Claude Levi-Strauss – The Structural Study of Myth – summary, review, and analysis

One of the most influential works in anthropology and structural analysis is "The Structural
Study of Myth" published by Claude Levi-Strauss in 1955. Levi-Strauss' "The Structural
Study of Myth" is a programmatic article that discusses the manner in which anthropology
should approach the study of myths. Levi-Strauss uses some examples in "The Structural
Study of Myth" to illustrate his structural model of myth analysis, but his article is first and
foremost a guide to analyzing mythologies.

At the opening of "The Structural Study of Myth" Levi-Strauss discusses an alleged paradox
in myths: on the one hand myths seem arbitrary in that that they do not abide by any logic
and anything can happen in a myth. On the other hand,
Levi-Strauss notes that many different cultures present similar myths, a fact
which does not sit well with the seemingly arbitrary nature of myths.

According to Levi-Strauss, it is this contradiction that points the way in the direction of the
warranted methodology for the study of myth. While content varies in myth, both across
cultures and across times, structure remains the same and stays the same in different
cultures and times. According to Levi-Strauss, the "deep structure" of the myth should be the
object of interest for anthropologists and the study of myth. What Levi-Strauss is concerned
with is not the content of even the structure of a single myth, but rather the underlying
structure which exists in groups of myths and even all myths.

The basic premise of Levi-Strauss' "The Structural Study of Myth" is that myth is like
language, or rather is language. Myth is not only conveyed by language, it also functions like
language in the manner described by de- Saussure in The Nature of the Linguistic Sign and
his differentiation between "langue" and "parole". According to Levi-Strauss a myth also has
its langue which is the synchronous structure which enables the specific parole of a certain
myth. While details may vary from myth to myth, the structure remains the same.

In his "The Structural Study of Myth" anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss argues that myth is
like language. One might suppose that myth is a subdivision of language (a specific form of
using language) but according to Levi-Strauss myth has its own characteristics which
distinguish it from its language and which make myth a language in itself. This special
attribute of myth is revealed according to Levi-Strauss in the attempt to translate a mythical
narrative form one language to another. Unlike other form of language, and especially
poetry, which lose a lot in translation, myth retains its capacities even when poorly
translated. According to Levi-Strauss, this is due to the nature of the structural components
which make up a myth which are irreducible and recurrent across myths.
These structural components of myths, which Levi-Strauss terms "mythemes" are not
important in themselves and have no intrinsic value but rather, much like the nature of the
linguistic sign according to de-Saussure, depend on their structural alignment in order to
gain meaning. Every mytheme receives its meaning form its position in the myth and its
relations with other mythemes.

In "The Structural Study of Myth" Levi-Strauss is curious how different mythemes group
together and reproduced as an underlying structure of myth. The method Levi-Strauss
suggests for the study of myth is supposed to address exactly this concern.
According to Levi-Strauss, a myth should by analyzed into its mythemes which are
subsequently classified and visually sorted in columns. The horizontal axis of the mythemes
chart represents diachronical development in the myth. The vertical column represents
variations on the same subject. Thus a map of relations between mythemes is received
which enables the anthropologist to see both temporal and thematic relations. Only is
reading the myth with both these aspects taken together into account can the meaning of the
myth be deciphered.

In his "The Structural Study of Myth" Claude Levi-Strauss uses the famous example of the
myth of Oedipus to illustrate his structural methodology for the study of myth. Levi-Strauss
divides the different mythemes (structural units that make up the myth) of the Oedipus myth
into a chart that provides both diachronic and synchronic, both syntagmatic and
paradigmatic, representation of the structure of the myth. Each column in Levi-Strauss' chart
of the Oedipus myth expresses variants of the same theme and the development of the plot
is represented by the relations between the columns.

This method enables Levi-Strauss to locate binary relations in the Oedipus myth. For
example, the first column in Levi-Strauss' chart has mythemes that represent the attribution
of high value to kinship relations (such as Oedipus marries his mother) while events in the
second column represent a downscaling of the family (Oedipus kills his father). The third and
fourth column in Levi-Strauss' chart of the Oedipus myth represent a binary contradiction
regarding the autochthonous origins of man.

Thus, Levi-Strauss' chart of the mythemes of the Oedipus myth find two sets of contradiction
which Levi-Strauss finds to be correlated. The validation of the autochthonous theme is the
devaluation of the family and kinship and vise-versa. According to Levi-Strauss, these
contradictions appear in other cultures' mythologies and they therefore represent a central
issue for all cultures.

According to Levi-Strauss in "The Structural Study of Myth" symbolic translation of different

issues is what makes up the myth in the first place and what enables it to function. For
example, a binary pair like life/death can be translated into a symbolic pair of sky/earth and
eventually find a symbol which unites the two, such as mist (located between the sky and the
earth and connects them). These relations should, according to Levi-Strauss, the object of
the study of myth.

Claude Levi-Strauss was heavily influenced by de-Saussure thoughts on the nature of the
linguistic sign. But while de-Saussure separated the synchronic from the diachronic and
focused his attention only on the former, Levi-Strauss hold that a myth is not static, and the
different times see different versions of the same myth.

When faces with multiple versions of the same myth anthropology until Levi-Strauss was
concerned with figuring out which is the "true" version. Levi-Strauss holds that there is no
"correct" of "original" version of a myth and that all versions are valid for study especially if
studied together. This is because that all versions of a myth, however different in their detail,
represent the same "deep structure" of the myth. The extraction of this deep structure of
myth can be facilitated by the co-examining of different version of the same myth. The
structural study of myth according to Levi-Strauss is able to make order out of chaos by
analyzing variations on the structure of the myth. This, for example, can serve to study the
way a myth develops over time.

For Levi-Strauss, a myth is the product of contradicting values which exist in every culture.
Contradiction such as life and death are irreconcilable and humans are therefore pushed to
resolve the contradiction through its symbolic processing in the myth. The myth works to
symbolically resolve cultural contradictions through mediating symbol chains. For example:
the contradiction of life/death is translated into the contradiction between agriculture and
hunting, which is in turn translated in the myth into the binary pair of herbivores and
carnivores and the eventual mediating "in between" symbol of the scavenger (a coyote or
raven).
Tracing the route of such symbolic transfigurations in the myth is the manner in which
Levi-Strauss believes that anthropology should proceed in the study of myth.

Literary Theory, Criticism, and History by René Wellek

Indeed, there’s no proper term to mention literary study. It is usually called scholarship. This
term is, sometimes, listened too academic. The other term had ever used is philology. The
using of this term is open to misunderstanding. Literary theory itself is the study of the
principles of literature, its categories, criteria, and the like, and by differentiating studies of
concrete works of art as either “literary criticism” (primarily static in approach) or “literary
history” (Wellek & Warren. 1977: 39).

The distinction of literary theory, criticism and history is clear enough. There’s a strong
relation among them. Nevertheless, the efforts to separate them have ever been done.
These give result in some views.

Historicism is the first view then evoked. This view wanted to separate literary history from
literary criticism. Federick A. Pottle had a more extreme view. His argument was each period
has its own different critical conceptions and conventions. The rest convinced that Classic
and Romantic period can’t be connected: the classical works tends to be “poetry of
statement”, meanwhile the romantic tends to be “poetry of implication”.

It is common that the writer’s intention in a literary work becomes the subject matter of
literary history. It can’t be done because literary work itself is a system of values (Wellek &
Warren. 1977: 42). Value is all about judgement. In practice, however, it is difficult to give a
value judgement: the relativism comes to the “anarchy of value”; and absolutism emphasizes
on “unchanging human nature” or “universality of art”. Perspectivism is in the boundary or
gray area.

