德川儒者異口同聲地讚揚吳太伯的德行，在肯定他為中國古代聖人的前提下，展開他是否日本皇室祖先的熱烈爭論。林家學派、崎門學派及水戶學在十七世紀對此議題尤為熱衷。本文整理德川前期對吳太伯的討論及分析其背後在政治及思想史上的意義。它有助了解德川日人的民族及文化認同、中國儒學在日本的在地化及德川初期的思想性格。有關吳太伯的論爭表面上是林家與反林家陣營的對峙，是中華主義派與日本主義派的鬥爭。經更深入的分析，會發現其實不論支持或否定日本太伯傳說的人都是從自國本位的角度出發，只是用不同的方法歌頌日本而已。支持派將日本看作聖人之後及聖賢道統的繼承地；反對派強調神道的神統論及萬世一系說。圍繞吳太伯角色的討論，不但反映德川前期日人如何看待神道及神儒關係，而且可窺見德川思想界對異質文化的吸納、包容及改造存在迥然不同的取向。

Whether Taibo was the ancestor of the Japanese imperial family or merely an ancient Chinese sage became a point of controversy among Japanese intellectuals of the Tokugawa period (1603-1868). In particular, in the seventeenth century, three major intellectual schools-the Hayashi school, the Kimon school and the Mito school-actively participated in an intellectual discussion regarding this issue. This article examines the controversy surrounding Taibo among early Tokugawa scholars and discusses its political and intellectual significance through a textual analysis of Tokugawa writings about him. It aims to deepen our understanding of issues related to national and cultural identity, the adaptation of Chinese Confucianism in the context of Japanese society and politics, and the vitality and creativity of thought and culture in the early Tokugawa period. On a more profound level, advocates and critics of the Taibo legend in Japan represented conflicting attitudes toward the relationship between Chinese and Japanese traditions. Advocates of the Taibo legend attempted to accommodate Chinese Confucianism within the Japanese tradition, whereas critics of the legend upheld Japanese political orthodoxy and cultural integrity in the face of unwanted Chinese influence.