【作者】 张素玫；

【导师】 刘志友；

【作者基本信息】 新疆大学 ， 文艺学， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 诺思洛普·弗莱是20世纪享有国际声誉的文学批评家，原型批评理论的集大成者，一位有着自己独特风格的批评家。他的理论在西方文论界独成体系，其思想不断被东西方学者和理论批评家引用和讨论，为文艺科学作出了无以伦比的贡献。 弗莱认为，文学的本质是神话，神话是文学的结构原则和原型模式。文学的发展就是形式的发展，是几种固定的模式和结构做周而复始的循环运行。这使文学成为一个自足自律的有机整体，作品与作品之间都存在着联系，对于任何一首诗，都必须作为一个整体来考察。 弗莱的文学观决定了他的文学批评观。他认为文学批评是一门独立的科学，既不能把批评看作文学的分支或附庸，也不能把批评与其它学科混同；批评要依照从得自对文学领域的归纳性考察的概念框架来研究文学。批评应该既系统化又内在化，将作品放在整个文学系统中加以考察，研究一部作品与其他作品之间的关系，在文学内部建立起一种历史观察方法。批评有两种语境：内部语境和外部语境，只有当两者达到平衡时，真正的批评才能产生。 弗莱的“形式”概念与我们通常理解并使用的批评术语“形式”指称不尽相同。他的“形式”是包含内容的形式，既是内容，又是形式，实质是二者的浑然一体。弗莱独特的形式概念是由于“原型”本身的特性所致。弗莱提出两个重要概念：关怀的神话与自由的神话，这两种神话的结合产生出文学的社会语境，从而导致他所主张的社会批评。批评贯通在二者之间，形成缓冲，使关怀和自由达到平衡。这使他的批评具备了浓厚的文化批判和社会批判的品性。 弗莱的批评思想最具影响力的是原型批评的方法和理论。他把弗雷泽人类学和荣格心理学领域的原型概念移至文学领域，认为原型就是作品中重复出现的意象和象征。寻求原型的方法是“向后站”，即用宏观的方法发现作品与作品、与传统之间的原型结构和联系，从而在宏观上把握文学类型的共性及其演变。弗莱从西方文学作品中归纳出五种模式和三种意象世界，认为它们不断置换更替、循环往复，作为原型存在于文学的发展中。 弗莱理论的最显著特色是他的宏观视野和跨越性思维。他把文学视为一个整体，批评的目标就是建构一套适用于整个文学的批评理论。他始终将文学纳入广阔的文化领域框架l－11思考，使他的批评理论同时又具有文化研究的特性。弗莱理论中的跨越性思维体现在多方面，不仅跨越了各批评流派的界限，还打破学科界限进行跨学科研究，他的原型批评就是用人类学视野和近代心理学研究的某些成果研究文学的跨学科范例。 弗莱的批评理论有着缺失和恃论之处。他忽视了文学与社会生活的互动关系，也忽略了文学特有的审美属性以及作家的创造性和义本的丰富性。他的理论主张与批评实践又形成种种悻论，悸论也使他的理论具有张力和多重编码性，吸引了不断增多的阐释者。更多还原

【Abstract】 Northrop Frye is a literature critic of great report in 20th century. He is the originator of archetype theories and a critic of his own style. His theory is a single system, and is quoted and talked about by many other critics and scholars of the east and the west. His great contribution to the literature theory is evident.Northrop Frye thinks that the essence of literature is "mythos" and "mythos" is the basic structural principles and archetype mode of literature and the development of literature is the development of literature form, it is the recurrence of several certain modes and structures continuously, which makes literature an organism of self-sufficiency and automatic. In this organism, every works has relations with others. We should analyze every poem in this big background.Northrop Frye’s notion of literature decides his notion of criticism. He thinks that literary criticism is an unattached subject, which is not offset or vassal of literature. We can’t confuse it with other subjects. Criticism should study literature according to the concept ional frame which comes from inductive research to literature. Criticism should be systematic and internalized. Any works should be put in the whole literary system to study so that we can realize the relations among works, by which we can get a history field of vision. There are two contexts in criticism, interior and exterior. Only when the two sides are balanced, true criticism will come into being.Frye’s concept "form" is different from that we rationally understand. Frye’s "form" is a special form that include content in it. This "form" is both form and content. This two is an integrity mass, which is owing toarchetype’s characteristics. Frye brought up two important conceptions: concern myth and liberty myth, the integrity of which constitutes the social context of literature. By this way, he gets his social criticism of literature. This social criticism is a buffer that balance two kinds of mythos, which shows a criticism of culture and sociality.The most influential Frye’s thought is his theory and criticism of archetype. He introduced the archetype in Frazer’s anthrop and Jung’s psychology into literary criticism. Frye defined archetype as images that appeared repeatedly in works. In order to find archetype, we should "stand back", i.e. by macroscopic way, we can find archetype, find relations among works. So we can be conscious of the commonness and its evolvement on the whole. Frye conclude five modes and three image worlds from works, which replace and cycle, exist in the history of works.The notable trait of Frye’s theory is its Macro-view and intersection of multi-subjects. He regard literature as a whole body and the aim of criticism is to construct a set of theories that is suitable for literatures. He always thinks the literary problems in the cultural frame, which add much cultural essence to his criticism. His transitional thoughts show in many ways. He not only spans different criticism schools but also breaks up the boundary of subject.There are some defections in Frye’s theory and it is also contrary to reason somewhere. He neglects the interaction between literature and life , literature’s peculiar aesthetic property, writer’s creativity and abundance of text. His theory and criticism are contrary to reason in some sense. But this makes his theory full of tension and can be multi-coded, which attract more and more interpreters.更多还原