{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04021655065738593, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.5353535353535355, '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': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Theory, Period Styles, and Comparative Literature as Discipline

In his article, Theory, Period Styles, and Comparative Literature as Discipline, Slobodan Sucur
attempts to answer the following question: Can a rapprochement be brought about between various,
often antagonistic, literary-theoretical views and the concept of comparative literature itself,
which requires accord, consensus, agreement, etc., for it to function as a concrete body and discipline?
Sucur attempts dealing with this question in three parts of the paper: First, he establishes
a relationship/link between the theoretical discord of today (humanism, formalism, deconstruction,
etc.) and the high theorizing which began during the JenaBerlin phase of Romanticism
(Shelling, Hegel, F. Schlegel, etc.); secondly, he attempts linking the origin of comparative literature
with later Romanticism (Virgil Nemoianu’s idea of the Biedermeier) in order to account for
some inconsistencies between ideas of „theory” on the one hand, and „discipline” on the other;
and thirdly, he speculates on whether or not „literary history” – an idea often neglected now – can
be the bridge where literary theory meets up with comparative literature as a disciplinary endeavor,
that is, in the act of writing a comparative literary history.

