原型批评
Archetypal criticism
原型批评关注的是文学中的那些不能被解释为历史影响或传统的因素，相反，这些因素是普遍存在的、反复出现的、约定俗成的。原型批评把每一部文学作品都看作是整个文学的一个组成部分。这种批评理论认为，原型——典型的意象、人物、叙事结构、主题以及其他的文学现象——普遍存在于所有的文学作品当中，并由此为研究它们之间的相互关系提供了一个平台。原型批评理论有时也被称作“神话批评理论”，这种研究方法出现于1930年代，1940年代和1950年代，主要的研究者有莫德·鲍德金（Maud Bodkin）、罗伯特·格雷伍斯（Robert Graves）、约瑟夫·坎普贝尔（Joseph Campbell）、威尔森·奈特（G. Wilson Knight）、理查德·柴斯（Richard Chase）、弗朗西斯·佛古森（Francis Fergusson）、菲利普·威尔莱特（Philip Wheelwright）和诺斯洛普·弗莱（Northrop Frye）等理论家。原型批评理论还尝试了跨越学科边界的理论借鉴，特别是社会科学方面的一些理论观点，尤其是詹姆斯·弗莱泽（James G. Frazer）和卡尔·荣格（Carl G. Jung）提出的理论对原型批评理论的发展起到了重要的作用。（请参见“原型”、“神话”这两个词条。）
Archetypal criticism focuses on the generic, recurring, and conventional elements in literature that cannot be explained as matters of historical influence or tradition. It studies each literary work as part of the whole of literature. This kind of criticism accepts as its informing principle that archetypes----typical images, characters, narrative designs, themes, and other literary phenomena----are present in all literature and so provide the basis for study of its interconnectedness. Sometimes called “myth criticism,” archetypal literary criticism emerged in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s in the work of Maud Bodkin, Robert Graves, Joseph Campbell, G. Wilson Knight, Richard Chase, Francis Fergusson, Philip Wheelwright, Northrop Frye, and others. It made extensive use of the ideas of social scientists, especially James G. Frazer and Carl G. Jung. (See also archetype, myth.)
弗莱泽是著名的剑桥学派人类学家，同时也是一位古典主义学者和中东问题专家。他的厚达12卷的巨著《金枝》（The Golden Bough）（于1890年至1915年陆续出版）深入地研究了很多不同的文化共同体的民间故事、风俗礼仪中的神话和仪式所具有的原型结构。弗莱泽的研究引起了长达几十年的争议，但这对于文学批评理论的发展具有重要的意义。他的观点是，神话是仪式的衍生物或延伸，是紧跟或伴随仪式而出现的叙事。此后，克洛德·列维—斯特劳斯（Claude Levi-Strauss, 1908年）提出了仪式与神话究竟是孰先孰后的问题。在他看来，它们是紧密相连的，神话的功能处于概念的层级，而仪式则处于行为的层级。弗莱进一步研究了这个问题，并把《金枝》看作是“人类想象力的一种语法”，是“在社会层面对无意识的象征作用进行的研究”，认为他的理论是对西格蒙德·弗洛伊德（Sigmund Freud）和荣格针对个体的梦境所具有的象征作用所做的研究进行了补充和完善。在弗莱看来，神话和仪式的起源问题本身并不重要；弗莱泽的著作起到了这样一种作用：文学批评家可以从仪式的原型中得到启发，通过逻辑分析而不是按照年代顺序排列而得到朴素的戏剧所具有的结构原则。对于批评家来说，仪式本身就是戏剧的内容，而不是戏剧的起源或始源，因为剧作家们知道仪式是吸引观众的注意力的最佳途径。
Frazer was one of the so-called Cambridge School of anthropologists, classicists and Middle East specialists. His massive 12-volume “The Golden Bough” (1890--1915) traces archetypal patterns of myth and ritual in the tales and ceremonies of diverse cultures. Importantly for literary criticism, Frazer tended to the view, a matter of controversy for many decades, that myth is an offshoot or projection of ritual, a narrative following or accompanying the ritual action. More recently Claude Levi-Strauss (1908) set aside the question of which comes first, ritual or myth. For him they were closely associated, with myth functioning on the conceptual level and ritual on the level of action. Frye went further and saw “The Golden Bough” as a “kind of grammar of the human imagination,” “a study of unconscious symbolism on its social side” complementing what Sigmund Freud and Jung did with the private symbolism of dreams. For Frye the question of the origin of myth or ritual is unimportant; Frazer’s work embodies an archetypal ritual from which the literary critic may logically but not chronologically derive the structural principles of na?ve drama. For the critic, ritual is the content not the source or origin of drama, because dramatists know that ritual is the best way of holding an audience’s attention.
