關於1650年廣州庚寅之劫，目前所見的原始文獻主要有三種，一是尚可喜、耿繼茂《恭報恢克廣省事》題本，二是番禺王鳴雷《祭共塚文》，三是葡萄牙耶穌會士曾德昭《韃靼人攻陷廣州城記》。三份文獻的作者均為庚寅之劫親歷者，分屬征服者、被征服者和來自歐洲的「旁觀者」，因此這三份原始文獻對該事件的敘述各有側重，且表現出作者的不同立場。這三種最原始的文獻在後世衍生出三個不同的文獻系統，幾位原作者的立場在後世分別得到延續，並形成了關於廣州庚寅之劫的三種歷史記憶。本文呈現並分析了三份原始文獻的內容差異，梳理了三份文獻在後世的演變，以及由此形成的關於庚寅之劫的不同歷史記憶。

The fall and massacre of Canton by the Qing army in 1650 is documented in three main primary sources: Shang Kexi and Geng Jimao’s Memorial of the Re-conquest of Guangdong Province (1650), Wang Minglei’s Memorial Tablet for the Deceased (ca.1650s), and Portuguese Jesuit Álvaro Semedo’s report (Relação do que se passou no cerco de Quantum pelos Tartaros; e do que os Padres obrarão, e padecerão nesse tempo, e quando se tomou, 1653). Each author was a direct witness to this catastrophe, representing the perspectives of the conquerors, the defenders of the city, and European observers and “bystanders.” Thus, each source emphasizes different aspects of the event, reflecting the unique viewpoints of its author. These three foundational documents gave rise to three distinct documentary traditions; each author's perspective shaped distinct historical memories of the catastrophe. This article examines the content and differing emphases of these three primary sources, traces their evolution in later generations, and analyzes how they contributed to the varied historical memories surrounding the fall and massacre of Canton in 1650.

廣州庚寅之劫; 原始文獻; 文獻立場; 歷史記憶

the Canton Massacre; primary sources; source positioning; historical memory