An archetype is a general image embedded in the collective unconscious. Archetypes are constant in every generation and in every culture. This word was introduced into use by C. G. Jung.

Concept

The generally accepted definition of an archetypal image is as follows: it is a term coined by Jung to designate primordial primordial images, universal symbols inherent in the collective unconscious. They appear in the dreams of every person, regardless of race, gender, age.

In psychology, archetypal images allow us to understand the patterns of human behavior and the most likely scenarios for the development of his destiny. After all, these motifs were repeated hundreds of times in legends and myths various peoples. For example, in many fairy tales there is an archetype of a hero defeating a huge dragon. in a fairy tale - this is a mother, an old sage, a warrior. It is these characters that make up the collective unconscious.

The word “archetype” itself comes from the Greek roots “archos” - “beginning” and “typos” - “imprint”, “form”. You can also come across the following definition of this term: an archetype is an innate mental pattern that is characteristic of every person, regardless of his cultural background.

Story

The term “archetype” was first used by Freud’s student C. G. Jung in his report entitled “Instinct and the Unconscious.” In his work, the psychoanalyst explains that he took this term from the works of Aurelius Augustine (he speaks about such images in the XV book of his treatise “On the City of God”).

Widespread use of the word “archetype” began in the first half of the 20th century. This happened thanks to the publication of the works of C. G. Jung. This first happened in 1912, when his work entitled “Metamorphoses and Symbols of Libido” was published.

Despite the disagreements between Jung and Freud, this work was written by a psychoanalyst from the perspective of Freud's concept. In the work, libido was described from the perspective of personification. Jung listed the main images behind which it can hide - hero, demon, mother. Also in this work, the basis was created for the future concept of the journey of an archetypal character - for example, a hero's fight with a dragon.

Motives

In tales and legends there are entire archetypal plots that are repeated in different cultures. An example of such a motive is the struggle between good and evil. Another popular motive is the abduction of a beauty by a snake. Variations of the main motive are possible in different legends. For example, a beauty can be a daughter, mother, etc. A snake can be a scoundrel, a devil, a sorcerer, etc.

The path motif, which involves the hero passing through obstacles on the way to the goal, is also common. This hero could be an ordinary peasant, a prince or a tsar, Ivan the Fool.

Mother: an archetypal image in a fairy tale

Maternal image in folk tales can be represented in three ways:

• Dear mother. She takes care of her child and takes care of him. In childhood and adolescence, such a mother is ideal. But for adult life this archetype is no longer relevant - it does not allow development.
• Evil stepmother. This archetype also refers to the maternal one. However, it contains completely different properties. This archetypal image of the mother is oppressive. Usually she owns the words: “Nothing will come of you,” “Where are you going,” “You can’t change anything,” etc. In real life, the children of such mothers often find themselves powerless in the face of such destructive attitudes.
• Baba Yaga. Also a maternal archetypal image. In fairy tales, Baba Yaga is not just a parent - she is the Knowing Mother. She knows the secrets of the universe, and she is the true mentor. Baba Yaga inspires the guests of her hut with a new order of life. Miracles can happen in her domain. She is the model of self-loyalty. Baba Yaga is neither evil nor good. This archetype is not overprotective or unnecessarily punitive. Those people in whom it predominates usually know that they will have to reap the fruits of their actions, and joys and misfortunes are generated by themselves.

Other images in folk tales

There are a large number of archetypal images in fairy tales. Each nation also has a lot of fairy tales, but these characters move from one culture to another, practically unchanged in essence. In East Slavic legends these are images of a fool, a hero, Ivan Tsarevich, a friend, Vasilisa the Beautiful, a devil, a mother, Koshchei.

Similar images are also found in Western fairy tales. For example, in Andersen's fairy tale " The Snow Queen“The Queen herself represents the Mother archetype in its negative aspect. Gerda personifies the image of a Friend. The old flower girl is a representative of the Mother archetype in positive aspect.

Images in the Book of Books

As for archetypal images in the Bible, you can also find a lot of them. For example, the images of man and woman are Adam and Eve, Christ and Mary Magdalene. In the Book of Books there are archetypes of rivals - Jacob and Esau, Cain and Abel. Examples of images of the righteous are Joseph, Noah, and Moses.

Classification by Sh. Bolen. Archetype of Artemis

American author Shinoda Bohlen identified 11 female archetypes. The most important of them, and the most frequently encountered, are Artemis, Athena, Hestia, Hera (Juno), Demeter, Persephone and Aphrodite, Hebe, Fortuna, Hecate. As for the archetypal image of Artemis, it manifests itself most of all in those women who know how to feel their inner integrity, independence from other people’s opinions. Artemis usually chooses male professions and strives to achieve high results in her career. She is constantly looking for something new. The main thing for Artemis is a feeling of freedom. She does not tolerate any boundaries. On the other hand, Artemis helps her allies defend their personal interests.

Such a lady is characterized by integrity. Artemis follows her principles at the expense of her feelings. THOSE women in whom this archetypal image is most expressed know well what they want from life.

However, the positive qualities of Artemis also have negative sides. Although such a woman is free, internally she is very lonely. She is unable to have strong relationships with other people (although she usually has good friendships with other women). Artemis is unemotional, she lacks feelings.

Aphrodite

Main feature of this archetypal image is its attractiveness to the stronger sex. Aphrodite always radiates warmth. She is charming, even if her appearance does not seem attractive at first glance. Such a woman lives according to the “here and now” principle. She easily immerses herself in emotions and feelings - and it doesn’t matter whether we are talking about relationships or engaging in a creative hobby.

But due to her sensuality, Aphrodite often feels difficulties in those areas of life that relate to ethics, morality, and religiosity. Such a lady may feel guilty for her experiences.

Aphrodite has good relationships with other women, because she is easy and carefree in communication. Although many may see her as a rival, she is sincerely perplexed by this attitude. Aphrodite has no sense of ownership, and in matters of love she is guided by the principle of abundance. “There are enough men for everyone, so don’t get too hung up on one” - this is her basic principle.

Athena

Women, in whom this archetypal image is the main one, like an atmosphere of concentration, composure, and goal achievement. Athena usually doesn't get emotional. And it is precisely this quality that allows her to successfully achieve the tasks she needs and achieve the necessary goals.

Athena is good at working with men. She is guided by logic and common sense. Such a lady usually has a large number of varied interests. She knows how to correctly assess her past, and successfully learns from past mistakes.

As a rule, those ladies in whose characters this archetypal image is most expressed have few girlfriends. Athena looks at the world very realistically. Many of the problems of those ladies who see him traditionally are simply incomprehensible to her. Athena is not prone to empty dreams - she simply sets a goal for herself and then achieves it. And such behavior frightens with its power those girls who could become her friends.

As for men, carriers of this personality archetype are usually only interested in strong people who have managed to achieve a lot in their lives. Athena has good intuition, and with her instinct she senses winners. She doesn’t give a damn about the plans and dreams of those gentlemen who only promise her mountains of gold. When Athena comes across an interesting person, through deft manipulation she easily directs him in her direction.

