Thinking activity on Archetypal Theory

Hello friends, in this blog I'm going to talk about Northrop Frye and his archetypal theory. 

Northrop Frye, in full Herman Northrop Frye, (born July 14, 1912, died Jan. 23, 1991), Canadian educator and literary critic who wrote much on Canadian literature and culture and became best known as one of the most important literary theorists of the 20th century. 

1.What is Archetypal Criticism ? What does the Archetypal critic do ?

Archetypal literary criticism is a theory that interprets a text by focusing on recurring myths and archetypes in the narrative and symbols, rituals, images and character types in a literary work. Archetype denotes recurrent narrative designs, patterns of action, character types, themes and images which are identifiable in a wide variety of works of literature, as well as in myths, dreams and even social rituals. Such recurrent items result from elemental and universal patterns in the human psyche. 

2.What is Frye trying to prove by giving an analogy of 'Physics to Nature' and 'Criticism to Literature' ?

Northrop Frye has given a very unique idea of Archetypal Criticism by comparing the human emotions or human characteristics with the cycle of seasons. Here Frye compares both Physics to Nature and Criticism to Literature. Physics is a deep study of Nature but it is called physics, not Nature though it is based on Nature only it is called physics. In the same manner, In the literature, we are not learning literature but we learn to understand literature,  how to read and how to criticise literature so we are not learning literature but criticising literature. So it is the criticism of literature. So Literature is equal to Nature and Physics is equal to Criticism. One can learn criticism of literature but can't learn literature. 

3.Share your views of Criticism as an organised body of knowledge. Mention relation of literature with history and philosophy.

Literature is the central division of Humanities. Historical sense and Philosophy are about morality, ethics and all these things are required when we study literature. Philosophy is about existence and it progressively moves on, its ideas never stopped. Northrop Frye says that without reasoning and thinking to jump to any type of conclusion is not valid to process.   We have Archetype criticism is based on philosophy and History of people. As it has been said that literature includes history as well as philosophy to convey its meaning so it displays events and ideas. History and philosophy are two important pillars of literature. History gives events and philosophy gives ideas and writers combine both and create work of literature.

4.Briefly explain inductive method with illustration of Shakespeare's Hamlet's Grave Digger's scene. 

Inductive method is a journey which leads from specific to general. As we read some specific literary work and come to a general conclusion, in this way we extend from specific outcome to general outcome.

Northrop Frye gives the example of Gravedigger’s scene from “Hamlet” to explain this method.

• First, the question of existence can be seen. Every man dies at one point.

• Second, the image of corruption can be seen.

• Third, we see Hamlet’s love for Ophelia.

• Forth thing is Hamlet represents Archetypal hero who is ready to die for his love.

• Fifth is this method moves from “Particular to General”.

• Sixth is on that scene there were two grave diggers & they seemed quite in harmony with their work. 

• The last one is we can see that they have no grief for a deadly one. 

5.Briefly explain deductive method with reference to an analogy to music, painting, rhythm and pattern. Give examples of the outcome of deductive method. 

Deductive method is a journey from general to specific. An Archetypal Critic, under the Deductive method of analysis, proceeds to establish the meaning of a work from the general truth to the particular truth. If we can go deep we can understand that literature is Like music & painting. Music and painting both are the form of an art. In music rhythm is an essential characteristic of music & in painting’ pattern is the chief Virtue.  Rhythm is a narrative form, while pattern is simultaneous mental grasp of verbal structure and it has meaning and significance. It provides a mental visual. By listening to some of the music we can't get everything, but looking at the painting we can get an idea of it's pattern. In Literature both rhythm and pattern are recurrences of Images, forms and words. 

6.If you can please read a small Gujarati or Hindi or English poem from the Archetypal approach and apply Indian seasonal grid in the interpretation.

As we know that In India there are three main seasons which are known as,

• Winter

• Summer

• Spring

But, according to Hindu scripture we have six seasons. 

This are below :

• Vasant (Basant) Ritu : Spring

• Grishma Ritu : Summer

• Varsha Ritu : Monsoon 

• Sharad Ritu : Autumn 

• Hemant Ritu : pre winter 

• Shishir / shita Ritu : Winter 

This is the poem by Narendra Modi. In his poem he describes Basant Ritu. The sweet songs of the angels of nature, the freshness that the fields breathe, the blossoming of the flowers… all announce the Advent of youthful spring, and the calendar says it's Basant. 

