{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03064066852367688, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001392757660167131, 'mean_word_length': 5.220779220779221, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Álvaro Cubillo de Aragón, A Playwright in the School of Calderón

‘Over-generalization’, comments Alex Longhurst in a recent review-article, ‘is after all a sin to which all those of us who try to identify and define literary trends and movements have to plead guilty’.1 For well over a century literary critics have traditionally, even routinely, divided the dramatists of the Golden Age in Spain into two groups or schools, these being, as every Hispanist knows, the School of Lope and the School of Calderón. Developments in criticism in recent decades, leading to more emphasis on literary theory than on literary history, have stimulated uncertainties and reservations about convenient grouping into movements and schools, which have not been without effects upon how Golden-Age dramatists are observed. Yet, the theorists and avowed non-traditionalist critics are probably as guilty of the ‘sin’—if sin it is—of ‘overgeneralization’, or of categorization, as are the more traditionally minded among us. As a traditionalist, I welcome recent signs, among literary critics in the States at least, of a renewed interest in literary movements or schools, bringing with it a reawakened concern to examine those aspects of a text—such as characterization—which previously were regarded as vitally important but which have been rather out of favour in recent decades.2 The labels or descriptions ‘School of Lope’ or ‘School of Calderón’,