Theory, Period Styles, and Comparative Literature as Discipline

摘要

In his article, \u22Theory, Period Styles, and Comparative Literature as Discipline,\u22 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\u27s idea of the Biedermeier) in order to account for some inconsistencies between ideas of \u22theory\u22 on the one hand, and \u22discipline\u22 on the other; and thirdly, he speculates on whether or not \u22literary history\u22 -- 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.