{"id":29799,"date":"2012-07-10T09:20:02","date_gmt":"2012-07-10T13:20:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fryeblog.blog.lib.mcmaster.ca\/?p=29799"},"modified":"2012-07-10T09:20:02","modified_gmt":"2012-07-10T13:20:02","slug":"review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of the University of Toronto Quarterly’s Special Issue on Frye"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Review of the University of Toronto Quarterly<\/em>, vol. 81, no. 1<\/p>\n

Robert D. Denham<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Recently three journals have each published a special issue in connection with the centenary of Frye\u2019s birth, 14 July 1912:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

University of Toronto Quarterly<\/em> 81, no. 1 (2012): 1\u2013186. \u00a0Special Issue: The Future of Northrop Frye: Centennial Perspectives.\u00a0 Articles by Michael Dolzani, Merlin Donald, Travis DeCook, Ian Balfour, Jean Wilson, Yves Saint\u2011Cyr, Adam Carter, Jonathan Allan, Gordon Teskey, plus an interview with Margaret Atwood by Nick Mount, responses to Frye by nine poets, and a previously unpublished essay by Frye on poetic diction.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ellipse: texts litt\u00e9raires canadiens en traduction\/Canadian Writing in Translation<\/em> 87\u201388 (2012).\u00a0 \u00a0Giant in time\/un g\u00e9ant plong\u00e9 dans le temps: An Anthology of Writings in Honour of Northrop Frye\u2019s 100th<\/sup> Birthday\/Textes en homage \u00e0 Northrop Frye \u00e0 l\u2019occasion de son 100<\/em>e<\/sup><\/em>anniversaire<\/em>.\u00a0 Articles on Frye by Susan Glickman, Michael Happy, Serge Morin, and Bruce Powe, a memory of Frye by Robert Denham, Yann Martel\u2019s \u201cLetter to Stephen Harper,\u201d poems by Troni Grande, Nella Cotrupi, and Valerie LeBlanc that engage Frye directly, poems by Paul Boss\u00e9, Gabriel Robichaud, and Jessie Robichaud that take their inspiration directly from the Frye Festival in Moncton, works by Lee D. Thompson, J.D. Wainwright, Jim Racobs, Edward Lemond, Anne Leslie, and Daniel Dugas that were written \u201cin the spirit of Frye,\u201d and other stories and poems, with no direct connection to Frye, written in his honor.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

English Studies in Canada<\/em> 37, no. 2 (June 2011).\u00a0 Special Issue: Northrop Frye for a New Century.\u00a0 Ed. Mervyn Nicholson.\u00a0 Reflections by John Ayre, Stan Garrod, Monika Hilder, William N. Koch, and Rick Salutin.\u00a0 Articles by Melissa Dalgleish, Timothy A. Delong, Robert D. Denham, Diane Dubois, Paul Hawkins, David M. Leeson, Duncan McFarlane, Mary Ryan, and S\u00e1ra Toth.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Here we consider the first of these, the UTQ <\/em>special issue, edited by Germaine Warkentin and Linda Hutcheon.\u00a0 <\/em>The editors\u2019 introduction rehearses the debates surrounding Anatomy of Criticism<\/em>, and then moves on to express the hope that the essays in the special issue, \u201cThe Future of Northrop Frye: Centennial Perspectives,\u201d will reveal \u201cwhat a critic of today will find challenging, provocative, fruitful, and productive in the rich record of a critic at work\u201d (7).\u00a0 The editors hasten to observe that this rich record includes the previously unpublished writing which, with the launching of the Collected Works of Frye project, began to become available in 1996.\u00a0 The new material more than doubled the Frye canon, the Collected Works having brought to light almost ten thousand pages of previously unpublished writing, constituting now some 58% of the total Frye canon.\u00a0 We are encouraged to think that the contributors to the special issue will take advantage of this new material.\u00a0 But except for Michael Dolzani, and to a lesser extent Ian Balfour, Travis DeCook, Yves Saint\u2011Cyr, the contributors are practically silent about anything Frye wrote, especially the holograph texts, during the last decade\u2011and\u2011a\u2011half of his life.\u00a0 The last volumes of the Collected Works came off the presses only two years ago, and no one can be expected to have read the 4,700,000 words that constitute the thirteen volumes of the previously unpublished material.\u00a0 But even the published work of the late Frye, beginning with The Great Code<\/em> and continuing through Words with Power<\/em>, Myth and Metaphor<\/em>, The Eternal Act of Creation<\/em>, and The Double Vision<\/em>, gets only the scantiest attention.\u00a0 Toward the end of their introduction the editors do remind us that Frye\u2019s career is rounded off with his two books on the Bible, but the contributors remain largely silent about the great burst of activity in Frye\u2019s final years.<\/p>\n

Why the lack of attention, even resistance, to the religious accent that is sounded so strongly in the last decade of Frye\u2019s life?\u00a0 The editors do say that from the pages of the CW as a whole \u201cemerges a picture not only of Frye the literary theorist, but Frye the historical and social thinker, the theologian, the musician, and the satirist\u201d (6).\u00a0 I don\u2019t see much evidence for calling Frye a theologian, but there is a wealth of evidence for calling him a religious visionary, one who is on a spiritual voyage.\u00a0 The editors indicate that Frye \u201caddressed a wide audience, not only a purely literary readership, but students of music, history, science and the general public as well\u201d (9).\u00a0 Anyone who has read the books from the 1980s and early 1990s and especially anyone who has looked into the Late Notebooks<\/em> will find it strange that students of religion have been excluded in the editors\u2019 understanding of Frye\u2019s readership.<\/p>\n

What then is the \u201cfuture of Frye\u201d?\u00a0 Or the future of Frye studies?\u00a0 Gordon Teskey\u2019s answer to the first question in the \u201cAfterword\u201d is affirming: \u201cI would bet on Frye, of course,\u201d he says (180).\u00a0 But\u00a0 on the basis of the essays presented here the answer to the second question is, \u201cThe several bright spots notwithstanding, not altogether encouraging.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

* * *<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

The first page of the special issue, having to do with abbreviations, does not get us off to a very promising start.\u00a0 The explanation of the abbreviations is confused.\u00a0 The editors say that Frye\u2019s writings generally appeared in three forms, which they proceed to list as three kinds of books.\u00a0 As much of Frye\u2019s writing appeared as journal essays or articles, what the editors mean to say is that Frye\u2019s books<\/em> were of three kinds.\u00a0 The first they call \u201cindividual books,\u201d and they give as examples Anatomy of Criticism <\/em>and Words with Power<\/em>.\u00a0 The second they call \u201clecture series or collections of essays presented as a unified whole,\u201d examples of which are The Critical Path<\/em> and The Modern Century.<\/em>\u00a0 And the third they call collections of miscellaneous essays and lectures assembled to focus on related issues,\u201d The Bush Garden<\/em> and Spiritus Mundi<\/em> given as examples (1).<\/p>\n

But The Critical Path<\/em> is no less an individual book than Anatomy of Criticism<\/em> is.\u00a0 True, a great deal of The Critical Path <\/em>was presented originally as lectures, but so were large portions of Anatomy of Criticism.\u00a0 <\/em>Moreover, the Anatomy<\/em> borrowed liberally from fourteen of Frye\u2019s published articles.\u00a0 So what the editors mean by \u201cindividual books\u201d isn\u2019t clear.\u00a0 Is A Natural Perspective<\/em> or The Double Vision<\/em> any less an individual book than Words with Power<\/em>?\u00a0 Also unclear is what the editors mean by \u201ccollections of essays presented as a unified whole\u201d (the second category\u201d).\u00a0 Spiritus Mundi<\/em>, which is in the third category, is a \u201ccollection of essays.\u201d\u00a0 Since both examples in category two\u2013\u2013The Critical Path<\/em> and The Modern Century\u2013\u2013<\/em> are lecture series, we\u2019re left wondering what a collection of essays presented as a unified whole might be.\u00a0 Are Fables of Identity <\/em>and The Stubborn Structure<\/em> any more or less a unified whole than Spiritus Mundi<\/em> is?<\/p>\n

