DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.41333#0117
Joanna Popielska-Grzybowska
Warsaw
Some Introductory Remarks on Topoi and Sacred Word-Symbols
in the Pyramid Texts*
In olden days it was said that a certain PARME-
NIDES from Egypt devoted his entire life spent on
a rock in contemplation of the logical topoi, and this
ls what him famous. This very legend suggests a life-
long interest in this rhetorical term, which means stat-
lng some specific “rules or formula for efficient rea-
soning, which should be an effective instrument in dia-
lectical discussions”. J. BRUNSCHVIG wrote in an
introduction to the Paris edition of ARISTOTLE’s
Les Topiques” that it is the “Vademecum du parfait
dialecticien, risquent des nos jours d’ apparaitre comme
un art de gagner a un jeu personne joue plus.”1
As mentioned above, the original term topos is con-
nected with rhetorical terminology, in contrast to the def-
nn tion based on a diverse understanding of the notion
fopos introduced in the theory of literature by Ernst
Robert CTJRTTUS in his work “Europaische Literatur
und lateinisches Mittelaltef ’.2 CURTIUS maintained that
not all of the topoi could be derived from the rhetorical
genres. According to him, many of them descended from
Poetry and were then adopted into rhetoric. Originally
topoi were used to help compose an oration, as KWIN-
TYLIAN called them ‘‘argumentorum sedes’ ’ (“seats of
mental threads”). However, finally topoi assumed a dif-
ferent function and became cunent notions, cliches which
could be incorporated in every literary form. That way
they spread to all spheres of life, somehow connected
with or shaped by literature, as for example: “beauty of
nature”, “dream world” or “golden age”. Analysis of
topoi, in CURTTUS’ view,3 could broaden our knowl-
edge about “the ‘genetics’ of formal elements of litera-
ture”, as well as enabling us to understand hints of
' I would like to express my deep indebtedness to Profes-
sor Karol MYSLIWIEC for commenting on this article and
stimulating discussions. No less cordially I acknowledge
my debt to Professor Teresa DOBRZYNSKA (Institute of
Literary Research Polish Academy of Science) for her re-
marks after a paper delivered in March 2001, for her inesti-
mable support and encouragement.
This article is an excerpt of the author's dissertation.
1 L BRUNSCHVIG, Topiques vol. 1, Paris 1967, p. IX.
changes in the spiritual state and in this way increase the
thoroughness of our understanding of the spiritual histo-
ry of the West.
For CURTIUS, the concurrence of concepts and
evidence arising from various, worldwide literary
sources such as e.g. the topos of an “o/riboy” or in
other words “a boy with grey hair”, indicated that
we were dealing with an archetype, with an image
belonging to the collective unconscious - the psy-
chological term introduced by C.G. JUNG.4 Intro-
ducing such an understanding of topos, CURTIUS
provoked “everlasting discussion”. However difficult
it is to agree with the presumption of CURTIUS, one
should state what JUNG meant by archetype. For
JUNG, archetype was a primareview model existing
in the human mind since time immemorial, determin-
ing one’s conception of the world, religious expe-
rience and behaviour.
However important this primary definition is, let
us focus on the term as it functioned and functions in
literary research.
It should be emphasised that although topos is
a specific kind of motive,5 these two terms should
not be mixed or falsely identified, especially as there
exists a tendency, at least in colloquial perception, to
perceive the two terms as synonyms.
The most significant and most widely accepted
interpretation is the comprehension of archetype pres-
ented by Northrop FRYE.6 Archetypes are under-
stood in his works as perdurably prevailing in litera-
ture motives, deriving from myth and ritual. Accord-
ing to FRYE, archetypes are not linked to the collec-
2 E.R. CURTIUS, Europaische Literatur und lateinisches
Mittelalter, Bem-Miinchen 61967, pp. 79 ff.
3 Ibidem.
4 Cf. eg C.G. JUNG, Grundwerk, vol 1: Archetyp und Unbe-
wusstes, Olten 1984.
5 On the themes and the motives in the Pyramid Texts
cf. H. ROEDER, Themen und Motive in den Pyramiden-
texten, LingAeg 3 (1993), pp. 81-119.
