---

 
 
According to the opinion of Aristotle, mythos or tragic plot has some aspects analyzed and compared with utilizing documents on an analytical-descriptive method based on the elements through the tale of Jamshid and the play of Oedipus Tyrannus. The most important results including: the three aspects of the mythos of tale – transformation and recognition and catastrophe – are in descriptive category shaped with the morality of protagonist and in the case of the play it should be shown in two types of mixed – on transformation and recognition – and grievous – on catastrophe –. The complexity of mythos that is established of solidarity and its relation to transformation and recognition, indicates the tale in a simple mythos – because of rupture of actions and absence of recognition – and the play in compound one – on solidarity with continuity of dependent actions and transformation and recognition –. The tale is not regarded in a complete mythos; because of its affiliation to the out; but the play conversely is embedded in complete one. Referring the tale to an epic, which is narrated, prohibits to show it as the play which based on visual actions. Both of two works have the surprising conditions of mythos; hence everything has two sides of reasonability and unpredictability. The end of both composed in the way dedicated from their own. The referential myths are about the upper class human being and it is obviously shown the next imitative ones were patterned on them.

---

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
Introduction
Northrop 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. In doing so, we will rely on an analysis of the theoretical implications and consequences of what Frye follows and attempt to provide an adequate answer to these questions: First, why is ethos omitted from ethical criticism based on ethos? Second, having failed to adhere to what Frye promised at the beginning of the article, where does this discarded ethos now appear?
Review of Literature
Although Frye is considered one of the most influential thinkers in the field of criticism and literary theory of the 20th century, the gap in research that independently analyzes his theoretical framework is quite striking. There are few studies that have critiqued his theoretical foundations, and most of the research conducted has applied Frye's archetypal theory to mythological stories. Ahmadi and Kazempour (2022) examined the myth of Rostam and Sohrǎb in a study using a descriptive-analytical method based on Frye's archetype theory. Asadi and Maghouli (2021) also studied the symbols and archetypes in the paintings of "Shahnameh Shamlu" based on Frye's archetype theory and applied it to Frye's cycles of romance, comedy and tragedy. Maarifvand and Fuladi (2018) analyzed the story of Siavash based on Frye's theory of "tragedy myth." In one article, Algooneh (2016) analyzed the theoretical basis of Frye's classification of symbols and his influence, and in another article, he analyzed the internal mechanism of Dianoia considering Frye's theoretical origins. In this research he examined the connection of mythical dianoia with hieroglyphic, hieratic, and demotic aspects. Nǎmvarmotlaq (2013) has dealt with Frye's mythology. The first part of the book deals with Frye's life and his mythological criticism, and the second part deals with the practical application of Frye's view in reading myths. In addition, the same author (2012) published a work entitled Introduction to Mythology: Theories and Applications, in which he examined Frye's views on mythological criticism. Haj Nowrouzi (2012), in order to examine the semantic and archetypal images in the story of Siavash based on Frye's theories, first examined this imagery in the literary tradition and then examined the mythological patterns of this work. Anooše (2006) has explained the relationship between Cassirer's ideas and beliefs and Frye's views in the field of myth using the descriptive-analytical method. In another study (2003), this author examined Frye's literary approach in relation to early literary rituals and myths. Based on Jung and Frye's theory, Sam Khaniaini and Malekpaiin (2013) analyzed the myth of the story of the lion and the cow in Kalila and Demeneh. Despite the valid research that has been conducted so far on Frye's views, the theoretical analysis of his opinions, and the application of his theoretical models in reading literature, no research has been found that addresses the theoretical implications and consequences of neglecting ethos. For this reason, the present study sought to examine the position and role of ethos in Frye's theoretical framework, in addition to an analysis of Frye's symbol theory and his literary poetics terminology.
Methodology
The present study is an original research which is the outcome of our own personal reflections and, except in one or two cases where we have taken some terms from Frye’s research, we are not indebted to any research in terms of our theoretical framework.
Results
