原文

迁海

　　粤东濒海，其民多居水乡，十里许，辄有万家之村，千家之砦。自唐、宋以来，田庐丘墓，子孙世守之勿替，鱼盐蜃蛤之利，藉为生命。岁壬寅二月，忽有迁民之令，满洲科尔坤、介山二大人者，亲行边徼，令滨海民悉徙内地五十里，以绝接济台湾之患。于是麾兵折界，期三日尽夷其地，空其人民，弃赀携累，仓卒奔逃，野处露栖。死亡载道者，以数十万计。明年癸卯，华大人来巡边界，再迁其民。其八月，伊、吕二大人复来巡界。明年甲辰三月，特大人又来巡界，遑遑然以海边为事，民未尽空为虑，皆以台湾未平故也。先是，人民被迁者以为不久即归，尚不忍舍离骨肉。至是飘零日久，养生无计，于是父子夫妻相弃，痛哭分携，斗粟一儿，百钱一女，豪民大贾，致有不损锱铢，不烦粒米，而得人全室以归者。其丁壮者去为兵，老弱者展转沟壑，或合家饮毒，或尽帑投河。有司视如蝼蚁，无安插之恩，亲戚视如泥沙，无周全之谊。于是八郡之民，死者又以数十万计。民既尽迁，于是毁屋庐以作长城，掘坟茔而为深堑，五里一墩，十里一台，东起大虎门，西迄防城，地方三千余里，以为大界。民有阑出咫尺者，执而诛戮，而民之以误出墙外死者，又不知几何万矣。自有粤东以来，生灵之祸，莫惨于此。戊申三月，有当事某某者，始上展界之议。有曰：东粤背山而海，疆土褊小。今概于海濒之乡，一迁再迁，流离数十万之民，岁弃三千余之赋。且地迁矣，又在在设重兵以守，筑墩楼，树桩栅，岁必修葺，所费不赀，钱粮工力，悉出闾阎，其迁者已苦仳离，未迁者又愁科派。民之所存，尚能有十之三四乎？请即弛禁，招民复业，一以补国用，一以苏民生，诚为两便。于是孑遗者稍稍来归，相庆再造，边海封疆，又为一大开辟焉。

白话

中文

沿海迁界。

广东东部濒临大海，那里的百姓大多居住在水乡。大约方圆十里的范围内，常常就有上万户人家的大村落，或者上千户人家的寨子。从唐、宋朝代以来，（百姓的）田地、房舍、祖坟，都由子孙世代守护不曾变更，（他们）依靠捕鱼、晒盐、采集蜃蛤等海产资源为生。清顺治十八年（岁次壬寅，公元1661年，但史实多载为康熙元年，即1662年）二月，忽然颁布了强制迁移沿海居民的命令。满洲的科尔坤、介山两位大臣亲自巡视边界，命令沿海居民全部向内地迁移五十里，用来断绝接济台湾（郑成功政权）的隐患。于是指挥士兵划定界限，限定三天内必须将界外的土地全部平毁，人员全部迁空。百姓们抛弃家产，带着家眷，仓促逃亡，在野外露天居住。一路上因迁移而死亡的人，数以十万计。第二年（癸卯，1663年），华大人来巡视边界，再次迁移居民（将界限进一步内推）。同年八月，伊、吕两位大臣又来巡视边界。再下一年（甲辰，1664年）三月，特大人又来巡视边界，都急急忙忙地处理海边事务，忧虑百姓未能全部迁空，这都是因为台湾尚未平定的缘故。起初，被迁徙的百姓以为不久就能回去，还不忍心抛弃亲人。到这时（多次迁界后），在外漂泊的日子久了，生计无着，于是父子、夫妻之间相互抛弃，痛哭着分离。（人命贱如草芥）一斗米就能换一个男孩，一百文钱就能换一个女孩。富豪大商们，甚至有不花分文、不费粒米，就能得到别人全家（为奴仆）带回去的。那些年轻力壮的男子去当了兵，老弱病残的辗转死在路边沟壑里，有的全家一起服毒自尽，有的拿出所有积蓄（或指全家）跳河自杀。官府把他们看作蝼蚁一般，没有给予任何安置的恩惠；亲戚们也把他们看作泥沙一样，没有尽到周济救助的情谊。于是（沿海）八个郡的百姓，因此而死的又有数十万人。百姓全部迁走后，（官府）就拆毁房屋用作（边界）长墙，挖掘坟墓造成深沟，每五里设一个土墩，十里设一个哨台，东起大虎门，西到防城，划定了长达三千多里的地界。百姓有越过边界哪怕一尺半步的，一旦被抓住就处死。而那些因为误出界外而被杀死的百姓，又不知道有几万人了。自从有广东这地方以来，生灵遭受的祸患，没有比这次更惨烈的了。康熙七年（戊申，1668年）三月，有某位当权者，才开始提出将边界向外扩展（允许百姓回迁一部分）的建议。他说：广东背靠山岭面向大海，疆土狭小。如今将沿海乡镇全部迁空，而且一迁再迁，导致数十万百姓流离失所，每年损失三千多（单位，可能是指银两或田亩）的赋税收入。况且土地迁空之后，又到处设置重兵把守，修筑墩台楼橹，设置木桩栅栏，每年都必须修缮，花费巨大。这些钱粮和劳役，全都出自（未迁徙地区的）百姓。那些被迁走的人已经饱受离散之苦，没有被迁走的人又忧愁于摊派的劳役赋税。现在（广东）还剩下的百姓，能有原来的十分之三四吗？请求立即放松禁令，招抚百姓回来恢复生产，这样做一可以补充国家财政用度，二可以使民生得以复苏，实在是两全其美。于是，幸存下来的百姓才逐渐回来，互相庆贺获得重生。沿海的疆界，又重新得到了一次大的开拓。

