological images, which are products of primitive consciousness. He understood it first as an analogy, then as an identity, then as the generation of one by another. In this regard, already later literature the term in question is used simply as a designation of general, fundamental, universal human motifs (mythological), the original schemes of ideas that underlie any kind of structures (for example, the world tree) without the necessary connection with the so-called Jungianism.
Jung's Basic Archetypes
The number of prototypes within the collective unconscious tends to infinity. But still, a special place in his theoretical system is given to: “Mask”, “Anime” (“Animus”), “Self”, “Shadows”.
Prototype "Mask"
This archetype translated from Latin means guise - the public face of a person. In other words, the way people express themselves within interpersonal relationships. The mask symbolizes the many roles played by a person in accordance with existing social requirements.
In Jung's perception, it serves a purpose: to make a special impression on other people or to hide its true inner essence from them. “Persona” as an archetype is always necessary for a person in order, so to speak, to get along with others within the framework everyday life. But Jung warned in his concepts about the consequences of endowing this archetype with significance. In particular, the person becomes superficial, shallow, and will be allocated only one role, he will remain alienated from true colorful emotional experience.
Archetype "Shadow"
This is the opposite of "Mask". “Shadow” is the dark, bad, animal side of the personality, suppressed in a person. This archetype contains human socially unacceptable aggressive and sexual impulses, as well as immoral passions and thoughts. However, she also has a number of positive features.
Jung regarded the “Shadow” as a source of endless vitality, creativity, and spontaneity in the fate of an individual. In accordance with the concept of this researcher, the main function of the Ego is to correct the desired direction of the energy of the archetype in question, curb the harmful side of human nature to a certain extent, allowing one to live in constant harmony with other people, and at the same time openly express one’s impulses, the possibility of enjoying health, a creative life.
Prototypes “Anima”, “Animus”
They concentrate, according to Jung, the innate androgenic human nature. The first archetype identifies the inner female image in a man (the unconscious feminine side), and the second - masculinity in a female representative (unconscious male side).
These human archetypes are based in part on the existing biological fact that the human body produces both male and female hormones. They evolved, according to Jung, over many centuries within the collective unconscious as a result of experience in the process of interaction with the opposite sex. Some men have become a little “feminized” and women have become “chauvinized” due to many years of cohabitation. Karl argued that these archetypes, like the others, must coexist harmoniously, that is, not upset the overall balance, so as not to provoke inhibition of personality development in the direction of exclusively self-realization.
In other words, a man must show not only masculine qualities, but also his feminine traits, and a woman - vice versa. In a situation where these attributes are undeveloped, this can ultimately lead to one-sided growth and personality functioning.
"Self" as Jung's main archetype
Within the framework of his concept, it is recognized as the most important. The “Self” is the core of personality, which is surrounded by other elements. When the integration of all mental aspects is achieved, a person begins to feel internal unity, integrity, and harmony.
So, in Jung's perception, the evolution of oneself is the primary goal of human life.
The main symbol of the “Self”
It is the “Mandala” (its many types): a halo of a saint, an abstract circle, a rose window, etc. According to Jung's concept, the unity of the “I”, integrity, expressed symbolically in figurative completeness like it, can be found in dreams, myths, fantasies, religious, mystical experiences. This researcher believed that it is religion that acts as a great force that promotes the human desire for completeness and integrity. However, we should not forget that the harmonization of all mental components is a complex process.
He considered it impossible to achieve true balance of all personality structures, unless in middle age. One can say more, the main archetype does not appear until the connection and harmonization of all mental aspects (conscious, unconscious) occurs. In view of this moment, achieving an already mature “I” requires persistence, constancy, intelligence, and significant life experience.
Innateness of prototypes
There is another interpretation of the concept under consideration. Thus, archetypes are emerging memories, ideas that predispose a person to experience, perceive, and react to various events in a specific way. Of course, in reality this is not entirely true; to clarify, it is more correct to interpret them as predisposing factors influencing the manifestation by people of universal models in behavior: perception, thinking, action as a response to the corresponding object (event).
What is innate here is the direct tendency to react emotionally, behaviorally, cognitively to certain situations, for example, at the moment of an unexpected collision with any subject (parents, stranger, snake, etc.).
The relationship between prototypes and feelings and thoughts
As mentioned earlier, archetypes are “initial images.” Jung argued that each of them is associated with a certain tendency to express specific types of feelings, thoughts regarding the corresponding situation, object. For example, a child perceives his mother through her real characteristics, colored by unconscious ideas regarding data about the archetypal attributes of the mother: upbringing, dependence, fertility.
Thus, if we summarize all of the above, we get the following: the concept discussed in this article has made invaluable contributions to numerous fields, at its core concepts such as archetype and symbol are concentrated. Jung characterized the first as the prototype, and the second as the means of its expression in human life.
Archetype Research
The problem of artistic refraction of archetypes in a literary work is in the field of view of modern researchers. Archetypal prototypes, or prototypes, as they were defined by K.-G. Jung, being a manifestation of the “collective unconscious,” accompany man for centuries and are reflected in mythology, religion, and art. A variety of literary and artistic images and/or motifs grow from a certain archetypal core, conceptually enriching its original “scheme”, “crystal system” (C. G. Jung). In the first half of the 20th century, in line with the psychoanalytic studies of S. Freud, the identification of echoes of mythopoetic consciousness at various cultural levels became almost dominant (the mythological-ritual approach of J. J. Frazer, ethnographic - L. Lévy-Bruhl, symbolological - E . Cassirer, structural anthropology of K. Lévi-Strauss). Mythological criticism of the second half of the 20th century. builds his research in line with two concepts - relatively speaking, Frazerian (mythological-ritual) and Jungian (archetypal). Representatives of the ritual-mythological school - M. Bodkin (England), N. Fry (Canada), R. Chase and F. Watts (USA) - firstly, were engaged in the discovery of conscious and unconscious mythological motifs in literary and artistic works and, secondly, they paid great attention to the reproduction of ritual schemes of initiation rites, equivalent, according to their ideas, to the psychological archetype of death and rebirth. During the same period, in literary studies there was a growing awareness that no less important in the analysis of a literary work is not so much the reconstruction of the mythopoetic layer as the determination of the ideological load of certain archetypal components. Already M. Bodkin herself notes the paradigm of changes in basic archetypes, a kind of outgrowth of them in the course of historical and literary development into literary forms, where typological repetition (“long lines,” as the researcher called them) becomes the most important feature. Following Bodkin, A. Yu. Bolshakova speaks about the high degree of generalization and typological stability of the literary archetype. . Jung's interpretation of the archetype in literary criticism Soviet period were considered by S. S. Averintsev (article “Analytical Psychology” of C.-G. Jung and the Patterns of Creative Fantasy”) and E. M. Meletinsky (book “Poetics of Myth”). The researchers come to the conclusion that today the term “archetype” denotes the most general, fundamental and universal mythological motifs that underlie any artistic and mythological structures “without any obligatory connection with Jungianism as such.” E. M. Meletinsky (“Poetics of Myth”, “Analytical Psychology and the Problem of the Origin of Archetypal Plots”), A. Yu. Bolshakova (“Theory of the Archetype at the Turn of the 20th-21st Centuries”, “Literary Archetype”) believe that in the 20th century, a tendency is developing towards a transition from a purely mythological and psychological understanding of the archetype to the adoption of a model of a literary archetype.
