Kenneth Burke Explores Myth, Cult and Archetypes in Literature and Religion

Doing and Saying Thoughts on Myth, Cult, and Archetypes
Author(s): KENNETH BURKE

Source: Salmagundi, No. 15 (WINTER 1971), pp. 100-119
Published by: Skidmore College
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40546615
Accessed: 14-02-2016 15:47 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Skidmore College is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Salmagundi.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 131.170.6.51 on Sun, 14 Feb 2016 15:47:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Doing and Saying
Thoughtson Myth,Cult,and Archetypes
BY KENNETH BURKE
This paper was originallypresentedin a conferenceat Temple

University,November1969. The conferencewas entitled"God and
Man in Contemporary Literature."The previousspeaker,Dr. Maurice
Friedman, had held that religionand literature"meet in a matrix
prior to both of them," since both begin "in a numinous awe or
wonder." My positionis that if the relationbetweenthe sacred and
the profaneis approachedthus, the issue is settledin advance, the
"matrixprior to them both" being automaticallyweightedon the
side of the sacred. I felt the need for an approach that would be
moreneutral. And I believethat this requirement is met by starting
fromtheoriesof symbolismin general,then askinghow man's sym-
bolic expressivenessmightsometimesbe secular,sometimesreligious.
I tryto show how this choice of neutral groundin common (as
contrastedwith Dr. Friedman'schoice of a term already weighted
on the side of the religious) becomesparticularlynecessaryforcon-
sideringrelationshipsthat arise fromthe institutionalizing of myth
in cult (as withthe distinction,say, betweenreligionand its embodi-
mentin the temporalproperties of a church).
Further,I tryto show how my approach helps correcterrorsof
interpretation due to an overly"universal" view of mythic"arche-
types."
When we deal withinstitutions so essentiallyhuman as religionand

