Eng Cn Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Philosophical Thought
Reference:

Archetypal literary criticism and intertextuality

Kuan Syuli

PhD in Cultural Studies

Graduate student, St. Petersburg State University

199034, Russia, Saint Petersburg region, Saint Petersburg, ul. 5th linya V.O., 66

2322650412@qq.com
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.25136/2409-8728.2023.9.43571

EDN:

XVJEQJ

Received:

13-07-2023


Published:

22-09-2023


Abstract: Literary criticism was an important part of Western literary theory in the 20th century and has not lost its importance to this day. Criticism has an active influence on the literary process, as well as directly on the formation of public consciousness. This article discusses two important approaches, the principle of literary criticism. The archetypal literary criticism and the theory of intertextuality. Archetypal literary criticism is a theory that interprets a text by focusing on mythological motifs and archetypes in narrative, symbols, imagery, and character types that recur in different literary works. Analysis of the inclusions of intertext in the text of a work of art gives reason to consider them as one of the most important devices in the writer's stylistic system. The ability to integrate elements of another text into one's own work and introduce one's own text into the public consciousness is called "intertextualization" within the framework of this theory. Intertextuality is a common property of texts, expressed in the presence of links between them, due to which texts (or parts of them) can explicitly or implicitly refer to each other in a variety of ways. It is worth noting that the archetypal literary criticism and the theory of intertextuality have deep internal theoretical connections, which boil down to three main points: these are literary repetitions, general views on literature, and the consideration of literature as a repository of memory. Although these theories arose in the era of different cultural and historical paradigms - structuralism and post-structuralism, they have much in common in terms of connotation. Being different theoretical systems of literary criticism, archetypal criticism and intertextuality are closely connected by the presence of an element of psychological criticality in both. This article searches for similarities between the two indicated systems in these three aspects and substantiates their theoretical connection, which proves the complementary nature of these two theories.


Keywords:

literary criticism, mythological literature, archetype, intertextuality, repetition, integrity, literature as memory, psychological criticality, similarity, literary theory

This article is automatically translated. You can find original text of the article here.

Cultural text in the broad sense of understanding the term "text" is one of the key phenomena on which culture is built, in particular artistic culture. For the analysis of cultural texts, socio-humanitarian sciences have developed a huge number of theoretical and methodological tools, among which, in our opinion, two occupy the most important place: the theory of archetypes with archetypal criticism closely related to it and the theory of intertextual connections. It seems interesting to establish the nature of the relationship between these two theoretical systems.

The object of this research is archetypal criticism and the theory of intertextuality. The subject of the study is the alleged ideological relationship between archetypal criticism and the theory of intertextuality.

The purpose of this article is to conduct a comparative analysis of both theoretical systems, to prove that the theory of intertextuality in some sense can be considered a new iteration of archetypal criticism; the further purpose is to show that in order to create cultural texts designed to interest the general public, one should use the means provided by the theory of archetypes and the mechanisms of intertextuality.

To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

to define intertextuality and archetypal criticism;

to establish similarities and differences between these two theoretical systems;

to prove that the theory of intertextuality goes back to the provisions of archetypal criticism.

Archetypal criticism of myth can be considered an offshoot of structuralism because both of these theoretical perspectives are based on the promise to think about things from the point of view of the totality of their interrelationships. The term "intertextuality" was first used by Yu. Kristeva in the article "Bakhtin: Word, Dialogue and Novel" (1967); in it, the researcher writes: "Intertextuality is a social whole considered as a textual whole" [7]. Some researchers, for example M. N. Lipovetsky [8], attribute the phenomenon of intertextuality exclusively to postmodern texts, however, within the framework of this article we will assume that the awareness of the intertextual nature of the text, which came with the ideas of postmodernism, is still not a key factor exclusively in this cultural paradigm.