Even if this classification of Frye\u2019s books were not muddled, there is no reason in the context of abbreviations to distinguish the different forms of Frye\u2019s books in the first place.\u00a0 All the editors need to say is that the references to Frye\u2019s writing are to the original book in which they appeared and then to the Collected Works volume.\u00a0 The point is that the editors want to make it easy for readers to locate passages in the original form and in the CW, even though sometimes they don\u2019t give the CW reference (see pp. 163\u201364, e.g.).\u00a0 The three kinds of books have nothing to do with this.\u00a0 What jumps out immediately is that the second typical example the editors give violates the principle of citing both forms of publication.\u00a0 Why not give The Stubborn Structure <\/em>as the reference for the original appearance in book form of \u201cSpeculation and Concern\u201d?\u00a0 Many people will not have, or have access to, the very expensive Collected Works volumes.\u00a0 But they may well have a copy of The Stubborn Structure<\/em>.\u00a0 It does these people no favor to cite \u201cSpeculation and Concern\u201d as appearing in CW 7.\u00a0 It would<\/em> do them a favor to cite \u201cSpeculation and Concern\u201d as first appearing in The Stubborn Structure<\/em>.\u00a0 The editors say that they don\u2019t give the original appearance citation when the Collected Works is the \u201cbest source.\u201d\u00a0 But CW 7 is no better a source for \u201cSpeculation and Concern\u201d than The Stubborn Structure<\/em> is.\u00a0 In Jean Wilson\u2019s essay, for example, we get references to the titles of a host of Frye\u2019s essays, preceding the CW reference.\u00a0 But readers won\u2019t know where to find the original publication of these essays without a reference to the books in which they appeared.\u00a0 \u201c(\u2018The View from Here,\u2019 CW 7: 566)\u201d tells the reader where to find the reference in the CW.\u00a0 A more useful citation would be, first, to indicate the page number in Myth and Metaphor <\/em>where the passage could be found.<\/p>\n

For items in the CW that have not been previously published, I see no problem with giving the title of the section in the CW volume along with the page number, as in Ian Balfour\u2019s essay: \u201c(\u2018Autobiographical Reflections,\u2019 CW 25: 28).\u201d\u00a0 This makes things a little more user friendly.\u00a0 But this procedure is not consistently followed.\u00a0 Yves Saint\u2011Cyr cites a number of previously unpublished pieces, but none of the titles of these is given in advance of the CW reference.\u00a0 I think the more information one can give to the reader about where to find things, the better, but whatever the policy of citation, it should be consistent.<\/p>\n

Otherwise, this section on abbreviations could have used a good copy\u2011editor.\u00a0 It refers to The Anatomy of Criticism<\/em>, which is the title of a book by Henry Hazlitt.\u00a0 Frye wrote Anatomy of Criticism<\/em>.\u00a0 Standard practice for noting place of publication calls for no abbreviation for the state when the publisher is a state university press: there is no need to tell readers that Indiana University Press is in Indiana.\u00a0 Under CW 1 and 2 (p. 2), \u201cvol.\u201d should be \u201cvols.,\u201d as it is under CW 5 and 6.\u00a0 Four of the CW titles include subtitles, so why exclude the subtitles for The Great Code<\/em>, Anatomy of Criticism<\/em>, and Words with Power<\/em>?\u00a0 For CW 23, \u201cAnatomy of Criticism\u201d should be marked as a title, just as the other book titles are set off with quotation marks in CW18, CW 21, and CW 27.\u00a0 The volume numbers for CW 27 and CW 28 have been reversed: volume 27 is \u201cThe Critical Path\u201d and Other Writings on Critical Theory, 1963\u20131975<\/em> and vol. 28 is Northrop Frye\u2019s Writings on Shakespeare and the Renaissance<\/em>.\u00a0\u00a0 LHC1 and LHC2 at the top of page 2 appeared respectively in The Stubborn Structure<\/em> and Divisions on a Ground<\/em>, which would doubtless be more accessible than the Literary History of Canada<\/em>.\u00a0 For these two entries, \u201c\u2018Conclusion\u2019 to the\u201d should be in Roman, not italic.\u00a0 It\u2019s not clear anyway why these two articles deserve special notice in the list of abbreviations when articles just as frequently cited do not.\u00a0 The proper date of publication for CW7 is \u201c2000\u201d; for CW 20, \u201c2006\u201d; and for CW 22, \u201c2006.\u201d<\/p>\n

And then later we have idiosyncratic citations, such as \u201c(\u2018Notebooks on Renaissance Literature,\u2019 CW 20: 296), where a partial title of a CW volume is given (why then have the abbreviation?), but the title is in single quotation marks, not in italics.\u00a0 That\u2019s from Michael Dolzani\u2019s essay, p. 19.\u00a0 And then there\u2019s the curious practice of giving the title of an article in front of one CW reference but then omitting it for another reference to the same page, as on p. 171.<\/p>\n

* * *<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Jonathan Arac has written a very powerful, learned, and eloquent defense of Frye\u2019s historical, ethical, and archetypal criticism, relating Frye\u2019s vision to that of Coleridge, Auerbach, Benjamin, and others.\u00a0 But one would think from Arac\u2019s essay that Frye had not written anything since The Critical Path<\/em>, and this is apparently the reason why he says nothing about anagogic criticism.\u00a0 \u00a0Arac\u2019s discussion of Frye and Coleridge omits any reference to the one sustained piece Frye wrote on Coleridge, and there are sixteen entries in the Late Notebooks<\/em> that refer to Coleridge, seven in The \u201cThird Book\u201d Notebooks<\/em>, fourteen in the Notebooks on Romance<\/em>, ten in Frye\u2019s late essays (1978\u20131991), and so on.\u00a0 Except for a glance at CW 21 and the quoting of eight words from CW 27 Arac seems unaware that the Collected Works exists.\u00a0 Frye\u2019s Collected Works, say the editors, \u201cnow makes possible a serious reconsideration of the nature of his criticism and what it might have to say to the future\u201d (6).\u00a0 Arac could have made a more compelling case by considering things Frye wrote after 1971.\u00a0 Think how much richer his comparison of Frye and Benjamin would have been had he read, say, chapter 3 of The Double Vision<\/em>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

* * *<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Yves Saint\u2011Cyr\u2019s \u201cNorthrop Frye\u2019s Musical Dimensions\u201d explores Frye\u2019s musical tastes, his attitudes toward the languages of literature and music, the role music played in his life, and the ways music fits into his various schema (mythos<\/em> and dianoia<\/em>, melos <\/em>and opsis<\/em>, and so on).\u00a0\u00a0 Saint\u2011\u00adCyr takes a stab at explaining one of the real puzzlers in Frye\u2013\u2013how the circle of fifths relates to the cycle of stories in his theory of myths.\u00a0 \u00a0It is clear from his notebooks for the Anatomy<\/em> that Frye sees an analogy between the circle of fifths and the twenty-four parts, not of the mythoi<\/em>, but of the first three divisions of his ogdoad: Liberal, Tragicomedy, and Anticlimax.\u00a0 But what is the musical analogy in the parallel between the twenty\u2011four elements in the circle of fifths and the twenty\u2011four phases of the mythoi<\/em>?\u00a0 Frye didn\u2019t diagram this but he provided the basis for constructing such a diagram in Notebook 18 (CW 23: 273\u20134, 276, 278).\u00a0 A diagram reconstructed from these passages is in CW 23: 398.\u00a0 What Frye seems to be suggesting is that the analogy depends on whether there is a \u201charmony\u201d or a \u201cdiscord\u201d between the phases.\u00a0 He says that the first three phases of a mythos<\/em> are related to (in harmony with) the first three of an adjacent mythos<\/em> (e.g., comedy and irony).\u00a0\u00a0 But this relation does not obtain between the phases of opposite or discordant mythoi<\/em> (e.g., irony and romance).\u00a0 What we end up with is an analogy between the overlapping keys in the circle of fifths and the overlapping phases in the circle of mythoi<\/em>.\u00a0 And just as there are twenty\u2011four keys, so there are twenty\u2011four phases.\u00a0 My musical knowledge is limited, but this seems to be the conclusion that Saint\u2011Cyr also comes to: \u201cIt is the interlocking and overlapping nature of musical keys that Frye found most compelling as a source of analogy when discussing what he considered to be similar structures in the history of Western literature\u201d (127).<\/p>\n

