在最近将近三十年的时间中,中国古代文学学科与其他人文科学的学科一样,学术上的发展是巨大的。如果仅从学科内部来看,目前古代文学学科的发展,甚至可以说是处于繁荣的局面,但是存在的问题也是很多的。有些是具体的学术方法、学术观点的问题,有些则很有可能是关系到一代学术的格局和一代学人的自身素质的问题。近年来,学术界对古代文学学科的学术传统、学科性质、研究方法的多方面探讨,正反映了学界对古代文学学科存在问题的积极应对。本栏目所提供的五篇文章,都是作者对自己长期研究领域内的学术问题的前沿性思考。其中赵敏俐先生的论文强调辞赋在中国文学史中的地位,指出文学史研究中对辞赋研究的严重不足,由此而探讨了如何突破现代学术语境中所建构的中国文学史叙述体系的缺陷。钱志熙先生的论文提出诗歌史的研究如何与作家、作品研究构成良好的互动关系的问题,指出对于某些时段的诗歌史来讲,后人按照诗歌史主流所建构的诗史及其评价体系,与那个时代诗坛的评价体系常常是有较大的差异,如南朝至初唐的诗史、北宋的诗史,都存在这种情况。刘勇强先生的论文对近期人们关注的关于如何重建文学史坐标系的问题提出自己的看法,具体分析造成近期文学史研究坐标系改变的几种因素,强调多元、立体的文学史叙述线索。周裕锴先生的论文,提出诗歌的文本类型与阐述策略之间的互动关系,如“纪事之事”与“象喻之诗”,其阐述的方式就是不同的,由此形成中国古代诗歌阐释史上“知人论世”与“见仁见智”两大传统。吴承学先生与何诗海先生的论文,实际上是指出如何突破习惯的文学史料范围,充分利用更广泛的文献领域中的文学史料,如本文具体如何利用类书、字书研究早期的文学观念与文体理论。总的来说,这些文章,既不过于笼统、宏观,又不是微观的,可以说是一些“中观性”的具体问题。尤其对目前古代文学研究领域的学者的思考问题的状态,有一定的代表性,对古代文学学科的思考与实践,不无启发之处。本刊也希望能够继续关注古代文学研究者有关这方面问题的思考与讨论。 In the recent nearly three decades, Chinese ancient literature has the same academic development as other humanities disciplines. If only from the internal point of view, the current development of ancient literature disciplines, and even can be said to be in a prosperous situation, but there are many problems. Some are specific academic and academic issues, while others are most likely related to the academic structure of a generation and the quality of a generation of scholars themselves. In recent years, the academic circles have discussed many aspects of the academic traditions, the nature of disciplines and the research methods of ancient literature, which reflect the active response of the academic circles to the existing problems of ancient literature. The five articles provided in this section are all authoritative thinking about the academic issues within their long-term field of study. Among them, Mr. Zhao Minli’s essay emphasizes Ci Fu’s position in the history of Chinese literature and points out the serious deficiencies in the study of Ci Fu in the research of literary history. From this, it explores how to break through the shortcomings of the narrative system of Chinese literary history constructed in modern academic context. Mr. Qian Zhixi’s thesis proposes how the study of the history of poetry constitutes a good interactive relationship with writers and works. It points out that for some periods of poetry history, the poet’s history and its evaluation system are based on the mainstream of poetry history , And the poetry evaluation system of that era often have greater differences, such as the history of poetry from the Southern Dynasties to the early Tang Dynasty, Northern Song poetry history, there is such a situation. Mr. Liu Yongqiang’s essay puts forward his own views on how to rebuild the coordinate system of literary history in recent years, and analyzes several factors that have caused the recent changes in the study of the history of literary history. Emphasis is laid on the clues of pluralistic and stereoscopic literary history. Mr. Zhou Yuzhang’s essay put forward the interactive relationship between the text type of poetry and elaborating strategy, such as “events of the Chronicle” and “poem of the imagery metaphor”, and its way of explanation is different, thus forming the history of ancient Chinese poetry interpretation “ Zhiren on the world ”and“ different opinions ”two traditions. The essay by Mr. Wu Chengxue and Mr.He Shihai points out how to break through the range of historical literary historical materials and make full use of the literary historical materials in a wider field of literature. For example, how to use class books and letters to study early literary concepts and stylistic theories. All in all, these articles are neither too general nor macroscopic nor microscopic, and can be said to be some specific problems of “medium-natureality.” In particular, the state of thinking problems of scholars in the field of ancient literary studies is somewhat representative. The thinking and practice of ancient literary studies are not without inspiration. The publication also hopes to continue to pay attention to ancient literature researchers think and discuss this issue.