There’s no literary history that was written without a selection. A literary historian can’t
separate himself from literary critic. Literary works, whenever it is made, is always interesting
to learn. The literary historian must be a critic even in order to be a historian (Wellek &
Warren. 1977: 44).

The works of 18th century is the main subject matter of conventional literary history. This is
due to their gracious, more stable, and more hierarchic world. The works from the late 19th
century followed its previous. It was learnt as well. The scholarly attitude, which firstly didn’t
want to learn the works of contemporary works, then faded away. The reason not to study
these works was due to the writers were still alive. Mostly, the critic chose the “verdict of the
ages” namely writing of the other critics or readers. So that, simply we can sum up that
literary history is quiet important for the critics.

Wellek delve with the nature and function of literature, and there is a constant endeavour to
distinguish between literature and literary study. The book also deals with literary theory,
history and criticism and it tries to show that these are inter dependent and cannot be put
into watertight compartments. While distinguishing between literature and literary study the
book raises important questions of how does one deal intellectually with literary study? Can
one use the general scientific ideals of objectivity in the study of art and specifically of literary
art? One needs to keep in mind that literary scholarship has its own intellectual methods that
are different from those of natural sciences.

Literary history and criticism tries to characterize the individuality of literary art or in other
words, it attempts to reveal the literariness of any work of literature. The problems of
identifying the nature and function of literature have been dealt with in detail.

Language is considered to be the material of literature and literature uses language in a

particular way as opposed to every day and/or scientific use of language. Scientific language
is denotative; it aims at one-one correspondence while literary language is connotative. It is
more expressive and pragmatic. The next important question that the book raises is about
the function of literature and it starts with Horace’s proposition of dulce and utile. In other
words, poetry is both sweet and useful. Here useful signifies that it should not be a waste of
time rather it should deserve serious attention and sweet refers to the fact that it should have
its own reward. Further literature has its cognitive value, which is psychological. Keeping in
mind Aristotle’s Poetics one should remember the cathartic function of literature too. Thus
one gets a discussion of the function of literature as it has emanated from the western world.
One must not forget that fidelity to its own nature should be the prime function of any literary
work of art.

Theory of Literature drives home the point that literary history and literary criticism should not
be divorced from each other. A work of art is both eternal and historical and if the critic loses
the historical relationship then he would not be able to give judgements properly. The book
tries to provide us with the definitions of General Literature, Comparative Literature and
National Literature and deals with the idea of Goethe’s Weltliteratur. It raises the problems of
the term General Literature as used by Paul Van Tieghem who has used the term as a
special concept in contrast to Comparative Literature. General Literature, for Paul Van
Tieghem studies literature transcending national lines and Comparative Literature studies
the interrelationship between two or more literatures. As is evident this creates major
problems in demarcating the specific fields of both General and Comparative Literature.

The second part of the book deals with the tasks of scholarship in assembling its materials,
the undoing of the effects of time and the problems of authorship, date and authenticity. The
task of assembling and cataloguing follows the tedious job of editing and the problems
increase in the case of classical and medieval manuscripts. The book lays down the various
problems of editing and the ways in which some of the problems can be mitigated.
Theory of Literature endeavours to bring the emphasis back on the analysis of the literary
work itself and not on the setting and background of a work of literature. It critiques the shift
from the study of literature to its historical background and it ascribes this shift to the specific
socio-historical developments of the nineteenth century. In contrast to the emphasis on the
setting and social context of a literary work one needs to recognise that the study of
literature should first and foremost concentrate on the actual works of art. Thus the old
methods of rhetoric, poetics and metrics need to be restated with full gusto. The role played
by the Russian Formalists is important here, as they have brought back this impetus in the
study of literature by turning the focus back on the work of literature itself. The distinction
between form and content needs to be done away with since the two cannot be cloistered in
watertight compartments. The work of art needs to be considered as a whole system of
signs, or structure of signs, which serve a particular aesthetic purpose. The study of
literature, therefore, needs to focus on the study of rhythm, euphony and metre, style and
stylistics, image, metaphor, symbol and myth. In short, one has to analyse the formal
linguistic structure of a work of literature.

It analyses the different theories of genres across time starting from Aristotle and Horace.
Genre needs to be conceived of as a grouping of literary works based on their inner and
outer forms. The study of genre is important as it helps to comprehend the interrelationship
between literary criticism and literary history; in short it gives a better understanding of the
literary process as a whole. Theory of Literature also draws the attention of the literary
scholar by giving a possibility of writing a literary history.

It views literary history as something which is simultaneously literary and history. It claims
that most histories of literature are either social histories or histories of thought and/
judgements on specific works arranged chronologically. It raises an important question as to
why there has been no attempt to trace the evolution of literature as an art? Also, the literary
historian needs to take cognizance of the problems of using terms derived from the rules of
sovereign like Victorian, Edwardian and purely literary terms like Neo Classic and
Romanticism. No work of art remains unchanged through the course of history. The literary
situation changes with time hence there cannot be a single history of literature. Therefore the
process of interpretation, criticism, and appreciation of literature needs to be dynamic and
the task of the literary scholar and literary historian is to comprehend and trace this process.

The book thus incorporates a wide range of topics and tries to provide a systematic way of
studying and interpreting literature. It takes into cognizance Wellek’s familiarity with Russian
Formalism, the Prague Linguistic Circle and the German Geistesgeschichte and Stylistics
and Warren’s appreciation of the American New Criticism and the History of Criticism.
Theory of Literature hinges on the point that aesthetic fact cannot be divorced from the
evaluation and criticism of literary work if the study of literature wants to be an
all-encompassing one.
Northrop Frye: The Archetypes of Literature

Part-I THE CONCEPT OF ARCHETYPAL CRITICISM

Literature can be interpreted in as many ways as possible, and there are different
approaches to literature, and one among them is the archetypal approach. The term
“archetype” means an original idea or pattern of something of which others are copies.
Archetypal approach is the interpretation of a text in the light of cultural patterns involved in
it, and these cultural patterns are based on the myths and rituals of a race or nation or social
group. Myths and rituals are explored in a text for discovery of meaning and message. In
recent times this type of critics. approach to a text has gained popularity. James George
Frazer and Carl Gustav Jung are the two great authorities who, have greatly contributed to
the development of archetypal approach. Frazer was a social anthropologist and his book
The Golden Bough makes a study of magic, religion and myths of different races. Jung was
a psychologist associated with Freud. The “collective consciousness” is a major theory of
Jung. According to Jung, civilized man “unconsciously” preserves the ideas, concepts and
values of life cherished by his distant forefathers, and such ideas are expressed in a
society’s or race’s myths and rituals. Creative writers have used myths in their works and
critics analyze texts for a discovery of “mythological patterns.” This kind of critical analysis of
a text is called archetypal criticism. T.S. Eliot has used mythical patterns in his creative
works and The Waste Land is a good example of it. Northrop Frye in his essay does not
analyze any particular myth in a work and in fact, he presents an analysis of “mythical
patterns” which have been used by writers in general.

Two Types of Criticism and the Humanities

Like science, literary criticism is also a systematized and organized body of knowledge.
Science dissects and analyses nature and facts. Similarly literary criticism analyses and
interprets literature. Frye further says that literacy criticism and its theories and techniques
can be taught, but literature cannot be taught, rather it is to be felt and enjoyed. Indeed,
literary criticism is like science and it can be creative. There are two types of literary
criticism: a significant and meaningful criticism, and a meaningless criticism. A meaningless
criticism will not help a reader in developing a systematic structure of knowledge about a
work of literature. This kind of criticism will give only the background information about a
work. A meaningless criticism will distract the reader from literature. Literature is a part of
humanities and humanities include philosophy and history also. These two branches of
knowledge provide a kind of pattern for understanding literature. Philosophy and history are
two major tools- for interpretation of literature and archetypal criticism is based on
philosophy and history of a people. Archetypal criticism is meaningful criticism.

