《宋書》、《晉書》、《南史》三部正史均為陶淵明立傳，?將其歸類於「隱逸傳」，與其他同時代拒官不仕的隱士，共同構成一組隱士群像。蕭統〈陶淵明傳〉雖屬私人撰寫者，亦是以推崇陶淵明高風亮節的隱士人格為筆墨重點。這四篇陶淵明傳記，內容多相沿襲，材料上雖各有增減取捨，整體視之，實則大同小異，共同視為研究陶淵明生平事跡、人格情性，不可或缺之重要資料。自宋代以來，大凡撰寫陶淵明「年譜」、「詩文繫年」、「評傳」，乃至論證要注陶淵明詩文者，往往藉助這些傳記資料，作為支持某種看法或論點的憑據。 但是，不迥忽略的是，史傳中陶淵明的生平事跡，記載零星簡略，甚至史實與傳聞東事交相混雜。史傳中刻劃的陶淵明之人格形象，雖頗為明確清晰。卻與陶淵明詩文中浮現的人格形象，不盡相同。蓋詩文中的陶淵明，雖然棄官歸田，隱逸以終，卻也是一個內心時或矛盾，情懷頗為複雜的人物。對自己選擇的人生道路，往往「一心處兩端「，對自己的隱居之志，一方面傲然自得，一方面又似乎還心存疑慮，情懷不安。然而史傳中刻劃的陶淵明，卻是一個相當單純的隱士，形象平扁片面，這行始終一致，內心從無波瀾，展現的只是其高潔不群，曠達逍遙的人格情性，甚至與其僚同傳隱士之言行性格，區別甚微。對當今讀者而言，這樣非全面性，未能展現個人獨特性的人物傳記，似乎並不能令人十分滿意。本文即是嘗試從史對記述傳統，以及人物形象塑造兩方面，論析史傳中的陶淵明形象，?探索其形成的可能緣由。

　　　　　Three of the officially approved dynastic histories, namely, the Song shu, the Jin shu and the Nan shi, contain a biography of Tao Yuanming (365-427) in the section dealing with the "recluses". There is also a privately written biography of Tao by Xiao Tong (501-531). Though there are some variations in passages, the four biographies are basically identical in content and attitude, all placing emphasis on Tao's personal integrity as a determined recluse who remained firm in adversity and carefree in reclusion. These biographies have become the source to which the scholars in Tao's life and character are likely to turn in the first instance. However, the life and career of Tao Yuanming depicted in these biographies appear fragmentary, consisting of random incidents intermingled with fictional anecdotes. The character sketched is a rather singleminded stereotyped recluse who is remarkably consistent in attitude and conduct. There is apparently a lack of any character growth and development. Yet the Tao Yuanming in his self revealing writings impresses us with his far more complicated and interesting personality. For instance, he takes pride of his deliberate choice of living in retirement, yet self-doubt flashes from time to time in the back of his official biographies, the image of Tao is not much different from that of other fellow recluses who are grouped together in the same biographical section. To what modern reader, the limitations of these biographies are apparent. This article is therefore an attempt to explore these biographies in two aspects: first, to examine the conventions of biographical writings and characterization in official histories; second, to give a critical analysis of the image of Tao in his official biographies and of the possible causes behind the formation of such an image.