7.Make an Archetypal study a poem or narrative or a scene from a movie. 

In the movie Genius we find the Archetypal scene in the end. Using the voice of conch in the compound of the template and surviving hero it shows the positivity in the movie at last.

Here is the link of the video,

https://youtu.be/r1qcE2l1tYk

Thinking activity : Waiting for Godot

 Hello everyone,

My today's activity is quite different from other activities, which I did earlier. This activity is assigned by our professor Dr. Dilip Barad sir. In this task we were supposed to give the answers to the questions that sir gave us to ponder upon. This is an activity about "Waiting for Godot". So let's discuss the answers of the play. And yes we have to give answers according to our understanding of the play. So let's start.

For better understanding of activity I'm sharing the link of professor's blog, 

https://blog.dilipbarad.com/2014/09/worksheet-screening-movie-waiting-for.html

∆What connection do you see in the setting (“A country road. A tree.Evening.”) of the play and these paintings?

The setting of the play "Waiting for Godot" is inspired by this painting, titled as "Longing" by Casper David Friedrich. The word "Longing" means - an earnest and deep desire for something. In this painting we see that there is a view of sunrise and sunset. Two people are watching towards sunrise and sunset. It means they are waiting for such hope, as the similar way like Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for Godot. Just like the sun is rising and these two people are watching for something till the sunset, Vladimir and Estragon are also waiting for someone from morning to rise of the moon. 

∆The tree is the only important ‘thing’ in the setting. What is the importance of tree in both acts? Why does Beckett grow a few leaves in Act II on the barren tree - The tree has four or five leaves - ?

The tree is an important symbol of the play. Tree stands symbolically in both acts. Trees are seen as hebetate matter. In the play we see Vladimir and Estragon also act like hebetation (tree). There are no leaves on barren tree in act |. As we know that the play was written after the war it symbolically indicates the World War ||. In the second act Buckett adds some leaves on the barren tree. These leaves indicate hope and positivity. Also we can say that this is the change of nature in a positive way. 

∆In both Acts, evening falls into night and moon rises. How would you like to interpret this ‘coming of night and moon’ when actually they are waiting for Godot?

As we see in both acts evening falls into night and moon rises. Waiting for someone, time will not stop, It continually passes. The day and night come and go. But the rising of the moon at night seems like the bright side (moon) in the darkness (night). It indicates the positive hope in the play. 

∆The director feels the setting with some debris. Can you read any meaning in the contours of debris in the setting of the play?

The director feels the setting with some debris. It expressly indicates the World War ||. This debris seems like the buildings are destroyed by the bombs. And everything become debris.

∆The play begins with the dialogue “Nothing to be done”. How does the theme of ‘nothingness’ recurs in the play?

The play begins with this dialogue "Nothing to be done". It indicates the theme of nothingness in the play. This dialogue refers to the theory of existentialism. This theory of existentialism says that there is no meaning to anything that we are doing. Everything is meaningless. So in the beginning we see nothingness in the play. Vladimir and Estragon both are waiting for someone named 'Godot', but they don't know who Godot is ! What he looks like ! Is he coming or not ! Does he exist or not ! They don't know anything despite waiting. So the whole concept is described in one sentence, "Nothing to be done". 

∆Do you agree: “The play (Waiting for Godot), we agreed, was a positive play, not negative, not pessimistic. As I saw it, with my blood and skin and eyes, the philosophy is: 'No matter what— atom bombs, hydrogen bombs, anything—life goes on. You can kill yourself, but you can't kill life." (E.G. Marshall who played Vladimir in the original Broadway production 1950s)?

My answer is yes. I agree with the point of E.G Marshal that the play waiting for Godot is a positive play not a negative play. We can not stop or kill our life and time. As well as giving birth and death is not in our hands. If we commit suicide or stop our breath it doesn't mean that we can stop our life. We kill ourselves not the life, it must go on. So, we can say that life is meaningless, there is also nothingness though we have to live life. So the play gives us positivity of thinking in different way. 

∆How are the props like hat and boots used in the play? What is the symbolic significance of these props?

