讀羅著「國父家世源流考」存疑

Questions on Lo Hsiang-lin's Origins of Sun Yat Sen's Lineage

孫甄陶(Tun T. SUN)

《新亞學報》 14卷 (1984/08) Pp. 349-368+ap10-11

並列摘要

Questions are raised over the arguments presented by the late Professor Lo Hsiang-lin concerning the origins of Sun Yat Sen's lineage. Lo Hsiang-lin argued that Sun's lineage had actually originated from Kung-kuan-pei Village of Chung-pa in the Tzu-chin County (of Kuang-tung), and not from Tung-kuan County as commonly held. The basis of this statement is Sun's own reminiscence, taken down in Linbarger's Sun Yat Sen and the Chinese Republic, that his ancestral hall was located in "Kung-kuan of Tung-chiang district". Lo presented the fact that there was an ancestral hall in the southern part of the Kung-kuan-pei village as a corroboration. Lo further argued that the genealogy compiled by the Sun lineage of Chung-pa which shows that the lineage moved to Ch'ung-k'ou-men Village of Chung-shan County (via Tseng-ch'eng where they stayed for a brief while) during Lien-ch'ang's time, that is, the twelfth generation, should prove that the Sun had been a successor from this lineage as the genealogy of the Sun lineage of the Ts'ui-heng Village (renamed from Ch'ung-k'ou-men) started only with the twelfth generation and with also a person named Lien-ch'ang. Moreover, since the genealogy of the Chung-pa Sun ended with the twelfth generation and since that of the Ts'ui-heng Sun quite coincidentally, also started with the twelfth generation, Lo took the coincidences as a strong evidence that the two were connected. The present author questions the ingenuity of Lo's work, because the arguments were grounded on coincidences and could not conclusively prove that the commonly-held belief that Sun had actually originated from Tung-kuan is wrong. Moreover, since the Lien of Lien-ch'ang in the two genealogies are written differently, Lo's statement that they were of the same person can not be accepted readily. Finally, the author also questions Lo's statement that there were more than one lineage of Suns in Chung-shan. The conclusion is that Lo's work can not be accepted conclusively and the author appeals to historians and the Nationalist Kuo-min-tang archivists to pay attention to this issue concerning the origin of Sun Yat Sen's lineage.