Although Saint\u2011Cyr confuses the modes of the First Essay of Anatomy of Criticism <\/em>with the mythoi<\/em> of the Third Essay, on the whole he explains things to us that have been largely unexplored.\u00a0 He does draw on the two most substantial essays on Frye and music, Deanne Bogdan\u2019s and James Shell\u2019s.\u00a0 The latter, which appeared in the University of Toronto Quarterly<\/em> and is a study of Frye\u2019s musical tastes and interests and the influence of music on his critical ideas, was written as an undergraduate essay\u2013\u2013no doubt one of the few undergraduate essays published in the UTQ.<\/em>\u00a0 Saint\u2011Cyr repeats a number of things Shell has dug out of Frye\u2019s correspondence, diaries, and notebooks, some unpublished at the time.<\/p>\n

Saint\u2011Cyr ranges extensively over the Frye corpus, calling our attention to passages in at least a third of the Collected Works volumes.\u00a0 Speaking of student essays, one wonders why he neglected to consider the twelve\u2011page treatment of Romantic music in Northrop Frye\u2019s Student Essays, 1932\u20131938<\/em> (CW 3: 53\u201366), or in the same volume \u201cThe Relation of Religion to the Art Forms of Music and Drama\u201d (313\u201342).\u00a0 Other omissions are \u201cThe World as Music and Idea in Wagner\u2019s Parsifal<\/em>\u201d (CW 17: 326\u201340) and three essays from the late 1930s and early 1940s: \u201cFrederick Delius,\u201d \u201cMusic and the Savage Breast,\u201d and \u201cMusic in the Movies\u201d (CW 11: 83\u20136, 88\u201391, 108\u201311).\u00a0 In addition, the Diaries<\/em> are a rich source of Frye\u2019s attitudes towards music.\u00a0 They provide, for example, a gloss on music as \u201cphiloprogenitive,\u201d thus answering the question Saint\u2011Cyr asks, which of the two meanings of the word did Frye have in mind?\u00a0 Then there\u2019s Frye\u2019s experience at the Bach Festival presented by the Toronto Symphony Orchestra and the Mendelssohn Choir.\u00a0 In short, there is a great deal more in the Collected Works about music that bears examination.\u00a0 Here are two paragraphs from the 1942 diary that illustrate how rich and suggestive Frye\u2019s entries on music can be:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Beginning to work my first piano programme, to consist of a Byrd group, some Debussy Pr\u00e9ludes, some Bach (probably the 3-part Inventions, though I\u2019d love to open W.T.C. [Well-Tempered Clavier<\/em>] 2 again, perhaps a Mozart sonata, and some romantic, doubtless the Brahms Ballades op. 10.\u00a0 Debussy is really not so hard to play, at any rate not in the Preludes\u2014he\u2019s for the most part a thoroughly practical pianist, and though when played he sounds like an ectoplasmic evocation, when worked at he feels like impromptu.\u00a0 I\u2019m doing a group from the 2nd<\/sup><\/span> bk. now, Bruy\u00e8res<\/em> and Les Terrasses<\/em>, going on to Ondine<\/em> later.\u00a0 Langford says (I must<\/em> remember to get him a wedding present) that even Feux d\u2019Artifice<\/em> isn\u2019t bad, but as long as I\u2019m in an apartment I shall postpone it.\u00a0 The discovery of the impromptu effect is rather disenchanting, except in Des Pas sur la Neige<\/em>, a powerfully disturbing and sinister piece of music.\u00a0 That\u2019s one of the few the programmes of which I think I understand: steps on snow is a pattern of white on white, recalling Melville\u2019s great chapter on the symbolism of white as a \u201ccolorless all-color of atheism,\u201d symbol of the materia prima or substratum which is all colors & yet no color.\u00a0 Also the white fog into which Pym disappears in Poe\u2019s story\u2014an underlying symbol in Henry James\u2019 Golden Bowl<\/em>, incidentally\u2014is connected with a curious black-and-white pattern there.\u00a0 I dare say Ben Nicholson\u2019s white-on-white abstract belongs too.\u00a0 As steps on snow make no noise, Debussy\u2019s irony rather bites its arse, but I don\u2019t mind that.\u00a0 It\u2019s the Rameau tradition, if it\u2019s true that Rameau predicted the eventual exhaustion of melodic combinations\u2014one of the phrases of John Stuart Mill\u2019s accidie, by the way\u2014in his treatise on harmony.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

The French have consistently ignored the great forms, the sonata and the fugue, and have stuck to dainty descriptive pieces not to be taken too seriously.\u00a0 It seems to be an outlet for their crotch-bound paralytically caesured poetry.\u00a0 The pictorial tendency, often with a dance basis, is so persistent it should be worked out in some detail.\u00a0 The nihilist one too, referred to above & also in Ravel\u2019s Bolero.\u00a0 Of course the Bolero isn\u2019t limited to that: its blow-up-and-bust orgasm rhythm is in The Turn of the Screw<\/em>, but it\u2019s of perhaps wider application, to the crescendo-repeat-and-pounce technique of modern propaganda of all kinds, including advertising, and of the boom-and-crash periods of cyclic capitalism.\u00a0 The French are not a rhythmically-moving race\u2014a Celtic-Latin alloy.\u00a0 Michelet says they hesitated between Rabelais & Ronsard & then chose Ronsard, but hesitation is impossible on such a point.\u00a0 Vulgar French is of course mere constipation disguised as Classical reticence & understatement: that\u2019s the exportable kind.\u00a0 The highlights of a musical history would probably be Couperin-Rameau fanciful titles, with some of Landowska\u2019s notes (lunatic but interesting).\u00a0 The attack on opera centring on the Gluck & the Tannhauser [Tannh\u00e4user<\/em>] fights: the impossibility of producing music while pretending to be a Roman (Revolution: Cherubini & Napoleon were both Italians): the 19th<\/sup><\/span> c. partition into a Proven\u00e7al, a Belgian and a Pole (Franck is purely Teutonic and Chopin\u2019s music is entirely pictorial.\u00a0 His non-committal titles are a pose: one doesn\u2019t expect any other music to follow his Preludes.\u00a0 There\u2019s a closer link between Chopin & Debussy than one would at first think): the op\u00e9ra bouffe<\/em> parodies of the Faust<\/em> type: revival of the Rameau tradition with Debussy & Ravel: Saint-Saen\u2019s [Saint-Sa\u00ebns\u2019s] last-war journal.\u00a0 Do the French hate music?\u00a0 Why is it there\u2019s no lust of the flesh & pride of the eyes in it? no Renoir or Boucher or Hugo even?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

As for the secondary literature on Frye and music, there is, in addition to the studies by Shell and Bogdan, Kurt Spang\u2019s survey of Frye\u2019s ideas on the relation of literature to painting and music: \u201cMelos y<\/em> opsis <\/em>en la cr\u00edtica de Northrop Frye,\u201d Revista de Filolog\u00eda Hisp\u00e1nica<\/em> 25, no. 1 (2009): 82\u20137.\u00a0 Saint\u2011Cyr shows us how music influenced Frye\u2019s ideas about literature.\u00a0 The flip side of this is the ways in which Frye\u2019s ideas have been used by music critics and musicologists.\u00a0 An example is Byron Alm\u00e9n\u2019s \u201cNarrative Archetypes: A Critique, Theory, and Method of Narrative Analysis,\u201d Journal of Music Theory <\/em>47, no. 1 (2003): 1\u201339, which presents a model of the narrative analysis of music based on Frye\u2019s concept of the narrative archetype.\u00a0 The editors mention Alm\u00e9n in their introduction as one who has adapted Frye\u2019s approach to the analysis of musical narrative.\u00a0 Other such studies can be found in the entry on Frye and Music in chapter 14 of The Northrop Frye Handbook<\/em> and on this weblog (http:\/\/fryeblog.blog.lib.mcmaster.ca\/2009\/09\/14\/frye-and-music\/<\/a>)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