Other female images

In addition to the mentioned personality archetypes, the following are also distinguished:

• Hera. This typical woman, who is a companion for her husband. She is a faithful assistant, but at the same time she has strong feelings of ownership towards him. Hera is the patroness of marriage.
• Demeter. Woman mother. She loves children with all her heart and wants to give them only the best. She personifies the female maternal instinct. Even in building relationships with other people, the Demeter woman takes the position of a mother and strives to look after those around her.
• Persephone. "Eternal girl" This type of woman who does not want to grow up. They tend to shift responsibility for their lives onto anyone, but not themselves. Often such a woman or girl falls under the influence of other people. Persephone loves to be the center of attention of the opposite sex, but she cannot be called passionate. Psychologically she is not mature.
• Hebe is the lady who resists her age with all her might. She strives to be forever young, and avoids the slightest manifestations of maturity. The worst thing for her is old age. But she treats men calmly. You wouldn't call her slutty.
• Fortune. A woman with a rather contradictory character. She strives to keep all events under her control, but does not foresee their consequences.
• Nemesis. For a woman with this soul archetype main value is honesty. Ladies with In a similar way usually incapable of forgiving injustice.
• Hecate. Quite a deep archetype. The Hecate woman is prone to mystifying all the events that happen in her life. Often ladies with this archetype image plunge headlong into occult practices - or become deeply religious.

In the same woman there is usually a combination of two or three main archetypes. Sometimes these images can “compete” with each other for primacy. A common example of such rivalry is a woman’s desire to have both a successful career and a strong family.

Other typologies

Some psychologists believe that there are only three main archetypes in a woman's life. This is the Beloved, the Mother, the Guardian. The first puts all her strength into serving a man. Mother is responsible for raising children. As for the Guardian, the object of her efforts is herself. It is believed that a lady can only be truly happy if all these images are developed in her.

Greek male images

The following archetypes are distinguished Greek mythology characteristic of men:

• Zeus. Confident, authoritative, inclined to command others.
• Poseidon. A man who is guided by emotions, but, like Zeus, patriarchal instincts are strong in him.
• Hades. A closed man, immersed in his own world.
• Apollo. Harmonious person who takes care of his appearance. Pleasant to talk to.
• Hermes. Smart, insightful man. Loves change, tends to get everything from life at once.
• Ares. Eccentric, lives only by emotions, momentary pleasures.

Other masculine archetypes

Representatives of the stronger sex can also manifest themselves in different ways: as warriors, leaders, kings; and also as hunters and merchants. Others are closer to the archetypes of sages, saints, and shamans.

Men, like women, usually combine several images. As an example, consider Conan the Barbarian. This character is a bright representative of the image of the Warrior. However, he also has strong qualities of a Ruler (he strives to be one), as well as a Philosopher (he loves to study).

The archetype is designation of the most general and fundamental primordial motives and images that have a universal human character and underlie any artistic structures. The term was first used in ancient Platonism, in the 20th century. introduced into wide cultural use by the Swiss psychoanalyst and mythologist C. G. Jung (“On Archetypes”, 1937). For Plato, the archetype as an “idea” is a kind of “matrix” of the material world; for Jung, the archetype is the basis for structuring the “unconscious” (and if for Z. Freud this unconscious is individual and is realized in various “complexes”, then for Jung it has a general psychophysiological nature, not determined by environment and experience, lying deeper than the individual unconscious and carrying the memory of a nation, race, all of humanity - thus becoming a collective unconscious).

The archetype, being, in fact, not the image (or motive) itself, but its “scheme”, has the quality of universality, connecting the past and the present, the general and the particular, the accomplished and the potentially possible, which manifests itself not only in the artistic (from archaic ritual and myth to works the latest art, incl. literature), but also in everyday mental activity of a person (dreams, fantasies). Oblivion or destruction of the archetype is the main cause of both individual nervous disorder and the “disorder of civilization.” Therefore, for Jungians, the reproduction of an archetype by art is the main requirement of aesthetics, and it is the degree of saturation with archetypal images and motifs that determines the value and power of influence work of art. According to Jungian aesthetics, literary analysis is, first of all, the isolation of an archetype from the symbols, mythologies and motifs present in the work. Jungian methodology is followed by ritual = mythological criticism, which reduces the content of any work to a folklore-mythological basis, while ignoring the specific historical and literary context, the individual originality of the artist, the new aesthetic quality works. The irrationalistic interpretation of the archetype introduces this concept into the circle of ideas about the “world soul”, “mystical experience”.

A rationalist version of the approach to the problem is proposed by the structuralist K. Levi-Strauss. Modern Russian culturologist E.M. Meletinsky, exploring the transformation of mythological ideas at later levels of development of artistic culture (folklore, Middle Ages, Renaissance, Modern times), expands the idea of ​​​​the boundaries of the archetype, enriching it with elements of “experienced”, “acquired” consciousness and with the category of historicity common to the concept of archetype, which brings the latter closer to the concept of eternal images. Traditional with the archetype of “doubles” (“shadows”, images of “devils” - the second, “lower” “I” of a person); “wise old men (old women)”, symbolizing the “spirit” hidden behind the chaos of the earthly universe; mother as a symbol of eternal rebirth, i.e. overcoming death, immortality; the motive of transformation as an act of changing clothes; the flood as a change in milestones in the history of mankind, purification and sacrifice in the name of new life. Jung's interpretation of the archetype had a significant influence on 20th century literature. (G. Hesse, T. Mann, J. Joyce, G. Garcia Marquez, etc.).

Korobeinikova A.A., Pykhtina Yu.G.

Orenburg State University E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

ABOUT SPATIAL ARCHETYPES IN LITERATURE

The article analyzes studies devoted to the literary archetype. The authors identify and describe spatial archetypes in fiction. The semantics of the binary opposition house/forest is considered using the example of the story by N.V. Gogol "Old World Landowners".

Key words: artistic space, literary archetypes, spatial archetypes, binary oppositions.

In the last decade, a number of studies have appeared that analyze the literary archetype. The relevance of such an analysis is associated with the possibility of a deeper and more universal reading of a literary work. Especially striking examples Such a reading are the works of Yu.M. Lotman, E.M. Meletinsky, V.N. Toporova, B.A. Uspensky and others. The difficulty, however, is that there is still no unified classification of literary archetypes. This problem is addressed in the work of E.M. Meletinsky “On literary archetypes” (1994). The author states with regret that “attempts to present archetypal motifs in the form of a strict system, especially a hierarchical system, lead nowhere.” In this regard, the study of the system of literary archetypes seems promising. The purpose of this article is to identify and describe spatial archetypes in literature.

EAT. Meletinsky, who proposed the concept of “literary archetypes” and outlined the main ones, did not single out spatial archetypal images separately, but at the same time repeatedly pointed out that “... in mythology, the very description of the world is possible only in the form of a narrative about the formation of the elements of this the world and even the world as a whole. This is explained by the fact that the mythical mentality identifies the beginning (origin) and essence, thereby dynamizing and narrativizing the static model of the world. At the same time, the pathos of the myth quite early begins to boil down to the cosmization of primary chaos, to the struggle and victory of the cosmos over chaos (i.e., the formation of the world turns out to be at the same time its ordering). And it is precisely this process of creation of the world that is the main subject

images and main theme ancient myths". Thus, according to E.M. Meletinsky, the main archetypal motif from which all others are formed is the confrontation between space and chaos. Our observation is confirmed by the following thought of the author: “In spatial terms, space opposes chaos as an internal organized space - external.<...>The structure of the cosmos, embodied by the world tree, includes vertically 3 main zones - sky, earth and the underworld, horizontally - 4 cardinal directions, often embodied by mythological characters. The existence of the Cosmos (and humanity) is based on world order, law, truth, justice.<...>The destructive forces of chaos in myths about cosmic cycles weaken the action of the world order, which leads to the death of the cosmos (described by eschatological myths) and a new creation."

