陶渊明曾祖问题之争论与辨析

The Discrimination of the Disputes about Tao Yuanming’s Great-grandfather

沈约《宋书·陶渊明传》称晋大司马祖侃为陶渊明的曾祖,其后有关陶渊明的史传资料多从沈约之说。清初阎咏《左汾近稿》以“大司马当为右司马”“萧统误称陶侃为大司马”为据否定沈约之说。清代及民国学者争论的焦点是《晋书》《宋书》《南史》、颜《诔》、萧《传》等文献的相关记载是否存伪问题。而民国学者创新研究方法,力图证明沈约观点的正确性。梁启超的论证别开蹊径;曾星笠的细致精深;朱自清的论证缜密思辨。实际上,解决“陶侃是否为渊明曾祖”的关键是对陶诗《赠长沙公诗序》之“长沙公于余为族祖同出大司马”的断句问题,而龚斌先生的相关论证堪为这一问题的学术总结。

“Tao Kan is Tao Yuanming’s great-grandfather.” said by Shen Yue in the biography of Tao Yuanming in Song Shu written by him. Shen Yue’s view was accepted by many scholar in their historical books. but in early Qing Dynasty, Yan Yong negated Shen Yue’s view in his Zuo Fen Jin Gao. Yan Yong’s viewpoints provoked a heated academic debatement among the scholar in Qing Dynasty, and Yan Yong’s viewpoints were refuted completely by the scholar in the period of the Republic of China. In my opinion, the focus which the scholars in Qing Dynasty disputed was the authenticity of the documents in history books, such as Jin Shu, Song Shu, Nan Shi and the Eulogy for Tao Zhengshi written by Yan Yanzhi and the Biography of Tan Yuanming written by Xiao Tong. Not only the scolarls in the period of the Republic of China demonstrated that Shen Yue’s view is unassailable, but also they crested many research methods. Liang Qichao blazed a fresh trial in reseach the relations between Tao Yuanming and Tao Kan or Meng Jia with a biogenetic method. Though Zeng Xingli’s textual research has its merits and demerits, but he queried and refuted Yan Yong’s view through a more profound chomprehensivie proof, and created a models in modern academic research with mutual evidences of literature and history. Zhu Ziqing opened a broad academic vision through his rigorous thinking and deep doubting. In fact, The key to solve the problem of Tao Yuanming’s great-grandfather isaccurate sentence breaking. Gong Bin’s academic achievements concerning Tao Yuanming’s family background can be called the academic summary.