劉耘華

比較詩(shī)學(xué)是比較文學(xué)的一個(gè)重要部分。本輯組織的“東西詩(shī)學(xué)研究專(zhuān)題”，是上海師范大學(xué)比較文學(xué)與世界文學(xué)研究中心主持的國(guó)家重點(diǎn)學(xué)科項(xiàng)目—“比較詩(shī)學(xué)與比較文化叢書(shū)”之副產(chǎn)品。在叢書(shū)的編纂與討論過(guò)程中，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)“詩(shī)學(xué)”一詞的內(nèi)涵其實(shí)是相當(dāng)模糊的。一方面它在不同的民族歷史文化發(fā)展中擁有各自獨(dú)特的豐富內(nèi)涵，另一方面卻又在跨界的文化交往中頻繁地互相指代，因而產(chǎn)生了較為嚴(yán)重的名實(shí)乖離。詩(shī)學(xué)術(shù)語(yǔ)的跨文化旅行，既開(kāi)辟了民族詩(shī)學(xué)之傳承流衍的新航道，同時(shí)也造成了彼此之間的混亂與糾紛。不過(guò)，倘若對(duì)混亂的現(xiàn)象予以正本清源的考辨和詮釋?zhuān)撬鼰o(wú)疑就能成為比較詩(shī)學(xué)研究中一個(gè)充滿挑戰(zhàn)、但是魅力無(wú)窮的新領(lǐng)域。

我們邀請(qǐng)幾位專(zhuān)家對(duì)西方（包括古希臘）、日本及印度的“詩(shī)學(xué)”概念進(jìn)行基礎(chǔ)性的源流梳理，所寄托的正是對(duì)詩(shī)學(xué)跨界旅行所開(kāi)辟的文化新航道進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)清淤的期盼。隨著思想清淤的深入拓進(jìn)，我們希望還能將“詩(shī)學(xué)”拉回到各自的文化語(yǔ)境之下，在與“哲學(xué)”“美學(xué)”“宗教”“倫理學(xué)”“歷史學(xué)”以及“音樂(lè)”“繪畫(huà)”“舞蹈”“建筑”等其他學(xué)科之相互纏夾與交疊的關(guān)系中，找出其在文化系統(tǒng)中的本真定位、構(gòu)成要素、思維特質(zhì)、文化功能乃至運(yùn)行機(jī)理等，并進(jìn)一步探尋“元詩(shī)學(xué)”的原理和法則。

本輯刊發(fā)的《“易之三名”》與《“空漠之眼”》是兩位哲學(xué)博士的文論言說(shuō)，前者著眼于符號(hào)意指的多元呈現(xiàn)，后者探討的是一篇后人類(lèi)主義名作的游牧方略，擘肌分理，闡發(fā)深透，都是比較詩(shī)學(xué)研究佳構(gòu)。

為保證論文質(zhì)量，我們實(shí)行嚴(yán)格的雙向匿名審稿制，這樣做，雖然于作者、于編者均添增了不少麻煩，但對(duì)于讀者和社會(huì)卻也貢獻(xiàn)了一份責(zé)任心。在此，我們感謝作者的理解和支持。

本刊于2014年第2輯推出“中國(guó)比較文學(xué)研究年度報(bào)告（2013）”，并得到學(xué)界的關(guān)注；本輯再推出“中國(guó)比較文學(xué)研究年度報(bào)告（2014）”，期望學(xué)界繼續(xù)關(guān)注，加以補(bǔ)充或提出商榷。

Notes from Editor-in-Chief

Yunhua Liu

This Issue’s featured topic, “Eastern and Western Poetics Studies,” is a byproduct of the

Comparative Poetics and Comparative Culture Series

, a national key discipline project of the Research Center for Comparative Literature and World Literature at Shanghai Normal University. As we see it, Comparative Poetics is an indispensable facet of Comparative Literature. But through the process of compiling and organizing the series, we came to realize that the connotation of “poetics” is quite vague. On the one hand, the meaning of “poetics” is necessarily unique and particular to the historical developments and cultural context of any given time and place. On the other hand, in cross-cultural studies the term is often employed in such broad and ill-defined ways that it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to seriously engage in scholarship on the topic. In this way, culturally variant notions of poetics enable us to explore the particularities of different national traditions and heritage,yet also create impenetrable divides between scholarships emerging from different contexts. We envision a new field of Comparative Poetics as a challenging yet indispensable way to engage with this tension.

In this Issue, we’ve invited several experts to comment on the origin and development of the term “poetics” in different traditions: the Western world(including ancient Greek), Japan and India. With this line of inquiry, we anticipate being able to contextualize “poetics” within cultural milieus, allowing commentary on its identity, formal elements, conceptual characteristics, cultural functions and operational mechanisms, as we engage in discussions of the relationships between“poetics” and other subjects, such as philosophy, aesthetics, religion, ethics, history,music, painting, dancing, and architecture. Once established, we can then move on to seeking more broad principles of “meta-poetics”.

Also included in this issue are two theoretical interpretive essays, written by PhDs in philosophy: “The Name of Change” and “The Gazeless Eyes.” The former focuses on the multi-representation of symbols; the latter explores the nomadic strategies of a masterpiece of post-humanism. Both are wonderful examples of the creative potential in the field of Comparative poetics.

To ensure the quality of our articles,

Cowrie

will continue to use a double-blind review process. While we understand the burden this can place on the reviewers,editors, and authors, we feel it is in the best interest of our readers to maintain the highest level of quality. We are grateful for the understanding and continued support of all of our contributors.Finally, we were pleased with the amount of attention our “Annual Report on the Study of Chinese Comparative Literature (2013),” released as Issue 12 (2014,No. 2) of

Cowrie

, attracted within academia. This edition includes our Annual Report for 2014. We look forward to continuing previous discussions and piquing new interest with this Issue.

(Translated by Yanyan Deng; edited by Julie Starr)