There are many symbols used in this play. The hat and boots are also very important symbols in this play. The hat indicates intellectuality and the boots indicates the lowness of characters. 

∆Do you think that the obedience of Lucky is extremely irritating and nauseatic? Even when the master Pozzo is blind, he obediently hands the whip in his hand. Do you think that such a capacity of slavishness is unbelievable?

Yes, the obedience of lucky is extremely irritating and nauseated. Some people are used to it. They can't think beyond their limitations, even if they get a chance to be free they don't do it. Lucky knows that his master is blind, but still he serves for Pozzo without asking any question. In today's time there are some people who blindly follow the instructions of some Dharma Guru's or political leaders. That type of Gurus and leaders are controller and people like lucky gives them rope of their life !

∆Who according to you is Godot? God? An object of desire? Death? Goal? Success? Or  . . .

According to me Godot is changeable with time. It depends on different time zones. Because we haven't only one desire or one success in our life. Our desire changes with time. In childhood our Godot is toys. In our youth we have a desire for good marks. After that we want good jobs, a good salary, success, a perfect life partner, homes and so and so… But everything is about passing the time. Our last desire is waiting for death ! It is our last wait and then everything is finished. 

∆“The subject of the play is not Godot but ‘Waiting’” (Esslin, A Search for the Self). Do you agree? How can you justify your answer?

Yes, I agree with Esslin's point of view. "The subject of the play is not Godot but Waiting". We can see in the play that nothing happens except meaningless waiting. In our life we are also waiting for meaningless matters. In the different stages of life we are waiting for different types of Godot(waiting). According to our desires we are waiting to fully fill them. And at last we are waiting for death ! So we can say that the subject is waiting rather than Godot.

∆Do you think that plays like this can better be ‘read’ than ‘viewed’ as it requires a lot of thinking on the part of readers, while viewing, the torrent of dialogues does not give ample time and space to ‘think’? Or is it that the audio-visuals help in better understanding of the play?

I want to say that reading and audio-visual both are equally important for understanding any of the play. It's easy to remember the actions of characters if we watch them. But if we want to understand deeper things we have to read the original play. There are benefits of both mediums. But if there is only one choice in between them, I choose reading of the play, because audio-visuals can not display everything in the play. But reading the play can give us every information of the play. Because everything has been written, but everything has not been spoken in audio-visual. 

∆Which of the following sequence you liked the most:

o Vladimir – Estragon killing time in questions and conversations while waiting

o Pozzo – Lucky episode in both acts

o Conversation of Vladimir with the boy

I like Vladimir's conversation with the boy. Because this conversation is quite different from all other conversations. We listen to their conversation curiously. It is noticeable that Vladimir becomes serious while talking with the little boy. Conversation of Vladimir and Estragon makes us very bored, so that's why I don't like their conversation. In the first conversation Vladimir is little bit happy because he think that Godot send his messenger for them. He ask some interesting questions to messenger boy, like

• When will Godot come? 

• What Godot is doing ?

• Godot give you food ?

• Has he beat you ?

• Are you frightened ? 

 

So this dialogue makes it curious to listen to the conversation. In the second conversation we can see Vladimir's selfishness. This is also very interesting dialogues to be listen. 

∆Did you feel the effect of existential crisis or meaninglessness of human existence in the irrational and indifference Universe during screening of the movie? Where and when exactly that feeling was felt, if ever it was?

Yes, I feel the effect of existential crisis or meaninglessness of human existence in the irrational and indifference universe in the scene of Pozzo, lucky and Vladimir. When Pozzo, the master of lucky was blind, but lucky still served his master. He doesn't grab the opportunity to be free, but continue his slavery for Pozzo. Here we can see that Lucky's life is meaningless. He have chance to become free, but he doesn't choose that way and he gives the rope of his life in the hand of Pozzo. This is how meaninglessness is described in the play.

∆Vladimir and Estragon talks about ‘hanging’ themselves and commit suicide, but they do not do so. How do you read this idea of suicide in Existentialism?

As we know that the play indirectly indicates about Christian religion. And commit suicide is the crime according to Christian religion. But existentialism take suicide as art. It talks about philosophical death. But Vladimir and Estragon avoid doing that, because Vladimir is a strong believer of Christianity. He believes that Godot will surely come to them. So they abandon that idea. 