* * *<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Michael Dolzani\u2019s excellent essay, \u201cBlazing with Artifice: Light from the Northrop Frye Notebooks,\u201d is directed toward those who accuse Frye of being anti\u2011historical, seeing him only as a formalist or structuralist.\u00a0 Dolzani, rather, understands Frye\u2019s work as a dialectic, the opposing categories of which are structure vs. history, synchronic vs. diachronic, product, vs. process, and he turns to Frye\u2019s notebooks to reflect on the two poles that are a part of Frye\u2019s vision, the structural and the historical. \u00a0But soon the second category begins to expand into something else: \u201cthe vision of progressive history known as biblical typology.\u201d\u00a0 Shortly after that the opposites then morph into a \u201cdialectic between the structural and the dynamically recreative.\u201d\u00a0 By the time we come to the end of Dolzani\u2019s essay he has heightened the rhetorical tone, just as Frye often does at the end of his essays and books and chapters within books, so that he begins to speak of myths to live by and total identity.<\/p>\n

This makes one wonder if the two poles of the dialectic with which Dolzani began\u2013\u2013structure vs. history\u2013\u2013are really the central dialectic after all.\u00a0 My own sense is that the dialectic is really structure, on the one hand, and Word and Spirit, on the other.\u00a0 It\u2019s not so much history that is opposed to structure as it is spiritual awareness.\u00a0 As I say, my friend and coeditor Michael Dolzani tends to lean in this direction toward the end of his piece with the emphasis on recreation and the talk of Joachim\u2019s age of the Spirit.\u00a0\u00a0 He seems almost to have convinced himself that in the final analysis history is really not what Frye opposes to structure after all.\u00a0 The anatomizing and categorizing of Frye\u2019s early work, culminating in all the taxonomies of the Anatomy<\/em>, represent the structure of literary conventions.\u00a0 But the 725 pages of Late Notebooks<\/em>, composed over an eight\u2011year period beginning in 1982, are devoted not to historical or social thematics to any significant degree; they are devoted to spiritual matters.<\/p>\n

Dolzani, it should be said, remains Frye\u2019s most cogent and penetrating reader.\u00a0 If he would only issue a collection of his essays on Frye, we would then have an authoritative guide.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

* * *<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ian Balfour has written a thoughtful and elegant piece on paradox, the literary or rhetorical device that is omnipresent in Frye.\u00a0 Kierkegaard says \u201cone should not think slightingly of the paradoxical; for the paradox is the source of the thinker\u2019s passion, and the thinker without a paradox is like a love without a feeling: a paltry mediocrity . . . . The supreme paradox of all thought is the attempt to discover something that thought cannot think\u201d (Philosophical Fragments<\/em>, trans. Swenson and Hong. Princeton UP, 1962, 46).\u00a0 Frye was attracted to Kierkegaard for a number of reasons, one of which was because he was a liar \u201cin Wilde\u2019s sense of the word\u201d and one of those \u201cpeople who got smashed up in various ways, but rescued fragments from the smash of an intensity that the steady-state people seldom get to hear about.\u201d\u00a0 Kierkegaard\u2019s \u201cvision is penetrating because it is partial and distorted: it is truthful because it is falsified. \u00a0To the Old Testament\u2019s question, \u2018Where shall wisdom be found?\u2019 there is often only the New Testament\u2019s answer: \u2018Well, not among the wise, at any rate\u2019\u201d (CW 4:39\u201340).\u00a0 Frye was fond of quoting the Tertullian paradox: \u201cIt is believable because it is absurd; it is certain because it is impossible.\u201d \u00a0He mentions this paradox a half\u2011dozen times in his notebooks for The Great Code<\/em> and Words with Power<\/em>.\u00a0 The words \u201cparadox\u201d and \u201cparadoxical\u201d appear some two dozen times in Anatomy of Criticism <\/em>and twice that number in the notebooks for the Anatomy.<\/em>\u00a0 In Essay Four of that book Frye labels one of the forms of the lyric the poem of paradox. \u00a0As Balfour points out in his conclusion, the sixth unit of the ogdoad, which was the blueprint for Frye\u2019s writing projects, was called Paradox.\u00a0 Paradox, to be sure, is always on Frye\u2019s mind.<\/p>\n

Balfour begins with an anecdote about the paradox of the new in the old\u2013\u2013his overhearing Frye tell another student that the New Criticism is called \u201cnew\u201d because it has been here only since the time of Plato.\u00a0 (Balfour believes that the anecdote has not surfaced in Frye\u2019s published work, but actually the epigram can be found in \u201cResearch and Graduate Education in the Humanities\u201d [CW 7: 340]).\u00a0 There are literally hundreds of places in Frye\u2019s writing where he calls attention to the paradoxical nature of his subject matter.\u00a0 Thus, on epiphany and the Incarnation: \u201cThis doctrine of epiphany is important to me because the visibility or appearance of God, who is practically by definition invisible, seems to me a more momentous paradox than the alternative form of stating the same paradox: God becomes man in the Incarnation\u201d (CW 13: 322).\u00a0 Or, on interpenetration in the spiritual world: \u201cMan lives in two real worlds, one spiritual, the other natural, physical, or psychic.\u00a0 In the spiritual world God exists in us and we in him: a paradox that only metaphorical language can begin to express\u201d (CW 5: 415).\u00a0 Or, on the part\u2011whole paradox: \u201cAlso, of course, that Moebius strip, where the part-and-whole relationship reverses itself, comes to complete fulfilment in the Gospel.\u00a0 I am in Christ, a part of a whole; Christ is in me, a part of a whole. . . .\u00a0 How one verbalizes a paradox like that I don\u2019t know\u201d (CW 6: 528).\u00a0 Frye reflects on scores of such paradoxes in his books and notebooks, and collecting them all would probably be a project worth undertaking.\u00a0 But Balfour is not so much interested in paradoxes as a thematic concern in Frye as he is in the paradoxical provocations of Frye\u2019s own rhetoric.<\/p>\n

Balfour gives two examples of hyperbolic rhetoric leading to paradox, the first from A Natural Perspective<\/em>: \u201cShakespeare had no opinions, no values, no philosophy, no principles of anything except dramatic structure.\u201d\u00a0 The second is from the Anatomy<\/em>: \u201cPoetry can only be made out of other poetry, novels out of other novels.\u201d \u00a0Such extravagant, exaggerated, and provocative claims are, for Balfour, a teaching device: paradox \u201cis a privileged, prosaic figure of pedagogy in many of its forms\u201d (54).\u00a0 In some of these forms the focus is on the difference between the figurative and the literal.\u00a0 This naturally leads Balfour to the topic of metaphor, a figure that identifies two things that are different.\u00a0 Here we have arrived at the crux of the issue: metaphor is a subspecies of paradox, and paradox is a central feature of metaphor.\u00a0 Balfour believes that \u201cif we keep returning to Frye in the future it will be due partly to the paradoxical character of the work\u201d (58).\u00a0 I suspect this is true, and the paradoxical nature of his work will include a study of his view of metaphor.\u00a0 Most views of metaphor, from Aristotle to Max Black turn out to be based on analogy: there is something comparable between the X and the Y. \u00a0Frye\u2019s view, as he keeps insisting, is based on identity, and on the paradoxical claim that the literal meaning is really the metaphorical meaning.\u00a0 No one has done a comprehensive study of Frye\u2019s view of metaphor.\u00a0 If Frye studies has a future, such a study might be undertaken by some enterprising student in an effort to reverse what Frye called the Sartor Resartus paradox: whatever conceals also reveals.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

* * *<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Merlin Donald\u2019s \u201cNorthrop Frye and Theories of Human Nature\u201d is a report on how his own work on cognition was inspired by Frye\u2019s system\u2011building.\u00a0 Donald uses the word \u201cmimesis\u201d to represent the debt he owes to Frye because \u201cmimesis captures the vague, analogue logic that lies behind most of human thought, and drives such things as allegory and metaphor.\u201d\u00a0 It \u201cwas a useful bridging concept, because it is closer to the logic of prelinguistic thought\u201d (35).\u00a0 \u201cMimesis\u201d is a somewhat curious word to describe a connection with Frye.\u00a0 True, the mimetic tradition dominated literary criticism from the Greeks to the nineteenth century, when \u201cimagination\u201d took over, and Frye was firmly in the camp of critics that M.H. Abrams calls \u201cexpressive.\u201d\u00a0 For Frye, the social context of a literary form may tend toward realism and accurate description at one pole or toward myth, with no concern for plausibility, at the other. \u00a0The world of myth lies at the center of his predilections, and this is the world of implicit metaphorical identity: to speak of a sun-god in mythology is to say that a divine being in human shape is identified with an aspect of physical nature.\u00a0 On the other hand, the world of realism, which lies at the periphery of Frye\u2019s own interests, is the world of implicit simile.\u00a0 To say that something is \u201clifelike\u201d is to comment on its \u201crealism,\u201d a term Frye once referred to as that \u201clittle masterpiece of question-begging\u201d (CW 14: 407).\u00a0 Donald doesn\u2019t make a very convincing case for associating \u201cmimesis\u201d and Frye.\u00a0 \u201cMyth\u201d would have been a better word.<\/p>\n