In this work E.M. Meletinsky has many valuable observations regarding the archetypical nature of spatial motifs. It seems extremely important for us to identify the author’s archetypal scheme of the hero’s journey in folklore and literature: “The theme of creation is connected with dynamics in time. Within or outside of this dynamics, the motive of movement in space and the intersection of different zones and worlds (where they contact mythological creatures, acquire their power or fight with them, extract values, etc.) is isolated, which serves as the simplest way to describe the model of the world. Here is the germ of the archetypal travel scheme (emphasis added).”

Regarding the motive of the path, the scientist notes: “The hero performs his exploits outside the house, on the path-road, some sections of which are mythologically

logically marked (forest as the sphere of demonic creatures, river as the border of various spheres, lower and upper worlds, etc.).”

For our research, the author’s thought about mythological topography is relevant: “In myth and fairy tale<...>, as well as in the chivalric romance, archetypal travel motifs are common, including wanderings in the forest, less often sea trips (the latter are more typical for the Greek novel), and visits to other worlds. These journeys, as a rule, are strictly correlated with mythological topography, not only with the opposition of sky, earth, underground and underwater “kingdoms”, but also with the opposition of house and forest (the latter representing an “alien” world, saturated with demons and demonism), with marking the river as the border between worlds on land, etc. and so on." .

Obviously, the concept of “literary archetype” is much broader than Jung’s archetypes, which “are primarily images, characters, at best roles and, to a much lesser extent, plots.” In this regard, E.M. Meletinsky substantiates the need to introduce a new term - “archetypal motive”, by which he means “a certain microplot containing a predicate (action), agent, patient and carrying a more or less independent and sufficient deep meaning". The system of archetypal motifs identified by the researcher gives us reason to speak separately about spatial archetypes in literature.

Exploring spatial categories, Yu.M. Lotman noted their antiquity and universality: “Every culture begins with the division of the world into internal (“our”) space and external (“theirs”). How this binary division is interpreted depends on the typology of the culture. However, such a partition itself belongs to universals." An important attribute of such a “partition,” according to the scientist, is the border: “...this border can be defined as the line at which a periodic form ends. This space is defined as “ours”, “ours”, “cultural”, “safe”, “harmoniously organized”, etc. It is opposed by “their space”, “alien”, “hostile”, “dangerous”, “chaotic”.

The work of D.A. is devoted to the study of artistic space. Shchukina “Space”

art in literary text and space literary text"(2003). The author considers the main characteristic of the “archaic concept of space” to be the awareness of space as “a territory of existence, habitation, delimited from external space, from the rest of the world.<.>The world begins to divide into “our” space (small, delimited) and “foreign” space. Thus, in the worldview of the ancients, the binary opposition “one’s own - another’s” appears, fundamental in its importance. The developed territory, “one’s own” world, was characterized by heterogeneity: it distinguished sacred space (center) and profane space (periphery). The sacralized center “was marked by an altar. and then the temple, on the basis of which an abstract idea of ​​the world axis, the world tree (top - bottom) was formed. This is how a delimited, oriented and measured space arose.<...>Early spatial concepts were entrenched in mythology. It is in myths that the spatial model is clearly structured on the basis of a system of “binary oppositions, fundamental oppositions, archetypal codes: friend - alien, top - bottom, life - death, space - chaos, etc.” .

For the first time, spatial archetypes as a separate group were considered in the monograph by Yu.V. Domansky “The meaning-forming role of archetypal meanings in a literary text” (2001). Having distributed archetypal motifs into “motifs associated with descriptions of nature, the elements of the universe; motives that are directly correlated with the cycle of human life, key moments and categories in human life, and motives that characterize a person’s place in space,” the researcher analyzed six ordinary motives: snowstorms and seasons, orphanhood and widowhood, forests and houses.

Note that the typology of Yu.V. Domansky is based not only on the thematic, but also on the functional meaning of the archetype. The author argues for this position by the fact that “in the modern interpretation, the archetype embodies primordial universal human values, universal moral ideas of man about the world, which does not contradict the unconscious and non-evaluative nature of the archetype in archaic myth. In relation to modernity, we can even argue that the archetype, no matter how contrary to its own logic, is a synonym for the universal

universal morality inherent initially in man." Guided by this position, the author identifies several types of functioning of archetypal meaning in literature, namely:

Preservation of the entire bundle of the archetypal meaning of the motif;

Dominance of any seminal archetypal meaning;

Inversion of the archetypal meaning of the motif as an indicator of the character’s originality;

Inversion of the archetypal meaning of the motive as an indicator of deviation from universal moral values;

A combination of different semes of archetypal meaning in the assessments of one character.

Analyzing the work of M.I. Tsvetaeva, N.S. Kawakita mainly characterizes the traditionally identified archetypes: archetypes correlated with the sphere of empirical existence (the embodiment of the archetypal traits of Anima, Animus, Child, Mother, Spirit-Father), and archetypes correlated with the sphere of supra-empirical existence (features of the archetypal Spirit and Self ). At the same time, the spatial archetypes of the Mountain and the arboreal world (forest) are connected with the archetype of the Self. The main thing in their symbolism, according to the researcher, is the idea of ​​personal growth “dynamism, upward direction, fusion of different things into a whole.” N.S. Kawakita notes that “mountain symbolism penetrated into the work of M. Tsvetaeva in the 1920s, organically joining the general system of the poetic cosmos. At the same time, the poet “adapts” the concept “mountain” to this cosmos; mainly two semes remain effective: 1) highness (literal and translative meanings); 2) “difficulty”, “heaviness” rock" - both literal, physical, and figurative.<...>“Mountain” serves as a kind of “unit of measurement” for a number of aesthetic and ethical categories of M. Tsvetaeva’s artistic system.” Describing the “tree world” by M. Tsvetaeva, N.S. Kawakita notes that “the opposition of the two worlds still retains modeling functions, but the heroine’s idea of ​​the world of trees gradually deepens: the opposition “sacred - profane” is added to the highlighted ones.” Now her perception connects the natural world with the world of the supra-empirical; it is no coincidence that the poem includes images that represent the

stian and pagan ideas about the sacred: “Forest! - My Elysium!”, “light sacrificial fire of the Groves”, “tree” carries “prophetic news”.

Revealing the functions of archetypes and archetypal images in the works of P.V. Zasodimsky, E.Yu. Vlasenko describes personal archetypes and motives, which include the archetypes of the cultural hero-demiurge, trickster, werewolf, Baba Yaga, orphan, widow and spatial archetypes (house, garden, hell and heaven). The author believes that traditional spatial landmarks are becoming filled symbolic meaning and acquire a universal, universal human connotation thanks to the “powerful philosophical issues» works by P.V. Zasodimsky. In our opinion, quite convincingly, the images of house, forest, hell and heaven are considered archetypical, representing the implementation of binary oppositions “internal - external”, “one’s own - someone else’s”, “chaos - space”.

The work of N.I. is devoted to the analysis of “universal archetypes” in the fantasy genre. Vasilyeva “Folk archetypes in modern mass literature: novels by J. K. Rowling and their interpretation in youth subculture"(2005). Among the archetypal motives described by the researcher, spatial ones play an important role, primarily the motive of “overcoming the threshold”: “After the hero learned about the trouble/misfortune and decided to do something (see “absenteeism” in V.Ya. Propp’s scheme) or more broadly, he felt the “call to adventure” and somehow responded to it,<...>he sets off on a journey and sooner or later must meet the guardian of the threshold into the other world, and then cross this threshold.” Let us note that the other world itself, as well as the intermediate, border zone, according to the author, are in one way or another connected with archetypal spatial motifs: “by other world we must understand that spatio-temporal system that is opposed to reality, taken in this fairy tale for the world of everyday life, for a world akin to the hero.<...>The role of another world is not necessarily played by some kind of “kingdom-state” - usually it is a castle/palace, and some traditional border locus is often attached to it, that is, for example, a castle on the mountain/in the mountains, a castle in the forest, a castle near rivers, castle/palace underground/in the sky." In general, con-

states N.I. Vasiliev, “it is not difficult to explain the diversity of what is depicted, the heterogeneity arising from the transformation of the traditional understanding of the fairy-tale universe as the opposition between “one’s own” world and the “alien” world.”