除了文化文类学之外，原型批评理论还有属于文学之外的另一个来源。它在某种程度上产生于荣格的有关理论，特别是荣格提出的“集体无意识”的观点。这个概念是神话、幻象、宗教思想以及各种文化共同体和历史时期都普遍存在的梦境的基础。在荣格看来，无意识的一个重要产物就是英雄神话，它是用童话的语言来表述的关于一个孩子由婴儿成长为成人的心路历程。这个原型神话的细节在不同的文化共同体中会有所变化，但基本要素则是相同的。在荣格的著述里，那些原型不是通过人类的个体而得以传承的。相反，人类传承下来的东西是对那些从生活的共同经验中得到的有意义的神话和象征进行艺术塑造的一种倾向。
Archetypal criticism had a second extra-literary source in addition to cultural anthropology. It developed in part from Jung, particularly the Jungian idea of a “collective unconscious” underlying the production of myths, visions, religious ideas, and certain kinds of dreams common to numerous cultures and periods of history. For Jung one major product of the unconscious is the hero myth, an exposition in the language of fairy tale of a child’s development from infancy to adulthood. The details of this archetypal myth vary from culture to culture but the essentials are common. In Jung’s writings the archetypes are not inherited by individual human beings. Rather what is passed on in the human species is a predisposition to fashion meaningful myths and symbols from the common experience of each individual life.
在荣格看来，各种原型情况，人物形象，意象，以及思想观念，都具有很强的情感意义，并且将人类经验提升到了一个很重要的高度。在其厚达20卷的著作选集中，荣格提到或描述过众多的原型，其中有5种是最为重要的。与从孩子的生活经验中提炼出的父母形象同样重要的是反映一个人对异性的体验的那些意象。荣格把一个男人内心中的女性形象称为“阿尼玛”（anima），把一个女人内心中的男性形象称为“阿尼姆斯”（animus）。在某种程度上，这些只不过是性欲的化身而已，但在其他的层面上却有着更为广泛的内涵。另一个原型形象是“老智者”，荣格并没有将他与父亲形象作明确的区分，而是描述为一个单独的形象。他是智慧、知识和真知卓见的象征。“阴影”原型在荣格的笔下从未做过完整的描绘，指的是一个人的内心深处的负面或阴暗面的东西，诸如贪婪、吝啬、恶毒、淫邪、甚至是恶魔般的不端品行，这些通常为一个成熟、健全的人所不齿，然而在各种仪式、神话、宗教、文学以及其他的艺术样式中却有着全面的、充分的反映。荣格认为最重要的原型是“自性”，它处于个性化的中心位置，在一个人的生命过程中属于继“英雄神话”之后开始考虑个人在世界上怎样树立自我形象的第二个阶段。这也是荣格对分析心理学的主要贡献之一。
For Jung archetypal situations, figures, images, and ideas are thought to have powerful emotional meaning and to be expressions of typical human experience raised to a level of immense importance. In the 20 volumes of Jung’s collected works numerous archetypes are mentioned or described but five have particular prominence. The archetypal mother and father figures, caused by the child’s experience of parents, are paralleled by images underlying the individual’s experience of the opposite sex. The “anima” is the name Jung gives to a man’s image of a woman, the “animus” to a woman’s image of a man. On one level these are simply personifications of erotic desire but, on another, they take on a wide range of connotations. Another archetypal figure, not clearly distinguished by Jung from the father figure but described as separate is the “wise old man,” symbolizing intelligence, knowledge and superior insight. The “shadow” archetype, never fully delineated in Jung, designates the negative or dark side of the individual human being, those grasping, mean, malicious, lustful, or even devilish aspects of the individual that are usually held in abeyance in mature, sane people but are given full scope in rituals, myths, religion, literature, and other art forms. The most important archetype for Jung is the “self,” central to the process of individuation, which is his main contribution to analytic psychology and pertains to the second half of the individual’s life, succeeding the “hero myth” and its concerns with the way the individual establishes himself or herself in the world.