literature,we necessarilyimplya conceptof man. And even if we
should make a categoricaldivisionbetweenthe two realms (treating
the one as demarcatedfromthe otherby a criticaldistinctionbetween
the supernaturaland the empirical), the implied concept of man
would necessarilyinvolve some essential element which the two
realmshave in common.
Doing and Saying 101
Any definition of man as the typicallysymbol-usinganimal would
seem to fitthisrequirementat least to the extentthat,whateverthe
differences between religionand literature,the two realms overlap
insofaras both involveintensesymbolicactivity.The relationshipis
so close that,in the Westernliterarytradition,a pagan mythology
beginningin Greek and Roman religionwas cultivatedas a kind
of literarybeautylong afterits decay as a religion.
Since I plan to use my definitionas somethingto build on, I start
froma minimumon whichI dare hope we can all agree. In defining
man as the "rationalanimal,"we'd be too honorific.In definingman
as a mere "featherlessbiped" or a "naked ape," we'd have a hard
time gettingto such obviouslyhuman expressionsas the Bible, or
Shakespeare'sHamlet, or speculationsin the stock market. Many
anthropologists like "culture-bearinganimal." And both that defin-
ition and "political" animal have the advantagethat each in its way
involvessuch communicative institutions as we'd class underthe head
of "symbolicity," if you'll permitthat mild neologism.
Here's why the stressupon symbolismis so importantfor present
purposes:
Let us conceive of an ideal paradigm contrastingtwo kinds of
behavior. There is some materialoperationto be performed, such as
the planting,cultivating,and harvestingof crops, or the tracking
down of an animal and the distribution of the spoils afterit has been
slain. These material operations would be, in the strictestsense, a
doing. In the course anyof such tribalperformance, variousamounts
of sayingwould be involved, since the resources of speechcan guide a
cooperativeenterprise(as the members of a football team go into a
huddle to consultbeforeeach play).
But over and above such strictlypragmaticuse of speech, as a set
of instructions,exhortations, admonitionsdirectlyrelated to the ma-
terialoperationsin connectionwithwhich theseresourcesare utilized,
thereis a furtherpossibility.And here entersthe other,contrasting
side of our ideal paradigm.Here enters,in brief,a figurethatI would
call the "myth-man."
As regardsa ballgame,the difference betweenthe use of symbols
in guidinga materialoperationand the myth-man'suse of symbols
would correspondto the difference between the team, in a huddle,
consulting about the next play, and the kind of pageantrywe often
watch, when bands and prettygirls, etc., in uniform, maneuverabout
102 KENNETH BURKE
the field,perhaps even contriving,by various deployments,to spell
namesor initialsthatare relevantto the occasion.
Each of theseingredients is in all of us, to varyingdegrees.But the
myth-manportioninvolvesthatelementin the typicallysymbol-using
animal wherebya materialoperationsuch as harvestinga crop or
dividingand distributing a catch is feltto be a kind of gala occasion
whichcalls fora corresponding modeof completionbeyondthe strictly
material operationsthemselves. Recall, for instance, the fantastic
civicfrenzywhen the New YorkMets won the pennantin 1969. Such
grouprejoicingcould be prescindedfromthe actual operationsof the
games, with their particularsymbol-guidedsignals and strategies.
Exultant fans (after a fashion re-enactingthe primitiverite of
sparagmós),torethe fieldto shreds,thattheymightcarryhome a bit
of the turfwithwhichthe culminatingvictoryhappenedto be identi-
fied. (Had the last game been won in Baltimore,it is doubtfulthat
the New York fanswould have treatedthe fieldthereas a sourceof
quasi-hallowedrelics,to be carriedoffand cherishedlike the hairs
or bones of a martyredsaint. And I doubt whether,under those
conditions,a throngof fans back home would of a sudden have
convergedon Shea Stadium,to carryoffpiecesof the fieldthatcould
becomeidentified with the gameswon in theircity.)
And I am still troubledwhen I puzzle over the factthat the Mets'
victorycalled forthsuch ecstaticdumpingof refuseinto the streets
as (without an occasion like this to 'justify"the criminally,or at
least stupidly,wastefulorgy) could quite properlyhave called for
severelegal punishment.As it was, I enrollmyselfamong thosewho
incline to believe that it greatlyupped Mayor Lindsay's chances of
beingre-elected,just as the worstand mostirrefutable wronghe ever
did as mayorwas to be in officeduringa fifteen-inch snow storm.
What trulycompetentservantof the people would ever violate his
oath of officeso grossly?
But be that as it may,betweenthe materialoperationsof the game
on the ballfield,and the riotousmythiccelebratingof the victory,
thereare somenotabletwists,"symbol-wise."Surelyhighamongthem
are theambiguitieswherebya privatecorporation, dedicatedto private
gain, can so profitby the devices of naming that a major promotion
job became possible;and thanks to the rhetorical resources of identi-
fication, thousands upon thousands of New Yorkers could rejoice at
the news that "we" won. True, doubtlessmany of such fans had
won bets on the series,and had at least that justification forletting
loose, howeverobscenely (and don't forgetit: given the ecological
and civicproblemsas we now confrontthem,the spontaneousdown-
pour of all thatrefuseinto the streetswas scientifically an obscenity,
as was the organizedanti-climactic secondroundof a fewdays later).
In keepingwith such mythopoeictrends,our governmentissued a
postage stamp commemorating "ProfessionalBaseball," therebyin
effect officiallyassuringcommunities of any sortwithinour nationthat
it is wholesometo "identifywith" the local team,even thoughthere
may not be a singlepersonon the team who came fromthat "home"
town,or even so muchas has membersof his familylivingthere.The
paradoxes of such identification became apparent (or should have
becomeapparent) when the Dodgers,the "beloved bums" of Brook-
lyn, sold out to the West, and a totallydifferent identification
was
in order.1
True, since thereis a modicumof the myth-manin all of us, no
case embodyingmy proposedparadigmcan be found existingin its
ideal purity.But the limitsare seen clearlyenough when, as a kind
of speculativeparable, we prescindthe interwovenelementsthus:
While Hominid A is materialistically plantingseeds, Hominid Β is
enactinga ritual (perhaps composedof words,melody,and dance-
steps) designedto round out this notable occasion by corresponding
acts of symbolism.Hominid A may be relyingupon the resourcesof
symbol-systems in the sense that he might ask for more seeds, or
might warn a helper againstplantingthe seeds too close or burying
themtoo deeply,etc. And the factthatlanguage is thususable makes
our HominidA intrinsically sensitiveto the kindof symboliccomple-
tionwhichHominidB's ritualwill exemplify.But Hominid Β is the
expertin this aspect of the tribal transaction.In this paradigm,he
is the myth-man.And insofaras his role becomesinstitutionalized,
he and his colleaguescan develop theirmythopoeicprowessuntil it
has become a calling far beyond the reach of any who are denied
accessto the special preparationsneeded forthe exactingperformance
of the givenrites.
We are all myth-men in the generalsense thatany notableoccasion
is feltto call forsomekindofsymbolicanalogue,an exulting,a fervent
sayingof thanks,an impromptu jig or a lament,and so on. But only
1 Sincethistalkwas
given(in the fall of 1969) a new twistalong suchlines
has turnedup. There was a rumorto the effectthat a Britishsyndicatewas
in buyingtheNew YorkYankees,a businesscorporation
interested now ownedby
theColumbiaBroadcasting System.One overlyaccuratewag suggested that,ifthe
deal wentthrough,the"Yankees"shouldchangetheirnameto the"Redcoats."
104 KENNETH BURKE
thosearemyth -menin thespecialist sensewhoendowsuchexpressive
analogueswitha kindof formalcompleting, or perfecting. For in-
stance,themyth-man's commemorating of the plantingmightsym-
bolicallyreenactthe processof plantingby, in effect, likeningthe
processto an act ofsexualimpregnation.
Obviously, oncethemythic specialist has hitupona formal culmin-
ationofthatsort,implicit in it thereareotherpossibilities, whichcan
be generated fromit. Forinstance, sincethestateoftheseasonsis so
important in planting, it wouldnotrequireexceptional enterprise for
the mythicspecialistto extendhis similitudeby correspondingly
treating oftherelationbetweenSkyand Earthas copulatively fertile.
Or, as a matter offact,it is conceivable thatthisrangeofterministic
interrelationships mighthave been encompassed withinthe original
ritualutterance thatwastobe thesymbolic counterpart (thedoubling,
thecompletion in symbolic terms)of the materialoperations which
servedthe myth-man as grounding, and pointof departure, forhis
senseof propriety, his piousfeelingthatnotableoccasionshave not
beenultimately recognized untiltheyattaintheirmythic completion.
in
Particularly primitive societies, such symbolizings are needed.
Formanytransactions thatwe can perfect by sheer contract (itselfa
formofsymbolic completion) must be signalized by ritual solemniza-
tion.Andforall ourlegalisms, it oftenhappenstodaythattwobus-
inessmen, aftertheyhave signeda legal documentattesting to a
transfer of property, repair to a bar and, before parting,buy each
otherdrinksto rituallyconsummate the deal.
Wherethenare we? In approaching our subject(religionand
literature),I have an
proposed analyticparadigm according to which
(though we are all mythically in
susceptible generalsense)one may
a
also isolatecertainmembers of thecommunity as mythic specialists.
This line-up,by theway,is somewhat analogousto Coleridge's dis-
tinction between"primary" imagination (in terms of which we all
the
experience world), and "secondary"imagination (that marks
thespecialaptitudeofartistic genius).A randomlistofsuchspecial-
istswouldinclude:witchdoctor, medicine man,shaman,oracles(such
as theDelphic),poets,novelists, dancers,musicians, painters, actors,
dramatists in
(artists general). And here, above all, we should list
and
priests prophets, whatever their quarrels with one another. Ad-
writers, publicity men,and the likeare notperfect instancesof the
myth-man, since so much of their symbolizing does not aimat a kind
ofsummarizing utterance thatcharacterizes mythic completion. Their
productionsare more like the use of language as an instrumentof
sheerlymaterialbehavior (as, for instance,a sales pitch is like an
instructionneededto help carryout withmaximumefficiency a process
of distribution).Yet they are on the fringesof the mythicmotive,
and oftenexploitit, in bastardizedform,therebyhelpingbuild pop-
ular attitudesthat goad the genuinelyexpertmyth-manto a search
for relevantcompletions. Indeed, are not conferencesof this sort
(involvingthe relationbetween religionand literature)themselves
ultimatelya responseto certainkinds of "image-trouble"by which
much traditionalmythicenterpriseis now affected? And has not the
army of mercenaries (in the application of the arts to commercial
purposes) greatlyhelped to aggravate the conditions that manifest
themselvesin the literaryrealm (or artisticrealm in general) as
"image-trouble,"beginningwith the unhappynatureof many tend-
enciestowardsinterventionism in the realmof internationalrelations?
My paradigm would situate the impetus to myth in a sense of
or
congruity, propriety, the mythicspecialist's feeling that, when
something of a terminal or "boundary"nature takes place (such as
a marriage,a birth,a death, an initiation,the acceptanceof a new
leader), the eventmustin effectbe doubled,completedby a ceremon-
ious, symboliccounterpart.
Our nearestword forthe originof such a motivewould probably
be "aesthetic." It involvesa sense of congruity, propriety,piety,quite
as the myth-manmight feel moved to sing a spring-songin the
spring-time, or a lamentat a burial. In brief,theverykindof attention
which the symbol-usinghominidwould bring to such events,and
whichwould lead him to distinguishthemfromthe courseof exper-
ience in general,would also be the kindof responsethatwould incite
the expressively responsivemyth-manto a purelysymbolicperfecting
of the event.
Furthermore, note that such doubling would also be in effecta
primitivemode of classification- forinsofaras the myth-mansings
the same spring-songeach springor the same lament at each burial,
his recurrent mythicutterancehas, in effect, classifiedmany different
incidentsunder the same head, though such usages are developed
long beforemen explicitlydiscussedthe natureand problemsof classi-
ficationin thewaysof philosophicor scientific methodology.
II
Where go next? I do not confronta partingof the ways. Rather,
thereare two ways to go, and I want to take themboth. First,so far
106 KENNETH BURKE
as the role of mythin societyis concerned,there is one brutally