Literary archetype models
A. Bolshakova in her article “Literary Archetype” identifies several meanings of “archetype” as a literary category:
- writer's individuality (for example, scientists speak of Pushkin as an “archaic archetype of the poet”);
- “eternal images” (Hamlet, Don Juan, Don Quixote);
- types of heroes (“mothers”, “children”, etc.);
- images are symbols, often natural (flower, sea).
One of the main properties of a literary archetype is its typological stability and high degree of generalization. According to A. A. Faustov, archetype can currently mean “a universal image or plot element, or their stable combinations of different nature and of different scales (up to the author’s archetypes).” Thus, the concept of a literary archetype is gradually formed, and elements of archetypal analysis, along with other methodological techniques, are most often present in modern literary research as one of the aspects of general poetics.
In modern literary works, the transformative author's principle comes first, and the mythopoetic and psychological core of one or another archetype experiences increasing conceptual “tension” of the entire system of artistic coordinates. Under the influence of historical and social changes, the literary archetype increasingly reveals actual meaning, “built-in” into artistic design and realized in the work. Examples of fundamental archetypes at the psychological and general cultural levels are the concepts of “house”, “road” and “child”. These archetypal principles, judging by their frequency, seem to be dominant in literary works. .
Notes
Literature
- Averintsev S. S. Archetypes // Myths of the peoples of the world. Encyclopedia: in 2 volumes / Chief editor. S. A. Tokarev. - M.: Sov. encyclopedia, 1992 - T.1. A-K. - P. 110-111.
- Dmitrovskaya M. A. Transformation of the archetype of the house, or the meaning of the ending of V. Nabokov’s novel “Mashenka” // Archetypal structures of artistic consciousness: Collection of articles. Issue 2. - Ekaterinburg: Ural University, 2001. - P.92-96.
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
See what “Archetype (literature)” is in other dictionaries:
- (from other Greek ἀρχή “beginning” and τύπος “sample”): Archetype (psychology) universal primordial innate mental structures that make up the content of the collective unconscious, recognizable in our experience and ... ... Wikipedia
The constant interaction between literature and art takes place directly, in the form of the “transfusion” of myth into literature, and indirectly: through the fine arts, rituals, folk festivals, religious mysteries, and in recent centuries through scientific... ... Encyclopedia of Mythology
This term has other meanings, see Fantasy. Fantasy (from the English fantasy “fantasy”) genre fantastic literature, based on the use of mythological and fairy tale motifs. In its modern form it was formed... ... Wikipedia
Fantasy (from the English fantasy “fantasy”) is a type of fantastic literature based on the use of mythological and fairy-tale motifs. In its modern form, it was formed at the beginning of the 20th century. Fantasy works most often resemble historical ... ... Wikipedia
Fantasy (from the English fantasy “fantasy”) is a type of fantastic literature based on the use of mythological and fairy-tale motifs. In its modern form, it was formed at the beginning of the 20th century. Fantasy works most often resemble historical ... ... Wikipedia
Archetype(from the gr. archetypes - prototype, model) - a concept that originated and was substantiated in the works of the Swiss scientist K.G. Jung, who studied the psyche, especially the relationship between the conscious and unconscious spheres. Guided by the idea of “revealing the secret of the human personality” 1, Jung came to the idea that when studying a person one cannot take into account only his consciousness, considering it the only form of psychological being 1. The unconscious is an objective property of the psyche. At the same time, a distinction is made between the individual unconscious, which was discovered by 3. Freud, whose concept is presented in various of his works, but most holistically and systematically in the “Introduction to Psychoanalysis” 2, and the collective unconscious, discovered first by C. Jung in the process of dream analysis (“dream - a signal from the unconscious"), and then some types of activities (rite, ritual) and artistic creativity(myth, legend, fairy tale). The collective unconscious, as it were, concentrates in itself “relics of archaic experience,” which live in the unconscious modern man» 3. In other words, the collective unconscious absorbs the psychological experience of a person, which lasts many centuries. “Our souls, like our bodies, consist of the same elements as the bodies and souls of our ancestors” 4. Thus, they preserve the memory of the past, i.e. archetypal memory.
In the course of analyzing the psyche in its entirety, Jung substantiated the concept of “archetype”. It was defined by him in different ways, but the formulations actually complemented and clarified each other. An archetype is a priori instinctual forms at the basis of the individual psyche, which are revealed when they enter consciousness and appear in it as images, pictures, fantasies, quite difficult to define: “We should abandon,” the scientist wrote, “the idea that an archetype can be explain<...>Any attempt to explain will turn out to be nothing more than a more or less successful translation into another language” 5 . Meanwhile, Jung identified several archetypes and gave them appropriate names. The most famous archetypes anima(a prototype of the feminine principle in the male psyche) and animus(trace of a man in the female psyche). Archetype shadow- this is the unconscious part of the psyche, which symbolizes the dark side of the personality and personifies everything that a person refuses to accept in himself and that he directly or indirectly suppresses, such as: base character traits, all kinds of inappropriate tendencies, etc. Therefore, the shadow turns out to be a source of duality. A very significant archetype called self- an individual principle, which, according to Jung, can be reduced under the influence of external life, but is very important because it contains “the principle of defining oneself in this world” 6. Selfhood serves as a prerequisite and evidence of the integrity of the individual. Archetypes are essential child, mother, wise old man or old women.