In Donald\u2019s essay we are stuck in the world of Anatomy of Criticism<\/em>. <\/em>\u00a0A cognitive neuroscientist should not be expected to keep abreast of everything in the expanded Frye canon, but the centrality of the Nous\u2013Nomos<\/em> dialectic, which figures importantly in the notebooks for The Great Code<\/em>, might well have some appeal for a scholar interested in mind.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

* * *<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Travis DeCook\u2019s richly suggestive article on Frye and the book looks at Frye\u2019s attitudes toward the book as a material artefact and how the metaphors for this function in his criticism.\u00a0 Given Frye\u2019s general antimaterialist sensibility, such a study would not at first glance seem to be too promising.\u00a0 Like Aristotle, Frye thought the material cause to be the least important of all the causes, ranking way below the formal and final and even the efficient.\u00a0 Complicating things, Frye does write epigrammatically that poets \u201csay that the material world neither is nor isn\u2019t, but disappears\u201d (CW 23: 293).<\/p>\n

DeCook shows convincingly that Frye\u2019s references to the book are replete with materialist assumptions and conclusions.\u00a0 Here is DeCook\u2019s summary of the first half of his essay: \u201cFrye, then, engaged with the books as a material artefact in disparate ways, affirming limitations to materialist textual scholarship when engaging the Bible as \u2018great code of art,\u2019 expressing skepticism about the shaping power of media on content, and exploring the dependence of community on the endurance of written records\u201d (42).\u00a0 DeCook looks especially at Frye\u2019s essay \u201cThe Renaissance of Books,\u201d which suggests that Frye\u2019s remarks on the materiality of the book anticipates D.F. McKenzie\u2019s essay on the book as expressive form.\u00a0 There can be little doubt that Frye did assume the book could be a physical monument.\u00a0 I wonder if the implications of this might surface in Frye\u2019s extraordinary collection of twenty\u2011one of the Trianon Press editions of Blake\u2019s work, some of which sell for thousands of dollars.\u00a0 Are these examples of the book as monument\u2013\u2013editions that Frye no doubt wouldn\u2019t dream of annotating with his marginalia?\u00a0 At the other extreme of the book as material object is the recent report of an interview with Frye in which he was reported to have said: \u201cIf I don\u2019t rip them up and toss them into the trash, the cleaners fish them out and put them back on my desk. . . .\u00a0 I\u2019m constantly pulling out books and having symbolic bonfires.\u00a0 It amazes me sometimes that I have so little regard for them\u201d (http:\/\/www.magazine.utoronto.ca\/spring-2012\/northrop-frye-personal-library-disposing-books-michael-todd\/<\/a>). \u00a0\u00a0Nevertheless, we do know that Frye paid attention to the physical appearance of books.\u00a0 In 1958 he wrote to John Gray, president of the Macmillan Company of Canada, about The Collected Poems of E.J. Pratt<\/em> that he was editing: \u201cI hope you will get somebody to design the new collected poems so it will look like what it is, one of the essential books of Canadian literature and a definitive collection of Canada\u2019s biggest poet, and not like a rebound copy of the Ford Salesman\u2019s Handbook\u201d (Selected Letters<\/em>, 1934\u20131991<\/em>, ed. Robert D. Denham [Jefferson, NC, and London: McFarland, 2009], 54).\u00a0 Frye was not pleased with the result, and his reply to Macmillan is worth quoting in full:<\/p>\n

What on earth is your layout man thinking of?\u00a0 This is no way to set PROSE: prose is supposed to go into sentences that can be taken in by the eye in two or three lines.\u00a0 If one is writing for a poverty stricken magazine like The Canadian Forum<\/em>, one expects to have one\u2019s stuff distorted by being squeezed into narrow columns (though the columns in the Forum<\/em> are slightly wider than this) but even the most grinding poverty cannot excuse a bungle of this kind.\u00a0 All the internal organs of a prose sentence get pushed out of alignment in a corset of this kind.\u00a0 To take a sentence at random: I wrote: \u201cIn Methodism at that time the battle of \u2018higher criticism\u2019 had been won, Biblical archaeology (see \u2018The Epigrapher\u2019) was opening up, there was general enthusiasm for such new world pictures as \u2018evolution,\u2019 Angst<\/em> and Existenz<\/em> were unheard of, and there was no difficulty\u2013\u2013certainly the poet has never found any\u2013\u2013in being Christian and liberal at the same time.\u201d\u00a0 Now that, I concede, is a longish sentence, but in anything like proper typography it\u2019s quite easy to follow.\u00a0 Here the eye has to trip and stumble over nine lines, including two hyphenated words, lose its way in the syntax, and get confused by the allusions.\u00a0 Quotations too get distorted:<\/p>\n

But what made our feet miss the road that<\/p>\n

brought<\/p>\n

The world to such a golden trove . . .<\/p>\n

What is the point of such a broken up setting?\u00a0 I\u2019d much rather not see my introduction appear at all than have it appear in so preposterously unreadable a form,<\/p>\n

where it looks like a po\u2011<\/p>\n

em of Mr. Arthur Bourinot<\/p>\n

\u2019s.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 (ibid., 55)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

Finally, DeCook provides a perceptive and ingenious reading of the concluding sentences of The Great Code<\/em>. \u00a0This is at the end of a section in which he explores what for Frye is the metaphorical power of the book.\u00a0 Frye ends his book by saying, \u201cThe normal human reaction to a great cultural achievement like the Bible is to do with it what the Philistines did to Samson: reduce it to impotence, then lock it in a mill to grind our aggressions and prejudices. \u00a0But perhaps its hair, like Samson\u2019s, could grow again even there\u201d (CW 19: 254). \u00a0This is the passage that so vexed P\u00e9ter P\u00e1sztor in his effort to translate it into Hungarian.\u00a0 He was troubled by the mixed metaphor, concluding that \u201cin Hungarian expository prose a book growing hair is simply inconceivable\u201d (\u201cReading Frye in Hungary: The Frustrations and Hopes of a Frye Translator.\u201d Rereading Frye: The Published and Unpublished Works<\/em>, ed. David V. Boyd and Imre Salusinszky [Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1999], 124).\u00a0 Frye\u2019s commentary emerges from an Old English riddle: \u201cAn enemy deprived me of life, took away my strength, then soaked me in water, then took me out again and put me in the sun, where I soon lost all my hair.\u201d\u00a0 Here is a part of DeCook\u2019s gloss:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In Frye\u2019s analysis of this portion of the riddle, his attitude toward the Bible\u2019s materiality reaches an extreme point of tension.\u00a0 While the shearing of Samson is part of his enslavement, since it took away his strength and allowed the Philistines to enslave him, the shearing of the animal skin enables the material substrate to be inscribed with the words of the Bible.\u00a0 This makes the resonant final sentences of The Great Code<\/em> self\u2011undermining from a reductively materialist perspective . . . . The power of the sentences is indisputable: like Samson, the Bible is victimized, yet somehow it triumphs.\u00a0 However, whereas the return of Samson\u2019s hair allowed for his defeat of the Philistines and destruction of their idolatrous temple, it is precisely the absence of hair on the animal\u2019s skin that allows for the inscription of the Word of God in the production of a Bible codex. (46)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

