Kristiyan Enchev

In his study “Metaphor and Myth: Percy, Ricoeur, and Frye”, Hugh White aims to question the traditional dichotomy between the cognitive and affective dimensions of metaphor by proposing a theory of metaphor that brings these two dimensions together on an intersubjective level. Criticizing Paul Ricoeur’s theory, White draws on Walker Percy's definition of “catachrestic metaphor” in order to clarify Northrop Frye’s understanding of the ecstatic metaphor and its role in religious myth. Here is the place in advance to ask the question to what extent it is appropriate to equate the metaphor with an error (in the case of the catachrestic metaphor) and to what extent the believed absurdity in the myth can be defined as a metaphor. I propose an alternative to White's vision of metaphor, referring to Douglas Bergren's study “The Use and Abuse of Metaphor”. I will also refer critically to individual passages by Frye to show the steps taken to bring the affective and cognitive aspects of metaphor closer together in the perspective of “metaphorical construing”.