<論説>明朝の対外政策と東アジアの国際秩序 : 朝貢体制の構造的理解に向けて

Abstract

東アジアの国際秩序に関する従来の研究は、中国王朝が与えた官爵・王号から朝貢国の序列を検討することはあっても、国際秩序を原理面から考察したものは皆無であった。本稿は東アジア世界に働く国際秩序の原理性に着目し、爵制的秩序、官僚制的秩序、宗法秩序の三秩序の存在をまず明らかにする。このうち朝貢体制を支えるのは前二者の尊尊の君臣秩序であり、親親の宗法秩序は朝貢体制の埒外にある諸国家を、擬制的血縁関係により中国中心の国際秩序の中に取り込むものであった。この宗法秩序の役割が大きく変化するのが明代である。明は対外関係を朝貢制度に一元化し、極めて厳格な政治体制を採用する。さらに全ての朝貢国に冠服を下賜して宗法秩序を適用し、華夷一家の理念世界を可視化することで朝貢体制を正当化した。今まで朝貢体制と無縁であった宗法秩序が朝貢体制に内在化し、朝貢一元体制をイデオロギー的に補強したところに明の特徴があったといえよう。

Although studies of the international order in East Asia have examined the ranking of tributary states from the point of view bestowal of titles of officials and nobility and princely designations, there have been no studies that consider the international order in terms of its basic principle. Given this circumstance, this study focuses on three types of hierarchical relations that operated in international politics : 1) order based in a system that granted titles of nobility, i.e. noble ranks were bestowed on monarchs in tributary states by Chinese emperors ; 2) order based on the bureaucratic system, i.e. official ranks were bestowed on monarchs of tributary states by Chinese emperors ; 3). order based on the patriarchal clan system, i.e. linking monarchs of neighboring states in pseudo-familial relationships to emperors of the Chinese court. Based on concrete examples, I demonstrate that by using these systems of order selectively Chinese dynasties devised ways to maintain international order in East and Northern Asia. The patriarchal clan system differed from the other two systems of ranking. It was used for large states that could not be subsumed under the rubric of lord and subject and incorporated them into a Chinese logic that was designed to maintain the superiority or equality of China. There was no contradiction between the states outside the framework of the system and the tribute system itself, and it can be said that it was precisely the patriarchal clan system of ranking that allowed the repositioning of them within the sinocentric international order. The role of the patriarchal clan system changed greatly during the Ming dynasty. The Ming dynasty adopted a particularly strict policy of employing a unitary tribute system in which the only permissible relationship with foreign states was the tributary one. However, it was the very ideology of the patriarchal clan system that reinforced this system. Aside from the traditional systems of granting bureaucratic ranks and bestowing titles of nobility, foreign rulers could be bestowed mianfu or pibian guanfu, caps and gowns, that were based on the patriarchal clan system relationships of father and child or grandfather and grandson, and this legitimized the tribute system by envisioning an ideal world of Chinese and barbarian as a single family. The patriarchal clan system of ranking that was applied to states and peoples that could not be included in the tributary system was transformed into a justification of a new tribute system. This allowed the Ming to form a unique system that saw all nations as tributary states. The patriarchal clan system order was internalized in the tribute system as an ideological device that supported the unitary tribute system. However, a change in the situation occurred during the Qing dynasty. Unlike the Ming, the Qing did not bestow the mianfu or pibian guanfu on neighboring states that essentially meant the abandonment of the vision or realization of idealized order of Chinese and barbarian in which the two were one family. During the Qing dynasty, the number of tributary states decreased drastically, and the significance of applying the patriarchal clan system of ranking to the tribute system ceased completely. In contrast, with the collapse of the unitary tribute system, the Qing dynasty came to seek an international order differing from that of the Ming. This meant there was a need to use a different logic to deal with countries outside the framework of the tribute system rather than that of the international order of the tribute system centered on the Qing. In conclusion, one may assume that what was generated from this need was the concept of hushiguo (states, which did not offer tribute, but that conducted trade, hushi) as seen in the Daqing-huidan. This would subsume countries that could not be included in the tribute system in the category of trading states, and thus inserting them within the rubric of a Chinese-and-barbarian order based on the ideology of the universal benevolence of the Chinese emperor. In a sense, the binding of the various states that had fallen outside the tribute system into traditional order of Chinese and barbarian was a way of repositioning them on the outer orbit of the tribute system. Using this logic, trading countries that were beyond the direct control of the Qing dynasty were kept within the international order that was centered subjectively on China. There is a tendency today to call this system a "trading system, " but as long as the trading countries can be grasped in terms of the Chinese-barbarian order, and to the extent that there is no indication that a new concept of mutual trade supplanted that of the Chinese-barbarian order, how can an argument confirming the existence of such a trading system be made? This means there is still much room for debate regarding the ongoing theory of a trading system that remains to be completed.