The term "archetype" was first introduced into scientific usage by Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961), but Jung is not the author of this word itself. The term "archetype" appears even in Philo of Alexandria; the idea of his influence on Plotinus is permissible. In his work "Archetype and Symbol" Jung wrote: "The expression 'archetype' is already found in Philo the Jew in relation to the unconscious in man." Let us also mention Irenaeus, whose work says: "The Creator of the world did not create it from himself, he transferred it from archetypes alien to him." In the Bible, God is called the "Primordial Light." Although the word "archetype" does not occur in Augustine, the word "idea" is used in the corresponding meaning: thus, Augustine speaks of ideas "that are not created themselves, which are contained in the divine mind." Plato also spoke about "ideas". But the term "archetype" will be more accurate and useful for the purposes of our research; using it, it can be convincingly justified that, speaking about the content of the collective unconscious, we will be dealing with the oldest, or, better to say, primordial types, i.e., images common to all human culture that have existed since the beginning of time. In all epochs, it is said about the same thing: the already primitive views of the people of the era of the tribal system were based on slightly modified archetypes. But this was no longer quite a "collective unconscious": these views had already acquired intelligible forms and were transmitted through traditional teaching or in the form of secret teachings, which was a typical way of transmitting collectively significant information originating in the unconscious [12]. However, unlike Plato's "ideas", which supposedly exist objectively outside of human consciousness, Jung's archetypes are purely psychological phenomena; understanding this fact is extremely important for understanding his views as a whole.

Jung's thought as the successor of the psychoanalytic school did not arise from scratch; it goes back to the works of his teacher Sigmund Freud (1856 1939), or, more precisely, it is a polemical thesis in relation to his ideas. Jung did not agree with Freud's position that art is the result of sublimations of the artist's personal repressed desire, and desire is the source and motivation of creativity; Jung believed that the source of creativity is the "collective unconscious". This is a kind of universal set of thoughts and theses that cannot be attributed to personal experience, depends on heredity and is formed by the centuries-old accumulation of experience by our ancestors. The original images that are present in the collective subconscious are called the collective unconscious, and the content of the collective unconscious are the so-called archetypes.

The Jungian term "archetype" is thus completely tied to the theory of the collective unconscious, these concepts are inseparable. The archetype is the basic structure of the collective unconscious just like instinct.

Since human culture is a product of the development of the spiritual world of man, it will undoubtedly be advisable to consider the development of art from the standpoint of psychology. Jung's contribution is to introduce into circulation the concept of the collective unconscious, which is hidden in the depths of human souls, invisible and intangible, and therefore not noticed by people; archetypes are so often manifested in our daily life that we get used to certain repetitive images to such an extent that we cease to recognize them. From Jung's point of view, archetypes are typical patterns of understanding, and whenever we encounter universally consistent and repetitive patterns of understanding, we are dealing with archetypes.

One of the key points emphasized in the theory of archetypal criticism is the idea of repetition. And here the connection of Northrop Fry's archetypal criticism with Jung's theory of archetypes is clearly traced. Fry used the term "archetype" to refer to a literary symbol or a group of literary symbols to which authors appeal in order to find a response from the audience, since archetypes will inevitably cause her to have the effect of recognition and a sense of involvement. Archetypal literary criticism is a critical theory that interprets text by focusing on recurring myths and archetypes. For example, the archetypal hero of ancient Chinese mythology, Nezha, was one of the most "popular" gods living among people. Literary works about Nezha were created already in the Song Dynasty. The final image of this character took shape in a classic mythological collection containing "legends about the gods of three religions", which was created in the era of the Yuan Dynasty. In the future, the description of the image of Nezhi is improved and supplemented in such novels as Feng Shen Yanyi, Journey to the West, Journey to the South, etc.; recently, with the development of technology, Nezha has become the hero of a number of films and cartoons. He can be considered a typical archetypal hero: although his character varies somewhat depending on the era and personality of the author of the work, the image of the character is constantly reproduced in Chinese culture, thanks to which he became a part of it.

In his work "The Anatomy of Criticism," Fry wrote: "Myths about gods are reborn into legends about heroes, legends about heroes into plots of tragedies and comedies, and the latter into plots of more or less realistic literature. But we are dealing here more with a change in the social context than the literary form, that the constructive principles of narrative art remain unchanged, although, of course, they adapt to new eras" [10].

N. Fry's statement about myths implies that, although different myths and works of fiction (displaced myths) have different looks, they all contain the same pattern.

N. Fry examines myths and archetypes from a broader point of view than Jung, he focuses on the critical method of tracing the appearance of a symbol in literary works both before and after the work he is considering. Fry argues that the tendency to follow conventions is a vital part of literature and that copyright is harmful to the process of literary creation.

Repetition is also an important element of the theory of intertextuality. For intertextuality, repetition is by no means reduced to the fact that one text "absorbs" and transforms another. Literature is the transmission of information, and precisely because it needs to be repeated, it needs to adapt the same thing to the perception of different people of different eras. This task is designed to solve specific forms of literary intertextuality: borrowing, processing of themes and plots, explicit and implicit quotation, translation, plagiarism, allusion, paraphrase, imitation, parody, adaptation, use of epigraphs, etc. [5].

