自從陳世驤先生提出中國文學是「抒情傳統」以來，「抒情傳統」成為理解或評論中國文學一個很重要、甚至是唯一的向度。經由許多學者的討論，大抵認為中國抒情傳統在漢、魏、晉的發展，趨向以「歎逝」的角度觀察大自然，「從而賦予大自然以一種變動不居、淒涼、蕭索而感傷的澤」，更進一步說，悲哀的詩人所看到的悲哀的自然，就是中國抒情傳統的主流。如果將「歎逝」、「悲秋」視為中國文學在兩漢魏晉間發展的主流，那麼很明顯地，「抒情」論述會比較著重詩人主觀與個我情感的發抒，而在其中成為創作關鍵的「感物」或「興感（感物興情）」，也因此可以解釋為人（作者）因為面對四時萬物的變化所生發的感應。這種角度下的「感物」說與其所形塑的「抒情傳統」，是一種「主觀的表達情感的方式」，物與我之間有明顯主從關係，「物」是為了「情」而存在，並且是在情志的聚焦範圍下被選擇、被呈現。我們可以說，這樣論述角度下的「抒情傳統」，其實還沒有仔細對待「物」，還沒有正視在經驗或知識領域中已被熟知、認可的「物類」或「物體系」，與「抒情」之間會形成怎樣的交互影響，換言之，眼前我們仍然缺乏由「物」的角度，而不只是「情」的先決優位，去重新討論與詮釋「抒情傳統」。我們仍不明白，傳統知識領域內的物與物之間具有什麼樣的關係模式，以致於我們能夠一眼就看出這些閃耀意義線索的標的物？這些詩中所選擇的「物」，若不是完全源出詩人情志或想像，如何能形成情、物之間的一致性？這些物，出現在詩中與不在詩中，會有什麼異同？詩中的物，與經驗中的物或知識記憶中的物，一樣可聞見、可觸摸，而得以形成同情共感嗎？如何談論或詮釋詩中的物，因此也可以反過來問，經驗、記憶或知識中的系列物是如何能流露出詩情的呢？更根本的問題當然是，這些形成關連性的物，是如何被敘寫出來，亦即我們如何保證這些字詞的確可以有效拉引出物與物的關連性？本文的重點因此在於討論「物」如何在古典詩中形成可供辨認與召喚共感作用的關連性或相似性，簡言之，就是關連性的「物」如何或以什麼方式參與了詩歌中興感、抒情的作用。很顯然，這焦點不只在於「物」，而是更進一步，擺在「物類」或「物體系」的建構，當然也必須超越個別作者或作品的限制，而能呈現某個關鍵時期在文本內外交錯互涉所形塑的物類體系。本文將以「歎逝」主軸下的前中古文學為主要範圍，同時選取最便利的討論材料，例如收集眾多隋、唐以前作品，同時兼具「類事」與「類文」的《藝文類聚》，或是類書出現之前，也具有類聚資料性質的字書（辭書）或選集，如《爾雅》、《昭明文選》，或是充滿遠古諷誦記憶的辭賦等。針對這些材料，一方面先討論「物」的分類，與彼此連通的「類應」效果，另一方面則從這個「類應」的感知體系，呈現所謂「抒情」究竟是源出於怎樣的物類感應模式，或者說怎樣的類應設置被認為流露出抒情效果。

Ever since Chen Shixiang 陳世驤 asserted that Chinese literature is a lyric tradition,the concept and evaluation of Chinese literature as such has become very important, and perhaps even the only interpretation. According to the discussions of many subsequent scholars, for the most part it is believed that the Chinese lyric tradition, as it developed in the Han, Wei, and Jin periods, tended to use tanshi 歎逝(sighing over the temporariness of life) as the basis for the observation of nature,accordingly endowing nature with a sense of change, sadness, and desolation. Taking this a step further, some have argued that the dolorous poet? melancholic vision of nature is mainstream in the Chinese lyric tradition. If we take the sighs for the temporariness of life and ?utumnal sentiment??(beiqiu 悲秋) as the core of Chinese literature in the Han, Wei, and Jin periods, then obviously the discussion of lyricism will focus more on the subjectivity of the poet and the individual expression of emotion, within which the key concepts of creativity, ganwu 感物 (reacting to external things or to phenomenon) or xinggan 興感 (reacting to external thingsand inciting feeling), can also be used to interpret the author because they are stirred up in the face of the ever-changing seasons and the myriad things in the world. From this perspective, the idea of ganwu and its formation in the lyric tradition is a kind of subjective way to express emotion, where between external things and self, there is a clear subordinating relationship that wu exists for the sake of "feeling"; moreover, it is considered within the purview of the emotions to choose and give presence to things. The focus of this paper is to discuss how the formulation of wu in classical poetry allows us to recognize and describe the empathetic functionality of associations and similitude. In short, how and by what means does wu participate in xinggan (inciting feeling) and lyricism. It is clear that we cannot focus only on wu, butmust go one step further and add the constructs of categories of wu or systems of wu, which, of course, must go beyond the limits of individual authors and works, and must be able to demonstrate that, at certain critical points, there was an integrated relationship between textual and extra-textual expression that shapes this typological system of things/objects. This article will take tanshi that dominated early medieval literature as its main scope of discussion, at the same time selecting the most compelling materials, such as those collections that bring together a large number of pre-Sui and Tang works, simultaneously deploying leishi 類事 (types of objects) and leiwen 類文 (types of works), as found in the Yiwen Leiju 藝文類聚 as well as other materials that pre-date lieshu 類書 (commonplace books), such as dictionaries and anthologies that structurally contain typological information, e.g., the Erya 爾雅 and Zhaoming Wenxuan 昭明文選, or those cifu 辭賦 that are full of ancient recitations and such. In response to these materials, I first discuss the classification of wu and the effect of those interconnected leiying 類應 (categorical correspondence). Then, based on the perception of leiying, I lay out what form these categories of things/objects and reactions take that are at the base of so-called lyricism, i.e., what sort of leiying structure would be considered effective in expressing lyricism.