∆Can we do any political reading of the play if we see European nations represented by the 'names' of the characters (Vladimir - Russia; Estragon - France; Pozzo - Italy and Lucky - England)? What interpretation can be inferred from the play written just after World War II? Which country stands for 'Godot'?

So far as Pozzo and Lucky [master and slave] are concerned, we have to remember that Beckett was a disciple of Joyce and that Joyce hated England. Beckett meant Pozzo to be England, and Lucky to be Ireland." (Bert Lahr who played Estragon in the Broadway production). Does this reading make any sense? Why? How? What?

Yes, we can do a political reading of the play in which Vladimir stands for Russia, Pozzo stands for Italy, Lucky stands for England and Estragon stands for France. So, we can connect this to the world war in which all countries destroyed by Godot means Germany. All these countries were lost in their gimmicks and passing time in wait for something good to come out. What actually turned out to be the end of Waiting, in the form of Godot, was the Second World War – the rise of Hitler - a psychopathic good.

So we connect Godot with Germany, which means Hitler, who destroyed many countries and killed thousands of people. And another interpretation of Pozzo and Lucky (master and slave) in which we connect Pozzo with England and Lucky with Ireland, so in this matter Ireland is struggling a lot with England. As lucky is doing slavery of Pozzo, Ireland is also slave of England at that time. 

∆The more the things change, the more it remains similar. There seems to have no change in Act I and Act II of the play. Even the conversation between Vladimir and the Boy sounds almost similar. But there is one major change. In Act I, in reply to Boy;s question, Vladimir says: 

"BOY: What am I to tell Mr. Godot, Sir?

VLADIMIR: Tell him . . . (he hesitates) . . . tell him you saw us. (Pause.) You did see us, didn't you?"

How does this conversation go in Act II? Is there any change in seeming similar situation and conversation? If so, what is it? What does it signify? 

Yes, there is change in this conversation in act ||. In the second act, conversation become like that,

BOY : What am I to tell Mr. Godot, Sir?

VLADIMIR : Tell him . . . (he hesitates) . . . tell him you saw me and that . . . (he hesitates) . . . that you saw me. (Pause. Vladimir advances, the Boy recoils. Vladimir halts, the Boy halts. With sudden violence.) You're sure you saw me,you won't come and tell me tomorrow that you never saw me! 

Saw us is changed in saw me ! This is a big change of the act. Here we can see the selfishness of Vladimir. He thinks that he will survive so he tells the boy to tell mr. Godot that he is waiting for him. 

So these are all questions regarding the play and I gave answers according to my understanding of the play. At the end I want to say that our life is full of desire, but because of laziness we are not doing anything and we started waiting for something to happen to others. There is one dialogue,

APNA TIME AAYEGA

Time will not wait for people, it comes and goes. People are talking about this dialogue, but few are working on it. Remaining all are waiting… the time will come… their time will come… nothing comes… death comes !!!

Rasa Theory

 

Assignment 

Name : Latta J. Baraiya 

Roll no : 11

Paper : Literary Theory & Criticism and Indian Aesthetics 

Semester : M.A sem 2

Topic : Rasa Theory 

Submitted to : Smt. S.B. Gardi Department of English MKBU 

Introduction 

Aesthetics is concerned with the concept of beauty. Hence it is known as Saundarya Shastra (સોંદર્યશાસ્ત્ર) or Lavanya Shastra (લાવણ્યશાસ્ત્ર). Rasanubhava or disinterested contemplation of beauty is the basic characteristic of all aesthetic experiences. The real perception of beauty is what distinguishes an aesthetic experience from all other experiences. Poetics is one of the three main branches of knowledge including grammar and philosophy in which Indian scholarship has presented valuable and relevant findings during ancient and medieval periods. Indian Poetics, especially classical Sanskrit poetics, holds an old and rich tradition starting from Bharta"s Natyashatra and extending up to Panditraja Jagan Natha"s Rasgangadhara. It continued for thousands of years, presenting various logical, philosophical, linguistic and semantic approaches to study the literary texts. 

Bharata says, 

“Nahi rasardṛte kascidārta pravartate” 

(Without rasa no meaning gets 

established).