Formalistic Criticism & Historical Criticism

There are different types of criticism and most of them remain commentaries on texts. There
is a type of criticism, which focuses only on an analysis of a text. Such a criticism confines
itself to the text and does not give any other background information about the text. This type
of formalistic or structural criticism will help the readers in understanding a text only to some
extent. That is, a reader may understand the pattern of a text, but how the pattern is evolved,
he cannot understand without the background information, which may be called historical
criticism. Structural criticism will help a reader in understanding the pattern of a text and
historical criticism will make the reader’s understanding clearer. What the readers require
today is a synthesis of structural criticism and historical criticism. Archetypal criticism is a
synthesis of structural criticism and historical criticism.

Literary Criticism is a Science

Science explores nature and different branches of science explore different aspects of
nature. Physics is a branch of science, which explores matter and natural forces of the
universe. Physics and Astronomy gained their scientific significance and they were accepted
as branches of science during the Renaissance. Chemistry gained the status of science in
the eighteenth century, and so did Biology in the nineteenth century. Social Sciences
assumed their significance as part of science in the twentieth century. Similarly, literary
criticism, today, has become systematic in its analysis, and therefore it could be considered
as a science. Based on this concept, a work of literature may be critically (or scientifically)
evaluated, says Northrop Frye. Among the tools of criticism, he uses the two methods:
structural criticism and historical criticism. The two concepts, he explains in detail in the
second and third parts of this critical essay respectively.

Part-II THE INDUCTIVE METHOD OF ANALYSIS Structural Criticism and Inductive

Analysis

Towards the close of the first section, Frye contends that structural criticism will help a
reader in understanding a text, and in his analysis, he proceeds inductively. That is, from
particular truths in a work, he draws forth general truths. Owing to jealousy, Othello, in the
Shakespearean play, inflicts upon himself affliction and this is the particular truth of the
drama from which the reader learns the general truth of life that jealousy is always
destructive. This is called the inductive method of analysis under structural criticism, and
Frye discusses this in detail in this section of the essay. An author cannot intrude into his text
and express his personal emotions and comments. He should maintain absolute objectivity.
A critic studies a work and finds out whether an author is free from textual interference. This
is a sort of psychological approach also, and this method of criticism helps the reader in
understanding an author’s personal symbols, images and myths which he incorporates in his
works. At times the author himself may be unconscious of the myths, symbols etc., which he
has exploited in his works, and the critic “discovers” such things.

Historical Criticism and Inductive Analysis

Under the second type of criticism called historical criticism, a critic interprets the birth of a
text and resolves that it is an outcome of the social and cultural demands of a society in a
particular period. The social and cultural milieus are the causes responsible for the creation
of a work. Quite evidently the historical-critic plays a major role in the understanding of a
text. In fact, both structural criticism and historical criticism are a necessity in archetypal
criticism and neither can be dispensed with. But either of them alone does not explain a work
completely. A historical critic discovers common symbols and images being used by different
writers in their works, and resolves that there must be a common ‘source from which writers
have derived their symbols, images and myths. The sea is a common symbol used by many
writers over the years and therefore it is an archetypal symbol. Not only symbols, images
and myths are archetypal; even genres are archetypal. For example, the genre of drama
originates from Greek religion. Thus the historical inductive method of criticism helps the
readers in understanding not only symbols, images and myths, but also the very genre itself.

The Collective Unconscious or Racial Memory

Archetypal criticism dissects and analyses symbols, images and mythologies used by a
writer in his works, and these symbols, myths and rituals have their origin in primitive myths,
rituals, folk-lore and cultures. Such primitive factors according to Jung lie buried in the
“collective unconscious” which may otherwise be called “racial memory” of a people. Since a
writer is part of a race, what lies in his “unconscious” mind is expressed in his works in the
form, of myths, rituals, symbols and images. Archetypal criticism focuses on such things in a
work. In archetypal criticism, under the reductive method of analysis, a critic, while
elucidating a text, moves from the particular truth to the general truth. A particular symbol or
myth leads to the establishment of a general truth. Works of art are created in this way and
their origin is in primitive cultures. Literature is produced in this manner over the years.

Archetypal Criticism and Its Facets

Archetypal criticism is an all-inclusive term. It involves the efforts of many specialists, and at
every stage of interpretation of a text, it is based “on a certain kind of scholarly organization.”
An editor is needed to “clean up” the text; a rhetorician analyses the narrative pace; a
philologist scrutinizes the choice and significance of words; a literary social historian studies
the evolution of myths and rituals. Under archetypal criticism the efforts of all these
specialists converge on the analysis of a text. The contribution of a literary anthropologist to
archetypal criticism is no small. In an archetypal study of Hamlet an anthropologist traces the
sources of the drama to the Hamlet legend described by Saxo, a thirteenth century Danish
historian in his book entitled Danes, Gesta Danorum. He further traces the sources of the
drama to nature myths, which were in vogue in the Norman Conquest period. Thus an
anthropologist makes a threadbare analysis of the origins of Hamlet under archetypal
criticism.

Part - III DEDUCTIVE METHOD OF ANALYSIS Rhythm and Pattern in Literature

An archetypal critic, under the deductive method of analysis, proceeds to establish the
meaning of a work from the general truth to the particular truth. Literature is like music and
painting. Rhythm is an essential characteristic of music and in painting, pattern is the chief
virtue. Rhythm in music is temporal and pattern in painting is spatial. In literature both rhythm
and pattern are recurrence of images, forms and words. In literature rhythm means the
narrative and the narrative presents all the events and episodes as a sequence and hastens
action. Pattern in literature signifies its verbal structure and conveys a meaning. In producing
the intended artistic effect, a work of literature should have both rhythm (narrative) and
pattern (meaning).

Rhythm in a Work

The world of nature is governed by rhythm and it has got a natural cycle. The seasonal
rhythms in a solar year are spring, winter, autumn and summer. This kind of rhythm is there
in the world of animals and in the human world also. The mating of animals and birds
rhythmically takes place in a particular season every year and the mating may be called a
ritual. A ritual is not performed frequently, but rhythmically after a long gap and it has a
meaning. The mating of animals has the meaning of reproduction. In the world of nature also
rituals are rhythmic. Crops are planted and harvested rhythmically every year and they have
their seasons. At the time of planting and harvest, sacrifices and offerings are made and
they have a meaning: fertility and consummation of life. In the human world rituals are
performed voluntarily and they have their own significance. Works of literature have their
origins in such rituals and the archetypal critic discovers and explains them. He explains the
rhythm of the rituals, which are the basis of literature in general.

Pattern in a Work

It has already been established that in literature pattern is recurrence of images, forms and
words. Patterns are derived from a writer’s “epiphanic moments.” That is, a writer gets the
concepts of his work or ideas of his work in moments of inspiration and he looks into the
heart of things. Then he expresses what he has “perceived” in the form of proverbs, riddles,
commandments and etiological folktales. Such things have already an element of narrative
and they add further to the narrative of the writer in his works. A writer expresses what he
has “perceived,” and he uses myths either deliberately or unconsciously, and it is the critic
who discovers the archetypes, the myths, in a work and explicates the patterns in the work.
Both pattern and rhythm are the major basic components of a work.