These techniques give literature a procedural character, thanks to which literature, like history, is constantly moving forward. In a sense, this is not just a repetition it can be likened to new shoots growing out of old branches. Quoting as an intertextual technique is also a kind of repetition; quoting and mosaic from an already written text in a new text encourage us to talk about literature as a memory that will be relevant for future generations of authors.

It is through this recreation based on repetition that the author asserts the authority of his predecessors and distinguishes himself. In intertextuality, the most noticeable and frequently used technique is a quotation, defined as the repetition of one discourse within another discourse [11]. However, it is worth emphasizing that this kind of repetition is not just a reappearance: on the one hand, the appearance of old materials in a new context preserves traces of the previous text and the conditions of its appearance, and on the other hand, generates new ideas in a new context. It can be seen that repetition is the main characteristic of literature, and in this matter intertextuality and archetypal theory converge with each other.

In the book "The Anatomy of Criticism" N. Fry expounds in detail his point of view on literature as a whole, describing the patterns of the evolution of literary types and their generality. Works of fiction should be studied taking into account the cultural and social background of their origin, that is, they should be considered not as a "thing in itself", but in a broad literary and social context, in a macro perspective. Fry draws attention to the need to trace the connection of specific works with the general literary experience, to the need to take into account the deep literary history. At the same time, the depths of literary history, according to Fry, can be traced back to elements of primitive culture, such as religion, rituals, witchcraft, mythology; what precedes all the patterns and rules of literary expression can be found already in the consciousness of ancient man.

Fry considers myths and rituals as traces of the accumulation of primitive experience and archetypal images, he believed that literature is the expression of mythical rituals, the revival and resurrection of ancient myths.

Fry also put forward the famous research method "step back" (step back), which requires the analysis of literary works to focus on what preceded it, macroscopically grasp the structures and modes of the work. Undoubtedly, he opened a wide field of thought space for literary criticism. The critical point of view of N. Fry, emphasizing the integrity and interrelation of literary works, is closely related to the view of the theory of intertextuality on literature as interconnected texts. Therefore, Fry's approach is very close to the theory of intertextuality proposed by Yu. Kristeva. By Yu . Kristeva, intertextuality is a boundless, infinite text, "any text is constructed as a mosaic of citations, any text is the absorption and transformation of some other text" [6]. I. V. Arnold similarly defines intertextuality as "the inclusion in the text of either whole other texts with a different subject of speech, or their fragments in in the form of quotations, reminiscences and allusions" [1].

But N. Fry, as well as Yu. Kristeva has already described the connection between literary works in the form of imitation, quoting, transformations and references; according to Fry, any text exists within the framework of intertextuality and is the result of absorption and transformation of other texts. Any text is a mosaic of explicit and implicit quotations. But this is intertextuality in action, which considers literature as texts in their relation, and not as a set of texts that exist separately from each other.

It is worth noting that in the literary tradition, a text is always considered as consisting of a number of elements, and its meaning consists of the interaction of these elements with each other and with phenomena existing outside of this text.

Both Fry's archetypal criticism and Kristeva's intertextuality view literature as a kind of memory, in connection with which any literary work is a secondary product, imitation, in this sense, all literature is secondary by definition. The correlation of imitation and innovation in works of art has always been a central problem for literature. It is known that intertextuality implies the author's "memories" not only of life, but also of works created by writers earlier. In this sense, all literature is woven from quotations. J. Genette considers intertextuality as one of the varieties of the broader concept of "transtextuality", which means "everything that includes [this text] in explicit and implicit relationships with other texts" [4]. Here we are talking, among other things, about the influence of the writer's memory of his past works on his current work. New works always reveal some kind of nostalgic connection with previous works, and innovations can exist only against the background of already used techniques. Figuratively speaking, the latest creations are "new tickets for old ships."

Literature as a reflection of the spiritual world of man cannot go beyond the limits of human psychology and memory; in this respect, psychology determines everything. Memory as a psychological mechanism is an eternal constant, beyond which literature will never go.

At one time M. M. Bakhtin wrote: "Even the meanings of the past, that is, those born in the dialogue of the past centuries, can never be stable (once and for all completed, final) they will always change and be updated in the process of the subsequent, future development of the dialogue. At any moment of the development of the dialogue, there are huge, unlimited masses of forgotten meanings, but at certain moments of the further development of the dialogue, in the course of it, they will be remembered again and come to life in an updated (in a new context) form" [3].

