Abstract
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 Jena-Berlin 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.
Recommended Citation
Sucur, Slobodan.
"Theory, Period Styles, and Comparative Literature as Discipline."
CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture
2.4
(2000):
<https://doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.1085>
This text has been double-blind peer reviewed by 2+1 experts in the field.
The above text, published by Purdue University Press ©Purdue University, has been downloaded 6943 times as of 03/26/24. Note: the download counts of the journal's material are since Issue 9.1 (March 2007), since the journal's format in pdf (instead of in html 1999-2007).