The domain of the study of myths and its evaluation in literary criticism has always been in the process of development. However, myth critics sometimes put theme, symbol, and motive into one structure so that what is considered as a theme in one case can considered as a myth, in another. Nevertheless, there is a vast difference between these words, atlthough there is no consensus among the critics about their meanings. For example how does a historical figure change into a myth? When can a myth appear in a literary context? In the study of mythical criticism, in finding out the roots of the myths and in comparison between them, which one of the following is possible? The method of diachronic or synchronic study? In this article, by referring to the views of the theorists of mythical criticism, we have tried to find out responses for the above mentioned questions.
Khavari, S. K., & Kahnamouipour, J. (2010). Mythical Criticism and it's place in Comparative Litrature. Research in Contemporary World Literature, 15(57), -.
MLA
Seyyed Khosro Khavari; Jaleh Kahnamouipour. "Mythical Criticism and it's place in Comparative Litrature", Research in Contemporary World Literature, 15, 57, 2010, -.
HARVARD
Khavari, S. K., Kahnamouipour, J. (2010). 'Mythical Criticism and it's place in Comparative Litrature', Research in Contemporary World Literature, 15(57), pp. -.
VANCOUVER
Khavari, S. K., Kahnamouipour, J. Mythical Criticism and it's place in Comparative Litrature. Research in Contemporary World Literature, 2010; 15(57): -.
)