obviousfact. Even if you accept my paradigm(therebysituatingthe
impulsetowardsmythopoeiain the pious feelingthat a drought-song
would be "proper"to a time of drought,and a song of plentyto a
timeof plenty), even so we mustrecognizethat the life of a tribal
mythis not confinedto any such symboliccorrespondencebetween
an occasion and its celebratingor commemorating.Consider, for
instance,the case of a mythinvolvingritesinterwovenwith a cult,
whosevotariesenjoyspecial privilegesor expectationsof a quite prac-
tical natureand are not derivablesimplyfromthe kind of doubling
I have postulated.
Even if the myth-manbegan his myth-making in the simplesense
thatsomenotablesituationcalled forthin him a corresponding reflex,
such resourcescan becomeinstitutionalized. And fromthen on, they
shouldalso be consideredin termsofmotivesdue not to what we have
postulatedas the originalquasi-aestheticimpulse,but to secondary
conditionsthat turnedup along the way and were due to the nature
of institutionalization itself. When the shaman takes on his role as
one who mustsymbolically respondto thingsin theirseason,or to the
various troublesof his fellow-tribesmen, this myth-man'srole as a
specialistobviously involves privileges and responsibilitiesthat relate
directly to his status rather than being confined to our hypothetical
derivationforthe "pure" myth-man.
One pointat least is obvious: The verynatureof the mythicvoca-
tion is primafacie evidencethat the tribeis no longerhomogeneous,
thoughsuch specializedritesmay help hold it together.If the tribe
were wholly homogeneous,how could some membersbe thus "set
apart"as expertswhosespecialfunctionas myth-men maybe variously
rewarded,but in any case is recognized and acknowledgedby the
community?
Currentpoliticalhaggles,involving"conflictsof interest,"suggest
some primaryconditions,as regardsthe perfecting of mythby myth-
opoeic experts. When the situation is viewed in sheerly Darwinian
terms,we note that a given myth,with correspondingrituals,can
surviveas cult only insofaras its myth-mensurvive(quite as what
we mean by "symbolicaction" can surviveonly as long as our kind
of animalssurvives,with our typicalmodesof symbolicaction). And
when you get into thoughtson the ways wherebya givenmythically
tingedritual becomesestablishedas an authoritativecult, you're in
a different scheme. First of all, the myth-manwill spontaneously
perfecthis mythin ways whereby"what's good forthe cult is good
forthe tribe."
A Darwinian kind of speculationfigureshere. Suppose that the
cult which a certainset of myth-menhave evolved happens to fit
especiallywell with the conditionsof governancein general. If the
state flourishes,the myth'sservices to the state help the cult to
flourishcorrespondingly. In fact,the cult mighteven developfeatures
that enable it not only to servethe state,but also to avoid too close
an identification with the particularvicissitudesof politicalfaction.
In time,anotherpossibilitydevelops. For instance,inasmuchas a
coronationis preciselythe kind of OutstandingPublic Eventfulness
to which all of us are mythopoeically propense,thereare opportun-
ities fora transactionof this sort: "We, the myth-men, will or will
not sanction your coronation. We will give our sanction only on
conditionssuch-and-such." Here is a twist wherebythe doctrine
propoundingthe "divine rightof kings" servesratheras a way of
enhancingnot just the monarch'spowersbut the priesthood's,by in
effectsettingup the conditionsfora coalition.
At this point, two quite different trendssuggestthemselves.(1)
Myth-mencan't simplyprotecttheirprerogatives as myth-men, since
they fall to quarrellingamong themselves, to the confusion of the
laity. (2) Their magic comes to, centersin a situation whereby, sym-
bolismbeing a duplicationof the non-symbolic, if we don't get our
duplication we are being robbed. But insofar as a new event is
commemorated by traditionalrites, not only has this ritual in effect
classified the event under some more generalhead, it has also by the
same tokenproclaimeda principle. For instance,the crowningof a
monarchin effectproclaimsa monarchicprinciple(hence allowing
for a non-temporalconceitin the grand style: "The King is dead,
long live the King").
A furtherfactorshould be noted. A lamentationcould hardlybe
said to so act that its symbolism"causes" the situationforwhich the
lamentationis feltto be the properritualduplication.In thisrespect,
no symbolicdoublingof an eventcould be said to cause that event.
However, insofaras the aestheticdédoublementof an event is felt
to be fit,thereis a kind of "necessary"relationshipbetweenthe two
realms. And fromthis kind of "necessity"(involvinga previously
mentionedsense of conformity)there can develop a false causality
("homoeopathicmagic") wherebythe forcesof nature are thought
to be influencedby the myth-man'srites,quite as words spoken by
108 KENNETH BURKE
one tribesmanto anothercan influencehis conduct. If, forinstance,