Simultaneously with the discovery of the unconscious sphere of the psyche, Jung recorded the polarity of mental structures, that is, the presence of opposites, contradictions, which is most clearly manifested in the archetype of the shadow. The existence of this kind of contradiction was confirmed by the research of linguists, in particular R. Jacobson, as well as ethnologists and anthropologists, especially the works of the major French scientist Claude Lévi-Strauss. Studying non-literate cultures and the nature of the mental operations of their carriers, Levi-Strauss noted a tendency to compare polar qualities and characteristics and identified numerous binary oppositions in the course of generalizing the work of thought, such as: dry/wet, raw/cooked, distant/close, dark/ light, etc. The scientist outlined his thoughts in the fundamental work “Mythologiques” (vol. 1-4), published in France (Paris) in 1964-1971, as well as in a number of other works, such as “Sad Tropics ", "Untamed Thought", etc. 1
Archetypes embedded in the psyche are realized and reveal themselves in various forms of spiritual activity, but most of all they make themselves felt in ritual And myth. The most important rituals (rites) are: initiation, i.e. initiation of a young man into adulthood; calendar renewal of nature; the killing of sorcerer leaders (this ritual is described by D. Frazer in the book “The Golden Bough” 2); wedding ceremonies.
The myths of different nations are considered as a source of archetypes. These include cosmogonic myths (about the origin of the world), anthropo-, tonic (about the origin of man), theogonic (about the origin of the gods), calendar (about the change of seasons), eschatological (about the end of the world), etc. 3 With all the diversity of myths the main focus of most of them is a description of the process of creation of the world. And the most important figure here is the creator, the demiurge, who is represented by the so-called first ancestor, a cultural hero. He performs the functions of the organizer of the world: produces fire, invents crafts, protects the clan and tribe from demonic forces, fights monsters,” establishes rituals and customs, i.e., introduces an organizing principle into the life of the clan or tribe. The most famous cultural hero in Greek mythology Prometheus is such a hero that becomes one of the most important. archetypal images, found in transformed form in various works of world literature. World mythology, of course, gives birth to many other archetypes, appearing both in the form of a hero and in the form of an action or object, for example, a miraculous birth, a horse, a sword, etc.
When studying archetypes and myths, a number of concepts and terms are used: mythologem (the content of the concept is close to the archetype), archetypal (or archaic) model, archetypal features, arche-khdashic formulas, archetypal motifs. Most often the archetype is identified or correlated with motive.
The concept of motive was introduced by AN. Veselovsky and was defined as “the simplest narrative unit, figuratively responding to various requests of the primitive mind or everyday observation” 1 . As examples of archaic motifs, he names: the representation of the sun as an eye, the sun and moon as brother and sister, lightning as the action of a bird, etc. Some of them are referred to by V. Propp in famous work“Morphology of a fairy tale” 2. E.M. Meletinsky believes that an archetypal motif should be understood as “a certain microplot containing a predicate (action), an agent, a patient and carrying a more or less independent and quite deep meaning” 3. The “complete plot” contains a tangle of motives. The scientist offers his classification of archetypal motifs. These include falling into the power of a demonic creature, acquiring a wonderful assistant, marrying a princess, traveling and many others. According to E. Meleshsky, “myth, heroic epic, legend and fairy tale extremely rich in archetypal content" 4 . At the same time, pairing or even polarity of motives is again noted, reflecting the polarity of mental operations-generalizations. For example, double/twin, action/reaction, abduction/acquisition, etc.
Archetypicality, which has mythological roots and is revealed in the early stages of the existence of art, or, as they now say, in the pre-reflective period, makes itself felt at a later date. At the same time, archaic motifs of classical mythology expand, change and, starting from the Middle Ages, are often combined with Christian-mythological ones, formed in the bosom of biblical mythology.
The permeation of literature and art in general (painting, sculpture, music) with archaic motifs leads to the fact that the concept of an archetype becomes necessary tool research. Without using this terminology, representatives of the mythological school of the 19th century. (V. and Ya. Grimm, V. Buslaev, A. Afanasyev, etc.), based on philosophical ideas F. Schelling and A. and F. Schlegel, in essence, proceeded in their research from the idea of the archetypal nature of folklore; they explained many phenomena in the folklore of different peoples with ancient mythology, and the content of the myths themselves with the deification of natural phenomena, such as luminaries (solar theory) or thunderstorms (meteorological theory), as well as the worship of demonic creatures and forces.
The concept of archetype is especially actively used by scientists representing the so-called ritual-mythological school, which emerged in the 30s of our century, flourished in the 50s and is still part of the scientific paradigm today. Scientists of this orientation include G. Murray (“Becoming heroic epic", 1907), M. Bodkin ("Archetypal Images in Poetry", 1934), N. Fry ("Anatomy of Criticism", 1957), as well as M. Campbell, R. Carpenter, F. Ferposson, V. Troi and others Most of them give special meaning works of D. Frazer, in which rituals associated with the renewal of life are explored, and seek to build the content of the most various works to ritual origins. For example, the image of fate young man in the mass of novels of the 19th-20th centuries - to the rite of initiation; the appearance of characters endowed with contradictions - to the archetype of God and the devil; identification of the heroes of the tragedies of Sophocles and Shakespeare (Oedipus and Hamlet) and even the novels of Stendhal and Balzac (Julien Sorel and Lucien de Rubempre) with scapegoats sacrificed to the gods during the corresponding ritual.
The archetypal approach is especially active when analyzing the works of such writers as J. Joyce, T. Mann, F. Kafka. Focus on the search for archetypal principles in the 20th century novel. associated with disappointment in historicism, in the idea of progress and with the desire to “go beyond” a specific historical time and prove the existence of eternal, unchanging principles in the unconscious spheres of the human psyche, originating in prehistory and repeating during it in the form of archetypal situations, states, images, motives. As for the writers themselves, they, consciously or unconsciously, provide material for such an interpretation, presenting their heroes (Bloom in Joyce's Ulysses or Hans Castorp in T. Mann's The Magic Mountain) as seeking answers to eternal, metaphysical questions and being bearers of a seemingly eternal and united human essence, as well as various antinomic forces hidden in human soul. Hence the refusal of external action, i.e. obvious eventfulness, and focus on internal action, reflection, meditation, generating the so-called “stream of consciousness”. Interest in the deep layers of the human psyche was also characteristic of Russian writers of the 19th-20th centuries, in particular F. Dostoevsky, I. Bunin, L. Andreev, A. Bely and others.
