CAJ | 학술논문

学界很多人认为荣格在文学批评史上的地位不过是催生了“神话—原型”批评，弗莱作为该批评派发展的集大成者而备受关注，荣格则在文学界受到冷遇。笔者认同神话批评与原型批评分属两个不同流派的观点，荣格不仅仅是影响了弗莱，他的心理学理论在文学批评领域有着广阔的空间。荣格的“原型”及“集体潜意识”概念应用于文学批评，成立了原型批评流派；弗莱受到荣格的启发，创立了神话批评流派。两大流派彼此独立，影响甚小，不可以以此代彼。
학계흔다인인위영격재문학비평사상적지위불과시최생료“신화—원형”비평，불래작위해비평파발전적집대성자이비수관주，영격칙재문학계수도랭우。필자인동신화비평여원형비평분속량개불동류파적관점，영격불부부시영향료불래，타적심이학이론재문학비평영역유착엄활적공간。영격적“원형”급“집체잠의식”개념응용우문학비평，성립료원형비평류파；불래수도영격적계발，창립료신화비평류파。량대류파피차독립，영향심소，불가이이차대피。
A lot of scholars believe that the creation of the “myth-archetype” criticism is the solo contribu-tion of Jung to the literary criticism .However, Frye as a great critic has attracted a lot of attention .Instead, Jung is ignored in the literary area .This paper agrees to the two schools of myth criticism and archetypal criticism .Jung-ian “archetypes” inspired Frye and the latter developed myth criticism .Jungian psychological theory plays an im-portant role in the literary criticism .Application of Jungian “archetypes” and “collective subconsciousness” has created the school of archetypal criticism .After studying the influence of the anthropological work The Golden Bough on these two people , the different concepts of “archetypes”, their different views , this paper thinks the two schools are independent .The two schools have little interaction , and cannot replace one another .