a certainsong is deemed the "proper" accompanimentto an act of
planting,one can readilyunderstandwhy a myth-man'srefusalto
sing thatsong or his inabilityto performit correctly could be feltas
a bad omen.
Givensuch developments, theroleof themyth-mantakeson wholly
new dimensions.For instance,his characteristic mode of attention
helps him learn thingsabout the regularitiesof nature. And thus,
an utteranceappropriateto thecelebratingof springin the springtime
can become transformed into a "necessary"part of spring'sarrival.
Hence an orderlyrepetitionof seasonal riteswould in effect"make
the propersuccessionof theseasonspossible."
The mythicamplification of such lore would set the conditionsfor
the claim to special authority.Some mythswould fit betterthan
othersas sanctionsand controlsforthe social order;hence by Dar-
winian testsof survival,some would becomeinstitutionalized in cults.
Adeptsin such cults could then make coalitionswith other powers
(as withthe relationbetweenChurchand State), arrangements that,
in themselves,werelargelyas practicaland non-mythic as the process
of planting,consideredmerelyin its natureas a materialoperationin
the realm of motion.
So much for the route towardsinstitutionalization. Our present
concernwith it beginsin speculations(basic to thoughtson religion
and literature)as to why,in the incunabulaof culture,the two realms
seem to have been so integrallyinterwoven.The kind of doubling
with which we are concernedwould involve a sense of conformity
whichwe mightcall "piety"with regardto religionand "propriety"
with regardto art, but which in both cases is essentiallyresponsive
ratherthan causative. However,such mythopoeicstructuresdevelop
resourcesthat can endow the mythicspecialistwith special powers,
special authority- and a purely"aesthetic"sense of conformity be-
tweenthe symbolicand non-symbolic realmscan come to draw upon
causative assumptionswhich, in turn, stimulate attemptsfirstto
develop"homoeopathicmagic" and later to transcendit. And all the
way along the line, the myth-man'sresourcesas a specialistalso set
him apart fromhis fellowsto varyingdegrees,with corresponding
claims,privileges,and obligations. The attemptto schematizethese
elementshas led me into an oversimplified quasi-temporalstatement
of thecase. For we are not discussingso clear a sequenceof evolution-
arystagesas my accountmightsuggest.
But that takesus to our otherroute,which is above all concerned
withtheproblemofa fallacydear notonlyto theprimitive myth-man,
but also (twistedly)to present-dayanalystsof myth.
Ill
This sectionconcernsthosemythswhichpurportto gravitateabout
the subjectof beginnings(the Urzeit,as when some riteand perhaps
some related cult are, as it were, "derived" fromeventssaid to be
connectedwith the tribe'soriginal ancestorsin some remotepast).
So faras the sheerresourcesof terminology are concerned,one finds
good grounds to reversethingshere. For instance,as regardsepony-
mous heroes,we'd be morelikelyto deriveRomulusfromRoma than
to assume that the city was literallyfoundedby a legendarywolf-
child and "firstking" named "Romulus."
Applyingour point about mythicdédoublement,I'd like to trace
what I'd take to be the roundaboutbut necessaryderivationof such
mythicreversals,with theirstressupon some eventor situationthat
prevailedin the primevalpast, a kind of mythic"first."The round-
about nature of this effortinvolves my attemptsto refurbishthe
Aristotelianconceptof the "entelechy,"and to adapt it forour pur-
poses, even though orthodoxneo-Aristoteliansmay accuse me of
departingfarfromthe canon.
Imagine,forinstance,a riteof passage,designedto solemnizesome
tribesmen'sgraduationfromyouth to manhood,with corresponding
changes of status,as regardsboth privilegesand obligations. The
mythicelementsinvolvedare primarilydesignedto solemnizesuch a
processoftransformation in general. That is, in theirritualrecurrence
fromyear to year,theyare not shaped about the characterand cir-
cumstancespeculiar to any one particulartribesman. Rather, the
ceremonyin effectclassifiesall actual or possible initiatesunder a
generalheadingthattranscendstheirnatureas individuals.And such
is the case even thoughsome of the testsare differently performedby
the various individual initiates. The whole performancetreats all
theinitiates,we mightsay,in termsofa traditionalrecurrent ceremony
such as anthropologists would call a riteof passage.
However varied may be the charactersand experiencesof the
individualinitiates,the given ceremonyis designed to reflecttheir
change of status (and thus in effectto double the conditionthat
dependsliterallyon theirbiologicalprocessof growingup). But is
not such a rite also viewingthe initiatesin termsof a "perfection"?
110 KENNETH BURKE
Regardlessof what they mightbe, they are being consideredfrom

the standpointof one particularabsolute principle,namely: their
identity,and corresponding as initiates.
reidentification,
A concernwith "perfection"in thissense would be an instanceof
what I mean by an attemptto refurbishand re-adapt (at least for
the study of mythicproclivities)the Aristotelianconcept of the
"entelechy,"that is, the "aim" of an entityto fulfillthe possibilities
intrinsicto its nature.
So far as sheerlyterministicmattersare concerned,any paradigm
is also a variantof the "entelechial,"insofaras its mode of simplifi-
cation is by the same token a kind of perfecting - and thingsare
consideredin termsof theirrole in exemplifying, or "living up to,"
the particularprinciplewhich the paradigmpostulates.
However,the embodyingof a principleinvolvesthe possibilityof