I.N. Nevshup in his dissertation research “Roman F.M. Dostoevsky’s “Teenager”: types and archetypes” (2007) analyzes the archetype of the “teenager” (cf. C. G. Jung’s archetype of the child) and the archetypal motifs of duality, egoism, pride, demonism, wandering, prettiness, wandering. Characterizing archetypal motives directly related to Dostoevsky’s personal images, the researcher turns to the clearly spatial opposition of wandering/wandering, without, however, focusing on the fact that both elements of this opposition go back to the archetype of the path. European “wanderer” I.N. Nevshupa calls Versilov, a wanderer and pilgrim - Makar Ivanovich: “Versilov is a European wanderer with a Russian soul, ideologically homeless both in Europe and in Russia. Makar is a Russian wanderer who set off on a journey across Rus' to explore the whole world: all of Russia and even the entire universe is his home. Versilov is the highest cultural type of Russian person. Makar is the highest moral type of a Russian person from the people, a kind of national saint.”

In her work “Existential archetypes in the artistic space of modern Russian prose” (2006), S.G. Barysheva proposes to divide existential archetypes into two groups: “ontic” (M. Heidegger’s term) and epistemological. “Works containing ontic archetypes are built according to existential canons (the presence of an existential hero, the presence of a borderline situation, etc.).<...>Epistemological archetypes, due to their specificity, can be found not only in works of an existential orientation, but also in works various styles and directions." The author notes that “existential archetypes are woven into the fabric of the novel very unobtrusively, where writers turn to eternal categories: life - death, good - evil, faith - unbelief, which grow into symbolic images. Existential archetypes reflect the worldview of artists, their aspirations, ideas about moral values, according to which Man, his personality, aspirations are placed above all else

to know oneself, perseverance in the struggle with oneself.” In his work, S.G. Barysheva refers to the ontic archetypes of Nausea, Emptiness, Disease, Insect, Heaviness. Among the epistemological ones, he distinguishes the archetypes of the Path (archetypes of the Road, City, Border) and Truth (archetypes of the House, Window, Forest, Water). As we see, most of the archetypes called epistemological by the author are essentially spatial.

Our analysis of the works of classics of Russian literary criticism and modern scientists allows us to draw the following conclusion: a study of the main archetypes identified by K.G. Jung cannot do without a description of spatial categories.

By spatial archetypes we understand universal human spatial images, unconsciously transmitted from generation to generation, permeating all fiction from mythological origins to the present and forming a constant fund of plots and situations. We focus on the fact that spatial archetypes tend to appear in pairs, in the form of binary oppositions. Thus, in our opinion, it is necessary to include, first of all, the antinomic pair space/chaos, which is the basis for other spatial oppositions, such as: house/forest (safe space/dangerous space), house/road (closed space/ open space), home/anti-home (one's own space/another's space), etc. Consequently, the image of a border is also endowed with archetypal meaning - a spatial boundary separating one's own and someone else's worlds.

Further, it should be noted that some parameters of space, for example cardinal directions or spatial axes: vertical and horizontal, also acquire archetypal universal semantics and value status. This position is confirmed by the opinion of many researchers about the stability of the archaic spatial model, including binary oppositions (one's own / someone else's, top / bottom, south / north, etc.), the sacred center and profane space, as well as objects and phenomena, the archetypal meaning of which is associated with the ancient cultural tradition.

Let's consider the semantics of the archetypal spatial opposition house/forest. It is known that the spatial ideas of ancient man were embodied primarily in the structure of the home; its four-member structure reflected the four-member model of the world. “The four sides (4 walls, 4 corners) of the dwelling with a tree in the center surprisingly accurately repeat verbal and pictorial texts describing four-member models of the world (of different cultural traditions).” The building ritual as a way of developing and organizing space included a “ritual struggle between the owners and the carpenters.” Based on this observation, A.K. Bayburin correlates the ritual itself “with a whole class of texts<...>the dialogical structure of which reproduces the archetype of the struggle between chaos and space." The dwelling thus embodied a “reduced model of space, the world<...>reality appears as an imitation of the heavenly archetype; artificial objects (settlements, temples, homes) become sacredly significant, as they are identified with the “center of the world”; rituals and significant profane actions are endowed a certain meaning because they are consciously committed by gods, heroes and ancestors."

As a rule, the image of a house in literature has archetypal semantics if it realizes the meaning of a closed internal space that provides peace, security and reliable protection; the meaning of the center of universal life values ​​- such as happiness, well-being and harmony in the family, material wealth.

In our opinion, a classic example of the use of the spatial opposition house/forest in Russian literature is the story

N.V. Gogol "Old World Landowners". The space (house) in which hospitable old people live can be described as closed, fenced off from outside world as follows: a ring of huts - a garden - a fence-border - a courtyard with a palisade - a forest. The main property of this “homey” space is hospitality and friendliness. The law of inner peace is comfort. Nothing happens in the closed world of old people. All actions are related neither to the past nor to the present time, but represent multiple repetitions of the same thing. Flow peaceful life old-world landowners changed

Neil leaves the house of his beloved cat Pulcheria Ivanovna, unexpected strong anxiety comes from the forest, a space external to the peaceful home of the old people.

The forest in the story is also endowed with archetypal features: it is located outside the warm, cozy, bounded by trees, fences, palisades, galleries, singing doors, narrow windows of the inner world of old people. For old-world landowners, the forest is a mythological space. It is labeled as a place that carries destructive functions, causing a person to feel fear and anxiety.

Thus, the house and the forest in the story are two opposite spaces. The archetypal features of a home are comfort, safety, happiness, abundance, love, cordiality; forests are anxiety, danger, the abode of mysterious wild cats. The unchanging internal space of happiness and comfort is catastrophically destroyed as a result of the invasion of a dangerous event from the alien space of the forest (myth). A spatial opposition arises: external - internal = dangerous - safe.

The literary example we examined shows that the forest has archetypal semantics, since it realizes the meaning of a place that poses a danger, a threat to a person, gives rise to a feeling of fear in him, and is the place (or cause) of a person’s death.

World mythology often represents the forest as a border zone between the world of the dead and the world of the living, which is why initiation rites were held here. “The initiation ceremony was always carried out in the forest. This is a constant, indispensable feature of him all over the world.” In general, ideas about the forest as an environment of the underground kingdom, kingdom of the dead go back to Antiquity and were recorded literary by Ovid and Virgil, and then penetrated into European literature.

In Slavic mythology, the forest was also assigned significant place. Ancient man realized his helplessness and vulnerability to the cruel forces of nature, and the forest was considered the most hostile. The following observation is indicative in this regard: “A man leaving his house into the forest<...>tuned in to a constant struggle with unforeseen circumstances and merciless elements; on the other hand, I could always

count on the unexpected help of the forest deity, the forest owner, so I tried to please him: not to harm the forest, not to beat animals unnecessarily, not to break trees and bushes in vain, not to litter the forest, not even to shout loudly, not to disturb the peace and quiet of nature.”