The Four Phases of the Myth

Every myth has a central significance and the narrative in a myth centres on a figure that
may be a god or demi-god or superhuman being or legend. Frazer and Jung contend that in
the development of a myth the central figure or central significance is the most important
factor and many writers have accepted this view. Frye classifies myths into four categories:

1. The dawn, spring and birth phase. There are myths dealing with the birth of a hero, his
revival and resurrection, defeat of the powers of darkness and death. Subordinate
characters such as the father and the mother are introduced in the myth. Such myths are the
archetypes of romance and of rhapsodic poetry.

2. The zenith, summer and marriage or triumph phase. In this phase, there are myths of
apotheosis, (the act of being raised to the rank of a god), of sacred marriage and of entering
into Paradise. Subordinate characters in these myths are the companion and the bride. Such
myths are the archetypes of comedy, pastoral and idyll.

3. The sunset, autumn and death phase. These are the myths dealing with the fall of a hero,
a dying god, violent death, sacrifice and the hero’s isolation. The subordinate characters are
the traitor and the siren. Such myths are the archetypes of tragedy and elegy.

4. The darkness, winter and desolation phase. There are myths dealing with the triumph of
these powers. The myths of floods, the return of chaos and the defeat of the hero are
examples of this phase. The ogre and the witch are the subordinate characters here and
these myths are the archetypes of satire.
These are the four categories of myths, which Frye identifies and they recur in different types
of works written by different writers. Indeed they constitute the bases of many great pieces of
literature.
Quest - Myth

In addition to the four categories of myths mentioned above, Northrop Frye discusses the
quest-myth also which was supposed to have been developed from the four types of myths.
In the quest-myth, the hero goes in quest of a truth or something else, and this type of myth
recurs in all religions. For example, the Messiah myth is a quest myth of the Holy Grail (a
Christian myth) in the last part of The Waste Land. Sacred scriptures of all religions have
their own myths and an archetypal critic will have to examine them closely for an appropriate
interpretation of texts. From an analysis of the archetypes of myths, a critic can descend to
make a study of the genres and from the genres he can further descend to the elucidation of
a text in terms of myth. This type of dissension in criticism is called the deductive method of
analysis. That is, the critic moves from the general truth (a myth) to an elucidation of the
particular truth (the truth of why a character behaves so) in a text. In this way a critic can
analyse from myths how a drama or a lyric or an epic has been evolved. Frye further says
that, almost all genres in every literature have been evolved from the quest-myth only. It is
the duty of an archetypal critic to analyse myths and establish the meaning and message of
a work.
Literary Criticism and Religion

There is a close relationship between literary criticism and religion. In his analysis, a literary
critic considers God as an archetype of man who is portrayed as a hero in a work. God is a
character in the story of Paradise Lost or The Bible, and the critic deals with Him and
considers Him only as a human character. Criticism does not deal with any actuality, but with
what is conceivable and possible. Similarly religion is not associated with scientific actuality,
but with how things look like. Literary criticism works on conceivability. Likewise, religion
functions on conceivability. There can be no place for scientific actuality in both, but what, is
conceived is accepted by all. Both in religion and literary criticism, an epiphany is at work. It
is a revelation of God or truth and it is a profound insight. It originates from the
subconscious, from the dreams. In human life there is a cycle of waking and dreaming and in
nature also, it could be seen and it is the cycle of light and darkness. Waking and dreaming,
and light and darkness are two antithetic factors, which bring about epiphany in a person. It
is during the day that man develops fear and frustration, and it is in the dark of the night his
libido, the strong force of life, awakens and he resolves to achieve. It is the antithesis, which
resolves the problems and misunderstandings of man and makes him perceive truth both in
religion and literary criticism.

The Comic Vision and the Tragic Vision in a Myth

Both art and religion are alike and they aim at perfection. Perfection is the end of all human
efforts. In art it is achieved through dreaming (imagination) and in religion it is through
visualization. Perfection can be achieved in literary criticism also and it is the archetypal critic
who does it through an analysis of the comic vision of life and the tragic vision as well in a
work. The central pattern of the comic vision and the tragic vision in a myth is detailed below:
1. In the comic vision of life, in a myth, the “human” world is presented as a community, or a
hero is portrayed as a representative of the desires of the reader.

Here the archetypes of images are symposium, communion, order, friendship, and love.
Marriage or some equivalent consummation belongs to the comic vision of life.
In the tragic vision of life, in the “human” world, there is tyranny or anarchy, or an individual
or an isolated man, or a leader with his back to his followers or a bullying giant of romance,
or a deserted or betrayed hero. In addition to these, there will be a harlot or a witch or other
varieties of Jung’s “terrible mother” in the tragic vision of life.

2. In the comic vision of life in a myth, the “animal” world is presented as a community of
domesticated animals, usually a flock of sheep, or a lamb, or one of the gentler birds (usually
a dove). The archetypes of images are pastoral images. In the tragic vision of life, in the
“animal” world there are beasts, birds of prey, wolves, vultures, serpents, dragons and so on.

3. In the comic vision of life, in the “vegetable” world of a myth, there is a garden, a grove or
park, or a tree of life, or a rose or lotus. The examples of the archetypes of Arcadian images
are Marvell’s green world and Shakespeare’s forest comedies.

In the tragic vision of life, in the “vegetable” world of a myth, there is a sinister forest like the
one in Milton’s Camus or at the opening of Dante’s Inferno, or a heath or wilderness, or a
tree of death.

4. In the comic vision of life, in the “mineral” world of a myth, there is a city, or one building or
temple, or one stone, normally a glowing precious stone. These are presented as luminous
or fiery. The example of the archetype of image is a “starlit dome.”

In the tragic vision of life, the “mineral” world of a myth is seen in terms of deserts, rocks and
ruins, or of geometrical images like the cross.

5. In the comic vision of life, in the “unformed” world of a myth, there is a river, traditionally
fourfold, which influenced the Renaissance image of the temperate body with its four
humours.

In the tragic vision of life, this world usually becomes the sea, as the narrative myth of
dissolution is so often a flood myth. The combination of the sea and beast images gives us
the leviathan and similar water-borne monsters.

After discussing the central pattern of the comic vision and the tragic vision in a myth, Frye
introduces W.B. Yeats’ “Sailing to Byzantium” as a befitting and famous example of the
comic vision which, in the poem, is represented by the city, the tree, the bird, the community
of sages, the geometrical gyre and the detachment from the cyclic world. It is either tragic or
comic vision of life which determines the interpretation of a symbol or myth, says Frye.

Conclusion

Of the different approaches of literary criticism, Northrop Frye has established the validity of
the archetypal approach and its relevance in the elucidation of a text. Like works of literature,
criticism is also creative and an archetypal critic discovers the meaning of a text and the
motives of a character. No human endeavor is independent and the work of an archetypal
critic is inclusive of formalistic criticism (or structural criticism) and historical criticism. Both
J.G. Frazer and C.G. Jung opened up new vistas in archetypal or mythical criticism and Frye
has obviated the impediments in the appreciation of a text. In mythical criticism, both the
inductive method and the deductive method are effective tools and neither can be dispensed
with, according to Frye. If one method explains a text based on the derivation of a general
truth from the particular, the other method does it the other way round. Both the methods are
complementary, and if either of them is unexploited, archetypal criticism will be incomplete.
Archetypal approach to a text has contributed to the establishment of a systematic and
comprehensive concept of literary criticism.

