黃宗羲成長於重視經學精神的學術環境，再加上家變國亡的衝擊，使得他日後評人論事，皆以通經致用程度為標準，遂構成他經史之學的特色。由於宗羲過度強調君子與小人的分野，有時難免帶門戶之見，形成他史識上的盲點。宗羲純粹史學代表作，即《弘光實錄鈔》和《行朝錄》兩部南明史著。二書參引史源，包括邸報、《甲申傳信錄》、《所知錄》、《劫灰錄》諸書，雖皆係信而可徵之史料，但宗羲取材邸報，並非超然均衡；《傳信》、《所知》兩錄作者，又明顯偏袒「東林」，故宗羲南明著作不乏偏頗可議之處。本文列舉實例，説明宗羲偶因價值取向或寓意褒貶之故，刻意渲染乃至扭曲史實。雖云小瑕不足掩大瑜，惟宗羲長子、門生皆赴《明史》館，且其著作也奉詔宣付史館，故些微瑕疵，一經官修《明史》傳承放大，便影響後世深鉅。本文因此追本溯源，從宗羲史學觀念萌芽，探討至其史著之具體得失，希冀能為南明研究提供更堅實的史學史基礎。

Huang Tsung-hsi 黃宗羲 was grown up in an academic atmosphere full of Confucian ideals and values instructed by the Ancient Classics. In addition to his Confucian trainings, the calamities of the nation and family reinforced his moral distinction between gentlemen and villians. As a good historian, Huang cautiously treated the historical materials and his comments. Nevertheless, whenever he faced the issues concerning moral judgements or his own personal experiences, Huang from time to time turned out to be arbitrary and emotional. Within his two works dealing with the Southern Ming Regimes, ＂The Valid Records of the Hung-kuang Reign＂ 《弘光實錄鈔》 and ＂The History of the Acting Regimes＂ 《行朝錄》, Huang cited books like ＂True Records about the Year 1644＂ 《甲申傳信錄》, ＂Records about what I know＂ 《所知錄》, ＂Fragmentary Records after the Holocaust＂ 《劫灰錄》, which were all reliable, though partially biased by the Tung-lin 東林 viewpoint. This article enumerated a few examples to illustrate how Huang, in order to manifesting Confucian values, exaggerated or even distorted some historical facts. Since his eldest son, Pai-chia 百家, and a close disciple, Wan Szu-t'ung 萬斯同, were recruited to dominate the compilation of ＂Ming History＂ 《明史》, the official text of the Ming Dynasty, Huang's studies of the Southern Ming were further authorized and broadly cited without hesitation. This article hopefully can provide a second thought over both Huang Tsung-hsi's historical works and the studies of the Southern Ming.