mythicreversal. For given the narrativenature of myth,it follows
that the mythicway of propoundinga principle,or logical "first,"
(in the sense that the generativeprincipleimplicitin the initiatory
rites is "prior" to any one performanceof such rites), can become
transformed into a quasi-temporalequivalent.
I have dealt withthismatteron severaloccasions,(cf. forinstance,
on the "temporizing of essence,"in Grammarof Motives;"The First
Three Chaptersof Genesis,"in Rhetoricof Religion;"Myth,Poetry,
and Philosophy,"in Language as SymbolicAction.) Basically, the
point is: The "proper"way to treatof principles(logical "firsts"or
"beginnings") in termsof mythicnarrative,is by translatingthem
into termsconcernedwith quasi-temporalorigin. For instance,the
"proper" mythicway to representthe militaristicand fratricidal
principlesintrinsicto Roman societywas exemplifiedin the mythic
derivationof Rome froma son of Mars who slew his twin brother.
Thus, insofaras mythicdoublingis the formalperfecting of situations
deemed centralto the tribe'sway of life,to its social relations,and
the like, it takes the formof a mythicfirst.Justas the search for
paradigmsleads one in thedirectionof such wordsas "prototype"and
"archetype,"so the essentializingnature of mythopoeiaattains its
terministic fulfillment in narrativesthat deal with things now, in
termsof imputed origins fromwhich the relevant manifestations
now are said to be temporallydescended.By thisroute,theentelechial
nature of myths(their nature as bearingupon "firstprinciples"of
the tribe'scondition) is manifestedin termsof a mythicallyimputed
past,in prehistory(or what the Germansresonantlycall die Urzeit).
IV
There are two books which I have found particularlyuseful for
the purposesof this article,thoughI do not interprettheirevidence
quite as the authorsintended.The booksare: Mythand Cult Among
PrimitivePeoples, by AdolfE. Jensen(Universityof Chicago Press,
1963; originalGermanedition,1951); Myth,Dreams and Mysteries,
by Mircea Eliade (Harvill Press, London, 1960; original French
edition,1957).
My generalslant embodiesa feelingthat we should guard against

