Christopher Vogler is a master of writing screenplays and a representative of structural pattern of character or the hero’s journey in the world. Following Joseph Campbell’s example regarding the fundamental role of mythological motifs and psychological ideas of Carl Gustave Jung Vogler deals in a dramatic manner with the recognition and function of characters in the story. This research is concerned primarily with studying character of Forud which according to Voglers’s viewpoint is a manifestation of a tragic hero archetype. Moreover it seeks other similarities between other characters in the story with seven archetypal character model devised by Vogler. Characterization in connection with the structure of the story from Vogler’s perspective is so versatile and all pervading that almost embraces viewpoints of the most prominent researchers of story genres. Upon analysis of the structure and characters of the Forud’s story in Shahnameh one gets to the conclusion that not only Shahnameh is one of the best sources for this kind of research but also Vogler’s “the writer’s journey” is one of the best references for cinematic recreation of Shahnameh.

The Ghessat al-Ghorbat al-Gharbiya (Story of western alienation) is one of the most striking symbolic treatises of Sohrevardi. In this story, ‘sheikh of illumination’ depicts the meeting of the luminous human with its divine mate as a dream like experience in the form of a spiritual journey. It is the story of descent of soul and its captivity in the chains of material word. It portraits the carnal soul’s struggles in passing the obstacles and ends with arriving at Tour-e-Sina and the father’s mythical temple and visiting him. The archetypes have a special function in advancing the theme of this story and picturing its events. Therefore, a Jungian archetypal approach has been adopted. The archetypal situations and characters that have been considered specially are respectively as follows: quest and yearn, rebirth, journey, conversion of multiplicity to unity, passing through water and fire; and those of characters: the wise old man, anima, and shadow.

Characters masque technique features a lofty technical value because the symbolic and dramatic dynamicity thereof in the contemporary literature has bestowed a lot of inspiring implications of the kind of inventive expressional loads to the words in the Arabic poems,these implications are capable of transcending beyond borders of the non-intermediated discourse that is close to tangible reality, so that a new situation which is interlaced with the poets’,values and traditions can be created. As a literary technique evolved from the call on the characters, this masque technique enjoys distinct methodical renderings in the poems of Solayman Al-Isa and, being inclined towards intermixing the present and past conditions, it compels the poets to express the pervasive challenges and problems in the depth of their experiences and incites them to fancifully react to the individual and social dramatic subjects in their periphery. Taking advantage of the purposive techniques forces the poets away from the mere narration of the past incidents and consecutive and transient calls on the characters in the margins, disguising the various characters with masques or getting close to beneath their masques. I helps to establish a sort of close interaction between the poets and the calledupon characters as well as between the poets’,contemporary conditions and the events of the societies before a given community. This study used a descriptive-analytical method to deal with the technical and implicative aspects of the archetypal characters’,masques in Solayman Al-Isa’, s works and gain access through a sort of processing to many of the archetypal characters’,masques that might be pertinent to religious, literary, historical and folklore matters. Poets have defined special functions and methods for all of such archetypal characters’,masques. Consequently, they have become simply and easily capable of removing the wall between the distant temporal intervals between poets and their applied characters.

According to the theory of the Carol S. Pearson and Hugh K. Marr there are twelve archetypes as solution of awakening the hero within that including the innocent, orphans, protectors, warrior, explorer, devastating, lover, creator, ruling, sorcerer, wise, clown. In this study to analyze the representative of the characteristics of these archetypes that there are in the characters in the fiction of contemporary hero that in the path of achieving human identity. We conclude that Ravanypoor narrates and proceeds the novel in the postmodern style, the character of "Ayene" in this novel is the manifestation of the innocent and orphans archetype that with an aid of protectors, explorer, lover and creator passed the variant stages of his life and evolution. These archetypes manifest as the stage of the travel, and also the leader in the life and back her to the creator and painter wise with the independent identity to her family.

This paper aims at studying different aspects of archetypal criticism from traditional and modern perspectives. Archetypal criticism is the approach of finding common and unconscious roots of human behavior and actions in literature. By addressing Jung’, s as well as Post-Jungian notions, this paper contends to offer a fairly comprehensive picture of the approach and remove some common misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the criticism. The problem is more aggravated in Iran as, due to insufficient knowledge of English or German, access to first rate sources is limited. Moreover, few works have been translated into Persian and that leads to improper understating of archetypal criticism. This approach, if adopted with insight, can help readers overcome at least some of the obstacles standing in the way of understanding not only literature but also dreams, dream works, fairy tales, and myths. It will also make researchers aware of the pitfalls in archetypal criticism.

