臺南三山國王廟創建年代考論

A Disputed Case about the Foundation Age of Tainan Three-Mountain-Kings Temple

據王必昌《重修臺灣縣志》的記載，臺南三山國王廟是雍正7年(1729)臺灣知縣楊元璽、左營遊擊林夢熊率領粵東諸商民所建。至昭和13年(1938)時，前（山鳥）信次於《科學の臺灣》發表〈臺南の古廟〉一文，因為他發現了臺灣知縣楊允璽、左營遊擊林夢熊二官均是乾隆7年(1742)才到臺灣任職，且楊、林二官分別於乾隆9年、10年離臺，因此他認為王必昌《重修臺灣縣志》的記載有誤，並初步推測臺南三山國王廟應創建於乾隆7年至9年之間。後來他又發現了徐德峻〈新建三山明貺廟碑記〉一文，文內敘述廟的創建年代是「壬申小春之月動工、癸酉冬季之辰完竣。」也就是「乾隆17年10月動工、18年冬完竣」，與他原先推測的乾隆7年至9年之間，有10年的年代落差，所以他就認為徐德峻〈新建三山明貺廟碑記〉恐怕是10年後的誤記。最後他提出臺南三山國王廟創建的年代應在乾隆7年10月至乾隆8年冬之間。此說影響後人研究甚鉅，至今只要是知道前（山鳥）信次新說者，莫不將乾隆7年之說奉為圭臬。前（山鳥）信次新說有兩大論證基礎，一是徐德峻〈新建三山明貺廟碑記〉，一是楊允璽、林夢熊於乾隆7年才到臺任職。前者本文將提出論證，澄清徐德峻所撰碑記內容不是指臺南三山國王廟，而是今嘉義市廣寧宮，故其於何時動工、何時完工，與臺南三山國王廟本就全然無涉，不足為證；至於後者本文將說明三山國王廟真正創建者是一般粵民群眾，而非楊、林等「官員」到臺之後「倡建」。既然不是楊知縣、林遊擊二官所「倡建」，楊知縣、林遊擊何時到臺任職，便屬無關緊要了，乾隆7年新說自然無法成立。最後並來臺任職巡臺御史的楊二酉，曾經獻題聯字於臺南三山國王廟內，而其任職巡臺御史的時間是在乾隆4年至6年之間，來證明金南三山國王廟創立年代絕對早於乾隆7年。因此本文考論，以目前的相關記載而言，王必昌的雍正7年之說，才是臺南三山國王廟最可信的創立年代。

Three-mountain-Kings Temple (San shan guo wang maio) in Tainan was established in 1729, the main promoter was Yang Yu His (楊允璽), Lin Meng Hsiung (林夢熊) and Guangdong immigrates. It is based on Reconstructing Taiwan County Record that written by Wang Bi Chang (王必昌) and never be questioned until 1938, Maezima (前（山鳥）信次) published his article in Scientific Taiwan periodical. Maezima found that both Yang & Lin arrived Taiwan in 1742, so it is impossible to establish the temple. He also criticized a text of Hsu To Chun (徐德峻) and demonstrated the foundation age of the temple must be 1742. The conclusion was accepted by many scholars. There are two demonstrations of Maezima. One is the text of Hsu To Chun (徐德峻), but I find that the temple Hsu mentioned is Palace of Guangning (廣寧宮), which is located in Chiai (嘉義). The other is the inaugural time of Yang & Lin, but I think the real founder of the temple should be Guangdong immigrates, not officers. These two inferences will be proved in this article. Finally I find a new evidence that Yang Erh Yu (楊二酉) presented a signboard in Three-mountain-Kings Temple, who holded a post in Taiwan during 1739 to 1741. Thus it is Indubitable that the temple would not be established 1742. In a word, 1729 is the most believable age up till now.