In this world, human life is rare. In human life, education is rare. Among the educated, poeticity is rare. Among poets, power (talent/genius) is rare. Even if one is talented, scholarship (vyutpatti) will be rare. Wisdom is even rarer. Wisdom is nothing but Tyajagrahya Vivechana in poetry. In other words, poeticity is unavailable for those who haven’t mastered all the sastras. 

Indian poetics likens the poet to a creator and god. As the saying goes, 

“Apare kavyasamsare 

kavireva prajapati/ Yathasamay rocate viswam tatedam parivartate” 

(“In the infinite world of poetry the poet is the only creator. He transforms the world as it pleases him”). A girl may flaunt many ornaments but if she is immodest she won’t be attractive. Likewise, even if a poem has numerous figures of speech, if it lacks the sweetness of suggestion, it won’t ravish the heart.

The three basic principles that underlie all aesthetic formulations are:

1. Rasa theory is temporal. It lasts only so long as we are in the world of art.

2. Aesthetic experiences are unselfish, they are not tied to the ego. A man becomes totally unconscious of his private self when he is in the world of art. 

3. No emotion can be called rasa unless it is artistically excited. Thus when a young man falls in love and his entire frame is shaken, we cannot speak of him as being the subject of shringara rasa. Rasa is strictly an emotion excited by artistic circumstances. 

•Bharata’s Rasasutra :-

The theory of Rasa is the cornerstone of Indian aesthetics. The Sanskrit word rasa has several meanings including sap, juice, essence, water, flavour, taste, relish and sentiments. The Upanishads have used it to mean Brahman. The term rasa refers to the creative experiences of the poet, the aesthetic relish of the reader and the complex of emotional states present in the poem. In poetics, the term covers the subjective experiences of the poet and the reader and the objective structural focus of the poem.

Rajshekhar said that the founder of Rasa Sampraday was Nandikeshwar. But there is no Grantha found of him. The first scientific philosophy of interest is found in Bharata's Natyashastra. 

The principle of rasa is the most ancient and eternal principle in Indian poetry.  Natyaras were founded by Adya Kavyacharya and Natyacharya Bharatmuni.  Since then no principal has been able to disregard Rasa Shastra and Rasa Vichar. Rasa resides in one form or another.  Other theories are often formed with interest at the center.  Bharat's successors Acharya Bhatt, Lolat, Shankuk, Bhattanayak and Abhinav Gupta wrote commentaries and commentaries on Bharat's Rasa Sutra.  As a result, various opinions arose. Phonological principles like Anandvardhan also called the rasa sound excellent and discussed it in the context of Rasa's poetry.  Alankar shastris like Bhamah, Dandi, Rudrat etc. also accepted rasa through rasa  Attire.  The qualities of a formalist dwarf are also rasasadhaka.  The ironic Kuntak also shows the way to the doctrine.  Abhinav Gupta's Rasavichar is the pinnacle of Indian poetry. 

Rasa is also considered to be the "soul of the poet" in the metaphor of "poet" in Indian poetry. 

Defining drama, Bharatamuni says, 

“Natya is trailokyanukaraṇa” (Drama is an imitation of 

the three worlds). 

It is an imitation (anukarana) and narration (anukirtana) of the states and actions of the world. The basic texts that deal with rasa theory are Bharata’s Natyasastra and Abhinavagupta’s commentary on it titled Abhinavabharati. Bharata’s formula for the evocation of rasa can be stated thus:

Vibhavanubhava vyabhicari saṃyogad rasaniapattih

(Vibhava + Anubhava + Vyabhicaribhava + Sthayibhava = Rasa)

Rasa is realised by the fusion of vibhava, anubhava and vyabhicaribhava with sthayibhava, the permanent emotion (which does not find a place in the cryptic definition).

•Bhava:-

Drama represents all the bhavas of the world. Bhava means things existing including mental states. In poetics, bhavas refer to those elements of poetry which make rasa pervade the heart of the reader. Bhāvas bring into being (bhavayanti) rasa which is the end/meaning of a poem (Kavyartha). Bhava also refers to the creative experience of the poet (kaverantargatam 

bhavam).

