Abstract

This paper defends the methodological grounding of Twilight Cosmologies, a comparative study of a classical‑inflected Japanese narrative poem and a modern Chinese regulated verse. Although comparing works across cultures and historical periods can raise doubts, the study relies on well‑established critical frameworks that clarify shared features of poetic expression. T. S. Eliot’s idea of tradition supports the view that modern poems written in classical styles are creative reinterpretations of inherited forms. Cleanth Brooks and Roman Jakobson offer methods for considering the functions of tensions, coherence, and linguistic patterning, while Northrop Frye’s Theory of Archetypes is used to discern how “twilight” is a common symbol of liminal transition. Edward Said and Eugene Eoyang influenced bring the comparison to a “two-way mirror,” reflecting differences rather than superiority. Valuable insights from Foucault, Ong, and Turner further support readings of divine withdrawal and moral agency in East Asian literature, showing how twilight imagery shapes distinct philosophical worlds.