Although archetypal criticism has been used in literary-artistic research for nearly one hundred years, still, as it should be, there is no proper understanding of it, whether in theory or methods, and many studies that have been conducted using this approach, have flaws that require a careful approach to the theories and approaches of archetypal criticism to correct them. Repeated results, misunderstanding of theories, unmethodical and lack of knowledge of archetypal criticism methods, being on the sidelines of mythic criticism, imposing theories on texts and findings, and incorrect and inconsistent results on archetypal criticism, are the most important problems of studies and articles written based on this approach. In the present descriptive-analytical study, firstly the concept of archetype and criticism of archetype is taken into consideration and an effort was made to resolve its ambiguities, and then its various formats and approaches based on different theories have been specified. In addition, related concepts such as Jungian and post-Jungian studies of archetypes have been discussed. The archetypal evolution, the archetypal close-reading, and the rhetorical criticism of archetypes are the approaches that can be used to conduct studies on the criticism of archetypes. Moreover, stereotypical characters, mythological characters, archetypal motifs and situations, collective rituals, public symbols and images, cultural or psychological syndromes, and psychological complexes are forms in which undiscovered archetypes can be explored or literary-artistic texts can be criticized based on them. Introduction Although numerous studies have dealt with archetypal criticism and examined Jungian archetypes in various works, there is still no clear understanding of this approach. In most of the conducted research, only one of the methods of archetypal criticism is utilized and we can say there is no acceptable understanding of the different methods of archetypal criticism. In many articles written in the field of archetypal criticism, the authors are not even familiar with the most basic concepts of archetypal criticism and have analyzed the works according to the author's intention, though archetypal criticism is one of the text-oriented approaches. Another point that has caused archetypes to be misunderstood is the deep connection existing between archetypes and myths, and myths with epics. That is why most archetypal research is dedicated to epic literature and some think that archetypes and myths are only limited to epic literature and have no place in other literary genres. In addition, the ambiguities in Jung's own words and the difficulty of his writings are also other factors that have caused ambiguity or misunderstanding in the recognition of archetypes. Materials and Methods In this descriptive-analytical study, first, the what and why of archetypal criticism have been discussed. Then, its different approaches in facing the texts have been identified to prepare the ground for further studies that either directly deal with archetypal criticism or use it in their analyses. Research Findings Archetypal Criticism Archetypal criticism is an approach in literary criticism that is usually placed next to mythical criticism, and in many works, it is referred to as the mythological-archetypal approach. In Jung's view, analyzing the personality of an artist based on hir works is similar to analyzing the personality of a judge, police officer, politician, etc. His job has no result but to go astray because artists play an impersonal role in their own position and the artist is also an impersonal process. Archetypal criticism is one of the text-oriented approaches in which the author's intention has no place, and in which the effort is made to study conventions and literary genres in order to place the poems into the body of poetry as a whole. Understanding that archetypal criticism is one of the text-oriented approaches in literary criticism is the first step in this approach. After that, it should be determined how the archetypal literary critic can criticize the literary-artistic texts and by which methods the artist can criticize and analyze the texts. In archetypal criticism, three approaches can be identified based on which critics can criticize and analyze the texts or the archetypes themselves: Evolution of Archetypes In this approach, through the Darwinian concept of evolution and the evolutionary theory the author tries to show the course of transformation and evolution of archetypes. This approach can be seen as a higher level of archetypal criticism, in which theoretical explanations about a discovered archetype or an unexplained archetype are discussed. This is the method used by Carl Jung or others such as Erich Newman, James Hillman, Ann Ulanov, Marie Louise von Franz, Carol Pearson, and Joseph Campbell. In this method, it is necessary to investigate the transformations of an archetype based on its sources, that is, myths, ancient literary-artistic works, and cultural anthropology. In the ‘evolution of archetypes’ approach, one should first pay attention to the prototypes and traces of an archetype in mythology and determine its background. Then, it should be investigated in epic texts, lyrical stories, folk traditions, and oral traditions, and its metamorphoses should be clearly displayed in these texts and its transformation in contemporary literary-artistic texts should be specified. Archetypes usually appear in the form of stereotypical characters, mythological characters, archetypal roles and situations, collective rituals, public symbols and images, syndromes, and complexes. Close reading of the literary-artistic text based on an archetype In this approach, which can be considered the middle level of archetypal criticism, how a literary-artistic work is formed in an archetypal situation is discussed and its organic unity is emphasized based on an archetypal situation, for example, a poem, story, film, or image is analyzed based on a single archetype and its components are interpreted in relation to that archetype. Examining Archetypes in a Text In this approach, which is the lowest level of archetypal criticism, several well-known archetypes are examined in the entirety of a literary-artistic work, and the manifestations of those archetypes are shown in that work. For instance, archetypes in a certain poetry book or a certain poet's collection of poems are identified. In this approach, which is closely related to rhetorical criticism, an archetype is considered a literary figure and image just like a metaphor. In addition, a combination of these three approaches can be used in archetypal criticism and the works can be analyzed through them. Post-Jungian Studies The prefix ‘post’ in post-Jungian, like other terms that use the prefix, implies several issues: 1) transition from Jung's theories and rejection of some of them, 2) continuation and completion of some of his theories, 3) pluralism in methods and theories, and 4) an obstacle to any ultimate principle in theories emphasizing infinity and uncertainty. Samuels argues that “Jung's attitudes toward women, blacks [and people of color], so-called 'primitive' cultures and so forth are now outmoded and unacceptable. Jung converted prejudice into theory and translated his perception of what was current into something supposed to be eternally valid. Here, too, it has turned out to be the work of the post-Jungians that have discovered these mistakes and contradictions and corrected Jung’s faulty or amateur methods. In other words, post-Jungian means the correction of Jung's work and also a critical distance from it” (2008, p. 2-3). In fact, archetypal criticism is regarded as Jungian when in addition to Jung's theories, the theories and approaches of other post-Jungian thinkers are also employed. As Hillman states, Jung should be viewed as one of the sources and not the only existing theory and method in regard to archetypal criticism. Discussion of Results and Conclusion Archetypal criticism is based on archetypal psychology, which has an interdisciplinary nature, and its teachings and concepts, in addition to psychology, are derived from literature, mythology, theology, anthropology, and public culture. This approach of literary criticism is placed in many textbooks next to mythological criticism and is usually referred to as the mythological-archetypal approach, although it can be used independently in the criticism and analysis of literary-artistic texts. Archetypal criticism is one of the text-based approaches of literary criticism, which can be used in three ways as follows to criticize and analyze texts or archetypes themselves: 1) the evolution of archetypes, 2) in-depth reading of literary-artistic text based on an archetype, and 3) examination of archetypes in a text. Moreover, familiarity with archetypes and criticism of archetypes is very important in comparative literature research because the unfamiliarity with them can cause the literary work to be at the mercy of other literary works’ influences without adequate documented reasons and in this way prevent the formation of necessary research in the field of comparative literature. It can be said that the meaning of post-Jungian criticism is the criticism of the archetypes based on the theories of Jungian and post-Jungian researchers, and the use of terms such as ‘post-Jungian reading and post-Jungian criticism’ and the like do not change it. Indubitably, archetypal criticism is regarded as Jungian when in addition to Jung's theories, the theories and approaches of other post-Jungian thinkers are also used. According to Hillman, we consider Jung as one of the sources and not the merely existing theory and method.