The editors say that they hope the special issue of the UTQ<\/em> will project forward, looking to the future of Frye\u2019s ideas in the twenty\u2011first century.\u00a0 DeCook\u2019s essay certainly accomplishes that, standing as an example of what might seem at first a minor or even trivial issue, but what emerges from his close readings is substantive.\u00a0 One should never be surprised with the linkages that Frye\u2019s readers find, such as nursing and legal theory.\u00a0 Frye was a polymath, and like other instances of the homo universalis<\/em>, his ideas, especially those that form his literary theory, will no doubt continue to spill over into other areas of study, affecting in fundamental ways both our understanding of Frye and the fields he has been linked with.\u00a0 His ideas have been investigated and often applied by philosophers, historians, geographers, anthropologists, and political scientists, and by writers in the fields of advertising, education, biblical studies, marketing, communication studies, medicine, political economy, law, organization science, social psychology, consumer research, and now book history.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

* * *<\/p>\n

A number of poems over the years have been about Frye or had references to him.\u00a0 In The Frye Handbook <\/em>I have noted twenty\u2011one of these.\u00a0 The nine poets who contributed to the UTQ<\/em> issue extend that number, though some have no obvious connection to Frye at all.\u00a0 \u201cWe asked,\u201d say the editors, \u201cnot for poems about Frye or related to his criticism, but simply for the best they had to offer\u201d (12).\u00a0 The third section of Gordon Teskey\u2019s \u201cAfterword\u201d pays tribute to all nine poets.\u00a0 Interestingly, the issue of ellipse<\/em> mentioned above has a similar portfolio of poems.\u00a0 As for connections with Frye, Nick Mount tries to tease those out of Margaret Atwood in his interview with her, but she denies a direct influence.\u00a0 What she does see in Frye is a great synthesizer who was able to discover literary patterns and who, when he lectured, spoke not in the ordinary associative babble of most teachers but in prose paragraphs.\u00a0 Frye was a great admirer of Atwood\u2019s work, but he thought that her Survival<\/em>, which she dedicated to him and which she and Mount discuss, had \u201ca rather over-simplified and somewhat derivative thesis\u201d (Selected Letters<\/em>, 1934\u20131991<\/em>, 151).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

* * *<\/p>\n

The essay by Jean Wilson on Frye\u2019s view of liberal education is a competent treatment of the subject.\u00a0 Her notion of Frye\u2019s social vision as being a matter of \u201cthe practical intelligence\u201d is central to her argument of how Frye is relevant to teaching the liberal arts in the twenty\u2011first century.\u00a0 She rubs Frye\u2019s views up against Martha Nussbaum\u2019s and C.P. Snow\u2019s, and she shows how in her teaching of One Hundred Years of Solitude<\/em>, the novel with its \u201challucinating sessions\u201d becomes an allegory of an ideal liberal arts education.\u00a0 One of the things Frye said in \u201cA Liberal Education,\u201d \u201cBy Liberal Things,\u201d and \u201cElementary Teaching and Elemental Scholarship\u201d was that the purpose of a liberal education was to maladjust the student to ordinary society.\u00a0 It might be worth restating that and teasing out its implications.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

* * *<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Jonathan A. Allan has written a history of the Northrop Frye Visiting Professorship at the University of Toronto, from the first appointee, Fredric Jameson in 1977 to the anticipated visit of Judith Butler in 2013.\u00a0 In between, a goodly portion of those who have served form a veritable Who\u2019s Who of contemporary critical discussion.\u00a0 There is no necessary connection between the visiting professors and Frye, though three of the first five have written on Frye: Jameson, Ricoeur, and Weimann.\u00a0 What links the disparate group together (I count thirty\u2011two who have held the position) is their interest in theory.\u00a0 (I was hopeful of getting through the essay without encountering the word \u201ctheorize,\u201d but alas it cropped up in the penultimate paragraph.)\u00a0 The editors see the diverse interests in the long parade of Frye Professors as \u201ca tribute to Frye\u2019s own literary openness\u201d (13).\u00a0 How Judith Butler will bring any distinction to the professorship isn\u2019t clear.<\/p>\n

Frye maintained for a number of years that criticism should be a system of interpenetrating rather than conflicting modes.\u00a0 But as poststructural critics came to take center stage in the 1970s and 1980s, Frye grew less sanguine about realizing his critical ideal.\u00a0 In his last major works, Words with Power <\/em>and Myth and Metaphor<\/em>, he began to take an oppositional stance toward poststructuralism, especially to cultural criticism and deconstruction.\u00a0 But as one might expect from a critic who very seldom argued in a public way against critical views different from his own, his critique of these two postmodern approaches is relatively muted.\u00a0 This is not the case, however, in Frye\u2019s unpublished notebooks, where his critique of, say, Derrida, is explicit and direct.\u00a0 The degree of Frye\u2019s opposition to cultural criticism (or what he calls ideology) and deconstruction is almost always sublimated or displaced in what he chose to publish; in the notebooks, it is not.\u00a0 The scores of entries that Frye makes in his late notebooks about poststructural critical positions reveal the anxiety he has about his own position in the critical world, as well as his concession that the model of interpenetrating critical visions is more or less doomed.\u00a0 And they reveal directly what is at times almost concealed in his late, previously unpublished work.\u00a0 Here\u2019s one example from a set of typed notes for The Myth of Deliverance<\/em>, written about 1980: \u201cMy function as a critic right now is to reverse the whole \u2018deconstruction\u2019 procedure, which leads eventually to the total extinction of both literature and criticism: people are naturally attracted first, and most, by the suicidal and destructive.\u00a0 One should turn around to a reconstruction, which is a matter of seeing a narrative in its undisplaced form as a single complex metaphor\u201d (CW 20: 302).\u00a0 In the notebooks such comments are legion.\u00a0 For a sampler see a post on the Frye weblog: http:\/\/fryeblog.blog.lib.mcmaster.ca\/2010\/07\/13\/frye-and-poststructuralism\/<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

* * *<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Adam Carter\u2019s essay on Frye\u2019s theory of Canadian literature proposes that the idea of freedom from nature is what serves as a kind of middle term to unite Frye\u2019s international view of culture with a local view.\u00a0 Carter traces this oscillation between the \u201ccosmopolitan\u201d and the \u201cnational\u201d throughout Frye\u2019s Canadian criticism, which he sees as a \u201cstructural movement\u201d rather than a \u201chistorically evolving view.\u201d\u00a0 The idea that these can be united by an idea of culture drawn chiefly from Pheng Cheah is a fairly big leap, and Carter never makes clear why we should accept the idea of culture as that which is free from nature.\u00a0 Relying on Cheah is a mixed blessing at best.\u00a0 Carter locates the meaning of Frye\u2019s moving back and forth between the international and the national in Cheah\u2019s notion of the \u201caporias of given culture.\u201d\u00a0 If we don\u2019t quite understand what this means, Carter gives us Cheah\u2019s gloss:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The aporia is as follows: culture is supposed to be the realm of human freedom from the given.\u00a0 However, because human beings are finite human creatures, the becoming\u2011objective of culture as the realm of human purposiveness and freedom depends on forces that are radically other and beyond human control.\u00a0 Culture is given out of these forces.\u00a0 Thus, at the same time that culture embodies human freedom from the given, it is also merely given because its power over nature is premised on this gift of the radically other.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

I\u2019m not sure this kind of prose does much to advance Carter\u2019s cause.\u00a0 There is apparently an argument of some kind going on here, marked by \u201cbecause\u201d and \u201cthus,\u201d but it\u2019s hardly worth the time to try to figure it out.\u00a0 I can think of lots of examples of culture that are not free from nature, and the reader would no doubt be helped if Carter were to explain why the freedom\u2011from\u2011nature idea should compel our assent.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m reminded of Frye\u2019s response to a sentence from Julia Kristeva\u2019s Desire in Language<\/em>.\u00a0 The sentence was this:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[T]he modality of novelistic enunciation is inferential<\/em>; it is a process in which the subject of the novelistic utterance affirms a sequence, as conclusion to the inference<\/em>, based on other sequences (referential\u2013\u2013hence narrative, or textual\u2013\u2013hence citational), which are the premises of the inference<\/em> and, as such, considered to be true.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

Frye\u2019s responds by saying,<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I can no more understand [the sentence] than I could eat a lobster with its shell on. \u00a0I wouldn\u2019t discourage anyone from masticating and ruminating such sentences, but I\u2019d like to think (or perhaps only my ego would) that my greater simplicity came from a deeper level than the labyrinth of the brain. (CW 5: 61\u20132)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

