杨慎对《文选》的评论,有一定的参考价值,故清人孙志祖在《文选理学权舆补》中加以辑录。但是,杨氏的评论,有时正确与谬误并存,是其不足。孙梅论《文选》最可取者有二:一是对《文选》总的评价,颇为精辟;一是指出,研究《文选》需与《文心雕龙》相结合。此种研究方法,对后世有深远的影响。张之洞对《文选》并无研究,但他熟悉《文选》的研究情况。他在《书目答问》中开列的“选学”书目,对当时和后世学者研究“选学”起了指导作用。 Yang Shen’s comments on “Wenxuan” have a certain reference value, so the Qing Zhi-Zu Zeng in “literary anthology Wai Yu Bu” to be recorded. However, Young’s commentary, sometimes correct and fallacious, is its inadequacy. On the whole, there are two most advisables on the anthology of anthology: Sun Yat-sen’s “anthology”. The first is the general evaluation of “anthology”, which is quite incisive. First, it points out that the combination of Wenxindiaolong and Wenxindiaolong should be studied. Such research methods, have a profound impact on future generations. Zhang Zhidong did not study the “anthology”, but he is familiar with the research on “anthology.” His bibliography of “Selected Studies”, which is listed in the “Questionnaire for Bibliography,” played a guiding role in the study of the current scholars and later “scholarly schools”.