The unique role of intertextuality lies in the fact that old themes enter a new cycle of their existence thanks to it; readers even with little literary experience will not deny the heredity of literature. Confirmation of this can be found in the writings of Roland Barthes. He wrote: "The concept of intertext gives the theory of text a social scope: the whole language as a whole, both previous and modern, enters the text, but does not arrive by identifiable filiation or conscious imitation, but by dissemination" [2]. However, the source can also be determined by filiation; it is important, however, that we are dealing with the source not when similarities are found between two or more texts, but when "writers directly repeat each other." Intertextuality presupposes the fundamental mobility of literary creativity itself, transposing previous statements to new ground.

Thus, archetypal criticism and the theory of intertextuality are certainly two independent theoretical systems that exist in line with different scientific and philosophical paradigms, but they have a lot in common. First of all, they are connected by the interpretation of cultural works mainly as products of the human psyche. Further, it should be noted that both directions of thought operate with the search for common features in various cultural texts, concentrate on repetition, constant reproduction of motives. The source of recurring motives within the framework of archetypal criticism is the collective unconscious, and within the framework of the theory of intertextuality the corpus of already created texts as a separate, independent phenomenon, however, regardless of the alleged source, the author consciously or unconsciously acts as a keeper and repeater of the memory of mankind. To some extent, both theories call into question the possibility of generating new, original ideas, but do not forget that any classical motif placed in a new context is capable of playing with new colors, unexpectedly revealing its ideological potential from a new side.

The works of modern literature reveal to varying degrees the imitative nature of literary creativity, revealing the characteristics of secondary. Humanity lives by traditions, and any innovation to a certain extent can be considered only as a "breakthrough into the past." Heritage and innovation are always two sides of the literary process. Later writers, formed within the framework of the great tradition, will inevitably be influenced by the works and writers that preceded them. The influence of the past exists in the heart and head of the writer as a memory, an undercurrent ready to manifest itself at any moment. And at the right moment it comes out from under the pen of the writer, becoming an integral part of the new work.

Such a point of view confirms the words of Ecclesiastes that there is nothing new under the sun all "new ideas" have an archetype under them.

References
1. Arnold, I.V. (1999). Semantics. Stylistics. Intertextuality. SPb.: Publishing House of St. Petersburg. University.
2. Bart, R. (1989). From Work to Text. Bart R. Selected Works: Semiotics. Poetics. Moscow: Progress.
3. Bakhtin, M.M. (1979). To the methodology of the humanities. Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. Moscow.
4. Jennet G. (1982). Palimpsests: Literature in the second degree: Paris.
5. Ilyin, I.I. (1985). Intertextuality. Nauka.
6. Kristeva, Y. (1995). Bakhtin, word, dialogue and novel. Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 9. Philology, 1, 97-124.
7. Kristeva, Y. (2004). Selected Works: The Destruction of Poetics. Moscow: ROSSPEN.
8. Lipovetsky M.N. Russian Postmodernism (Essays on Historical Poetics) / M.N. Lipovetsky.-Ekaterinburg: Ural state. ped. institute, 1997
9. Piego-Gros, N. (2008). Introduction to the theory of intertextuality. N. Piego-Gros. Moscow: Publishing house LKI.
10. Fry, N. Anatomy of Criticism [first essay]. Foreign Aesthetics and Theory of Literature.
11. Functions of intertextuality. Retrieved from http://www.fixed.ru/prikling/intertekst/funkcii.html
12. Jung, K.G. (2020). The concept of the collective unconscious. Edition in Russian AST Publishers.