an overly"universalizing" viewof mythand its"archetypes."I would
lay equal stress upon the fact that the myth-menare in notable
respects"set apart" by theirspecialty.Both Jensenand Eliade begin
with assumptions that implicitlyconfuse the "primal" with the
derived. I have discussedthis matterat considerablelength in my
Rhetoricof Motives,with regardto the "socio-anagogic"dimension
in the symbolizingof human relations. As I analyze the situation,
muchsupposedlypious awe in thecontemplation of the transcendently
"divine" cannot be adequately interpretedunless we add (to any
postulatingof a genericmythopoeicawe) an elementof sheerlysocial
mystery, involvingsuch administrativesubjectionas goeswithresponse
to authoritythat can levy taxes or pronouncemagisterialsentences
(decrees and judgments). It bears upon the ambiguous kind of
"mystery"associatedwith the Roman emperoras pontifexmaximus,
a bridgebetween"celestial" mysteryand the mysteryof his role as
august head of the state.
First,let us considersome relevantpassages in Jensen'sMyth and
Cult:
With regardto "shamanisticpractice"(p. 220) Jensenquotes from
Koch-Grünberg'sRoroima the fact that reportsregularlynote "the
highersocial positionof the shaman." The same passage stressesthe
importanceassigned to the "idea of combat," the notion that the
shaman is musteringfriendlypowersto wage a battle againsthostile
powers responsiblefor the distressthat the shaman undertakesto
remove. The myth-man'stranslationof the problematiccondition
into antithetictermsthat make for dramatizationis an instanceof
112 KENNETH BURKE
what I mean by symbolizingsthat meet "Darwinian" tests for the
survivalof the mythicconstruct(and its corresponding cult). Such
dramaticpatternsare so naturalto symbolicaction,theymightprop-
erlybe called an "entelechial"driv/s intrinsicto mythopoeia.2
A furtherelementcontributing to a myth'ssurvivalvalue resides
in its way of so liningup allies that a sense of commoncause against
an imputedenemycan deflectcriticismfromthe officiant of the cult
with which the given mythhas become allied. Recourse to such
deflection can be a matterof merepriestcraft (as with many conser-
vative politicianstoday who would insist upon "anti-communism"
as the one singletestof a policy'svalidity). But such a use of anti-
thesis can arise spontaneouslyfromthe motivesof dramatization.
Indeed, antithesisis so salient a device,it is a constantlyrecurrent
resourceof mythopoeia. Thus (p. 39) dual organizationssuch as
exogamousmoieties"are oftentracedback to divine twins,reflecting
in mythicalguise the polarityof the world,. . . day and night,male
and female,rightand left,fauna and flora,and a multitudeof other
polar opposites." In his RhetoricAristotlecalls special attentionto
the stylisticeffectivenessof antithesis.
"Social order,settlementpatterns,and the like may be regarded
as adaptationsto an understoodorder. Cults,however,are a demon-
strationofthisorder;throughthemthecommunity gains a heightened
awarenessof itself." (p. 41) What Jensenhere calls a "demonstra-
tion"of thesocial order,I would call a mythicperfecting or classifying
of it, its doubling by translationinto the mythicequivalent of a
paradigm. And to cap such an entelechial drive, the myth-man
furtherdevelopsthe scope of his symbolizingto the point where the
mythicreplicaof the ritualizedsituationheads into some tie-upwith
the"divine." A seculartechnicalequivalentwould be the "perfecting"
ofan eventby placingit in termsofsomeover-allnaturalevolutionary
process(as with the "perfect"view of socialistdevelopment,in the
CommunistManifesto).
The difference betweenprimitive mythand formaldefinition is that
the primitive mythin effectclassifiesa situationby translatingit into
termsof an analogous story. And such doublingis also a perfecting
of the situation,since any actual situationtendsto get lost among the
2
Myessayon "Myth,Poetry, and Philosophy,"
in Languageas SymbolicAction,
deals withthisproblemat some length,by usingJosephFontenrose's Pythonas
pointof departure.That textserveswell to help me distinguishbetweensheerly
historicalderivations
of the "combatmyth"and originsconsideredin termsof
narrativeprinciples.
particularsof the quotationexceptinsofaras its mythicdoublingsets
up terministic conditionswhereby,whateverits uniqueness,it can be
interpretedas perenniallyrecurrent,from time immemorial.This
is the routewherebya perfectedpotentiality(like thatembodiedin a
cult's storiedway of summingup the principleof a situation) gets
the entelechialresourcesof symbolismtranslatedinto termsof a
mythicpast (an imputed Urzeit, an eschatologicalmatch with an
imputedapocalypticEndzeit).
With regardto Urzeit,here are some furtherrepresentative selec-
tionsfromJensen:
"Primitivepeople's statementsconcerningthe originof cults favor
the assumptionthat the activityof a prominentpersonage,assigned
by themto 'primevaltime,'lies at the basis of each cult." (p. 43) . . .
"Cult gains itssacredcharacter"as a "reminiscence"of an "elemental
eventin 'primevaltimes'and as a recapitulationof that seizure." (p.
58) ... "Mythicconsciousnessdiffersin kind fromscientificcon-
sciousness: there is no searchingfor developmentalstages or for
continuousprogressions fromprimordialbeginningsto terminalcon-
figurations. The mythicoccurrenceis in almosteveryinstanceunique
and unrepeated,a majesticeventin the primalpast. Its resultis the
presentlysanctionedformulationof the mythicmanifestation."(p.
65) . . . "Myth always begins with a conditionantecedentto con-
cretization, when the creativeidea is alreadyin existenceand finally
manifestsitselfthroughthe mythicevent." (p. 66)
Jensen'sthesisis that "the primarycause of mythicpropositions
is religious."(p. 66) He viewsthismotiveas intuitive,a spontaneous
awe thatis in its essencewhollydevoidof self-serving. That is, when
this sense of awe becomes transformed into such manifestations as
prayers that are supposedlydesigned to enlist the of
goodwill super-
natural powers,already the religiousimpulse has begun to decay,
beingreplacedby attemptsat purelypragmaticapplications.
I am tryingto add a qualificationhere. The sense of congruity
whichI would associatewith the hominid'sattemptto perfectevents
by translation intosymbolicreplicaswould not necessarilybe religious.
It is but a necessaryaspectof speech,which is developedby its con-
formity with situationsin which it is used. True, in an early book
of mine (Permanenceand Change) I oftenreferredto such a sense
of conformity as "pious." But I also extendedthe meaning of the
termto include the compulsivesystem-building of the mentallyun-
balanced,who broughtfitofferings to the altar of theirdistress.And
114 KENNETH BURKE
I furtherextendedthe termin ways that amountedto its neutraliza-
tion (as, for instance,I proposedto call membersof the Gashouse
Gang "pious" when they scrupulouslymasteredthe "right" oaths,
the "proper"indecencies,and so on). In brief,the sense of congruity
thatis intrinsicto the resourcesof symbolicactioncan manifestitself
in eitherreligiousor quite secularmodesof expression.
There is much to be said forJensen'snotionthat a trulyreligious
awe would be quite intuitive,and quite freeof any attemptto haggle
withthe divineforfavors.Thus I'd tendto agree that,as soon as the
worshipperwas minded to make use of any such spontaneously
devotionalattitude(as with a prayerfor rain, or for victoryover
one's enemy) the religiousimpulse as Jensenconceivesof it would
have lost its primeintuitivepurity,and would have already begun
degeneratingin the directionof hopes forsheerlyutilitarianapplica-
tion. In pure religiosity,virtuewould be its own reward; and to
advocatehonestyon the groundsthat it's the best policywould put
one on the slope of opportunismand time-serving.
However,such a line-up would implicitlysew thingsup fromthe
verystart,by viewingliterary(poetic) expressionas a derivativeof
religiousexpression.There is also the possibilityof viewingreligious
expressionand literaryexpressionas two different modes of symbolic
action. By a calculusof thissort,in assumingan initialnon-pragmatic
stateof conformity between,say, beingin a lamentablesituationand
spontaneously lamentingabout it,or a conformity betweenspringtime
and the of a
uttering springsong, we do not necessarilyequate any such
initialimpulsewithspecifically religiousawe. Here we'd confrontthe
likelihoodthat the motiveof symbolicdoubling would be prior to
its manifestation in eitherthe tragicsolemnitiesof awe or the proto-
graffitiof Aristophanicfarce. We'd look forthe originsof the myth-
opoeic impulsein thisimpulseto fulfillment by symbolicdoubling.
Traces of thissame tenuousissue keep turningup continuallynow
as regards speculations about "creativity."(Jensen's word is das
Schöpferische.)Jensenin effectbeginslike the Bible by puttingGod
in the firstsentencesince, in his role as myth-man,he categorically
identifiesthemythopoeic activitywithan intuitivereligiousawe. I am
indicatinghow strictlylogologicalconsiderationswould call rather
for a neutral,or technical,term as motive for the translationof
situations(themselvesoftenpreponderantly non-symbolic)into sym-
bolic replicas.
PerhapsI should add here thatI do not have a simple"correspond-
ence" theoryof symbolism, such as is exemplifiedin a chartor map.
Mythopoeically,a situation may be implicitlyfiguredin kinds of
utterancethat do not "reflect"it at all, but use it at mostas a point
of departure.A situationmay get "summed up" not in the repro-
ductivesense of saying "Conditionsare such-and-such,"but rather
in the conclusivesense of saying,"I want to do such-and-such." In
brief,thesymbolizing mayfigurean attituderatherthantheconditions
out ofwhichthe attitudearose and tookform.Or stronglyattitudinal
imagerymay sometimesfigurethe underlyingconditions(the scene),
but obliquely. There is also thefactthatconditionsare not objectively
simple; they can be quite muddled; and much of the myth-man's
entelechialprowessis in his ways of imposingupon confusedexperi-
encesa simplifyingperfection thatmaysometimesbe a help,sometimes
a hindrance.
Mircea Eliade's Myth,Dreams and Mysteriesis in much the same
mould as Jensen'sbook. (In fact,he quotes Jensenseveral times.)
His referencesto the shaman as a "specialistin ecstasy"and in "spir-
itual questions"generally(p. 61 and elsewhere) are helpfulformy
purposes,in accordancewithmyparadigmthat"sets apart" the myth-
man fromhis fellowsand is primafacieevidencethat the tribeis not
homogeneous(even thoughthe tribalmythsand corresponding cults
may help hold it togetherby modifying in variousways the tensions
that lead to cleavage).3
Eliade refersto ritesthat give "access to the sacred" (p. 209) -
and the mythicexpert,of course, is the privilegedofficiantand
custodianof such lore. Eliade discussesthe "social prestigeof the
shaman." (p. 77) He discusses (p. 79) initiationrites "leading to
the transmutation of the profaneconditioninto the superhuman,"
clearlyan entelechialaspectof myth.The entelechialrevealsanother
aspect (p. 161) in the "exemplary"role of myth,its service"as the
patternand modelto a greatmanyhuman activities."And repeatedly
the book stressesthe imputedrelationof a mythto some event in
the primordialpast, in Mo tempore.
Particularlyserviceableforour thesis (regardingthe mythictrans-
formationof the entelechialdrive into a quasi-temporalUrzeit) are
such statements as: "The mythof the noble savage was but a renewal
and continuationof the mythof the Golden Age; that is, of the per-
3
GeorgeThomson'sAeschylusand Athensis an excellentstudydesignedto
indicatehow catharsisin Greektragedycould serveas a remedy(thoughnot a
cure) forcivictensions.It is a bookthatI wouldincludeamongthe"eye-openers."
116 KENNETH BURKE
fectionof the beginningof things."(p. 41) ... "The harvestrepre-