Serious attention to archetypalism in art is also characteristic of modern researchers of Russian literature of the past and of this century. Archetypes are found in the works of a variety of writers, but, of course, in a transformed form. Y. Lotman identifies a number of archetypes in Pushkin’s works, for example, the archetypal motif of the elements, blizzards, houses, cemeteries, statues, and in addition, the opposition of the images of the robber-patron or the destroyer-savior 1 . The works of Gogol, Dostoevsky and Bely are especially rich in archetypal motifs. In “Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka” the archetype of ritual and festive fun, otherwise called carnivalism, is obvious; in “Taras Bulba” you can see the archetype of a duel between father and son and feel the atmosphere of an epic time, and in the St. Petersburg stories - the archetypal opposition of North and South 2. In various works of Dostoevsky, the archetypes of the double, space and chaos, friend and foe, hero and antihero, good and evil, etc. clearly appear. Their presence is noted by M. Bakhtin, E. Meletinsky, V. Toporov, V. Vetlovskaya 3. A. Bely’s novel “Petersburg” 4 is imbued with ideologemes.
The presence of archaic and mythological motifs is undoubtedly in the works of such modern writers, like G. Marquez (“One Hundred Years of Solitude”), Ch. Aitmatov (“The White Steamship”, “Piebald Dog Running by the Edge of the Sea”, “The Scaffold”, etc.), V. Rasputin (“Farewell to Matera”) and etc. Their source is primarily folk culture and its constituent songs, legends, tales, myths.
An example of a deeply motivated use of ancient tales and other archetypally significant forms of culture and life is Aitmatov’s novel “And the Day Lasts Longer than a Century.” The novel begins and ends with the image of the funeral of one of the characters, which is perceived by both the author and the characters as a very important and sacred ceremony, full of deep human and sacred meaning. The ritual begins with the determination of the burial place, which is the ancient Ana-Beyit cemetery. Here, according to legend, lies the ashes of Naiman-Ana, whose fate is recreated in the legend of the conquest of the Sarozek lands by the Ruanzhuan tribe, their capture of her son Zholaman, his transformation into a mankurt and his murder of his own mother. However, the burial, to deep sorrow, takes place not in the cemetery, but in the Sarozek steppe: a cosmodrome arose on the site of the cemetery.
Such completion of the plot action, and thereby the circle of life traversed by Kazangap, emphasizes the violation of the natural ritual of sending a person to another world, observed for centuries, and at the same time the tragedy of the fate of a person deprived of the opportunity to find his final refuge next to his ancestors. The drama in the moods of another hero, Edigei, who deeply worries about the death of his friend and the sad circumstances of his funeral, is reinforced by the association with the fate of the characters of another legend recorded by Kuttybayev - the legend about the love of the old singer Raimala-aga and the young singer Begimai. In addition, the life of the heroes takes place against the backdrop and in contact with the life of nature and “our smaller brothers,” such as the red fox, the white-tailed kite and, most importantly, the Buranny Kya-ranar camel. Personification of the natural world and its inhabitants, emphasizing the common fate of people and animals, identifying dramatic and tragic moments in the perception of the environment - all this is evidence of the unity of the universe, the interconnection of all its facets and the permeation of it with archetypal situations, images, motives.
The concept of “archetype” as a research tool allows us to see many essential aspects in the content of works of art, first of all, continuity in the life of the human race, the inextricable connection of times, the preservation of memory of the past, that is, archetypal memory, no matter how it manifests itself.
E.R. Kotochigova THING IN ARTISTIC REPRESENTATION
Material culture (from the Latin materia and cultura - cultivation, processing) as a set of objects created by man is included in the world of the work. However, to designate objects depicted in literature material culture there is no single term. Thus, A.G. Tseitlin calls them “things,” “details of everyday life, what painters include in the concept of “interior”” 1 . But material culture is firmly embedded not only in interior, but also in scenery(except for the so-called wild landscape), and in portrait(since the suit, jewelry, etc. are part of it
). A.I. Beletsky proposes the term “still life”, by which he means “an image of things - tools and results of production - an artificial environment created by man...” 2. This term from the field of painting has not taken root in literary criticism. And for A.P. Chudakov’s “thing in literature” is a very broad concept: he does not distinguish between a “natural or man-made” object 3, which removes at the terminological level an extremely important concept: material culture/nature. Here, by things we mean only man-made objects, elements of material culture (although the latter cannot be reduced to things, including also diverse processes).
The material world in a literary work correlates with objects of material culture in real reality. In this sense, based on the creations of “bygone days,” it is possible to reconstruct material life. So, R.S. Lipets in the book “Epic and Ancient Rus'» 1 convincingly proves what was said by S.K. Shambinago 2 assumption about the genetic connection between the life of epics and the everyday life of Russian princes. The reality of white stone chambers, gilded roofs, unchanging white oak tables, at which the heroes sit, drinking honey drinks from their brothers and accepting rich gifts from the prince for faithful service, has been proven and archaeological excavations. "Despite the abundance poetic images, metaphors, generalized epic situations, despite the broken chronology and the displacement of a number of events, epics are all excellent and one of a kind historical source..." 3
The depiction of objects of material culture in literature is evolving. And this reflects changes in the relationship between man and thing in real life. At the dawn of civilization, a thing is the crown of human creation, evidence of wisdom and skill. The aesthetics of the heroic epic presupposed descriptions of things of “ultimate perfection, highest completeness...” 4.
The bipod is made of maple, the horns on the bipod are damask, the bipod's horn is silver, and the bipod's horn is red and gold.
(Bylina “Volga and Mikula”)
Storytellers are always attentive to the “white stone chambers,” their decoration, bright objects, fabrics with “cunning patterns,” jewelry, and magnificent feast bowls.