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The author submitted his article "Archetypal Literary Criticism and Intertextuality" to the journal Philosophical Thought, in which two main approaches to the analysis of cultural text were studied: archetypal criticism and the theory of intertextual relations. The author proceeds in the study of this issue from the fact that for the analysis of cultural texts, socio-humanitarian sciences have developed a huge number of theoretical and methodological tools, among which the most important place is occupied by the theory of archetypes together with the associated archetypal criticism and the theory of intertextual relations. The relevance of the research is due to the fact that the cultural text is one of the key phenomena on which culture is based, in particular, artistic culture. The scientific novelty of the study consists in comparing these methods. The methodological basis of the study was made up of general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis, functional and comparative analysis. The theoretical basis of the research is the works of such famous researchers as K.G. Jung, G.N. Fry, Y. Kristeva, R. Barth, etc. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to analyze both theoretical systems, to prove that the theory of intertextuality in some sense can be considered a new iteration of archetypal criticism; the further goal is to point out that in order to create cultural texts attractive to the public, one should use the means provided by the theory of archetypes and the mechanisms of intertextuality. The object of this research is archetypal criticism and the theory of intertextuality. The subject of the study is the alleged relationship of ideological kinship between archetypal criticism and the theory of intertextuality. To achieve this goal, the author sets the following tasks: to define intertextuality; to define archetypal criticism; to establish similarities and differences between two theoretical systems; to prove that the theory of intertextuality is rooted in archetypal criticism. Based on the concept of K. Jung, the author reveals the concept and essence of the archetype, which is characterized by two key points: the archetype implies a mythical image, the totality of these images makes up the collective unconscious; the external form of manifestation of the archetype can be very different, but the essence of the archetypes are always repeated. Based on the work "Anatomy of Criticism" by the famous Canadian philologist and researcher of mythology G.N. Fry, the author analyzes the possibility of applying archetypal criticism in literature. An archetype in a literary text is a semantic association that is repeated in a work and has a conventional and unified symbolic meaning. From the author's point of view, archetypal criticism is a grasp of the patterns of generality and evolution of literary types in general, and when analyzing and researching literary works, attention should be paid not only to the genre model, but also to the internal motives of the work. Works should be studied in the relevant background and related fields, that is, without taking away from the cultural context. The author pays attention to the comparison of the theories of G.N. Fry and K.G. Jung in terms of revealing the essence of myth and archetype, noting that N. Fry considers myths and archetypes from a broader point of view, he focuses on the critical method of tracing the legacy of the symbol in literary works both before and after the work in question. Based on the theory of intertextuality, proposed by Yu. Kristeva and I.V. Arnold, the author defines any text as a mosaic, a transformation of previous texts. Therefore, according to the author, literature is the transmission of information that needs to be adapted to the perception of different people. The author identifies the following forms of literary intertextuality - borrowing, reworking of themes and plots, explicit and hidden quotation, translation, plagiarism, allusion, paraphrase, imitation, parody, adaptation, use of epigraphs, which are intended for secondary modeling of cultural text. Based on the analysis, the author identifies positions that are similar both for archetypal criticism and for the theory of intertextuality, namely: both archetypal criticism and intertextuality consider literature as a kind of memory, secondary creativity or secondary imitation. The theory of intertextuality considers literature both as the author's direct memory of the phenomena of natural and social life perceived by him, and the results of his perception of the experience of previous writers. As noted by the author, two independent theoretical systems of literary criticism, archetypal criticism and intertextuality are closely related, since both of them have psychological criticality. Having conducted the research, the author presents conclusions summarizing the studied material. It seems that the author in his material touched upon relevant and interesting issues for modern socio-humanitarian knowledge, choosing a topic for analysis, consideration of which in scientific research discourse will entail certain changes in the established approaches and directions of analysis of the problem addressed in the presented article. The results obtained allow us to assert that the study of existing approaches and criteria for the analysis of a cultural text is of undoubted theoretical and practical cultural interest and can serve as a source of further research. The material presented in the work has a clear, logically structured structure that contributes to a more complete assimilation of the material. An adequate choice of methodological base also contributes to this. The bibliographic list of the study consists of 12 sources, which seems sufficient for the generalization and analysis of scientific discourse on the subject under study. The author fulfilled his goal, received certain scientific results that allowed him to summarize the material. It should be noted that the article may be of interest to readers and deserves to be published in a reputable scientific publication. However, the article needs editorial revision, as the incompleteness and illogicality of many proposals makes it difficult to understand the author's ideas. There is also extraneous information and comments from third parties in the text of the article.

