长期以来，研治中国古代文学的文学史家与从事中国古代文论研究的文学批评史家，双方在各自领域都贡献了累累硕果，几部皇皇巨著式的中国文学通史与中国文学批评通史即是明证。但他们往往长于史料的搜罗与史迹的勾勒，缺少理论的建树与思想的奔涌，而且双方走着两条平行的路线? For a long time, both literary historians studying ancient Chinese literature and historians of literary criticism engaged in the study of ancient Chinese literary theory have both contributed a great deal to their respective fields. The evidences from the general history of Chinese literature and the general history of Chinese literary criticism by several emperor Huang proved. However, they tend to be longer than the historical data collection and historical outline, lack of theoretical achievements and thoughts surging, and the two sides are walking on two parallel lines?