As can be seen from the explanation of Frye's theory, although he introduces Ethos as one of the three basic pillars of each stage, the distinction of Ethos alongside Mythos and Dianoia will not be fulfilled. In the formal stage, for example, he considers mythos as imitating a generic action and dianoia as imitating a generic thought. Right here, where we expect the distinction and the role of ethos, ethos does not appear at all as a component with a methodological index in Frye’s taxonomy. Thus, contrary to our expectations, the reader learns at the end of the book's second article that the promised ethos is not an essential component, but the ideal critic/reader who is to become the third pillar of each stage through the mythos and dianoia. On the other hand, as we approach the anagogic stage, it becomes increasingly clear that the ethos comprises that single word which in its various manifestations is both God, Christ, Wine, and Lamb (cf. K. Frye, 1377: 154). Although even this characterizing recognition of ethos was not explicitly distinguished in the later stages of the classification of symbols. Moreover, it is necessary to examine the question in what form and with what conceptual transformation Frye uses ethos as a fundamental component after he leaves it. It seems that Frye did not use its fundamental component as a method. But in terms of purpose, he has embedded ethos in "ethical" criticism, and in this way he casts it on the ideal reader on the one hand and on "ethical" criticism on the other. He believes that culture is one of the productive forces of man and "the ruling classes have exploited it in the past like other productive powers, and it is necessary to revalue it in a better society." But since this ideal society exists in the future, the value of culture is based on its revolutionary efficiency." (Frye, 1998: 407). Frye believes that when we move from a single work of art to the general concept of art, it is no longer a question of aesthetics, but a journey to the moral cause that contributes to the work of civilization. On the basis of this evidence, Frye sees himself as a liberal who opposes the prejudices and favoritism of the New Criticists. On the other hand, he considers literature an important component of education. But all of this is seen not as an internal component, which he promised us at the beginning, but as external and teleological references that are not evident in the text. Finally, Frye's ethical criticism is a "moral" matter in a civilized and cultural sense, but this "morality" is manifested not in method but in goal. This moral goal, thrown out of method, includes free and liberal education on the one hand, and focuses on reader-centered theories on the other. Accordingly, ethos is not evident in Frye's classification theory of symbols in the method, but as a factor in the transformation of the reader into a liberal person who accepts all valid criticisms without prioritizing one over the other.
References
Ahmadi, Z. and M. Kazempour (2022). "Naqd-e Ostoorei-ye Dǎstǎn-e Rostam va Sohrǎb bar asǎs-e Nazariyǎt-e Northrope Frye", in Majale-ye Matnpajoohi-ye Adabi, No. 93, Fall, pp. 285-305.
Algooneh, M. (2016). "Dianoia-ye Ostooreh: Pajoheši dar Sǎhat-e Maqfool-e Nazari-ye ostoorehšenǎsi-ye Northrope Frye". In Majale-ye Naqd va nazariy-ye Adabi, No. 3, Spring and Summer, pp. 32-7.
Algooneh, M. (2016). "Northrop Frye va Radebandi-ye Sambolhǎ". In Naqd-e Adabi, No. 40, Winter, pp. 40-7.
Anooše, S.M. (2005). "Nortrop Frye va Sorat-hâye Azali yâ Kohan‌olgoo-hâye Adabiyât". the Humanities Journal of Semnân University. No. 8. pp. 6- 59. ]in Persian[
Anooše, S.M. (2007). "Farziyât-e Cassirer darbâre-ye Ostoore va Farhang va Tathirât-e ân bar Nazariyât-e Frye dar Naqd-e Adabi". Pazhoheš-e Zabân-hâye Xareji, Winter. No. 34. pp. 5- 14. ]in Persian[
Asadi, S. and Nadiya M.. (1400). "Šenǎsǎii va Tahlil-e Fosool-e Chahǎrgǎne dar Šǎhnamehnegǎri bar asǎs-e Nazarie-ye mitos-e Northrope Frye". In Faslnameh-ye Elmi-ye Adabiyat-e Erfani va Ostoorehšenaxti, No. 63, Winter, pp. 13-42.
Culler, J. (2019), Botiqay-ye sǎxtǎrgerǎ, translated by Koroš Safavi, Tehrǎn: Minooy-e Xerad publishing house.
Denham, R. (2010). Cited in < macblog.mcmaster.ca/fryeblog/critical-method/ preface.html>
Ford, R. (2000). Northrop Frye on Myth, New York & London: Routledge.
Frye, N. (1994). Taxayol-e Farhixte. S. Arbâb Širâni (Trans.). Tehrân: Našre Markaz Dânešgâhi.  ]in Persian[
Frye, N. (1999). Tahlil-e Naqd. S. Husseini (Trans.) Tehrân: Našr-e Niloofar. ]in Persian[
Frye, N. (2001). Ramz-e Kol: Ketâb-e Moqadas va Adabiât. Husseini (Trans.). Tehrân: Našr-e Niloofar. ]in Persian[
Hajnowrouzi, N. (2013). "Tahlil-e Tasâvir-e Dâstân-e siâvaš bar asǎs-e Nazariyât-e Northrope Frye". In Do Faslnameh-ye Tarikh-e Adabiyat, No. 72, Spring & Summer, pp. 71-86.
Lentrichia, F. (2013), Ba’d az Naqd-e Now, translated by Mašiyat Ǎlaei, Tehrǎn Minooy-e Xerad publishing house
Maarifvand, M. and M. Fuladi (2018). "Barresi va Tahlil-e Terǎǯedi-ye Siǎvaš bar Mabnǎ-ye Nazriy-ye Mitos-e Trǎǯedi-ye Frye". In Majale-ye Pajohešhǎ-ye Dastoori va Belǎqi, No. 16, Autumn and Winter, pp. 309-336.
Mansouri, P. (1376). Teori-ye Bonyǎdi-ye Moosiqi, Tehrǎn: Karnǎmeh Publishing.
Marie-Šeffer, J. (2014). "Bootiqǎ", Dǎnešname-ye Nazariy-ye Adavbi, Iryana Rima Mackarik, translated by Mohammad Nabavi and Mehran Mohǎjer, Tehrǎn: Ǎgǎh Publishing House.
Nǎmvarmotlaq, B. (2012). Darǎmadi bar Ostoorehšenǎsi: Nazari-yehǎ va Kǎrbordhǎ, Tehrǎn: Soxan Publishing House.
Nǎmvarmotlaq. B. (2013). Ostoore Va Ostoorešenǎsi-ye Northrope Frye, Tabriz: Moqǎm Publishing.
Northrop, F. (1952). Three Meanings of Symbolism: Yale French Studies, no. 9.
Northrop, F. (1957). Anatomy of Criticism: For Essays: Princeton university press.
Samkhaniani, A. and Mostafa M.. (2012). " Tahlil-e Asǎtiri-e Hekǎyat-e Shir va Gǎv dar Kalile va Demne bar pǎie-ye Nazarie-ye Jung va Northrope Frye". In Do Faslnameh-ye Zabǎn va Adab-e Fǎrsi, No. 226, Autumn & Winter, pp. 23-48.
Wellek, R. and A. Warren. (2010). Nazariy-ye adabiat, translated by Zia Movahed and Parviz Mohajer, Tehrǎn: Nilufar Publishing.
Wellek, R. (2015). Tǎrix-e Naqd-e Now, volume 6, translated by Saeed Arbab Širani, Tehrǎn: Nilufar publishing house.

 

---