A.A. Skoropadskaya, tracing the history of the image of the forest in world culture, notes that this image plays a complex and ambiguous role in the Old Testament tradition: “...very often in Old Testament is an image of a large people. This is a kind of metaphor: a people consists of a large number of absolutely identical people, each person is different from each other in the same way that trees are different from each other.<...>In the Old Testament, the forest can also act as a protector of God's chosen ones.<...>With the advent of Christianity, the image of the forest acquired new shades of meaning, retaining many pagan ideas. The significance of the forest as a sacred place remains, but instead of pagan rituals, Christian ones begin to be held here. They began to install chapels or crosses in the forests, and hang icons on trees, thus creating a similarity between the forest and the temple.”

Researcher D.H. Billington sees another meaning of the forest: “it was the virgin forest thicket that was the cradle of the great Russian culture<...>Forests were like an evergreen curtain, which in the initial period of the formation of culture protected consciousness from increasingly distant worlds - Byzantium and the urban West."

In addition, the spatial archetype “forest” has the following meaning: “a place where a person is unable to undertake anything and is completely forced to rely on higher intervention in his destiny; at the same time, a person is afraid of the forest, because he does not know its will towards himself.” Consequently, the semantic characteristics of the forest can be considered: hostility of part of the space, opposition to all

List of used literature:

other horizontal topoi, a shelter for the innocently persecuted.

A specific feature The spatial opposition between house and forest is the presence of a border. Yu.M. wrote convincingly about the expressiveness of this spatial archetype. Lotman: “In Old World Landowners, the structure of space becomes one of the main means of expression. The entire artistic space is divided into two unequal parts. The first of them is almost not detailed - “the rest” of the world. It is vast and uncertain. This is the narrator’s place of residence, his spatial point of view.<...>The second is the world of old-world landowners. The main distinguishing property of this world is its isolation. The concept of the boundary separating this space from that one has the utmost significance, and the entire complex of ideas of Afanasy Ivanovich and Pulcheria Ivanovna is organized by this division and subordinated to it. This or that phenomenon is assessed depending on its location on this or that side of the spatial boundary.”

Thus, the following can be considered spatial archetypes that permeate all literature from antiquity to modernity:

1. Space/chaos as a fundamental antinomic pair and all its variants: house/forest, house/road, house/anti-house, heaven/hell, heaven/earth, city/village, capital/province, etc.

2. Border as a spatial boundary that occurs in any spatial opposition: threshold, window, gate, river, etc.

3. Space parameters that have universal semantics: cardinal directions (south/north, west/east); spatial axes (vertical and horizontal); sacred center and profane space, etc.

1. Meletinsky, E.M. About literary archetypes / E.M. Meletinsky. - M.: RGGU, 1994. - 136 p.

2. Meletinsky, E.M. Space // Mythology: Big Encyclopedic Dictionary / Ch. ed. EAT. Meletinsky / E.M. Meletinsky. - M.: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 1998. - 7З6 p.

3. Lotman, Yu.M. Inside thinking worlds / Yu.M. Lotman // Lotman Yu.M. Semiosphere. - St. Petersburg: “Art-SPB”, 2000. -704 p.

4. Shchukina, D.A. Space in artistic text and space in artistic text / D.A. Shchukin. - St. Petersburg: SPGGI, 200Z. - 218 p.

5. Domansky, Yu.V. The meaning-forming role of archetypal meanings in a literary text. Special course manual. 2nd edition, corrected and expanded. (Literary text: problems and research methods; Appendix) / Yu.V. Domansky. - Tver, 2001. - 94 p.

6. Kawakita, N.S. The problem of the archetype in the creative experience of M.I. Tsvetaeva: Dis. ...cand. Philol. Sciences: 10.01.08 / N.S. Kawakita. - M., 2004. - 200 p.

7. Vlasenko, E.Yu. Functions of archetypes and archetypal images in the works of P.V. Zasodimsky: Dis. ...cand. Philol. Sciences: 10.01.01 / E.Yu. Vlasenko. - Ulyanovsk, 2005. - 163 p.

8. Vasilyeva, N.I. Folklore archetypes in modern mass literature: novels by J. K. Rowling and their interpretation in youth subculture: Dis. ...cand. Philol. Sciences: 10.01.03, 10.01.09 / N.I. Vasilyeva. - N. Novgorod, 2005. - 243 p.

9. Nevshupa, I.N. Roman F.M. Dostoevsky “Teenager”: types and archetypes: Dis. ...cand. Philol. Sciences: 10.01.01 / I.N. Nevshup. - Krasnodar, 2007. - 179 p.

10. Barysheva, S.G. Existential archetypes in the artistic space of modern Russian prose: Dis. ...cand. Philol. Sciences: 10.01.01 / S.G. Barysheva. - Magnitogorsk, 2006. - 201 p.

11. Bayburin, A.K. Dwelling in rituals and performances Eastern Slavs/ A.K. Bayburin. - M.: Languages ​​of Slavic culture, 2005. - 224 p.

Theory of literature. History of Russian and foreign literary criticism [Anthology] Nina Petrovna Khryashcheva

Chapter 1 The concept of “archetype” in the science of literature

The concept of “archetype” in the science of literature

From the beginning of the 1990s to the present time, much attention has been paid to the problem of interaction between myth and literature in Russian science. CM. Telegin identifies three levels of connection between literature and myth: “borrowing plots, motifs and images from mythology; the writer’s creation of his own system of myths; reconstruction of mythological consciousness" [Telegin SM. Philosophy of myth. M., 1994. P. 38]. In our opinion, the typology proposed by Telegin needs some clarification. The interaction of myth and literature can be represented as follows: firstly, the writer’s conscious appeal to certain mythological plots and motifs known to him; secondly, the so-called myth-making, when an artist, based on an ancient myth, as if following its outline, creates his own myth; thirdly, the correlation of literature and myth through archetypes.

The concept of “archetype,” known in late antique philosophy, is actively used in various branches of science - in psychology, philosophy, mythology, and linguistics. Among other sciences, this term is widely used by literary criticism. And in all scientific branches... the understanding of the archetype goes back to the works of K.G. Jung, who defined archetypes as “the most ancient and most universal forms of representation of humanity” [Jung K.G. About the psychology of the unconscious. M., 1994. P. 106], located in the collective or superpersonal unconscious, which is collective “precisely because it is separated from the personal and is absolutely universal, and because its contents can be found everywhere, which is precisely what cannot be said about personal experiences" [Ibid. P. 105]. In his work “An Attempt at a Psychological Interpretation of the Dogma of the Trinity,” Jung defines the archetype as the primordial view on which the psychological idea rests: “The archetype in itself ... is a certain unrepresentable factor, a certain disposition, which at some point in the development of the human spirit comes into action, beginning build the material of consciousness into certain figures” [Jung K.G. Collection op. Answer to Job. M., 1995. S. 47–48].

Archetypes, according to Jung, are dynamic: “An archetype, of course, is always and everywhere in action.<…>An archetype... is a dynamic image" [Jung K.G. About the psychology of the unconscious. pp. 109–110]. The important features of an archetype include not only its dynamism, but also its universality: “The only thing that is common is the manifestation of certain archetypes” [Ibid.], writes Jung. Thus, an archetype, according to Jung, is a certain model that can be realized in various kinds manifestations.

And Jung, turning to the possible origin of this kind of dynamic and universal models, gives at least two reasons for the genesis of the archetype: first, archetypes in origin “represent a reflection of the constantly repeated experience of mankind” (4); secondly, according to Jung, “an archetype is a kind of readiness to reproduce again and again the same or similar mythical ideas<…>Nothing prevents us from assuming that certain archetypes are already found in animals and that they are therefore based on the specificity of the living system in general and are thus only the expression of life, whose status can no longer be explained<…>It seems that archetypes are not only imprints of constantly repeating typical experiences, but at the same time they empirically act as forces or tendencies to repeat the same experiences” [Ibid]. That is, the presence of an archetype is explained both by experience and by the original (biological) predetermination.

