As Tang Bingzheng said, “Stories of Qu Yuan have been variously recorded since Han Dynasty. As to the pass judgment, disputes as well emerged then. However, some new academic developments, such as negating the existence of historian Qu Yuan and degrading the great Qu Yuan to a jester, appeared quite late. ” (The Preface of History of Modern Criticism on Chuci) In 1920s and 1930s, the research on Chuci focused on discussing Qu Yuan's life experience, dating his works, and verifying the authenticity of his works by adopting the traditional textual research method used in Qian-Jia Philology, which had been paid much attention to by the academia as the mainstream in field of research on Chuci in the Period of Republic of China. Nevertheless, there are still some scholars who are not intended to presume the existence of historian Qu Yuan or to verify the authenticity of his works according to the places, characters, time, and events that appeared in Qu Yuan's works. These scholars believe that the essence of literature is the expression of subjective feelings in the form of emotion - the “lyrical” stance. Thus, they comb and estimate Qu Yuan's biography and works according to emotion, personality and experience. This research, which is significant in the history of academy, is worth exploring because besides revolution and enlightenment, lyricism stands for another orientation of the modernity of Chinese literature, especially for the construction of modern subject. Lyricism is the only thing that matters. From the rediscovery to the essentialization to the universalization of “lyricism”, the poetics of “lyricism” since May Fourth Movement has been involved in Chinese modern research on Chuci, and demonstrated that “poetic logic” is “emotional logic, ” which also equals to “the logic of history of poetry”. From Liang Qichao to Liang Zongdai to Li Changzhi, we can observe the extension in depth and dialectics of “lyricism” in the research on Chuci.