英文

Coastal Evacuation (Qian Hai).

Eastern Guangdong borders the sea, and its people mostly lived in coastal villages. Within about ten li, there were often large villages of ten thousand households or forts of a thousand households. Since the Tang and Song dynasties, their fields, houses, and ancestral graves had been passed down through generations, and they relied on fishing, salt production, and collecting shellfish for their livelihood. In the second month of the renyin year (1662, though the text says 1661, historical records often point to Kangxi's first year), an order for relocating the coastal population was suddenly issued. The Manchu lords Ke'er'kun and Jieshan personally inspected the borders and ordered all coastal residents to move fifty li inland to cut off supplies to Taiwan (the Zheng regime). Consequently, soldiers were dispatched to demarcate the boundary, giving a three-day deadline to completely level the area outside the line and evacuate its people. Residents abandoned their property, carried their families, and fled in haste, living exposed in the wilderness. Hundreds of thousands died along the roads. The following year (guimao, 1663), Lord Hua came to inspect the border and relocated the people again (pushing the boundary further inland). In the eighth month of that year, Lords Yi and Lü came again to inspect the border. The year after (jiachen, 1664), in the third month, Lord Te arrived to inspect the border again. They were all anxiously focused on the coastal affairs, worried that the population had not been fully cleared, all because Taiwan had not yet been pacified. Initially, the relocated people thought they would return soon and were reluctant to abandon their kin. But as time dragged on and they drifted without means of support, fathers abandoned sons, husbands abandoned wives, weeping as they parted. A boy could be traded for a dou (measure) of grain, a girl for a hundred coins. Wealthy merchants could even acquire entire families (as servants) without spending a penny or a grain of rice. The able-bodied men went off to become soldiers, while the old and weak perished in ditches along the roads. Some families drank poison together, others threw themselves into rivers after exhausting their savings (or perhaps whole families). Officials treated them like ants, offering no resettlement aid; relatives treated them like dirt, offering no support. As a result, hundreds of thousands more people from the eight coastal prefectures died. Once the people were completely moved, their houses were demolished to build a long wall (boundary), and graves were dug up to create deep trenches. Earthen mounds were built every five li, and watchtowers every ten li. This great boundary stretched over three thousand li from Da Hu Men (Great Tiger Gate) in the east to Fangcheng in the west. Anyone caught crossing even a foot beyond the boundary was executed. The number of people killed for mistakenly stepping outside the wall was unknown, perhaps tens of thousands more. Since the beginning of Guangdong's history, there has never been a greater catastrophe for its people. In the third month of the wushen year (1668), a certain official in power finally proposed pushing the boundary back outwards (allowing partial return). He argued: Eastern Guangdong has mountains at its back and faces the sea, its territory is narrow. Now, by repeatedly evacuating the entire coastal region, hundreds of thousands have been displaced, and over three thousand (units, likely silver taels or land units) in annual tax revenue have been lost. Moreover, after the evacuation, heavy troops are stationed everywhere for defense, mounds and towers are built, stakes and fences erected, all requiring costly annual repairs. This money, grain, and labor all come from the (remaining inland) population. Those relocated are already suffering from separation, and those not relocated worry about the imposed levies. Do the remaining people even constitute thirty or forty percent of the original population? He requested an immediate lifting of the ban to allow people to return and resume their livelihoods. This would both supplement state revenue and revive the people's livelihood, truly benefiting both sides. Consequently, the survivors gradually returned, celebrating their rebirth. The coastal frontier was thus reopened on a large scale.