At the same time, experience, according to Jung, can have both a personal (individual) and collective (universal) character, predetermined previous generations. Therefore, it makes sense to talk about two layers of the unconscious, the relationship of which, according to Jung, looks like this: “The personal layer ends with the earliest childhood memories; the collective unconscious, on the contrary, covers the period preceding childhood, that is, what remains of the life of the ancestors. If the regression of psychic energy, going beyond even the period early childhood, goes to the heritage of the life of the ancestors, then mythological images awaken: archetypes” [Ibid. pp. 119–120].

<…>Taking into account such facts, we apparently must admit that the unconscious contains not only the personal, but also the impersonal, collective in the form of hereditary categories” [Jung K.G. Collection op. Psychology of the unconscious. pp. 191–192]. Another way to explain the existence of an archetype is through the commonality of historical, individual and collective human experience: “the historical factor is inherent... in all archetypes in general, that is, in all hereditary unities, spiritual and physical. After all, our life is the same as it has been since time immemorial...” [Ibid. P. 258] (5)<…>. But let’s not forget that the archetype is hidden and is realized primarily in dreams and during psychoses - “there are many dreams in which mythological motifs appear that are completely unknown to the dreamer<…>In dreams in general, and in some psychoses, archetypal material is often encountered, that is, ideas and connections that show an exact correspondence with myths. Based on these parallels, I concluded that there is a layer of the unconscious that functions in the same way as the archaic psyche that gave rise to myths<…>The earliest recalled childhood dreams often contain striking mythologies” [Jung K.G. Analytical psychology and education // Conflicts of the child’s soul. M., 1995. S. 133–134].

<…>The connection between archetype and myth for Jung is undeniable: “In dreams, as well as in the products of psychosis, countless correspondences arise, parallels for which can be found exclusively among mythological combinations of ideas (or sometimes in a special kind poetic works, which are often marked by not always conscious borrowings from myths)” [Jung K.G. Towards an understanding of the infant archetype // Self-awareness of European culture of the 20th century. M., 1991. P. 119]. Thus, Jung connects myth and literature not only through mythologems consciously introduced into a literary work, but also through archetypes<…>It is never a question of formed myths (with very rare exceptions), but rather of the constituent parts of myths, which, due to their typical nature, can be designated as (6) “motifs”, “prototypes”, “types”, or (as I called them) as “archetypes”... archetypes are revealed, on the one hand, in myths and fairy tales, on the other, in dreams and delusional fantasies during psychosis” [Jung K.G. Towards an understanding of the infant archetype. P. 119]. Thus, the connection between the archetype and the mythologem is obvious: “Still, the truth and numinous power of the mythologem are significantly supported by evidence of its archetypal character” [Jung K.G. An attempt at a psychological interpretation of the dogma of the Trinity. P. 15].

Based on this, Jung believes that “myth is not fiction, it consists of continuously repeating facts, and these facts can be observed again and again<…>The myth comes true in man, and all people have a mythical destiny no less than the Greek heroes<…>I would even like to say that the situation is the opposite - the mythical character of life is expressed precisely in its universal meaning” [Ibid.]. To prove this, Jung turned to mythological motifs, which he examined from the point of view of their universality, which allowed the scientist to “understand mythological motifs as structural elements of the psyche” [Jung K.G. Towards an understanding of the infant archetype // Self-awareness of European culture of the 20th century. P. 119]. The function of these motives in the psyche is as follows: “The primitive mentality does not invent myths, but experiences them. Myths are initially the essence of revealing the pre-conscious soul" [Ibid. P. 121]. Those fantasies that do not go back to personal experiences and have analogies in myths “correspond to certain collective (and impersonal) elements human soul in general and are inherited, like the morphological elements of the human body” [Ibid].

Let us summarize some of Jung's interpretation of the concept of “archetype”. Jung argues that in the collective unconscious there are certain patterns that have analogies in ancient myths. He called these models archetypes, demonstrating that in the modern world they are present to one degree or another in the psyche of every person and can be realized primarily in dreams, in some forms of mental illness and in artistic creativity.

Domestic literary criticism turned to the problem of archetype relatively recently. One of the first attempts in our science to interpret a literary text using Jung's concept was made in 1982 by Boris Paramonov. His analysis became the “first sign” of the practice of interpreting a literary text taking into account archetypal meanings in Russian science.

A few years later, V.A. proposed his understanding of the archetype. Markov. Firstly, the researcher established a connection between myth and literature through the archetype [Markov V.A. Literature and myth: the problem of archetypes (to pose the question) // Tynyanovsky collection. Fourth Tynianov readings. Riga, 1990. P. 137], rightly believing that “artistic thinking is naturally formed on the same archetypal basis and is permeated with images derived from basic binary symbols” [Ibid. P. 141], which sets the “general cosmological structure of being” [Ibid. P. 140].

Secondly, Markov focused attention on three features of archetypes - universality, versatility and reproductive (7) nature: “When analyzing poetic texts archetypes lie in wait for us, one might say, at every step. And these are not simple precedents, not occasional coincidences. There is - at the level of the collective unconscious - a completely objective historical (logical, artistic, praxeological) memory in which the gold bars of human experience - moral, aesthetic, social - are stored. The artist unlocks primary meanings and images, scoops them out as much as he can, and returns to people what is half-forgotten and lost. This is no longer renaissance, but restoration, an archeology of images of meaning” [Ibid. P. 141].

As a result, Markov came to the following thought: “Universal human imperatives and values ​​have an archetypal basis. Here are symbols of eternity and eternity symbols. Here is myth, art and man” [Ibid. P. 145]. This gives the right to believe that archetypes accompany humanity throughout its history, for it “never parted with myth” [Ibid. P. 144], manifesting itself, in particular, in literature; and that archetypes represent the primary authority, a kind of focus of universal human values ​​in all spheres of life, regardless of time and place. In this regard, it can be assumed that the inversion of archetypal meaning is a retreat from universal human values ​​in favor of ideals of a different order, which indicate the transformation of the bearers of this kind of inversion in a universal sense.

This assumption allows us to rethink the literary work and/or the artist’s worldview, which we will try to show in the future. But let us note that the archetype, if we follow Jung’s understanding, like myth, is outside of “good” and “evil”, outside of any evaluative characteristics. The archetype is simple There is, therefore, talking about its identification with values ​​of any kind and, accordingly, with morality makes sense only in terms of comparison, that is, considering the archetype as the primary authority where everything that subsequently conceptualized as a universal value. In many ways, this correlation is metaphorical, but it is necessary both for a deeper understanding of the role of the archetype on modern stage development of humanity, and for understanding the worldview of a particular person (including an artist).

On the representation of the archetype as the focus of universal human universals, laws human existence and our work is being built. From a modern point of view, we can judge the binary oppositions of myth as containing evaluative connotations (space – “+”, chaos – “-”, etc.). Therefore, it is natural that the non-evaluative archetype in modern interpretations can receive evaluation characteristics.

SM draws attention to this kind of transformation. Telegin: “... having disappeared as a collective unconscious, mythological consciousness continues to exist and successfully manifests itself not only in dreams, but also in artistic creativity. The impact of myth on literature is based (8), mainly on the similarity of the techniques and tasks of myth-making and artistic creativity, on the unity of mythological and artistic perception» [Opt. op. P. 38].

