【摘要】 《文选》编纂特征之一，就是“次文之体”“又以类分”,既次序文体，又细分类别，这一做法对后世选集影响甚大，也引发批评者“擒贼先擒王”的欲望。举其赫赫有名者，则如苏轼、姚鼐、章学诚，其中又以后二者的批评较为具体，也多受现代学人的肯定。然而对该问题的研讨，既需要文学眼光，又需要历史眼光。总体看来，姚鼐有文学眼光而缺乏历史眼光，章学诚有历史眼光而缺乏文学眼光。所以透过对二者论断的辨析，可以看到他们的意见虽各有道理，却难以餍服人心。对《文选》文体分类的研究，不能仅仅满足于简单化或还原式的叙述，而是要深入文学史的内部，又超越对于独自的个别事实的崇拜；既要解释各类文体的历史和经验的特殊性，又应当在时间和空间的意义上呈现各类文体的连续性。而为什么会发生如此的变化，为什么此处(人)的变化与彼处(人)的不同，就更是要求学者予以解释的问题。这样的解释，呼唤着文学和史学眼光的兼用并施。更多还原

【Abstract】 One of the compilation features of Wenxuan is that it “arranges texts by genre” and “divides them into categories.” This practice profoundly influenced later anthologies and aroused critics’ desire to “capture the chief in order to capture the foe.” Among the three celebrated critics--Su Shi, Yao Nai, and Zhang Xuecheng, the latter two offering the more concrete objections that modern scholars have often endorsed. However, the study of this issue requires both literary and historical perspectives. Overall, Yao Nai brings a literary eye but lacks historical depth, whereas Zhang Xuecheng commands the historical dimension but lacks literary ones. By analyzing the two sets of judgments, although each position contains valid insights, neither can claim full conviction. The study of the genre classification in Wenxuan must therefore move beyond simplified or reductionist accounts; instead, it should delve into the inner dynamics of literary history and transcend the worship of isolated facts. It must explain both the historical and experiential particularities of each genre and, at the same time, present its continuity in terms of time and space. To ask why these changes occurred, and why one place or person different from another is precisely the kind of explanation that call for the use of both literary and historical perspectives.更多还原