文化解读/分析

“迁海”或称“迁界”，是清初一项极其严酷的沿海坚壁清野政策，旨在割断大陆与台湾郑成功抗清势力的联系。屈大均的记述是这一历史事件在广东地区惨痛经历的直接见证，具有极高的史料价值和深刻的文化、社会意义。

1. 国家安全与民生福祉的极端冲突： “迁海”政策的出发点是维护清廷统治、平定台湾的军事和政治需要。然而，为了达到这一目的，统治者采取了极端残酷的手段，完全漠视沿海居民的生存权、财产权和乡土情感，导致了巨大的人道灾难。这集中体现了专制政权在特定历史条件下，国家（或统治集团）利益与民众基本生存需求之间的尖锐对立。
2. 对传统乡土社会的毁灭性打击： 广东沿海地区自唐宋以来形成的聚落、经济模式（渔、盐、贸）和世代相传的乡土联系（“田庐丘墓，子孙世守之勿替”）在“迁海”令下被强制中断和摧毁。房屋被夷平，祖坟被挖掘，百姓流离失所，数百年积累的社会结构和文化纽带遭到毁灭性破坏。
3. 政策执行的残酷性与非人道： 文中详细描述了迁界的仓促（“期三日”）、彻底（“尽夷其地，空其人民”）、暴力（“麾兵折界”、“执而诛戮”）以及后续管理的严苛（“五里一墩，十里一台”）。百姓在过程中“死亡载道”、“父子夫妻相弃”、“斗粟一儿，百钱一女”、“展转沟壑”、“合家饮毒”，而官府和亲戚的冷漠更显其悲惨。这揭示了政策执行过程中毫无人性的特点。
4. 经济与社会的巨大代价： 除了数十万计的人口死亡和流离失所，迁界还导致大片良田荒芜、传统海洋经济停滞、巨额赋税损失（“岁弃三千余之赋”）。同时，为维持边界和驻防而投入的巨大成本（“所费不赀”）进一步加重了未迁徙地区百姓的负担（“未迁者又愁科派”），使得整个广东社会经济凋敝，民生困苦（“民之所存，尚能有十之三四乎？”）。
5. 历史的反思与政策调整： 屈大均记录了最终“展界”（部分弛禁）的建议及其理由，这表明即便是当时的统治阶层内部，也有人认识到该政策的巨大危害和不可持续性，主张以更务实的态度平衡国家财政、民生与边防需求。允许“孑遗者稍稍来归”，标志着对前期极端政策的部分纠正，也为后来沿海地区的恢复和“再造”提供了可能。
6. 集体记忆与地方认同： “迁海”是广东历史上一次深刻的集体创伤，屈大均以“自有粤东以来，生灵之祸，莫惨于此”来形容其惨烈程度。这一事件深刻地影响了广东沿海地区的社会结构、人口分布和民众记忆，成为地方历史叙事和身份认同的重要组成部分。

关键词

迁海, 迁界, 清初, 广东, 沿海, 坚壁清野, 强制迁移, 台湾, 郑成功, 海禁, 科尔坤, 介山, 康熙, 社会创伤, 人道灾难, 人口流失, 经济破坏, 边防政策, 乡土社会, 屈大均, 广东新语