6 N. FRYE, Anatomy of Criticism, Princeton 1957, p. 365.
Ill
Warsaw
Some Introductory Remarks on Topoi and Sacred Word-Symbols
in the Pyramid Texts*
In olden days it was said that a certain PARME-
NIDES from Egypt devoted his entire life spent on
a rock in contemplation of the logical topoi, and this
ls what him famous. This very legend suggests a life-
long interest in this rhetorical term, which means stat-
lng some specific “rules or formula for efficient rea-
soning, which should be an effective instrument in dia-
lectical discussions”. J. BRUNSCHVIG wrote in an
introduction to the Paris edition of ARISTOTLE’s
Les Topiques” that it is the “Vademecum du parfait
dialecticien, risquent des nos jours d’ apparaitre comme
un art de gagner a un jeu personne joue plus.”1
As mentioned above, the original term topos is con-
nected with rhetorical terminology, in contrast to the def-
nn tion based on a diverse understanding of the notion
fopos introduced in the theory of literature by Ernst
Robert CTJRTTUS in his work “Europaische Literatur
und lateinisches Mittelaltef ’.2 CURTIUS maintained that
not all of the topoi could be derived from the rhetorical
genres. According to him, many of them descended from
Poetry and were then adopted into rhetoric. Originally
topoi were used to help compose an oration, as KWIN-
TYLIAN called them ‘‘argumentorum sedes’ ’ (“seats of
mental threads”). However, finally topoi assumed a dif-
ferent function and became cunent notions, cliches which
could be incorporated in every literary form. That way
they spread to all spheres of life, somehow connected
with or shaped by literature, as for example: “beauty of
nature”, “dream world” or “golden age”. Analysis of
topoi, in CURTTUS’ view,3 could broaden our knowl-
edge about “the ‘genetics’ of formal elements of litera-
ture”, as well as enabling us to understand hints of
' I would like to express my deep indebtedness to Profes-
sor Karol MYSLIWIEC for commenting on this article and
stimulating discussions. No less cordially I acknowledge
my debt to Professor Teresa DOBRZYNSKA (Institute of
Literary Research Polish Academy of Science) for her re-
marks after a paper delivered in March 2001, for her inesti-
mable support and encouragement.
This article is an excerpt of the author's dissertation.
1 L BRUNSCHVIG, Topiques vol. 1, Paris 1967, p. IX.
changes in the spiritual state and in this way increase the
thoroughness of our understanding of the spiritual histo-
ry of the West.
For CURTIUS, the concurrence of concepts and
evidence arising from various, worldwide literary
sources such as e.g. the topos of an “o/riboy” or in
other words “a boy with grey hair”, indicated that
we were dealing with an archetype, with an image
belonging to the collective unconscious - the psy-
chological term introduced by C.G. JUNG.4 Intro-
ducing such an understanding of topos, CURTIUS
provoked “everlasting discussion”. However difficult
it is to agree with the presumption of CURTIUS, one
should state what JUNG meant by archetype. For
JUNG, archetype was a primareview model existing
in the human mind since time immemorial, determin-
ing one’s conception of the world, religious expe-
rience and behaviour.
However important this primary definition is, let
us focus on the term as it functioned and functions in
literary research.
It should be emphasised that although topos is
a specific kind of motive,5 these two terms should
not be mixed or falsely identified, especially as there
exists a tendency, at least in colloquial perception, to
perceive the two terms as synonyms.
The most significant and most widely accepted
interpretation is the comprehension of archetype pres-
ented by Northrop FRYE.6 Archetypes are under-
stood in his works as perdurably prevailing in litera-
ture motives, deriving from myth and ritual. Accord-
ing to FRYE, archetypes are not linked to the collec-
2 E.R. CURTIUS, Europaische Literatur und lateinisches
Mittelalter, Bem-Miinchen 61967, pp. 79 ff.
3 Ibidem.
4 Cf. eg C.G. JUNG, Grundwerk, vol 1: Archetyp und Unbe-
wusstes, Olten 1984.
5 On the themes and the motives in the Pyramid Texts
cf. H. ROEDER, Themen und Motive in den Pyramiden-
texten, LingAeg 3 (1993), pp. 81-119.
6 N. FRYE, Anatomy of Criticism, Princeton 1957, p. 365.
Ill