آیا فرای در نقد اتیکال ایتوس را نادیده گرفته است؟

فرای متاثر از نگرش‌های تفسیری قرون وسطی و متعهد به آموزه‏های اصحاب نقد نو و تکیه بر روش‏شناختی ساختارگرا، نظریات بدیعی دربارۀ چگونگی تحلیل ساختار اثر ادبی به‌دست داده است. او در بوطیقای ادبی خود، معنای اثر ادبی را برساخته‏ای از عناصر و مولفه‏هایی می‏داند که از زوایای چهارگانه وجه، سمبول، آرکی‌تایپ و ژانر می‏توان به آن دست یافت. در چنین چارچوبی، او مولفه‏های ایتوس، میتوس و دایانویا را عناصر اساسی برسازندۀ معنا بر می‏شمارد. اما در این میان، به نظر می‏رسد به شکلی درخور به ایتوس پرداخته نشده است. در این جستار ابتدا با واکاوی لوازم و عواقب نظری آنچه فرای بدان پای‌بند است، می‏کوشیم پاسخی برای این مسئله به دست دهیم که اولاً، چرا در نقد اتیکال، که الزاماً مبتنی بر ایتوس است، ایتوس کنار گذاشته می‏شود. در ادامه، ضمن تبیین روش‏شناختیِ تحلیل فرای، ایتوسِ وانهاده‌شده به چه شکلی در چارچوب نظری فرای نمایان می‏شود. در پایان مشخص می‏شود که ایتوس نه به‌واسطۀ ملاحظات روش‏شناختی، بلکه به‌سبب ملاحظات غایت‏شناختی بخشی از چارچوب نظری فرای را تشکیل می‏دهد.

has frye ignored ethos in ethical criticism?

influenced by the interpretive attitudes of the middle ages and committed to the teachings of new criticism, frye, drawing on structuralist methodology, developed innovative ideas for analyzing the structure of a literary work. in his literary poetics, he assumes that the meaning of a literary work consists of elements and components that can be determined by focusing on mode, symbol, archetype, and genre. in such a framework, he considers the components of ethos, mythos, and dianoia as the basic elements that make up meaning. meanwhile, however, it seems that ethos has not been adequately addressed. in this essay, we first attempt to answer why ethos seems to be neglected in his ethical critique, which is necessarily based on ethos, through an analysis of the theoretical implications and consequences of what frye holds. in what follows, along with the methodological explanation of frye’s analysis, we attempt to show how the seemingly neglected ethos reappears in frye’s theoretical framework. in the end, it turns out that ethos is part of frye’s theoretical framework not because of methodological considerations, but because of teleological considerations.extended abstract introductionnorthrop frye (1912-1991) is one of the literary theorists of the 20th century.  he was familiar with the medieval interpretations of the bible on the one hand and with the theories of the new criticists on the other, and saw a significant symmetry between the bible on the one hand and literature on the other. according to the medieval interpretations of the bible, commentators considered the meaning of the text to be multi-layered, revealing itself at first in superficial levels, but the knowledgeable reader should go beyond these levels to the inner layers of the text where the true meaning rests. by distancing themselves from what appeared to be historical, psychoanalytical, biographical criticism and all questions outside the structure of the text, the new critics sought systematic criticism based on the text, but they treated the text as an inanimate object (algooneh, 2017: 197), which for frye was meaningless because critical objectivity basically blocks the way to pure literary experience. the proponents of the new criticism considered the work with the close reading as a single phenomenon, and for the literary criticism, they considered the analysis of several literary works, while in frye’s system, they invoke qualities and elements behind the literature (see frye, 1957: 17), and only by recognizing these qualities and elements, the literature becomes meaningful. on this basis, frye considers literary works not individually, but in a macro-level and in the form of an order of words (ibid) which, despite their plurality, is manifested in a single perspective. from here, frye distances himself from the proponents of the new criticism, whose main focus is on individual texts and stylistics, and concentrates on typology and literary genre. this is because stylistics focuses more on individuality, while genre focuses on the aesthetic side of literature and a macro-level view that considers the art of literature not as a value phenomenon but as a technical phenomenon, as a collection of procedures (marie schiffer, 2013: 65). as long as he pays attention to the close and critical reading of the works, he is aligned with the new criticists, but since the new criticists evaluate the works and are more aware of the framework of hermeneutics and literary criticism than the establishment of poetics (ibid, 66), he moves in a different direction from them. thus, in his discussion with the members of the new criticism, frye takes the position that what they see in detail, he connects in the structure of literature as an autonomous whole. in line with this division on the question of type or genre, and in contrast to the question of style, and also to achieve the ideal of a poetic design that is comprehensive and includes all valid criticism, he divides four categories of mood, symbol, archetype, and genre in his book anatomy of criticism, under the separate four articles of historical criticism, ethical criticism, archetypal criticism, and rhetorical criticism. he, who deals with ethical criticism in the second article of the book by promising that literature consists of interwoven stages and the work draws its totality from this interwovenness of stages, distinguishes between mythos, ethos, and dianoia (see frye, 1998: 93). but despite the fact that he distinguishes these three elements at each stage and also the special role he assigns to each of them, he consciously or unconsciously neglects ethos in the last analysis.ethos, as a fundamental element and component that constitutes the meaning of the text, has no coherence according to frye. in defining ethos, he says: the text or the internal social context of a literary work, in fiction-oriented literature includes characterization and context, and in theme-oriented literature it includes the relationship between the author and the reader of the work. (frye, 1998: 428) while he distinguishes two types of fiction literature and issue-oriented literature here, he considers ethos as both character in literature and the relationship between author and audience. elsewhere (cf. frye, 1998: 93), he considers ethos as one of the three fundamental pillars of the text that, together with mythos and dianoia, make the work meaningful. even though frye considers these three elements as internal features, he abandons ethos completely and implicitly in the further course of his analysis, leaving it aside, instead of treating it as a method, he notes ethos as an end. on this basis, frye’s ethical critique does not adhere to it, despite its promise of internal immanence, and this critique ultimately focuses on telos. this telos disappears, first, in the liberal purpose and, second, in the objectives influenced by reader-oriented ideas. although critics in the world have made serious criticisms of frye’s theories, culler, for example, in structuralist poetics, considers him an interpreter who does not adhere to mere structure (cf. culler, 2019: 169 and 192), while lentricia in the book after new criticism and rené wellek in the history of new criticism (cf. wellek, 2005: 238) argue that all literature is linked to myth. although some of these criticisms are acceptable and some parts of frye’s theorizing have gaps, he can be seen to have made an effort to complete them in his later works, but the way frye uses to achieve meaning through different layers in a particular verbal context is worth reflecting on.nevertheless, because of the difficult and complex prose that frye has used in his book anatomy of criticism and because of its theoretical complexity, frye has received less attention than it should. with this in mind, in the following essay we will attempt to elucidate frye’s theory of classification of symbols and redefine their constituent parts.