The very process of creating a thing is often captured, as in Homer’s Iliad, where Hephaestus forges Achilles’ battle armor:
And at first he worked as a shield, both huge and strong, decorating everything gracefully; he drew a circle around it, white, shiny, triple; and attached a silver belt. The shield consisted of five sheets and on a vast circle God made many wondrous things according to his creative plans...
(Song XVIII. Translated by N. Gnedich)
The attitude towards objects of material culture as an achievement of the human mind is demonstrated especially clearly by the Age of Enlightenment. The pathos of D. Defoe's novel “Robinson Crusoe” is a hymn to labor and civilization. Robinson embarks on risky raft trips to a stranded ship in order to transport the things he needs to the shore of a desert island. More than eleven times he transports numerous “fruits of civilization” on rafts. In more detail Defoe describes these things. The hero’s most “precious find” is a carpenter’s box with working tools, for which, by his own admission, he would give a whole ship full of gold. There are also hunting rifles, pistols, sabers, nails, screwdrivers, axes, sharpeners, two iron crowbars, a bag of shot, a barrel of gunpowder, a bundle of sheet iron, ropes, provisions, and clothing. Everything with which Robinson must “conquer” the wild nature.
In the literature of the 19th-20th centuries. There have been different trends in the depiction of things. The human Master, homo faber, is still revered, and objects made by skillful hands are valued. Examples of such an image of things are given, for example, by the work of N.S. Leskova. Numerous objects described in his works are the “steel flea” Tula masters(“Left-handed”), an icon of Old Believer icon painters (“The Sealed Angel”), gifts from a dwarf from the novel “Soborians”, Rogozhin’s crafts from “ Seedy kind"and others - the “trace of skill” of Leskov’s heroes 1.
However, the writers sensitively grasped another facet in the relationship between a person and a thing: material value the latter can overshadow a person; he is assessed by society by how expensive things he owns. And a person is often likened to a thing. This is the dying cry of the heroine of the play by A.N. Ostrovsky’s “Dowry”: “A thing... yes, a thing! They are right, I am a thing, not a person." And in art world A.P. Chekhov's things: the piano on which Kotik ("Ionych") plays, pots of sour cream, jugs of milk surrounding the hero of the story "Literature Teacher" - often embody the vulgarity and monotony of provincial life.
In the 20th century more than one poetic spear has been broken in the fight against materialism- slavish dependence of people on the things around them:
The owner dies, but his things remain,
They don’t care about things, about other people’s, human misfortunes.
At the hour of your death, even the cups on the shelves do not break,
And the rows of sparkling glasses do not melt like pieces of ice.
Maybe you shouldn't try too hard for things...
(V. Shefner. “Things”)
Weakens, lost intimate the connection between man and thing, characteristic especially of the Middle Ages, where things often have proper names(remember the sword Durendal, which belongs to the main character of “The Song of Roland”). There are a lot of things, but they are standard, there are almost of them! don't notice. At the same time, their “inventory lists” can be! ominously self-sufficient - so, mainly through long lists of numerous purchases replacing each other, the life of the heroes of the story is shown French writer J. Perek “Things”.
With development technology The range of things depicted in literature is expanding. They began to write about giant factories, about the hellish punitive machine (“In the Penal Colony” by F. Kafka), about the machine of times, about computer systems, about robots in human form (modern science fiction novels). But at the same time, alarms about the downside of scientific and technological progress are becoming increasingly louder. In Russian Soviet prose and poetry of the 20th century. “machine fighting motifs” are heard primarily among peasant poets - S. Yesenin, N. Klyuev, S. Klychkov, P. Oreshin, S. Drozhzhin; the authors of the so-called “ village prose" - V. Astafieva, V. Belova, V. Rasputina. And this is not surprising: after all, the peasant way of life suffered most from the continuous industrialization of the country. Entire villages are dying out, destroyed (“Farewell to Matera” by V. Rasputin), folk ideas about beauty, “lada” (the book of the same name by V. Belov), etc. are eradicated from people’s memory. In modern literature it is increasingly heard; warning about an environmental disaster (“The Last Pastoral” by A. Adamovich). All this reflects the real processes occurring in a person’s relationship with things created by his hands, but often beyond his control.
At the same time, a thing in a literary work acts as an element conventional, artistic world. And in contrast to reality, the boundaries between things and humans, living and nonliving, here can be unsteady. Yes, Russians folk tales give numerous examples of the “humanization” of things. Literary characters can be a “stove” (“Geese-Swans”), a doll; (“Baba Yaga”), etc. This tradition is continued by both Russian and foreign literature: “The Tin Soldier” by G.H. Andersen, " blue bird"M. Maeterlinck, "Mystery-bouffe" by V. Mayakovsky, "Until the third roosters" by V.M. Shukshina and others. The world of a work of art can be saturated with things that do not exist in reality. Science fiction literature is replete with descriptions of unprecedented spaceships, orbital stations, hyperboloids, computers, robots, etc. (“Hyperboloid of Engineer Garin” by A. Tolstoy, “Solaris”, “Stalker” by St. Lem, “Moscow-2004” by V. . Voinovich).
Conventionally, we can distinguish the most important functions of things in literature, such as cultural, characterological, plot-compositional.
Thing may be sign depicted era and environment. Particularly visual cultural function of things in travel novels, g where different worlds are presented in a synchronous cross-section: national, class, geographical, etc. Let us recall how Vakula from Gogol’s “The Night Before Christmas”, with the help of evil spirits and his own resourcefulness, gets from a remote Little Russian village to St. Petersburg in a matter of minutes. He is amazed by the architecture and clothing of his contemporaries, distant from his native Dikanka: “...the houses grew and seemed to rise from the ground at every step; the bridges trembled; the carriages were flying<...>pedestrians huddled and crowded under houses strewn with bowls<...>. The blacksmith looked around in amazement in all directions. It seemed to him that all the houses fixed their countless fiery eyes on him and looked. He saw so many gentlemen in cloth-covered fur coats that he didn’t know whose hat to take off.”
Ivan Severyanovich Flyagin, who was languishing in Tatar captivity (Leskov’s story “The Enchanted Wanderer”), did a considerable service, a chest with the necessary accessories for fireworks, which brought indescribable horror to the Tatars, who were not familiar with these attributes of European urban life.