QUESTION ANS ANSWERS RELATED IN CONTEXT TO:

1. In what way Archetypal criticism discovers basic cultural pattern?

2. “Frye proposed that the totality of literary woks constitute a “self-contained literary
universe” “. Discuss.
3. “In literary criticism the term archetype denotes recurrent narratives designs,
patterns of action, character-types, themes, and images which are identifiable in a
wide variety of works of literature.” Elucidate with N.Frye’s views in his essay
Archetype of Literature

What is Archetypal Criticism? What are the sources of its origin?

In literary criticism the term archetype denotes recurrent narratives designs, patterns of
action, character-types, themes, and images which are identifiable in a wide variety of works
of literature, as well as in myths, dreams, and even social rituals. Such recurrent items are
held to be the result of elemental and universal forms or patterns in the human psyche,
whose effective embodiment in a literary work evokes a profound response from the
attentive reader, because he or she shares the psychic archetypes expressed by the author.
An important antecedent of the literary theory of the archetype was the treatment of myth by
a group of comparative anthropologists at Cambridge University, especially James G.
Frazer, whose The Golden Bough (1890-1915) identified elemental patterns of myth and
ritual that , claimed, recur in the legends and ceremonials of diverse and far-flung cultures
and religions. An even more important antecedent was the depth psychology of Carl G.
Jung(1875-1961), who applied the term “archetype” to what he called “primordial images”,
the “psychic residue” of repeated patterns of experience in our very ancient ancestors which,
he maintained, survive in the “collective unconscious” of the human race and are expressed
in myths, religion, dreams, and private fantasies, as well as in works of literature.

Where is archetypal literary criticism manifested? Who are pioneers of archetypal

literary criticism? What types of archetypal themes, images and characters are traced
in literature by them?

Archetypal literary criticism was given impetus by Maud Bodkin’s Archetypal Patterns in
Poetry (1934) and flourished especially during the 1950s and 1960s. Apart from him, the
other prominent practitioners of various modes of archetypal criticism were G. Wilson
Knight, Robert Graves, Philip Wheelwright, Richard Chase, Leslie Fiedler, and Joseph
Campbell. These critics tended to emphasize the occurrence of mythical patterns in
literature, on the assumption that myths are closest to the elemental archetype than the
artful manipulation of sophisticated writers.

The death/re-birth theme was often said to be the archetype of archetypes, and was held to
be grounded in the cycle of the seasons and the organic cycle of human life; this archetype,
it was claimed, occur in primitive rituals of the king who is annually sacrificed, in widespread
myths of gods who die to be reborn, and in a multitude of diverse texts, including the Bible,
Dante’s Divine Comedy in the early 14th cen., and S.T.Coleridge’sRime of Ancient Mariner in
1798.
Among the other archetypal themes, images and characters frequently traced in literature
were the journey underground, the heavenly ascent, the search, the Paradise/Hades
dichotomy, the Promethean rebel-hero, the scapegoat, the earth goddess, and the fatal
woman.

What is Northrop Frye’s contribution to the archetypal criticism?

Bodkin’s Archetypal Patterns in Poetry, the first work on the subject of archetypal literary
criticism, applies Jung’s theories about the collective unconscious, archetypes, and
primordial images to literature. It was not until the work of the Canadian literary critic
Northrop Frye that archetypal criticism was theorized in purely literary terms. The major work
of Frye’s to deal with archetypes is Anatomy of Criticism but his essay The Archetypes of
Literature is a precursor to the book. Frye’s thesis in “The Archetypes of Literature” remains
largely unchanged in Anatomy of Criticism. Frye’s work helped displace New Criticism as the
major mode of analyzing literary texts, before giving way to structuralism and semiotics.

Frye’s work breaks from both Frazer and Jung in such a way that it is distinct from its
anthropological and psychoanalytical precursors.

In his remarkable and influential book Anatomy of Criticism (1957), N. Frye developed the
archetypal approach into a radical and comprehensive revision of traditional grounds both in
the theory of literature and the practice of literary criticism.

For Frye, the death-rebirth myth that Frazer sees manifest in agriculture and the harvest is
not ritualistic since it is involuntary, and therefore, must be done. As for Jung, Frye was
uninterested about the collective unconscious on the grounds of feeling it was unnecessary:
since the unconscious is unknowable it cannot be studied. How archetypes came to be was
also of no concern to Frye; rather, the function and effect of archetypes is his interest.

Frye proposed that the totality of literary works constitute a “self-contained literary universe”
which has been created over the ages by the human imagination so as to assimilate the
alien and indifferent world of nature into archetypal forms that serve to satisfy enduring
human desires and needs. In this literary universe, four radical mythoi (i.e. plot forms, or
organizing structural principles), correspondent to the four seasons in the cycle of the natural
world, are incorporated in the four major genres of comedy (spring), romance (summer),
tragedy (autumn), and satire (winter).
Within the overarching archetypal mythos of each of these genres, individual works of
literature also play variations upon a number of more limited archetypes – that is,
conventional patterns and types that literature shares with social rituals as well a with
theology, history, law, and , in fact, all “discursive verbal structures.” Viewed arhetypally, Frye
asserted, literature turns out to play an essential role in refashioning the impersonal material
universe into an alternative verbal universe that is intelligible and viable, because it is
adapted to universal human needs and concerns.

There are two basic categories in Frye’s framework, i.e., comedic and tragic. Each category
is further subdivided into two categories: comedy and romance for the comedic; tragedy and
satire (or ironic) for the tragic. Though he is dismissive of Frazer, Frye uses the seasons in
his archetypal schema. Each season is aligned with a literary genre: comedy with spring,
romance with summer, tragedy with autumn, and satire with winter.

● Comedy is aligned with spring because the genre of comedy is characterized by the
birth of the hero, revival and resurrection. Also, spring symbolizes the defeat of winter
and darkness.

● Romance and summer are paired together because summer is the culmination of life
in the seasonal calendar, and the romance genre culminates with some sort of
triumph, usually a marriage.
● Autumn is the dying stage of the seasonal calendar, which parallels the tragedy
genre because it is, (above all), known for the “fall” or demise of the protagonist.

● Satire is metonymized with winter on the grounds that satire is a “dark” genre. Satire
is a disillusioned and mocking form of the three other genres. It is noted for its
darkness, dissolution, the return of chaos, and the defeat of the heroic figure.

The context of a genre determines how a symbol or image is to be interpreted. Frye outlines
five different spheres in his schema: human, animal, vegetation, mineral, and water.

● The comedic human world is representative of wish-fulfillment and being community

centered. In contrast, the tragic human world is of isolation, tyranny, and the fallen
hero.

● Animals in the comedic genres are docile and pastoral (e.g. sheep), while animals
are predatory and hunters in the tragic (e.g. wolves).

● For the realm of vegetation, the comedic is, again, pastoral but also represented by
gardens, parks, roses and lotuses. As for the tragic, vegetation is of a wild forest, or
as being barren.

● Cities, temples, or precious stones represent the comedic mineral realm. The tragic
mineral realm is noted for being a desert, ruins, or “of sinister geometrical images”
(Frye 1456).
Lastly, the water realm is represented by rivers in the comedic. With the tragic, the seas, and
especially floods, signify the water sphere.
Frye admits that his schema in “The Archetypes of Literature” is simplistic, but makes room
for exceptions by noting that there are neutral archetypes. The example he cites are islands
such as Circe’s or Prospero’s which cannot be categorized under the tragic or comedic.

How do contemporary critics view Frye’s archetypal criticism?

