就两家所论“本朝此科废”、“国朝不以书取士”而言,这却直接成为后人认知宋代书法史的“误区”,即认为, 整个宋代不存在“以书取士”的制度。宋初书法史的文献资料缺乏,加之书家、传世品少,所以在很大程度上阻碍了研究的进展。并且, 由于某些“先入为主”的“传统观念”,致使我们对这段书法史的研究产生片面的甚至是错误的认识。“书判拔萃”即为一例。 As far as the two theories are concerned, “this section of this book was abolished” and “the country did not study for books”, this has directly become the “misunderstanding” of later generations’ cognition of the history of calligraphy in the Song Dynasty. That is to say, there is no “ Book take the ”system. The lack of documentation on the history of calligraphy in the early Song Dynasty combined with the shortage of books and articles handed down by the world led to a great deal of hindrance to the progress of the research. And, due to some “preconceived” “traditional ideas,” we have led to one-sided or even incorrect understanding of the history of this calligraphy. “Book jury” is an example.