All cosmic creatures mirror the divine omnipotence, while each is the manifestation of an archetypal name representing a particular meaning. In his capacity as the divine successor, the human being or architect possesses the necessary creative capability to design and manage the living environment to assist the evolution of man. His designs are realized through two complementary features of beauty and power. Both these features are expressed through the interaction of the architect with the divine cosmic existence. As an autonomous agent, the architect employs three instruments of spirit, mind and sense to create his design.

One of approaches in critique of literary texts is archetypal criticism that is rooted in depth-psychological criticism. Based on thoughts of Carl Gustav Jung, that approach studies the different kinds of archetypes that rest in unconscious. According to Jung, due to a common and general experience, mythical themes are repeated in all generations. Banu Goshasp Nama, a Persian epic composed of 900 verses by an unknown poet from the 11th or 12th century, demonstrates different archetypes. Banu Goshasp is an ideal "mother archetype" that overcomes obstacles and realizes her individuality. By fighting with her inner shadows, hunting and battling with her Aniran suitors, she fulfills her personality and gains self-recognition. The present article is to criticize Banu Goshasp Nama from archetypal critique point of view, based on the thoughts of Jung and archetypes like shadow and mandala and process of individualizing.

Archetypal criticism is one of the modern literal theories based on psychological theories based on Jung ideas. While studying and examining the archetypes of a work, it is revealed, in this type of criticisms how they are understood by the author. Based on these studies, heroic journey is possible in order to achieve the perfection and individuality dream. The present article aims to review Malakut by Bahram Sadeghi from the perspective of archetypal criticism relying on the fundamentals of Carol. S. Pearson and Huo. k. Marr are based on 12 archetypes of awakening heroes. The author tries to introduce these archetypes briefly and also show the fictional characters manifesting these archetypes, following individuation and taking heroic journey. The findings show that Malakut is full of archetypes and due to its psychological approach, it can be analyzed based on archetypal theories.