Arguments about the Contemporary Dilemma with Frye’s Archetypal Literary Criticism

It has been argued that Frye’s version of archetypal criticism strictly categorizes works
based on their genres, which determines how an archetype is to be interpreted in a text.
According to this argument the dilemma Frye’s archetypal criticism faces with more
contemporary literature, and that of post-modernism in general, is that genres and
categories are no longer distinctly separate and that the very concept of genres has become
blurred, thus problematizing Frye’s schema. For instance Beckett’s Waiting For Godot is
considered a tragicomedy, a play with elements of tragedy and satire, with the implication
that interpreting textual elements in the play becomes difficult as the two opposing seasons
and conventions that Frye associated with genres are pitted against each other.

But in fact, arguments about generic blends such as tragicomedy go back to the
Renaissance, and Frye always conceived of genres as fluid. Frye thought literary forms were
part of a great circle and were capable of shading into other generic forms.

What are the examples of archetypes in literature?

Archetypes fall into two major categories: characters, situations/symbols. It is easiest to

understand them with the help of examples. Listed below are some of the most common
archetypes in each category.
Characters[i]:
1. The hero - The courageous figure, the one who's always running in and saving the
day. Example: Dartagnon from Alexandre Dumas's "The Three Musketeers".
(Hamlet, Macbeth, Tom Jones, Moll, … )
2. The outcast - The outcast is just that. He or she has been cast out of society or has
left it on a voluntary basis. The outcast figure can oftentimes also be considered as a
Christ figure. Example: Simon from William Golding's "The Lord of the Flies". (
Pandavs, Ram-Sita-laxman, Sugreve, Duke, Orlando, Rosalind in As You Like It,
tramps in Godot, …)
3. The scapegoat - The scapegoat figure is the one who gets blamed for everything,
regardless of whether he or she is actually at fault. Example: Snowball from George
Orwell's "Animal Farm". [Tom Jones, Darcy in P&P (breaking of Lizzy’s sis’s
relationship, elopement), Technology in BNW, Tess for death of Prince, giving birth to
Sorrow, …]
4. The star-crossed lovers - This is the young couple joined by love but unexpectedly
parted by fate. Example: Romeo and Juliet from William Shakespeare's "Romeo and
Juliet". [ Tess and Angel, Heer – Ranjha, Sheeri – Farhad, ….]
 5. The shrew - This is that nagging, bothersome wife always battering her husband with
verbal abuse. Example: Zeena from Edith Wharton's "Ethan Frome". [Katherina in
Taming of Shrew, Paul’s mother in S&L, Lizzy’s mother in P&P.

6. Femme Fatale: A female character type who brings upon catastrophic and disastrous
events. Eve from the story of Genesis or Pandora from Greek mythology are two
such figures. Seta, Draupadi or Surparnakha

7. The Journey: A narrative archetype where the protagonist must overcome a series of
obstacles before reaching his or her goal. The quintessential journey archetype in
Western culture is arguably Homer’s Odyssey

Situations/symbols:

● Archetypal symbols vary more than archetype narratives or character types, but any
symbol with deep roots in a culture's mythology, such as the forbidden fruit in
Genesis or even the poison apple in Snow White, is an example of a symbol that
resonates to archetypal critics.
● The task - A situation in which a character, or group of characters, is driven to
complete some duty of monstrous proportion. Example: Frodo's task to keep the ring
safe in J. R. R. Tolkein's "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. AthurianLegends, , bring
Helen back to Troy, Kurukshetra’s battle for Arjun, Savitri…)
● The quest - Here, the character(s) are searching for something, whether consciously
or unconsciously. Their actions, thoughts, and feelings center around the goal of
completing this quest. Example: Christian's quest for salvation in John Bunyan's "The
Pilgrim's Progress". (Search for Holy Grail, Search for Sita, Nal-Damaanti, Savitri for
Satyakam’s life, Shakuntala in Kalidas, Don Quixote, Jude, …)
● The loss of innocence - This is, as the name implies, a loss of innocence through
sexual experience, violence, or any other means. Example: Val's loss of innocence
after settling down at the mercantile store in Tennessee William's "Orpheus
Descending". [Moll, Tess, Tom, Jude, …]
● Water - Water is a symbol of life, cleansing, and rebirth. It is a strong life force, and is
often depicted as a living, reasoning force.

Water: birth-death-resurrection; creation; purification and redemption; fertility and growth.

Sea/ocean: the mother of all life; spiritual mystery; death and/or rebirth; timelessness and
eternity.
● Rivers: death and rebirth (baptism); the flowing of time into eternity; transitional
phases of the life cycle. . . . Example: Edna learns to swim in Kate Chopin's "The
 Awakening". {Water movie and novel by BapsiSidhwa, Death by Water, polluted
River in Waste Land…]

Sun (fire and sky are closely related): creative energy; thinking, enlightenment, wisdom,
spiritual vision.
Rising sun: birth, creation, enlightenment.
Setting sun: death.
Colors:
Red: blood, sacrifice, passion; disorder.
Green: growth, hope, fertility.
Blue: highly positive; secure; tranquil; spiritual purity.
Black: darkness, chaos, mystery, the unknown, death, wisdom, evil, melancholy.
White: light, purity, innocence, timelessness; [negative: death, terror, supernatural]
Yellow: enlightenment, wisdom.
Serpent (snake, worm): symbol of energy and pure force (libido); evil, corruption, sensuality,
destruction.
Numbers:
3 - light, spiritual awareness, unity (the Holy Trinity); male principle.
4 - associated with the circle, life cycle, four seasons; earth, nature, elements.
7 - the most potent of all symbolic numbers signifying the union of three and four, the
completion of a cycle, perfect order, perfect number; religious symbol.
Wise old Man: savior, redeemer, guru, representing knowledge, reflection, insight, wisdom,
intuition, and morality.
Garden: paradise, innocence, unspoiled beauty.
Tree: denotes life of the cosmos; growth; proliferation; symbol of immortality; phallic symbol.
Desert: spiritual aridity; death; hopelessness.
Creation: All cultures believe the Cosmos was brought into existence by some Supernatural
Being (or Beings).
Seasons:
Spring - rebirth; genre/comedy.
Summer - life; genre/romance.
Fall - death/dying; genre/tragedy.
Winter - without life/death; genre/irony.
(If winter has come, can spring be far behind?)
(April is the cruelest month…)
The great fish: divine creation/life. (Matsyavatar)
Freud's symbolism/archetypes:
Concave images (ponds, flowers, cups, vases, hollows): female or womb symbols.
Phallic symbols (towers, mountain peaks, snakes, knives, swords, etc.) male symbols.
Dancing, riding, or flying: symbols of sexual pleasure.
http://users.cdc.net/~stifler/en111/archetype.html
Archetypes can be found in nearly all forms of literature, with their motifs being
predominantly rooted in folklore.
William Shakespeare is known for creating many archetypal characters that hold great social
importance in his native land, such as
Hamlet, the self-doubting hero and the initiation archetype with the three stages of
separation, transformation, and return;
Falstaff, the bawdy, rotund comic knight;
Romeo and Juliet, the ill-fated ("star-crossed") lovers;
Richard II, the hero who dies with honor; and many others.
Although Shakespeare based many of his characters on existing archetypes from fables and
myths (e.g., Romeo and Juliet on Pyramus and Thisbe), Shakespeare's characters stand out
as original by their contrast against a complex, social literary landscape.

For instance, in The Tempest, Shakespeare borrowed from a manuscript by William

Strachey that detailed an actual shipwreck of the Virginia-bound 17th-century English sailing
vessel Sea Venture in 1609 on the islands of Bermuda. Shakespeare also borrowed heavily
from a speech by Medea in Ovid's Metamorphoses in writing Prospero's renunciative
speech; nevertheless, the unique combination of these elements in the character of
Prospero created a new interpretation of the sage magician as that of a carefully plotting
hero, quite distinct from the wizard-as-advisor archetype of Merlin or Gandalf. Both of these
are likely derived from priesthood authority archetypes, such as Celtic Druids, or perhaps
Biblical figures like Abraham, Moses, etc.; or in the case of Gandalf, the Norse figure Odin.