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The reviewed article aims to trace the relationship between two concepts widely used in modern philosophical and humanitarian studies "archetype" and "intertextuality". Of course, the author does not really consider the stated topic in its entirety. His focus is only on the views of N. Fry, a Canadian literary critic, who is still not well known to a wide range of domestic readers. The article is able to make a certain contribution to overcoming this gap, and this fact alone prompts us to pay close attention to it. N. Fry focuses on recurring plots in the history of culture, attributing structural (archetypal) significance to them. However, this idea was repeatedly discussed by many other writers or philosophers before and after him, and in some cases it seems simply inexplicable, for example, how it was possible to write such an article without mentioning Borges. At the same time, the author of the article himself, unfortunately, avoids discussing the question of the causes, the underlying foundations, of this phenomenon, which has long been known to philosophers, literary critics, and all cultural figures, which, it seems, is actually the deep interest of the topic he declared. In fact, the article only reproduces the thesis about the relationship between the two concepts, which, of course, is impossible to argue with. Apparently, the descriptive nature of the article, the lack of an analytical component in it, is also due to the fact that some of the statements generally sound rather banal and hardly deserve their place in a scientific article. Actually, this is already the first sentence: "Cultural text in the broad sense of understanding the term "text" is one of the key phenomena on which culture is based, in particular, artistic culture." Yes, of course, but such almost tautological statements do not encourage the author himself to consider the topic productively, nor the reader to familiarize himself with the material offered to him. The same could be said about the conceptual or stylistic impropriety of many statements. For example, the beginning of the second sentence looks like this: "For the analysis of cultural texts, socio-humanitarian sciences have developed a huge number of theoretical and methodological tools ...". Well, why "huge" here, you should have used a completely different "dictionary"! And just below we come across "... to create cultural texts that are attractive to the public ...". "Appeal to the public"? Do we seek to absorb philosophical discussions into mass culture? Unfortunately, there are many similar places in the reviewed material. In addition, the "formal part" is written too punctually in the article, you can, of course, inform the reader about the purpose and objectives of the proposed article, but it is hardly appropriate to reproduce the standard of the abstract. The reproduction of well-known information in the text (about Jung, Freud, the origin of "intertextuality" and "archetype", etc.) also takes up too much space. It is also unclear why the author reproduces the Chinese names of the works he mentions - they are probably familiar to specialists, but for those who are unfamiliar with the Chinese language, they do not say anything. Summing up, it should be said that the article has certain prospects for publication in a scientific journal, however, the state of the presented text does not currently allow such a decision to be made (the possibility of continuing work is also favored by a small amount of material slightly more than 0.4 a.l.). I suggest sending the reviewed article for revision.

Third Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The article "Archetypal literary criticism and intertextuality" presented for consideration, proposed for publication in the journal Philosophical Thought, is undoubtedly relevant, due to the author's appeal to the issues of literary criticism and the phenomenon of intertextuality, the transcendence of texts. Intertextuality as a phenomenon is an object of study not only in philology, but also in other humanities. The purpose of this article, according to the author, is to conduct a comparative analysis of both theoretical systems, to prove that the theory of intertextuality in some sense can be considered a new iteration of archetypal criticism; the further purpose is to show that in order to create cultural texts designed to interest the general public, one should use the means provided by the theory of archetypes and the mechanisms of intertextuality. Despite its philosophical orientation, it should be noted that the work makes a certain contribution to the development, including both the general theory of linguistics and the private one. The article is groundbreaking, one of the first in Russian linguistics devoted to the study of such topics in the 21st century. It should be noted that in Russian linguistics, this direction was laid down in the works of I. V. Arnold in line with the "stylistics of decoding". The article presents a research methodology, the choice of which is quite adequate to the goals and objectives of the work. The author turns, among other things, to various methods to confirm the hypothesis put forward. The article uses, among other things, general linguistic methods of observation and description, as well as methods of discursive and cognitive analysis, semiotic methods and methods of modeling language. Unfortunately, the author does not specify the amount of practical material for conducting the study, as well as the methodology and principles of its selection. This work was done professionally, in compliance with the basic canons of scientific research. The research was carried out in line with modern scientific approaches, the work consists of an introduction containing the formulation of the problem, the main part, traditionally beginning with a review of theoretical sources and scientific directions, a research and final one, which presents the conclusions obtained by the author. The bibliography of the article contains 12 sources, among which theoretical works are presented exclusively in Russian, including translated ones. We believe that an appeal to the modern works of foreign researchers in a foreign language on the stated problems would undoubtedly enrich the work. Unfortunately, the article does not contain references to the fundamental works of Russian researchers, such as monographs, PhD and doctoral dissertations. Technically, when making a bibliographic list, the generally accepted requirements of GOST were violated, namely source 5. The comments made are not significant and do not affect the overall positive impression of the reviewed work. In general, it should be noted that the article is written in a simple, understandable language for the reader. Typos, spelling and syntactic errors, inaccuracies in the text of the work were not found. The work is innovative, representing the author's vision of solving the issue under consideration and may have a logical continuation in further research. The results of the work can be used in the course of teaching at specialized faculties. The article will undoubtedly be useful to a wide range of people, philologists, undergraduates and graduate students of specialized universities. The article "Archetypal literary criticism and intertextuality" can be recommended for publication in a scientific journal.