荣格把艺术作品放在一个低于宗教思想的位置上，因此不愿把自己的理论应用于文学研究之中。但是，有很多其他的理论家认为文学和艺术具有很高的价值，因此他们把荣格以及弗莱泽的思想广泛地应用于自己的研究之中，并且试图说明原型神话是所有文学作品的基础。莫德·鲍德金在其《诗歌中的原型结构》（1934）一书中把科勒瑞治（Coleridge）的《远古的水手》以及艾略特（T. S. Eliot）的《荒原》解释为基于以复活为主题的神话而吟咏的诗作。罗伯特·格雷伍斯（《白色女神：诗意神话的历史语法》1948和《希腊神话》1958）试图说明现代世界所熟知的许多神话都是出自对与那些早期神话有关的绘画和雕塑的误解，而且一个关于被原始社会的男人们所服侍的大地母亲的原型神话能够派生出后来的所有神话。约瑟夫·坎普贝尔认为，关于探险英雄的神话其实就是涵盖一切的单一神话（《有一千个面孔的英雄》1949），这也正是荣格所强调的。威尔森·奈特是莎士比亚以及英国其他重要诗人的诠释者，他广泛地使用了神话、仪式和原型象征。在《可怕的对称》（1947）一书中，诺斯洛普·弗莱把布莱克（Blake）的那些用诗歌写就的预言解释为一系列连贯的神话。在《神话探秘》（1949）一书中，理查德·柴斯宣称“神话是文学，而且必须被看作是出自人类想象力的审美创造。”弗朗西斯·佛古森在《剧场之维》（1949）中研究了从古希腊到20世纪所有戏剧背后的那些仪式。菲利普·威尔莱特运用神话批评理论来诠释了埃斯库罗斯的悲剧三部曲《奥瑞斯提亚》（Oresteia）以及艾略特的《荒原》（《燃烧的喷泉》1954）。
Jung placed the production of works of art on a lower level than the emergence of religious ideas and he was reluctant to apply his concepts to literature. Many others, who place a high value on art and literature, have made extensive use of the ideas of Jung, and Frazer as well, and have tried to show how archetypal myths lie behind all literature. Maud Bodkin, in “Archetypal Patterns in Poetry” (1934), interpreted Coleridge’s “The Ancient Mariner” and T. S. Eliot’s “The Waste Land” as poems about the myth of rebirth. Robert Graves (“The White Goddess: A Historical Grammar of Poetic Myth” 1948 and “Greek Myths” 1958) attempted to demonstrate that many of the myths known to the modern world are misconstructions of pictures and sculptures of earlier myth and that an archetypal myth of a primordial Earth Mother served by males underlies all subsequent myths. Joseph Campbell, with a Jungian emphasis, considered the myth of the questing hero as the all-encompassing monomyth (“The Hero with a Thousand Faces” 1949). G. Wilson Knight, interpreter of Shakespeare and several other major English poets, made extensive use of myth, ritual and archetypal symbols. In “Fearful Symmetry” (1947) Northrop Frye interpreted Blake’s poetic prophecies as coherent myths. In “The Quest for Myth” (1949) Richard Chase declared that “myth is literature and must be considered as an aesthetic creation of the human imagination.” Francis Fergusson’s “The Idea of a Theater” (1949) pointed to the rituals behind dramas from the classical Greeks until the 20th century. Philip Wheelwright used myth criticism to interpret the “Oresteia” of Aeschylus and Eliot’s “The Waste Land” (“The Burning Fountain” 1954).
【待续】
.gif)