INTERPRETING THE VARIORUM BY STANLEY FISH

In his essay “Interpreting the Variorum” Stanley Fish makes the argument that the meaning
of any literary work is crafted by the varying interpretations of the readers, and supports this
claim by analyzing the different interpretative meanings of several poems by Milton. Much
like Iser, Fish argues that every unique interpretation of a given literary work is significant,
and “any procedure that attempts to determine which of a number of readings is correct will
necessarily fail” (Fish, 289). Fish furthers his argument, by saying that every reader has a
unique experience in reading a literary text and takes away a different meaning from the text
because of this. When two readers emerge with similar readings of a text, it is because of
the notion of interpretive communities: those who share similar interpretive strategies in
approaching a text. Furthermore, Fish goes beyond Iser’s initial argument by concluding
that it is the readers that shape the majority of the meaning and purpose of the text and the
author plays little part in this process.

I found this essay to be a lot like Iser’s essay The Reading Process: A Phenomenological
Approach. Fish’s essay, however, centered around the notion that every reader has a unique
response to any given text, and takes Iser’s assertion that the reader plays an active role in
the overall experience of a text, for granted. The part that I liked most about this essay was
Fish’s idea that a literary text is “not meant to be solved but to be experienced” (Fish, 289) In
many of my early English classes, we were taught to tediously pry a meaning out of every
poem and story we read, and not just any meaning, but the one right meaning. Fish not only
encourages the different interpretations and experiences that everyone has in reading a
literary work, but celebrates these different meanings, and insists that all are “correct.” Fish
disagrees with the traditional views of literature, that “there is a sense” and that it “is
embedded or encoded in the text, and that it can be taken at a single glance” (Fish 296). It is
very refreshing to read that one need not necessarily hunt and search for some hidden
meaning encoded within the text, but merely experience the text and form a unique meaning
out of that experience. Fish’s argument reminds me of a poem by Billy Collins entitled
“Introduction to Poetry.” This poem encourages readers to experience a literary text for
themselves, instead of “beating it with a hose / to find out what it really means.”
In “Interpreting the Variorum” by Stanley Fish, Fish believes that interpreting a text depends
completely on a reader and the author has little if any say in the reader’s interpretation.

Fish breaks his essay into four parts for better understanding. The first part is an
introduction, which clearly states that the essay was written in three stages, which allows for
the different parts of the essay to better stand alone in their arguments. The introduction
also has Fish directly address his readers and explain the process he went through to write
this particular essay. The second part of Fish’s essay is sub-titled ‘The Case for
Reader-Response Analysis.’ This section sort of disputes the formalistic views of analyzing
a piece of text and states the importance of the reader’s views of a piece of text when it
comes to analyzing that piece of text. The third section of Fish’s essay is sub-titled ‘Undoing
the case for reader-response analysis.’ This section discusses and then disputes the idea
that a piece of text has the author’s intended meaning hidden throughout the piece of text.
Thus, the reader interprets the text in their own way and it does not matter what the author’s
intention was while writing the text. And the final section of Fish’s essay is sub-titled
‘Interpretive Communities.’ This final section seems to be discussing the different ways of
interpreting a piece of text and how one reader may interpret two similar texts two
completely different ways. I feel that this final section is somewhat saying that it depends on
the reader’s state of mind while reading a text to see how the reader will interpret that text.
Also, it depends on the reader’s cultural background and upbringing to determine how they
will interpret the text. Readers with similar cultural backgrounds and upbringings may
interpret a text similarly which then creates an ‘Interpretive Community.’

I really like in the last section of Fish’s essay when he states, “The ability to interpret is not
acquired; it is constitutive of being human. What is acquired are the ways of interpreting and
those same ways can also be forgotten or supplanted or complicated or dropped from favor.”
I thought that that statement just really summarized the act of reading and analyzing a piece
of text for me. I feel that when I was younger and read a text, I analyzed it in a way. But
now that I have learned or acquired some ways of analyzing a text, I read the text differently.
However, there are times when I analyze a text differently than I would usually analyze a
text, because for whatever reason I am in a different mindset while reading that text. Also,
as I have gotten older and have experienced more in life I have gained more tools to
interpret a text.

In the present essay Fish questions New Criticism’s efforts to locate literary meaning in the
formal features of the text, rather than on the author’s intention or the reader’s response—
“The intentional Fallacy” and “The Affective Fallacy”— and argues:

● Both authorial intention and formal features are produced by the interpretive
assumptions and procedures the reader brings to the text.

● Authorial intention and formal features have no prior existence outside the reading
experience.

Fish’s arguments have affinities with the reception theory of Wolfgang Iser and with
Derridean theories of discourse.
Commentary

Fish says that the publication of the Milton Variorum helped him in his method:

The surveying of the critical history of a work in order to find disputes that rested upon a
base of agreement of which the disputants were unaware.

The base of agreement can be identified with the experience of a work.

Formalistic criticism, because it is spatial rather than temporal in its emphasis, either ignored
or suppressed what is happening in the act of reading.

Example:-

Fish takes up three sonnets of Milton and argues that there is a syntactic slide or hesitation
in them.

What is syntactic slide? A reader is invited to make a certain kind of sense only to discover
that the sense he has made is either incomplete or simply wrong. In formalistic analysis that
moment will disappear. Either it is flattened out or made into an insoluble crux. Or it has
been eliminated in the course of a procedure that is incapable of finding value in temporal
phenomena.

● The moments that disappear in a formalistic analysis can be made to appear in

another kind of analysis.
● Formal features do not exist independently of the reader’s experience.
● My account of the reader’s experience is itself the product of a set of interpretative
assumptions. In other words, the facts that I cite as once ignored by a formalistic
criticism –premature conclusions, double syntax, misidentification of speakers –are
not discovered but created by the criticism Fish himself was practicing.

The essay has 3 parts. 1. The case for reader-response analysis, 2. Undoing the case for
reader-response analysis, and 3. Interpretive communities.

In the first part Fish presents a bad model of interpretation that had suppressed what was
really happening. In the second part, Fish says that the notion of “really happening” is just
one more interpretation. In the final section , Fish argues the need for interpretative
communities. It is an explanation for the differences we see and the fact that the differences
we see are not random or idiosyncratic but systematic and conventional.

The case for reader-response analysis

● The first two volumes of the Milton Variorum Commentary have appeared.
● Commentators have expressed different opinions on some of the points of disputes
in the poems.
● What is the two handed engine in ‘Lycidas’?
● What is the meaning of Haemony in ‘Comus’?
● There are many other problems connected with the pronoun referents, lexical
ambiguities, and punctuation.
The editorial procedure always ends in the graceful throwing up of hands or in the recording
of a disagreement between the two editors themselves.

In short these are problems that apparently cannot be solved.

Fish says that these problems are not meant to be solved but to be experienced. Any
attempt to determine which of a number of readings is correct will necessarily fail.

Fish tries to solve the problems in some of the sonnets.

He takes 3 sonnets of Milton.
1. Twentieth sonnet:- “Lawrence of Virtuous father Virtuous son”.
The poet invites a friend to join him in some of the pleasures. It is a neat repast intermixed
with wine, conversation and song, a respite from all hard work because outside the earth is
frozen. But the problem is in the last two lines:
“He who those delights can judge, and spare
To interpose them oft is not unwise”.