When we run upon the following sentence by Carter with all of its Latinate abstractions pressing<\/em> for this and that and with all of its blurry jargon, do we not agree that the simplicity of prose style is a virtue?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Frye\u2019s controversial theorizing of the radical alterity of an \u2018indifferent,\u2019 terrifying, and potentially destructive geography and natural environment in Canada (CW 12: 34; see also 103, 133, 140, 350) presses upon his thought an even more profound realization of the limitations of a traditional concept of culture as the achievement of a freedom beyond nature, even as it starkly presses home the desire for such a realm.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

The wooliness of this prose suggests there is a great deal to be learned from an elegant and simple style, like Frye\u2019s.<\/p>\n

The best treatment of Frye\u2019s nuanced views of nature is Michael Dolzani\u2019s \u201cThe View from the Northern Farm: Northrop Frye and Nature.\u201d\u00a0 In the nature vs. culture debate, while Frye sometimes takes a negative view of the natural world, especially in his early work, in Words with Power <\/em>there are different visions of nature on each of the four levels of the axis mundi<\/em>.\u00a0 For Dolzani\u2019s essay see http:\/\/fryeblog.blog.lib.mcmaster.ca\/2010\/07\/13\/frye-and-poststructuralism\/<\/a>.\u00a0 We might profit too from the chapter on nature in The Double Vision<\/em>, where it\u2019s not freedom from nature that Frye commends but the redemption of nature.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

* * *<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Gordon Teskey\u2019s \u201cAfterword\u201d wonders if Frye will endure as great critic.\u00a0 Will people still be reading him in 2019?\u00a0 Often our predictions about critical reputations are just as wrongheaded as they are about literary ones.\u00a0 Frye himself called Henry Reynolds \u201cthe greatest critic before Johnson\u201d (CW 5:236).\u00a0\u00a0 Reynolds wrote one brief critical work (Mythomystes<\/em>) and published a translation of Tasso, an output that hardly seems sufficient to advance his status beyond that of Bacon and Jonson, Hume and Burke, Campion and Sidney, Milton and Dennis, Pope and Dryden, Daniel and Young.\u00a0 Frye seems to be wrong on that one.\u00a0 In any event, here we have Teskey providing the criteria by which we might take a guess about Frye\u2019s staying power.\u00a0 The great critic must be catholic and impartial, must be one who takes the long view, must focus on a single large question (what is literature for? what does literature say? both questions relating literature to its social and natural environments), and must endure for more than a century.\u00a0 But there\u2019s more.\u00a0 The great critic must be accessible, widely read, entertaining in a civil way; must write popular journalism, address large non\u2011specialist audiences, and \u201cknow how to make literature important for whom literature is not their whole lives\u201d (180).\u00a0 The great critic cares deeply for great writing, \u201cgives us simplicity with power\u201d (181), subordinating his vast learning to the one great question asked.<\/p>\n

We might suffer some difficulty in seeing how all of the great critics meet these criteria.\u00a0 Is Aristotle entertaining?\u00a0 Did Longinus write popular journalism?\u00a0 Did Horace ask only one great question?\u00a0 My guess is that Teskey didn\u2019t arrive at his list of criteria deductively.\u00a0 My guess, rather, is that he looked at Frye\u2019s achievement and used that inductive survey to formulate his list.<\/p>\n

Finally, Teskey proposes that Frye was different from other critics in that he spoke about more than literature and that he was always asking the questions, where are we? and where are we going?\u00a0 That is, Frye was interested in the large centrifugal questions.\u00a0 In the late 1960s these questions emerge from Frye\u2019s speculations about concern, an idea that he took over from the existentialists, and in the late work they produce what he called \u201cmyths to live by.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

* * *<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Editorial Corrections and Questions<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

p. 5, ll. 17\u201318.\u00a0 I think it\u2019s not correct to include Hillis Miller in the group who regularly read Frye and argued about his ideas.\u00a0 In Criticism and Society<\/em> Miller told Imre Salusinszky that \u201cthe grand synthetic stuff in the Anatomy of Criticism<\/em> is something I\u2019ve never been able to read\u201d (235).<\/p>\n

p. 5, 4 ll. from bottom.\u00a0 \u201ceighteen\u201d for \u201csixteen\u201d<\/p>\n

p. 7, l. 11.\u00a0 \u201ctwenty\u2011one books.\u201d\u00a0 This depends on how one counts.\u00a0 If we omit the books published in his lifetime and edited by others, the number is twenty\u2011two, or twenty\u2011three if we include The Double Vision<\/em>, which Frye knew was going to be published in 1991.\u00a0 The total number of books by Frye including those published posthumously and excluding those in the Collected Works is 42.<\/p>\n

p. 7, l. 18.\u00a0 \u201cModes\u201d for \u201cMode\u201d<\/p>\n

p. 7, 13 ll. from bottom.\u00a0 \u201cCW 22\u201d for \u201cCW 12\u201d<\/p>\n

p. 7, ll. 3\u20134 from bottom.\u00a0 Double quotation marks for all the single quotation marks.<\/p>\n

p. 11, last line, and p. 12, first line.\u00a0 The essay by Frye I\u2019ve called \u201cIntoxicated with Words\u201d is by no means \u201cdraft teaching notes.\u201d\u00a0 It happened to be at the end of a notebook which had an outline for a course in sixteenth century literature.\u00a0 But the essay, even though it is perhaps incomplete, is an essay.<\/p>\n

p. 15, l. 9.\u00a0 \u201cbroadly\u201d for \u201cbroad\u201d<\/p>\n

p. 16, l. 8. \u201cJefferson, NC\u201d for \u201cJefferson\u201d<\/p>\n

p. 16, l. 11.\u00a0 \u201c43\u201346\u201d for \u201c46\u201d<\/p>\n

p. 16, last l. \u201cBaltimore, MD\u201d for \u201cBaltimore.\u201d\u00a0 The convention of adding the abbreviations of states after cities is not consistently applied.\u00a0 Thus we have \u201cFrankfort, KY\u201d (p. 28), \u201cMalden, MA\u201d (p. 39), \u201cNew Haven\u201d (p. 110), \u201cCambridge\u201d (p. 172), and so on.\u00a0 The point is to adopt a style manual and stick with it.<\/p>\n

p. 23, 2nd line from bottom.\u00a0 \u201coccurs\u201d for \u201coccur\u201d<\/p>\n

p. 28.\u00a0 In \u201cWorks Cited,\u201d \u201cde Man\u201d for \u201cDeMan\u201d<\/p>\n

p. 28, 14 ll. from bottom: delete \u201c, and Northrop Frye\u201d (though it is pleasing to think that I could have written a book with Frye)<\/p>\n

p. 48, 8 ll. from bottom.\u00a0 Delete comma.<\/p>\n

p. 49, 9 ll. from bottom.\u00a0 Colon for comma.<\/p>\n

p. 70, Works Cited, entries 2 and 3.\u00a0 \u201cAnansi\u201d for \u201cAnansi<\/em>\u201d for both entries.\u00a0 The dates in parentheses are unnecessary.\u00a0 \u201cEleven Years of Alphabet\u201d first appeared in Canadian Literature<\/em> in 1971.\u00a0 \u201cNorthrop Frye Observed\u201d was not previously published but was written in 1981.\u00a0 Readers could not infer this information from the entries, but there\u2019s no reason to provide the information anyway.<\/p>\n

p. 70.\u00a0 Works Cited, entry 4.\u00a0 Confused date.\u00a0 \u201cThe Great Communicator\u201d appeared in the 24 January 1991 issue of the Globe and Mail<\/em>.\u00a0 For periodical publications the editors sometimes use a comma to precede the page numbers (as here and as on pp. 49, 155, et al.) and sometimes they follow more standard practice and use a colon.\u00a0 The practice should have been regularized by the copy\u2011editor.<\/p>\n

p. 111, 10 ll. from bottom, and passim<\/em>.\u00a0 Italicize \u201cThe Educated Imagination\u201d and delete single quotation marks.<\/p>\n

p. 120, 2 ll. from bottom.\u00a0 \u201cAddress on Receiving\u201d for \u201cOn Receiving\u201d<\/p>\n

p. 123, n. 2.\u00a0 \u201cNotebook 5\u201d for \u201cNotebook 5<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