The cultural function of things in historical novel- a genre that was formed in the era of romanticism and strives to visually represent in its descriptions historical time And local flavor(French couleur locale). According to the researcher, in “Notre Dame Cathedral” by V. Hugo, “things live a life deeper than living characters, and the central interest of the novel is focused on things” 1 .
Things also perform a sign function in everyday life-descriptive works. Gogol colorfully depicts the life of the Cossacks in “Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka.” Ostrovsky’s “Columbus of Zamoskvorechye” gained fame not only because of the accuracy of his depiction of the characters of a hitherto unknown “country” to the reader, but also due to the visible embodiment of this “bear’s corner” in all its details and accessories.
An item can serve as a sign of wealth or poverty. According to a tradition originating in the Russian epic, where heroes competed with each other in wealth, striking with an abundance of decorations, precious metals and the stones become this undeniable symbol. Let's remember:
Brocade fabrics are everywhere; The yachts play like heat; There are golden incense burners all around, Raising fragrant steam...
(A. S. Pushkin. “Ruslan and Lyudmila”)
Or the fairytale palace from “The Scarlet Flower” ST. Aksakov: “the decoration everywhere is royal, unheard of and unprecedented: gold, silver, oriental crystal, ivory and mammoth.”
No less important characterological function of things. Gogol's works show the “intimate connection of things” 1 with their owners. No wonder Chichikov loved to look at the home of the next victim of his speculation. “He thought to find in it the properties of the owner himself, just as one can judge from a shell what kind of oyster or snail was sitting in it” (“ Dead Souls" -T. 2, ch. 3, early ed.).
Things can line up in a sequential row. IN " Dead souls“, for example, every chair shouted: “And I, too, Sobakevich!” But one character can be described detail. For example, a jar with the inscription “laceberry”, prepared by the caring hands of Fenechka (“Fathers and Sons” by Turgenev). Interiors are often depicted according to a contrasting principle - let us recall the description of the rooms of two debtors of the moneylender Gobsek: the countess and the “fairy of purity” seamstress Fanny (“Gobsek” by O. Balzac). Against the background of this literary tradition, it can become significant and absence things (so-called minus reception): it emphasizes the complexity of the hero's character. So, Raisky, trying to find out more about Vera, who is mysterious to him (“Cliff” by I.A. Goncharov), asks Marfinka to show him his sister’s room. He “had already pictured this room in his mind: he crossed the threshold, looked around the room and was disappointed in his expectations: there was nothing there!”
Things often become signs, symbols human experiences:
I look like crazy at the black shawl, And my cold soul is tormented by sadness.
(A. S. Pushkin. “Black Shawl”)
The “copper cones” on grandfather’s chair completely calmed him down little hero from Aksakov’s story “The Childhood Years of Bagrov’s Grandson”: “How strange it is! These chairs and copper cones first of all caught my eye, attracted my attention and seemed to dispel and cheer me up a little.” And in V. Astafiev’s story “Arc,” the hero’s accidental discovery of a duta from the wedding train fills him with memories of the long-forgotten times of his youth.
One of the common functions of things in a literary work is plot-compositional. Let us recall the ominous role of the scarf in the tragedy “Othello” by W. Shakespeare, the necklace from Leskov’s story of the same name, the “queen’s slippers” from Gogol’s “The Night Before Christmas”, etc. Things occupy a special place in detective literature (which is emphasized by Chekhov in his parodic stylization “The Swedish Match”). Without details, this genre is unthinkable.
The material world of the work has its own composition. On the one hand, details often line up in a row, forming a totality interior, landscape, portrait etc. Let us recall the detailed description of Leskov’s heroes (“Soborians”), the urban landscape in “Crime and Punishment” by F.M. Dostoevsky, numerous luxury items in “The Picture of Dorian Gray” by O. Wilde.
On the other hand, one thing highlighted in the work close up, carries an increased semantic and ideological load, developing into symbol 1. Is it possible to call “a dried-up flower without any smell” (A.S. Pushkin) or “geranium flowers in the window” (Taffy. “On the island of my memories...”) just a detail of the interior? What is the “satin turlyu-lu” (“Woe from Wit” by A.S. Griboyedov) or the Onegin “Bolivar” hat? What does the “respected closet” from Chekhov’s “The Cherry Orchard” mean? Symbolic things are brought into title work of art (“ Shagreen leather"O. Balzac, " Garnet bracelet» A.I. Kuprin, “Pearls” N.S. Gumilyov, “Twelve Chairs” by I. Ilf and B. Petrov). The simolization of things is especially characteristic lyrics due to its attraction to the semantic richness of the word. Each of the objects mentioned in G. Shengeli’s poem evokes a number of associations:
In tables “purchased on the occasion” At sales and auctions, I like to look through their boxes... What was in them? Paper, wills, Poems, flowers, love confessions. All souvenirs are a sign of hopes and faith, Recipes, opium, rings, money, pearls, From the son’s head there is a funeral crown. IN last minute-revolver?
(“In tables, “on the occasion of those purchased.”.*)
IN context The symbolism of a work of art may change. Thus, the fence in Chekhov’s story “The Lady with the Dog” became a symbol of a painful, joyless life: “Right opposite the house there was a fence, gray, long, with nails. “You’ll run away from such a fence,” thought Gurov, looking first at the windows, then at the fence.” However, in other contexts, the fence symbolizes the desire for beauty, harmony, and faith in people. This is exactly how the episode with the heroine’s restoration of the front garden, destroyed every night by her careless fellow villagers, is “read” in the context of A. V. Vampilov’s play “Last Summer in Chulimsk”.
Brevity author's text V drama,"metonymic" and "metaphorical" lyrics 1 somewhat limit the depiction of things in these types of literature. The most extensive possibilities for recreating the material world open up in epic.