The focus is on the word ‘spare’. Two interpretations are possible—‘leave time for’ and
‘refrain from’. In one reading the ‘delights’ are recommended. He who can leave time for
them is not unwise. In the other, they are the subjects of a warning—he who knows when to
refrain from them is not unwise. Two critics A.S.P. Woodhouse and Douglas Bush express
opposing views on the meaning of ‘spare’. Bush reviews the evidence marshalled by
Woodhouse, but draws the exactly opposite conclusion.

Evidence brought to bear in the course of formalist analyses will always point in as many
directions as there are interpreters; that is , not only will it prove something, it will prove
anything.
● Instead of the question ‘What does ‘spare’ mean?’, we substitute the question ‘what
does the fact that the meaning of ‘spare’ has always been an issue mean?’
● The lines first generate a pressure for judgement and then decline to deliver it.
● The pressure, however, still exists, and it is transferred from the w words on the page
to the reader, who comes away from the poem not with a statement but with a
responsibility, the responsibility of deciding when and how often—if at all—to indulge
in those ‘delights’.
● The transferring of responsibility from the text to its readers is what the lines ask us
to do—it is the essence of their experience—it is therefore what the lines mean.
● The variorum critics want to give the responsibility back to the text. But the text
refuses to accept that.
● The issue is not finally the moral status of ‘ those delights’ but on the good or bad
uses who which they can be put by readers, who are left, as Milton always leaves
them, to choose and manage by themselves.

2. Another sonnet of Milton: “Avenge O Lord thy Slaughtered saints.”

● We may be able to extract from the poem a statement affirming God’s justice. We are
not allowed to forget the evidence that makes the extraction so difficult. [ God rains
down punishment so indiscriminately]
 ● It is a difficulty we experience during the act of reading, even though a criticism which
takes no account of that act has, as we have seen, suppressed it.

3. Third sonnet: “When I consider how my light is spent”.

Fish undertakes a detailed analysis of the poem. Fish concludes that we leave the poem
unsure. Our unsureness is because of the unsureness with which the final line is, or is not,
made. This unsureness also operates to actualize the two possible readings of ‘wait’: ‘wait;
in the sense of expecting, that is waiting for the opportunity to serve actively or wait in the
sense of waiting for an opportunity to serve actively or wait in the sense of waiting in service,
a waiting that is itself fully satisfying because the impulse to self-glorifying action has been
stilled.

the case for reader-response analysis

Fish opposes the suggestion that there is a sense, that it is encoded or embedded in the
text, and that it can be taken at a single glance.
The goal here is to settle on a meaning, and the procedure involves first stepping back from
the text, and then putting together or otherwise calculating the discrete units of significance it
contains.

Fish says that in the course of following the meaning of a text, the reader’s activities are at
once ignored and devalued. They are ignored because the text is taken to be self
sufficient— everything is in it—and they are devalued because when they are thought of at
all, they are thought of as the disposable machinery of extraction.

● Fish urges a procedure where the reader’s activities are at the centre of attention;
where they are regarded not as leading to meaning but as having meaning.
● Reader’s activities include—
A. The making and revising of assumptions,
B. the rendering and regretting of judgments,
C. the coming to and abandoning of conclusions,
D. the giving and withdrawal of approval,
E. the specifying of causes,
F. the asking of questions,
G. the supplying of answers, the solving of puzzles.

Next, Fish comes to the vital question. Who is this reader?

Fish’s ‘optimal reader’ is the reader whose education, opinions, concerns, linguistic
competences, and so on make him capable of having the experience the author wished to
provide.

The effort of this reader is always an effort to discern and therefore to realize an author’s
intention. Discerning an intention means understanding, and understanding includes all the
activities which make up the structure of a reader’s experience. Intention and understanding
are two kinds of a conventional act, each of which necessarily stipulates the other.
 1. Fish analyses 3 lines from “Lycidas”:
The willows and the hazel copses green
Shall now no more be seen,
Fanning their joyous leaves to thy soft lays.

Fish argues that the formal units are always a function of the interpretative model one brings
to bear. They are not in the text and the same can be said of intentions also.

● Fish argues that the form of the reader’s experience, formal units and the structure of
intentions are one, that they come into view simultaneously, and that therefore the
questions of priority and independence do not arise.
● Fish agrees in conclusion that his interpretation of the meaning of a poem is just one
more interpretation.

Interpretive communities

If interpretive acts are the source of forms rather than the other way round, why isn’t the
case that readers are always performing the same acts or a sequence of random acts, and
therefore creating the same forms or a random succession of forms? How, in short, does
one explain these two ‘facts’ of reading?

1) The same reader will perform differently when reading two different texts.
2) Different readers will perform similarly when reading the same text.

Fish takes the example of “Lycidas” once again.

“Let us suppose that I am reading Lycidas. What is it that I am doing? First of all, what I am
not doing is ‘simply reading’, an activity in which I do not believe because it implies the
possibility of pure perception. Rather, I am proceeding in the basis of two interpretive
decisions. 1) That ‘Lycidas’ is a pastoral, 2) that it was written by Milton. Once these
decisions have been made, I am immediately predisposed to perform certain acts, to ‘find’ by
looking for, themes, to confer significances (on flowers, streams, shepherds, pagan deities),
to mark out formal units (the lament, the consolation, the turn, the affirmation of faith, and so
on). My disposition to perform these acts constitutes a set of interpretive strategies, which,
when they are put into execution, become the large act of reading”.

That is to say that interpretive strategies are not put into execution after reading; they are the
shape of reading, and because they are the shape of reading, they give texts their shape,
making them rather than, as it is usually assumed, arising from them.

● A reader other than Fish who, when presented with Lycidas proceeds to put into
execution a set of interpretive strategies similar to mine. He and Fish may be
tempted to say that they agree about the poem. But what we really agree about it is
the way to write it.
● A reader other than Fish might put into execution a different set of interpretive
strategies. One of us might then be tempted to complain to the other that we could
not possibly be reading the same poem.
Fish argues that the notion of different or same texts is fictions, if I read Lycidas and The
Waste Land differently it will not be because the formal structure of the two poems call forth
different interpretive strategies but because my predisposition to execute different
interpretive strategies will produce different formal structures. That is, the two poems are
different because I have decided they will be.

Fish takes up another question: “Why should two or more readers ever agree? What
is the explanation on the one hand of the stability of interpretation and on the other of
the orderly variety of interpretation if it is not the stability and variety of texts?

The answer to all these questions is to be found in a notion that has been implicit in my
argument, the notion of interpretive communities.

Interpretive communities are made up of those who share interpretive strategies not for
reading but for writing texts, for constituting their properties, and assigning their intentions. In
other words, these strategies exist prior to the act of reading and therefore determine the
shape of what is read rather than the other way around.

This is the explanation for the stability of interpretation among different readers and for the
regularity with which a single reader will employ different interpretive strategies and thus
make different texts.

It also explains why there are disagreements and why they can be debated in a principled
way: not because of stability in the text but because of stability in the makeup of interpretive
communities and therefore in the opposing positions they make possible. Of course, this
stability is always temporary.

Interpretive communities grow and decline, and individuals move from one to another; thus,
while the alignments are not permanent, they are always there, providing just enough
stability for the interpretive battles to go on, and just enough shift and slippage to assure
that they will never be settled.

The notion of interpretive communities saves us from interpretive anarchy.

It is the fragile but real consolidation of interpretive communities that allows us to talk to one
another, but with no hope or fear of ever being able to stop.
Interpretive communities are not natural or universal but learned.

Those outside the community will be making a different set of interpretive strategies.