p. 124, l. 12.\u00a0 \u201cCW 24\u201d for \u201cCW 25\u201d<\/p>\n

p. 125, n. 5.\u00a0 For a more complete account of Helen Kemp\u2019s early musical career, see CW 1: 3 and 6 n. 1.<\/p>\n

p. 130, l. 3.\u00a0 \u201c(CW 9: 74)\u201d for \u201c(74)\u201d<\/p>\n

p. 130, l. 6.\u00a0 Add \u201cCW 22\u201d and p. no.<\/p>\n

p. 131, l. 5 from bottom.\u00a0 \u201cCW 21: 128\u201d for \u201cCW: 128\u201d<\/p>\n

p. 132, l. 2.\u00a0 \u201cNotebook 5\u201d for \u201cNotebook 5<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

p. 149, 11 lines from bottom: What\u2019s \u201cMisc. Notes\u201d mean?<\/p>\n

p. 151, last line.\u00a0 In Frye\u2019s discussion of Layton\u2019s work in CW 12: 133 I don\u2019t find any reference to the otherness of a terrifying nature.<\/p>\n

p. 159, l. 3.\u00a0 \u201cWeimann\u201d for \u201cWeiman\u201d or \u201c[sic]\u201d after \u201cWeiman\u201d<\/p>\n

p. 154, 6 ll. from bottom: \u201cBerkeley\u201d for \u201cBerkley\u201d<\/p>\n

p. 155, l. 11.\u00a0 \u201cLiterary<\/em>\u201d for \u201cliterary<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

p. 155, l. 18.\u00a0 \u201cIts<\/em>\u201d for \u201cits<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

p. 163, last line.\u00a0 \u201c(AC, 22; CW 22: 24)\u201d for \u201c(AC, 22)\u201d<\/p>\n

p. 164, ll. 6, 8.\u00a0 Give the CW reference for the two citations here; also for AC, 313 on p. 171, 9 ll. from bottom.<\/p>\n

p. 167.\u00a0 Sometimes \u201cColeridge\u201d precedes the vol. no. and the p. no. for the Biographia<\/em>; sometimes not; should be regularized.\u00a0 In 16 ll. from the bottom, should not \u201cColeridge 1: \u201d precede \u201cxc\u201d?<\/p>\n

p. 172, ll. 4\u20135 from bottom.\u00a0 Close up \u201cEngell\u201d and \u201cand\u201d<\/p>\n

p. 173, 8 ll. from bottom.\u00a0 \u201cView\u201d <\/em>for \u201cview\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

p. 173, penultimate l.\u00a0 \u201cWimsatt, W.K., Jr.\u201d for \u201cWimsatt, W.K.\u201d<\/p>\n

p. 174, mid\u2011page.\u00a0 \u201cD\u00fcrer\u201d for \u201cDurer\u201d<\/p>\n

p. 184, 17 ll. from bottom.\u00a0 What Frye actually wrote was \u201cI am building temples to\u2013\u2013well, \u2018the gods\u2019 will do.\u201d\u00a0 The citation is CW 5: 120.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Review of the University of Toronto Quarterly, vol. 81, no. 1 Robert D. Denham   Recently three journals have each published a special issue in connection with the centenary of Frye\u2019s birth, 14 July 1912:   University of Toronto Quarterly 81, no. 1 (2012): 1\u2013186. \u00a0Special Issue: The Future of Northrop Frye: Centennial Perspectives.\u00a0 Articles […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":24,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[172,136,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29799","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-reviews-of-books-and-journal-issues-on-northrop-frye","category-robert-d-denham-library","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\nReview of the University of Toronto Quarterly's Special Issue on Frye - The Educated Imagination<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Review of the University of Toronto Quarterly's Special Issue on Frye - The Educated Imagination\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Review of the University of Toronto Quarterly, vol. 81, no. 1 Robert D. Denham   Recently three journals have each published a special issue in connection with the centenary of Frye\u2019s birth, 14 July 1912:   University of Toronto Quarterly 81, no. 1 (2012): 1\u2013186. \u00a0Special Issue: The Future of Northrop Frye: Centennial Perspectives.\u00a0 Articles […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The Educated Imagination\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2012-07-10T13:20:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2012\/07\/utq.81.1_front.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"515\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"750\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bob Denham\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bob Denham\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"45 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Bob Denham\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/#\/schema\/person\/f0d6833dfde3f2793ecbbc6aacd83812\"},\"headline\":\"Review of the University of Toronto Quarterly’s Special Issue on Frye\",\"datePublished\":\"2012-07-10T13:20:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/\"},\"wordCount\":9112,\"commentCount\":6,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2012\/07\/utq.81.1_front-206x300.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Reviews of Books and Journal issues on Northrop Frye\",\"Robert D. Denham Library\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/\",\"name\":\"Review of the University of Toronto Quarterly's Special Issue on Frye - The Educated Imagination\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2012\/07\/utq.81.1_front-206x300.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2012-07-10T13:20:02+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/#\/schema\/person\/f0d6833dfde3f2793ecbbc6aacd83812\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2012\/07\/utq.81.1_front.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2012\/07\/utq.81.1_front.jpg\",\"width\":515,\"height\":750},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Review of the University of Toronto Quarterly’s Special Issue on Frye\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/\",\"name\":\"The Educated Imagination\",\"description\":\"A Website Dedicated to Northrop Frye\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/#\/schema\/person\/f0d6833dfde3f2793ecbbc6aacd83812\",\"name\":\"Bob Denham\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2e142dc4b6eec3365c24a599621bb9d757dd5f86d31eb62d98586fead4050d33?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2e142dc4b6eec3365c24a599621bb9d757dd5f86d31eb62d98586fead4050d33?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2e142dc4b6eec3365c24a599621bb9d757dd5f86d31eb62d98586fead4050d33?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Bob Denham\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/author\/denham\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Review of the University of Toronto Quarterly's Special Issue on Frye - The Educated Imagination","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Review of the University of Toronto Quarterly's Special Issue on Frye - The Educated Imagination","og_description":"Review of the University of Toronto Quarterly, vol. 81, no. 1 Robert D. Denham   Recently three journals have each published a special issue in connection with the centenary of Frye\u2019s birth, 14 July 1912:   University of Toronto Quarterly 81, no. 1 (2012): 1\u2013186. \u00a0Special Issue: The Future of Northrop Frye: Centennial Perspectives.\u00a0 Articles […]","og_url":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/","og_site_name":"The Educated Imagination","article_published_time":"2012-07-10T13:20:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":515,"height":750,"url":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2012\/07\/utq.81.1_front.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bob Denham","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bob Denham","Est. reading time":"45 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/"},"author":{"name":"Bob Denham","@id":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/#\/schema\/person\/f0d6833dfde3f2793ecbbc6aacd83812"},"headline":"Review of the University of Toronto Quarterly’s Special Issue on Frye","datePublished":"2012-07-10T13:20:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/"},"wordCount":9112,"commentCount":6,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2012\/07\/utq.81.1_front-206x300.jpg","articleSection":["Reviews of Books and Journal issues on Northrop Frye","Robert D. Denham Library"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/","url":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/","name":"Review of the University of Toronto Quarterly's Special Issue on Frye - The Educated Imagination","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2012\/07\/utq.81.1_front-206x300.jpg","datePublished":"2012-07-10T13:20:02+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/#\/schema\/person\/f0d6833dfde3f2793ecbbc6aacd83812"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2012\/07\/utq.81.1_front.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2012\/07\/utq.81.1_front.jpg","width":515,"height":750},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/2012\/07\/10\/review-of-the-university-of-toronto-quarterlys-special-issue-on-frye\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Review of the University of Toronto Quarterly’s Special Issue on Frye"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/","name":"The Educated Imagination","description":"A Website Dedicated to Northrop Frye","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/#\/schema\/person\/f0d6833dfde3f2793ecbbc6aacd83812","name":"Bob Denham","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2e142dc4b6eec3365c24a599621bb9d757dd5f86d31eb62d98586fead4050d33?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2e142dc4b6eec3365c24a599621bb9d757dd5f86d31eb62d98586fead4050d33?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2e142dc4b6eec3365c24a599621bb9d757dd5f86d31eb62d98586fead4050d33?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Bob Denham"},"url":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/author\/denham\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29799","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/24"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29799"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29799\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29799"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29799"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/fryeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29799"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}