Genre differences in works also affect the depiction of things and the actualization of certain of their functions. Signs of a particular way of life, culture, things appear primarily in historical novels and plays, in everyday works, in particular in "physiological" essays, V science fiction. The plot function of things is actively “exploited” detective genres. The degree of detail in the material world depends on the author’s style. An example of the dominance of things in a work of art is the novel by E. Zola “Ladies' Happiness”. The optimistic philosophy of the novel is contrasted with the critical pictures of reality drawn by the writer in previous novels of the Rougon-Macquart series. Striving, as Zola wrote in a sketch for the novel, “to show the joy of action and the pleasure of being,” the author sings a hymn to the world of things as a source of earthly joys. The kingdom of material life is equal in its rights with the kingdom of spiritual life, therefore Zola composes “poems of women’s dresses,” comparing them with a chapel, then with a temple, then with the altar of a “huge temple” (Chapter XIV). The opposite style trend is the absence and rarity of descriptions of things. Thus, it was very sparingly indicated in G. Hesse’s novel “The Glass Bead Game,” which emphasizes the detachment from everyday, material concerns of the Master of the Game and the inhabitants of Castalia in general. The absence of things can be no less significant than their abundance.
The description of things in a literary work can be one of its style dominants. This is typical for a number of literary genres: artistic-historical, science-fiction, morally descriptive (physiological essay, utopian novel), artistic-ethnographic (travel), etc. It is important for the writer to show the unusualness of the situation surrounding the characters, its difference from the one to which the implicit reader is accustomed. This goal is also achieved through detailing the material world, and not only the selection of objects of material culture is important, but also the method of describing them.
Emphasizing the originality of a particular way of life, everyday life, writers widely use various lexical layers language, the so-called passive dictionary, as well as words that have a limited scope of use: archaisms, historicisms, dialectisms, barbarisms, professionalisms, neologisms, vernacular etc. The use of such vocabulary, being an expressive technique, at the same time often creates difficulties for the reader. Sometimes the authors themselves, anticipating this, supply the text with notes and special dictionaries, as Gogol did in “Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka.” Among the words explained by pasichnik Rudy Panko in the “Preface”, the lion’s share belongs to the designation of things: "bandura"- instrument, type of guitar, "batog"- whip", "Kaganets"- a type of lamp" "cradle- tube", "rushnik"- wiper", "smishki"- mutton fur, "khustka"- handkerchief”, etc. It would seem that Gogol could immediately write Russian words, but then “Evenings...” would have largely lost the local flavor cultivated by the aesthetics of romanticism.
Usually help the reader understand a text rich in passive vocabulary intermediaries:
Material from Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia
Literary archetype- frequently repeated images, plots, motifs in folklore and literary works. According to A. Yu. Bolshakova’s definition, a literary archetype is a “end-to-end”, “generative model”, which, despite the fact that it has the ability to external changes, harbors an unchangeable value-semantic core.
Archetype Research
The problem of artistic refraction of archetypes in a literary work attracted the attention of researchers of the 20th century. Archetypal prototypes, or protoforms, as they were defined by C. G. Jung, being a manifestation of the “collective unconscious,” accompany man for centuries and are reflected in mythology, religion, and art. A variety of literary and artistic images and/or motifs grow from a certain archetypal core, conceptually enriching its original “scheme”, “crystal system” (C. G. Jung). In the first half of the 20th century, in line with the psychoanalytic studies of S. Freud, identifying echoes of mythopoetic consciousness at various cultural levels became almost dominant (the mythological-ritual approach of J. J. Frazer, ethnographic - L. Levy-Bruhl, symbolological - E. Cassirer, structural anthropology of C. Lévi-Strauss). Mythological criticism of the second half of the 20th century builds its research in line with two concepts - relatively speaking, Frazerian (mytho-ritual) and Jungian (archetypal). Representatives of the ritual-mythological school - M. Bodkin (England), N. Fry (Canada), R. Chase and F. Watts (USA) - firstly, were engaged in the discovery of conscious and unconscious mythological motifs in literary and artistic works and, secondly, they paid great attention to the reproduction of ritual schemes of initiation rites, equivalent, according to their ideas, to the psychological archetype of death and rebirth. During the same period, in literary studies there was a growing awareness that no less important in the analysis of a literary work is not so much the reconstruction of the mythopoetic layer as the determination of the ideological load of certain archetypal components. M. Bodkin herself already notes the paradigm of changes in basic archetypes, a kind of their development in the course of historical and literary development into literary forms, where typological repetition (“long lines,” as the researcher called them) becomes the most important feature. Following Bodkin, A. Yu. Bolshakova speaks about the high degree of generalization and typological stability of the literary archetype. Jung’s interpretation of the archetype in literary criticism of the Soviet period was considered by S. S. Averintsev (article “C.-G. Jung’s “Analytical Psychology” and the Patterns of Creative Fantasy”) and E. M. Meletinsky (book “Poetics of Myth”). The researchers come to the conclusion that the term “archetype” denotes the most general, fundamental and universal mythological motifs that underlie any artistic and mythological structures “without any obligatory connection with Jungianism as such.” E. M. Meletinsky (“Poetics of Myth”, “Analytical Psychology and the Problem of the Origin of Archetypal Plots”), A. Yu. Bolshakova (“Theory of the Archetype at the Turn of the 20th-21st Centuries”, “Literary Archetype”) believe that in the 20th century, a tendency is developing towards a transition from a purely mythological and psychological understanding of the archetype to the adoption of a model of a literary archetype.
Literary archetype models
A. Bolshakova in her article “Literary Archetype” identifies several meanings of “archetype” as a literary category:
- writer's individuality (for example, scientists speak of Pushkin as an “archaic archetype of the poet”);
- “eternal images” (Hamlet, Don Juan, Don Quixote);
- types of heroes (“mothers”, “children”, etc.);
- images are symbols, often natural (flower, sea).
One of the main properties of a literary archetype is its typological stability and high degree of generalization. According to A. A. Faustov, an archetype can mean “a universal image or plot element, or their stable combinations of different natures and different scales (up to the author’s archetypes).”
In literary works of the 20th century, the transformative author’s principle comes first, and the mythopoetic and psychological core of one or another archetype experiences increasing conceptual “tension” of the entire system of artistic coordinates. Under the influence of historical and social changes, the literary archetype increasingly reveals actual meaning, “built-in” into the artistic concept and realized in the work. Examples of fundamental archetypes at the psychological and general cultural levels are the concepts of “house”, “road” and “child”. These archetypal principles, judging by their frequency, seem to be dominant in literary works.
Write a review of the article "Archetype (literature)"
Notes
Literature
- Averintsev S. S. Archetypes // Myths of the peoples of the world. Encyclopedia: in 2 volumes / chapter. ed. S. A. Tokarev. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1992. - T. 1 A-K. - pp. 110-111.