M. Evzlin also offers a special interpretation in his work “The Mythological Structure of Crime and Madness in the Story by A.S. Pushkin " Queen of Spades", using as material for the analysis of texts of Russian literature the entire possible layer of mythologies: "for Europeans of the late XVIII - early XIX centuries, the mythology par excellence was ancient Greek mythology. Therefore, it would be incorrect to analyze Pushkin’s story, say, using data from Japanese or Australian mythology. However, since we are talking about ARCHETYPAL motives, we believe that it is permissible to attract data from other mythologies” [Evzlin M. Cosmogony and ritual. M., 1993. P. 33]. According to Evzlin, interpretation of a text through archetypal motifs sometimes allows one to see meanings hidden in other interpretations.

The concept of E.M. is built on the correlation of archetype and literature. Meletinsky, although he argues with Jung on two main points: firstly, the researcher’s objection is that Jung’s archetypes are not plots [Meletinsky E.M. About literary archetypes. M., 1994. P. 6], and, secondly, the researcher doubts the hereditary nature of the transmission of archetypes [Ibid. P. 15].

In this regard, Meletinsky gives his own definition of archetypes, which largely contradicts Jung’s: archetypes, according to Meletinsky, are “primary schemes of images and plots that constituted a certain initial fund of literary language, understood in the broadest sense” [Ibid. P. 11]. The researcher notes: “At the early stages of development, these narrative schemes are characterized by exceptional uniformity. At later stages they are very diverse, but careful analysis reveals that many of them are peculiar transformations of primary elements. It would be most convenient to call these primary elements plot archetypes” [Ibid. P. 5]. That is, Meletinsky’s work is devoted primarily to plots.

Based on this, the researcher introduces the concept of “archetypal motive”, defining the motive itself as “a certain micro-plot containing a predicate (action) of an agent, a patient and carrying a more or less independent and quite deep meaning. It’s just that we don’t include all sorts of movements and transformations of characters, their meetings, especially their individual attributes and characteristics in the concept of motive<…>Moreover, within full plot Usually there is a tangle of motives, their intersection and unification” [Ibid. pp. 50–51].

EAT. Meletinsky also addresses the problem of the pathos of myth, noting that this pathos “quite early begins to come down to the cosmization of primary chaos, to the struggle and victory of the cosmos over chaos (that is, the formation of the world turns out to be its ordering at the same time). And it is precisely this process of creation of the world that is the main subject of the image and the main theme (9) of the most ancient myths” [Ibid. P. 13]. Thus, according to Meletinsky, “the philistine idea that myths and especially fairy tales depict the struggle between good and evil is very simplified and, in principle, incorrect. From the very beginning, it is more about the opposition of “us” and “alien” and “space” and “chaos” [Ibid. P. 43]. Indeed, the myth is based on binary oppositions, where any assessments (good and evil) are unacceptable. But myth (and, accordingly, archetype) in the modern world, as already noted, can acquire these assessments. It is precisely the “philistine idea” that E.M. writes about. Meletinsky, is, in essence, the focus of the modern existence of the archetype. Therefore, the “everyman” is inclined to view the mythological plot not as simply a struggle between creation and eschatology (space and chaos), but as a struggle in which creation is good and eschatology is evil. This confirms Jung's maxim about the dynamism of the archetype. By the way, E.M. himself Meletinsky drew attention to the transformation of the archetype: “Myth, heroic epic, legend and fairy tale are extremely rich in archetypal content. Some archetypes in fairy tales and epics are transformed, for example, “monsters” are replaced by infidels, the totemic “wonderful wife” is replaced by an enchanted princess, and then even by a slandered wife who makes a career in a travesty, in a man’s outfit, etc. However, in the case of transformations the primary archetype shines through quite clearly. It seems to lie at the deep level of the narrative. Next comes a double process: on the one hand, traditional plots, which in principle go back to archetypes, are preserved in literature for a very long time, periodically clearly showing their archetypicality, but, on the other hand, transformations traditional stories or the fragmentation of traditional plots into peculiar fragments increasingly obscures the deep archetypal meanings” [Ibid. P. 64].

But in the sphere of attention of E.M. Meletinsky contains not so much archetypes in general (in the Jungian sense), but rather archetypal plots and images. Numerous subject motifs and details remain outside the field of view of the researcher, although, just like mythological plots, they can be archetypal, which will be discussed further.

For now, let us conclude that in domestic literary criticism a concept of archetype has emerged that deserves the closest attention (10).<…>EAT. Meletinsky demonstrated the possibilities of interpreting Russian literature of the 19th century centuries through archetypes in plots and images. Our task is to show that archetypes can also be used in the analysis of other elements of the text, in particular motives.

By archetypes we will mean (based, of course, on the definitions of an archetype given by K.G. Jung and E.M. Meletinsky) primary plot schemes, images or motifs (including subject ones) that arose in the consciousness (subconscious) of a person at the very early stage development of mankind (and therefore common to all people, regardless of their nationality), most adequately expressed in myths and preserved to this day in the human subconscious (11).

From the book Historical Roots Fairy tale author Propp Vladimir

From the book Life by Concepts author Chuprinin Sergey Ivanovich

ESCHATOLOGICAL CONSCIOUSNESS IN LITERATURE, APOCALYPTICS, CATASTROPHISM IN LITERATURE from the Greek. eschatos – the last and logos – teaching. The most famous bearer of eschatological consciousness in Russian literature, without a doubt, is the wanderer Feklusha from Alexander’s play

From the book The Structure of Literary Text author Lotman Yuri Mikhailovich

3. The concept of text Text and extra-textual structures Defining the concept of “text” is difficult. First of all, we have to object to the identification of “text” with the idea of ​​the integrity of a work of art. A very common contrast

From the book The Fight of a Rat with a Dream author Arbitman Roman Emilievich

Women made by science Last week the book ratings swayed. Out of the top ten last book Alexandra Marinina “Spring for a mousetrap.” Tatyana Ustinova’s latest novel, “A Travel Bag with a Bright Future,” flew away after five weeks of stable sales.

From the book World Art Culture. XX century Literature author Olesina E

The concept of “semiosphere” All the various scientific interests were united in Lotman’s research in the phenomenon of culture. The concept of “cultural text” is universal. This approach made it possible to create an innovative direction in cultural studies, including literary studies,

From the book Chizh. Chukovsky and Jabotinsky author Ivanova Evgenia Viktorovna

Chapter 2 Controversy about Jews in Russian literature Chukovsky's critical activity was surrounded by an atmosphere of discussion and verbal skirmishes; scandals of varying degrees of severity arose around almost each of his new articles. Even in the detailed bibliography of D. Berman,

From the book Volume 2. “Problems of Dostoevsky’s creativity,” 1929. Articles about L. Tolstoy, 1929. Recordings of a course of lectures on the history of Russian literature, 1922–1927 author Bakhtin Mikhail Mikhailovich

From the book Stone Belt, 1977 author Korchagin Gennady Lvovich

Science has its say It is known in what large volumes industrial and civil construction is carried out in our country. But something else is no less known - a burning, acute one: the constant shortage of building materials, especially highly efficient and cheap ones. Here demand is ahead

From the book On Both Sides of Utopia. Contexts of A. Platonov's creativity by Gunther Hans

16. “Happy Moscow” and the mother archetype in Soviet culture of the 1930s According to Joseph Brodsky, writers such as Babel, Pilnyak, Olesha, Zamyatin, Bulgakov or Zoshchenko only played with the Soviet language, while Andrei Platonov “ he subordinated himself to the language of the era.”