sentsthe Creation,the triumphalmanifestation of a young,rich and
perfectForm. Terfection'is producedin the beginnings,ab origine.
They hope, therefore, to recoverthevitalreservesand germinalriches
which were made manifestfor the firsttime in the majesticact of
theCreation." (p. 186) Since"perfection" is etymologically a finished-
ness, these two quotationsseem to me ideal as a way of indicating
how the culminativeconnotationsof the entelechial can become
translatedinto termsof the mythicpast, thoughthoughtsof a cul-
minationin the apocalypticfuturecan also be a narrativeway of
temporizing essence.
Here is anotherstatementperfectforour purposes: "All creation
impliesa wholenessthatprecedesit, an Urgrund. Hierogamyis only
one of the formsof explanationof Creation froma primordialUr-
grund; there are other cosmogoniemythsbesides the hierogamic;
but they all presupposethe prior existenceof an undifferentiated
unity." (p. 179) Interpreting thispassage logologically,I'd say: The
"unitary" ideal of myth entelechiallyimplicitin the fact that
is
language can rise by ever higherpowersof generalization,until all
is headed in some title (most likelyimage-tinged) for the principle
of "Everything."Nay more,given the genius of the negative,any
such termfor a universalground of Being admits of one further
step,to some termfor"Non-Being,"viewedin turnas Being'scontext
and quasi-temporalsource. Hence, beyondUrgrundlies the termin-
isticpossibilityof Ungrund (that could be imagedin termsof Night
as the maternalsourceof all).
We mightnow sum up themain stepsin thisdiscussion:
(1) As regardsthe relationbetweenliteratureand religion,if you
begin with some such term as "awe" (or Otto's stress upon the
"numinous"), yourterminology has automaticallyweightedthe issue
on theside of religion.
(2) If you begin by consideringboth religionand literature(or
the artisticin general) as different
thoughrelatedexpressionsof man,
the typicalsymbol-usinganimal, your terminologydoes not auto-
maticallyweightthe issue on one side. To thatextentit is "neutral."
Bothsuch aptitudeswould be attributes of thesame humansubstance,
ratherthan one being priorto the other.
(3) If we do begin thus neutrally(with the definitionof man as
the symbol-usinganimal rather than with the postulatingof an
originaland originatingawe, reverence,or sense of the "numinous"
and thelike), whenconsidering mythopoeiawhethersacredor profane
we next note a basic analytical distinctionbetween such material,
pragmaticoperationsas plantinga seed and the enactingof a rite
(such as an appropriateritual) that is feltto commemorate or com-
pletethe materialoperation.
(4) Though all men possess this mythopoeicsusceptibility(the
feelingthat importantmomentsin their lives are to be completed
by a kind of symbolicdoubling), some men are more expertin this
realm than others.
(5) These we have called "myth-men"in a special sense of the
term- and in timetheirspecialprowesswithsymbolssetsthemapart,
as also monarchs,magistrates, nobles become variouslyset apart.
(6) The set-apartness of thedivinewould not be identicalwithany
such social set-apartness.But the two modes can become confused;
hencetherecan be bothreligiousmystery and social mystery,variously
affecting each other.
(7) In developinghis mythopoeic expertness,the myth-manchances
upon some myths that have a highly culminative quality,as regards
theirrelationshipto the ways of the tribe.
(8) All mythicdoubling has somethingof this virtue,which I
would call "entelechial,"but which is usually treatedin termsof the
"archetypal"or "prototypal."
(9) The culminativeor entelechialaspectof mythis not temporal;
ratherit is a primitive
way ofclassifying or defining,and of propound-
ing fundamental principleswhichare in themselvesnon-temporalbut
which(since mythis essentiallynarrative)are endowedwith a quasi-
temporalnature,in termsof derivationfroman absolutemythicpast.
(10) In adaptingthe principleof fulfillment that is centralto the
geniusof the Aristotelian"entelechy,"I proposewhat I would call
a "logological"critiqueof the mythologists.
(11) This critiquealso involvesmyclaim thatthemythically tinged
cult of the "archetype"over-universalizes the natureof such symbol-
izingin human relations.
(14) Though the myth-manmay contributemuch to the patterns
of tribalthinkingas a whole,one should also examinemythfortraces
of its role in furthering
the myth-man'sspecial interestsas distinct
fromthe interestsof the group.
118 KENNETH BURKE
Perhaps the clearestinstanceof this last point concernsexpertsin