- Dmitrovskaya M. A. Transformation of the archetype of the house, or the meaning of the ending of V. Nabokov’s novel “Mashenka” // Archetypal structures of artistic consciousness: Collection of articles. - Ekaterinburg: Ural University, 2001. - Issue. 2. - pp. 92-96.
Excerpt characterizing the Archetype (literature)
Princess Marya looked at her brother in surprise. She didn't understand why he was smiling. Everything her father did aroused in her a reverence that was not subject to discussion.“Everyone has their own Achilles’ heel,” continued Prince Andrei. - With his enormous mind, donner dans ce ridicule! [give in to this pettiness!]
Princess Marya could not understand the boldness of her brother’s judgments and was preparing to object to him, when the expected steps were heard from the office: the prince entered quickly, cheerfully, as he always walked, as if deliberately, with his hasty manners, representing the opposite of the strict order of the house.
At the same instant, the large clock struck two, and others echoed in a thin voice in the living room. The prince stopped; from under hanging thick eyebrows, lively, brilliant, stern eyes looked at everyone and settled on the young princess. At that time, the young princess experienced the feeling that the courtiers experience at the royal exit, the feeling of fear and respect that this old man aroused in all those close to him. He stroked the princess's head and then, with an awkward movement, patted her on the back of her head.
“I’m glad, I’m glad,” he said and, still looking intently into her eyes, quickly walked away and sat down in his place. - Sit down, sit down! Mikhail Ivanovich, sit down.
He showed his daughter-in-law a place next to him. The waiter pulled out a chair for her.
- Go, go! - said the old man, looking at her rounded waist. – I was in a hurry, it’s not good!
He laughed dryly, coldly, unpleasantly, as he always laughed, with only his mouth and not his eyes.
“We need to walk, walk, as much as possible, as much as possible,” he said.
The little princess did not hear or did not want to hear his words. She was silent and seemed embarrassed. The prince asked her about her father, and the princess spoke and smiled. He asked her about mutual acquaintances: the princess became even more animated and began to talk, conveying her bows and city gossip to the prince.
“La comtesse Apraksine, la pauvre, a perdu son Mariei, et elle a pleure les larmes de ses yeux, [Princess Apraksina, poor thing, lost her husband and cried all her eyes out,” she said, becoming more and more animated.
As she perked up, the prince looked at her more and more sternly and suddenly, as if having studied her sufficiently and formed a clear concept about her, he turned away from her and turned to Mikhail Ivanovich.
- Well, Mikhaila Ivanovich, our Buonaparte is having a bad time. How Prince Andrei (he always called his son that in the third person) told me what forces were gathering against him! And you and I all considered him an empty person.
Mikhail Ivanovich, who absolutely did not know when you and I said such words about Bonaparte, but understood that he was needed to enter into a favorite conversation, looked at the young prince in surprise, not knowing what would come of it.
– He’s a great tactician! - the prince said to his son, pointing to the architect.
And the conversation turned again to the war, about Bonaparte and the current generals and statesmen. The old prince seemed to be convinced not only that all the current leaders were boys who did not understand the ABCs of military and state affairs, and that Bonaparte was an insignificant Frenchman who was successful only because there were no longer Potemkins and Suvorovs to oppose him; but he was even convinced that there were no political difficulties in Europe, there was no war, but there was some kind of puppet comedy that modern people played, pretending to do business. Prince Andrei cheerfully endured his father’s ridicule of new people and with visible joy called his father to a conversation and listened to him.
“Everything seems good that was before,” he said, “but didn’t the same Suvorov fall into the trap that Moreau set for him, and didn’t know how to get out of it?”
- Who told you this? Who said? - the prince shouted. - Suvorov! - And he threw away the plate, which Tikhon quickly picked up. - Suvorov!... After thinking, Prince Andrei. Two: Friedrich and Suvorov... Moreau! Moreau would have been a prisoner if Suvorov had had his hands free; and in his arms sat Hofs Kriegs Wurst Schnapps Rath. The devil is not happy with him. Come and find out these Hofs Kriegs Wurst Rath! Suvorov didn’t get along with them, so where can Mikhail Kutuzov get along? No, my friend,” he continued, “you and your generals cannot cope with Bonaparte; we need to take the French so that our own people don’t get to know our own and our own people don’t beat our own people. The German Palen was sent to New York, to America, for the Frenchman Moreau,” he said, hinting at the invitation that Moreau made this year to join the Russian service. - Miracles!... Were the Potemkins, Suvorovs, Orlovs Germans? No, brother, either you've all gone crazy, or I've lost my mind. God bless you, and we'll see. Bonaparte became their great commander! Hm!...
“I’m not saying anything about all the orders being good,” said Prince Andrei, “but I can’t understand how you can judge Bonaparte like that.” Laugh as you want, but Bonaparte is still a great commander!
- Mikhaila Ivanovich! - shouted old prince to the architect, who, having busied himself with the roast, hoped that they had forgotten about him. – Did I tell you that Bonaparte is a great tactician? There he is speaking.
“Of course, your Excellency,” answered the architect.
The prince laughed again with his cold laugh.
– Bonaparte was born in a shirt. His soldiers are wonderful. And he attacked the Germans first. But only lazy people didn’t beat the Germans. Since the world stood still, the Germans have been beaten by everyone. And they have no one. Only each other. He made his glory on them.
And the prince began to analyze all the mistakes that, according to his ideas, Bonaparte made in all his wars and even in government affairs. The son did not object, but it was clear that no matter what arguments were presented to him, he was just as little able to change his mind as the old prince. Prince Andrei listened, refraining from objections and involuntarily wondering how this old man, sitting alone in the village for so many years, could know and discuss in such detail and with such subtlety all the military and political circumstances of Europe in recent years.
“Do you think I, an old man, don’t understand the current state of affairs?” – he concluded. - And that’s where it is for me! I don't sleep at night. Well, where is this great commander of yours, where did he show himself?
“That would be long,” answered the son.
- Go to your Buonaparte. M lle Bourienne, voila encore un admirateur de votre goujat d'empereur! [here is another admirer of your servile emperor...] - he shouted in excellent French.