Bharata names 49 bhavas as capable of manifesting rasa: 8 sthayi bhavas, 33 vyabhicaribhavas and 8 sattvika bhavas. This list includes sleep, dream and death which cannot be considered as emotional states. However, we cannot deny the intimate relationship these states have with emotions.

•Vibhava:-

Vibhavas are the characters and situations in a play that cause the emergence of rasa, that is, they are the objective conditions producing an emotion. Vibhavas are of two types: 

1. Alambana Vibhavas

2. Uddipana Vibhavas

Alambana vibhavas refer to a person or persons with reference to whom rasa gets manifested. Uddipana vibhavas are the excitants, the circumstances that excite the emotion. A young man may feel attracted towards a girl if the circumstances are cooperating with it. It is highly likely that a young man may fall in love with a woman of young age if they are thrown alone, there is beautiful scenery before them, the moon peeping through the clouds, the fragrant breeze blowing, there is a slight drizzle, the birds twittering and the like. Any one of such circumstances may be regarded as an uddipana vibhava and the man and the woman are Alambana vibhavas to each other.

Vibhavas may be likened to what TS Eliot calls 

“the objective correlative”. 

Eliot defines objective correlative as a set of objects, a situation, a chain of events which shall be the formula for the evocation of a particular emotion. 

•Anubhava:-

Anubhavas are those effects which are felt by the characters when they are under the influence of an emotion. These are the bodily expressions by means of which an emotion is expressed. Thus the arch glances of a lady and her inviting smile may be regarded as anubhavas. At times anubhavas are voluntary deliberate actions. Sometimes these could be purely involuntary like blushing, trembling, sweating etc. Such involuntary actions are known as Sattvika Bhavas.

•Vyabhicaribhava:-

These are the transitory moods depending on and reinforcing the sthayibhava. If the sthayibhava is considered to be the king, the vyabhicaribhavas are its servants. Or, if the sthayibhava can be considered as a chaste wife (pativrata), then the vyabhicaribhava is a prostitute. Vividhamabhimukhyena rasesu caranti: iti vyabhicarinah (That which moves towards rasa in diverse ways is vyabhichari). They do not attain the intensity of emotions, nor do they last long. They do not even have an independent status. They rise and subside with the corresponding sthayibhava. They are fragile, dependent and temporary.

However, the sthayibhavas cannot be expressed in poetry without the help of these vyabhicaribhavas. A woman in love anxiously waiting for her lover at the rendezvous may feel disappointed (vishada) that he is not coming, may be anxious (chinta) that something might have happened to him, may be jealous (asuya) that he may have been courted by another woman, may feel delight (harsa) in remembering the sweet words he whispered into her ears and so on. Each one of these transitory moods may be considered as the vyabhicaribhava reinforcing rati (love).

•Sthayibhava:-

Sthayibhavas are permanent emotions that lie embedded in the human organism. They are sthayi because (i) they remain embedded in the human system forever and (ii) they unify and dominate an entire work of art (Shanta is the angirasa of Mahabharata; Karuna that of Ramayana). Bharata speaks of eight sthayibhavas. A ninth one (Nirveda) was added by later commentators on Natyasastra. The nine rasas and their corresponding sthayibhavas are listed below:

No	Rasa	Sthayi Bhava	Colour	Deity
1.	Sringara	Rati (Love)	Green	Vishnu
2.	Hasya	Hasa (Humour)	White	Rama
3.	Karuna	Soka (Sorrow)	Grey	Varuna
4.	Raudra	Krodha (Anger)	Red	Indra
5.	Vira	Utsaha (Energy)	Golden	Rudra
6.	Bhayanaka	Bhaya (Fear)	Black	Yama
7.	Bibhatsa	Jugupsa (Disgust)	Blue	Shiva / Mahakala
8.	Adbhuta	Vismaya (Wonder)	Yellow	Brahma
9.	Shanta	Vairagya / sama (Detachment)

The sthayibhavas are of the nature of vasanas or samskaras. Every single action that we perform not just produces the intended result, but also establishes in us a habit favourable to the repetition of the same deed in the future (M Hiriyanna). These habits are termed samskaras. Vasanas on the other hand, are innate samskāras not acquired in this life. In other words, vasanas refer to the samskaras of the past lives which mostly lie dormant in the mind.