symbolism who perfected ritesof"desanctification."Here the principle
of the "numinous"attainsits maximum,albeit paradoxicalintensity.
Were it not forthe officeof the myth-man,it is thought,the world
would be so unbearablyholy that ordinarymortals,untrainedin
priestlymagic,could not survive.Accordingto thisview, the world's
universalholinesswould be like a highlychargedelectricwire that
had to be touched,but such a contactwould be fatalif the wire were
not insulatedby experts(the protectiveinsulationin this case being
the priestlyrites wherebythe awful holiness is systematically "de-
sanctified").
Quite conceivably,one could cite such a mythsimplyas evidence
that the tribewas movedby the intuitivesense of some divinesuper-
naturalpower. And one mightnotetheparadoxicalsituationwhereby
the myth-man'sritesof "desanctification" actuallyworkedin reverse,
the
to re-enforce veryfeeling of ultimateawe which theyare nomin-
ally designedto attenuate.But surely also one should note how well
a mythof this sort servesto justifythe officeof the specialistswith
whomthe mythis associated. Obviouslytheseexpertshave a special
interestin promoting Assum-
such a cult,whichrationalizestheiroffice.
ing thatsuch ritesbegan in all sincerity, one need not relegatetheir
developmentto sheer "priestcraft."True, we are told of initiations
which do allow the new "insider" a look behind the scenes, much
as a professionalperformer, afterdoing a "magic" card trick,might
nextshow you how it was contrived.But I'd be willingto settlefor
a hona fideoriginof this mythopoeictrend,with the myth-manbe-
lievingbeyondquestionin the necessityand efficacy of the desancti-
fyingrituals. Then I'd attributeto "Darwinian" teststhe survival-
value of such a cult,in becominginterwovenwith the tribe'sway of
life,while also drawingupon the "socio-anagogic"mysteryof rulers,
magistrates, and noblesto extendthe generalsense of awe among the
humble,the whole servingto perpetuatethe prestigeof the cult's
officiants.
But let me end by cuttingin fromanotherangle, secularlymytho-
poeic, as regardsthese speculationson archetypeand entelechy. A
fewyearsago, I spent the winteron BrooklynHeights,in an apart-
mentfromwhich I had a wide view of New York Harbor and the
skyscrapers of lower Manhattan. Because of a purely personal sit-
uation, for those severalmonthsI had a sense of being "psychically
immobilized"(a state that was a mental counterpartto that of a
dear companionwho was physicallyimmobilized). Out of thismood,
in contrastwithWhitman'spoem of crossingfromBrooklynto Man-
hattan by ferry,and Hart Crane's symbolismof crossingby the
BrooklynBridge,I wrotea fairlylong poem,"Eye-Crossing- From
Brooklynto Manhattan,"4the entelechialor summarizingaspect of
the titleresidingin the thoughtof my being immobilized,and thus
not crossing,but stayingon the Brooklynside and merelylooking
across.
Also, in the course of the development,I consciouslydrew upon
a somewhatpunlike range of meaningsbuilt around formsof the
term,"cross." But not until I had finishedthe poem did I realize
how anotherdimensionhad creptin withoutmy slightestawareness.
Sinceat all hoursofthenightI had watchedthe fantasticgleamof the
lightsacrossthe river,I had keptreturningto the themeof light. It
turnsup almostnecessarily,if you don't sleep well. And a view of
that blaze (at timeswhen, in a state of nature,all would be black-
ness exceptformoon or stars) is beyondquestion an exceptional,a
perpetuallyastonishingexperience.
Lo! an archetypehad creptup on me: the "cityof light,"no less!
But hold. Here was an archetypewitha difference.For manyof the
connotationssurroundingmy images and ideas of light were of a
sinistersort,involving"formidablethings"(thoughtson empire,war,
and imminentdecay). Walt Whitman'scrossingwas equated with
the promissory, Hart Crane's with the nostalgic- but here was a
stepin a moreproblematicaldirection,forthe "whosis" of this poem
is apprehensive;and his apprehensioncomes to a focus in his am-
bivalentattitudetowardsthe incredible"cardboard stage-setof the
blazingbuildings... as thoughthe townwere a catastrophe."
Sincethe"cityoflight"does not attainits"perfection"as a "magic"
vision gleamingthroughthe night until the poem has built up an
attitudeof apprehension,obviouslya "universal" interpretation of
light here as archetypewould be but a "firstrough approximate."
Yet, afterall, therewas "Lucifer"!
4 TheNation, 2, 1969.
June

Kenneth Burke Explores Myth, Cult and Archetypes in Literature and Religion

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Kenneth Burke Explores Myth, Cult and Archetypes in Literature and Religion

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Doing and Saying Thoughts on Myth, Cult, and Archetypes

Author(s): KENNETH BURKE

This paper was originallypresentedin a conferenceat Temple

When we deal withinstitutions so essentiallyhuman as religionand

as the role of mythin societyis concerned,there is one brutally

one tribesmanto anothercan influencehis conduct. If, forinstance,

Regardlessof what they mightbe, they are being consideredfrom

However,the embodyingof a principleinvolvesthe possibilityof

My generalslant embodiesa feelingthat we should guard against

fectionof the beginningof things."(p. 41) ... "The harvestrepre-

Perhaps the clearestinstanceof this last point concernsexpertsin

Potrebbero piacerti anche