From the book Volume 7. Aesthetics, literary criticism author Lunacharsky Anatoly Vasilievich

Formalism in the science of art* We, Marxists, in no way have to deny the existence of purely formal art. In common parlance, such purely formal art has long been given the unostentatious, but expressive and precise name: art

From the book Poetry of Marina Tsvetaeva. Linguistic aspect author Zubova Lyudmila Vladimirovna

1. THE CONCEPT OF SYNCRETISM Syncretic (complex, undivided) representation of various semantic and grammatical features in one word - the oldest way of knowing and reflecting the world in language, a method dating back to the era of mythological thinking, when in

From the book History of the Russian Novel. Volume 1 author Philology Team of authors --

CHAPTER I. PREREQUISITES FOR THE ARISE OF THE NOVEL GENRE IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE (D. S. Likhachev) 1 Did the novel exist in ancient Russian literature? If we understand this term broadly and recognize the legitimacy of the term “late Hellenistic novel,” then the answer to this question is unconditional

From the book Venice in Russian literature author Mednis Nina Eliseevna

CHAPTER II. THE ORIGIN OF THE NOVEL IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE OF THE 18TH CENTURY (G.N. Moiseeva - § 1, I.Z. Serman - §§ 2–6) 1In Russian literature of the 18th century, poetry, drama and narrative prose developed unevenly. Unlike written literature of previous centuries, where

From the book All the best that money can’t buy [A world without politics, poverty and wars] by Fresco Jacques

Chapter 3 THE NAME OF VENICE IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE Feminine in the name and appearance of Venice. - Name variations. - Anagrams of the name of the city in Russian literary VenetianStarting a conversation about the role of the name of the city in Russian literary Venetian, it is appropriate to recall the last quintetian

From the book Ufa Literary Criticism. Issue 7 author Baykov Eduard Arturovich

From the author's book

Absalom Vinogradnikov Renegadeism in science The collection of articles by E. A. Baikov, “Co-evolution and Humanity,” published in 2006, clearly demonstrates the complete renunciation of Marxism by this “leader of ecologists.” The thesis - “Enemies of our co-evolution” completes the “valiant work”

You are not a slave!
Closed educational course for children of the elite: "The true arrangement of the world."
http://noslave.org

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, the identification of echoes of mythopoetic consciousness in various cultural levels becomes almost dominant (the mythological-ritual approach of J. J. Frazer, ethnographic - L. Lévy-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 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 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 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 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:

1. writer's individuality (for example, scientists speak of Pushkin as an “archaic archetype of the poet”);
2. “eternal images” (Hamlet, Don Juan, Don Quixote);
3. types of heroes (“mothers”, “children”, etc.);
4. 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 the 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)

“My God, you too?!.. And you?..” was all he could say. - Well, what are you for?!
In the ambulance, the three bodies were already completely covered, and there was no longer any doubt that all these unfortunate people were already dead. Only my mother remained alive so far, whose “awakening” I honestly didn’t envy at all. After all, seeing that she had lost her entire family, this woman could simply refuse to live.
- Dad, dad, will mom wake up soon too? – as if nothing had happened, the girl asked joyfully.
The father stood in complete confusion, but I saw that he was trying with all his might to pull himself together in order to somehow calm down his baby daughter.
“Katenka, honey, mom won’t wake up.” “She will no longer be with us,” the father said as calmly as possible.
- How can it not be?!.. We’re all in place, aren’t we? We should be together!!! Isn’t it?.. – little Katya did not give up.
I realized that it would be very difficult for my father to somehow explain this clearly. little man- to her daughter - that life had changed a lot for them and there would be no return to the old world, no matter how much she wanted it... The father himself was in complete shock and, in my opinion, no less than his daughter needed consolation. The boy was holding up best of all so far, although I could clearly see that he was also very, very scared. Everything happened too unexpectedly, and none of them were ready for it. But, apparently, some kind of “instinct of masculinity” kicked in for the boy when he saw his “big and strong” dad in such a confused state, and he, poor thing, in a purely masculine way, took over the “reins of government” from the hands of the confused father into his own small, shaking children's hands...
Before this, I had never seen people (except my grandfather) at the moment of their death. And it was on that ill-fated evening that I realized how helpless and unprepared people face the moment of their transition to another world!.. Probably the fear of something completely unknown to them, as well as the view of their body from the outside (but without their presence in it!) , created a real shock to those who did not suspect anything about it, but, unfortunately, were already “leaving” people.
- Dad, dad, look - they are taking us away, and mom too! How can we find her now?!..
The little girl “shaked” her father’s sleeve, trying to attract his attention, but he was still somewhere “between worlds” and did not pay any attention to her... I was very surprised and even disappointed by such unworthy behavior of her father. No matter how frightened he was, there was a tiny person standing at his feet - his tiny daughter, in whose eyes he was the “strongest and best” dad in the world, whose participation and support she really needed at the moment. And, in my opinion, he simply had no right to become limp in her presence to such an extent...
I saw that these poor children had absolutely no idea what to do now or where to go. To be honest, I had no such idea either. But someone had to do something and I decided to intervene again. It may be completely none of my business, but I simply could not calmly watch all this.
- Excuse me, what is your name? – I quietly asked my father.
This simple question brought him out of the “stupor” into which he “went headlong”, unable to come back. Staring at me in great surprise, he said in confusion:
– Valery... Where did you come from?!... Did you die too? Why can you hear us?
I was very glad that I managed to somehow return him and immediately replied:
– No, I didn’t die, I was just walking by when it all happened. But I can hear you and talk to you. If you want it of course.
Now they all looked at me in surprise...
- Why are you alive if you can hear us? – the little girl asked.
I was just about to answer her when suddenly a young dark-haired woman suddenly appeared and, without having time to say anything, disappeared again.
- Mom, mom, here you are!!! – Katya shouted happily. – I told you that she would come, I told you so!!!
I realized that the woman’s life was apparently “hanging by a thread” at the moment, and for a moment her essence was simply knocked out of her physical body.
– Well, where is she?!.. – Katya was upset. - She was just here!..
The girl was apparently very tired from such a huge influx of various emotions, and her face became very pale, helpless and sad... She tightly clung to her brother’s hand, as if seeking support from him, and quietly whispered:
- And everyone around us doesn’t see... What is this, dad?..
She suddenly began to look like a small, sad old lady who, in complete confusion, looks with her clear eyes at such a familiar White light, and cannot understand in any way - where should she go now, where is her mother now, and where is her home now?.. She turned first to her sad brother, then to her father, who stood alone and, it would seem, completely indifferent to everything. But none of them had an answer to her simple childish question, and the poor girl suddenly became really, really scared...
-Will you stay with us? – looking at me with her big eyes, she asked pitifully.
“Well, of course I’ll stay, if that’s what you want,” I immediately assured.
And I really wanted to hug her tightly in a friendly way, in order to warm her small and so frightened heart at least a little...
- Who are you, girl? – the father suddenly asked. “Just a person, just a little different,” I answered, a little embarrassed. – I can hear and see those who “left”... like you now.
“We died, didn’t we?” – he asked more calmly.
“Yes,” I answered honestly.
- And what will happen to us now?
– You will live, only in another world. And he’s not that bad, believe me!.. You just have to get used to him and love him.
“Do they really LIVE after death?..,” the father asked, still not believing.
- They live. But not here anymore,” I answered. – You feel everything the same as before, but this is a different world, not your usual one. Your wife is still there, just like me. But you have already crossed the “border” and now you are on the other side,” not knowing how to explain more precisely, I tried to “reach out” to him.
– Will she ever come to us too? – the girl suddenly asked.
“Someday, yes,” I answered.
“Well, then I’ll wait for her,” the satisfied little girl said confidently. “And we’ll all be together again, right, dad?” You want mom to be with us again, don’t you?..