28 CHINA'S UNPREPAREDNESS TRIBUTE AND TRADE 29 submission of the foreigner came in direct response to the imperial benevo- lence,which was itself a sign of the potent imperial virtue. daily amounts of silver,rice,or fodder were paid from the imperial treasury Finally,it was unavoidable that these reciprocal relations of compassion- for the maintenance of men and animals.When an envoy returned to the ate benevolence and humble submission should be carried out in ritual frontier he was escorted by a ceremonial usher.Both going and coming he form,without which they could hardly be said to exist.Tribute became one was accompanied by troops who combined protection with surveillance. of the rites of the court,a part of the ceremonial of government.In fact, In the court ceremonies there was an exchange of courtesies.The tribute the presentation of tribute was not a rite limited to barbarians.Under the mission was entertained at banquets,not once but several times,and Manchus tribute (g)was also received by the court at Peking from the feasted also in the presence of the emperor,from whom they might receive provinces of China proper.Its presentation by the barbarians was a sign of tea or even delicacies of the table.On their part the tributary envoys per- their admission to the civilization of the Middle Kingdom-a boon and a formed the kotow.European participants were inclined to feel that this privilege,not an ignominious ordeal.In this way the formalities of the ceremony more than made up for the imperial benevolence which filtered tributary system were a mechanism by which formerly barbarous regions down to them through the sticky hands of their official supervisors.The outside the empire were given their place in the all-embracing Sino-centric kotow in principle is a knocking of the head upon the ground,in itself an cosmos. act of surrender,but the full kotow as performed at court was a good deal Tribute as ritual.This will appear most plainly from an analysis of the more.It consisted of three separate kneelings,each kneeling accompanied rules and regulations of the tribute system as published in the various by three separate prostrations,and the whole performed at the strident editions of the Collected Statutes of the Ch'ing.s First of all the tributary command of an usher--“Kneel!'",“Fall prostratel'”,“Rise to your knees!'”, ruler who tendered his submission was incorporated into the charmed "Fall prostrate!",and so on.An envoy went through this calisthenic cere- circle of the Chinese state by several forms.An imperial patent of appoint- mony not once but many times,since it was the chief means by which he ment was bestowed upon him-a document which recognized his status as repaid the imperial board and lodging,and his official supervisors were a tributary.A noble rank was also conferred upon him,sometimes,as with charged to see that he did it before the emperor with accomplished ease. the Mongol princes,a relatively high rank in comparison with those of It was the rite of all others which left no doubt,least of all in the mind of Chinese subjects.An imperial seal was also granted him,to be used in the the performer,as to who was the superior and who the inferior in status. signing of his tributary memorials.Such memorials and other communica- Yet it should not be forgotten by egalitarian Westerners (who invari- tions were to be dated by the Chinese dynastic reign-title-that is,the ably did forget)that the kotow was merely a part of the universal order Chinese calendar was extended over the tributary state.A tributary envoy of Confucian ceremony which symbolized all the relationships of life.The who died within the Middle Kingdom received unusual Confucian honors: emperor performed the kotow to Heaven and to his parents,the highest a funeral essay was recited and burned at his grave,where sacrificial offer- officials of the empire performed it to the emperor,and friends or dignitaries ings were made,and later a stone was placed above it with an imperial might even perform it mutually to each other.From a tribute envoy it inscription.Even for the burial of an attendant of the mission,if he died was,therefore,no more than good manners. at the capital,a wooden coffin and red satin were to be supplied. The tribute itself was no gain to the imperial court.It was supposed to The tribute missions themselves were carefully limited in size but,within consist of native produce,a symbolic offering of the fruits of the tributary the limit,were well provided for.The officers and servants of a mission country."Things that are not locally produced are not to be presented." were not to exceed one hundred men,of whom only twenty might go to Rare and strange items might be included,like the auspicious giraffes the capital while the rest remained at the border under the care and on the which were brought from Africa in the early Ming period as unicorns provision of the local authorities.A mission coming by sea should not con- (ch'i-lin),omens of good fortune.8 But there was little benefit to the im- sist of more than three ships,of one hundred men each.On the way to the perial treasury in anything that a tribute mission might bring.The value capital the mission received its keep and transportation,the latter being of the tribute objects was certainly balanced,if not outweighed,by the im- supplied by the men,horses,boats and carts of the imperial post (the perial gifts to the various members of the mission and to the vassal ruler. service of transport and communication maintained in each province for The expense of entertaining a mission was not inconsiderable,but the imperial use).At the capital the mission was lodged at the official Resi- court was repaid in kudos.Tribute was ordinarily presented at the time of dence for Tributary Envoys-a collection of hostelries where statutory a great audience at the New Year,when the bureaucracy of all the empire paid reverence to the Son of Heaven and when the dramatic submission of
28 CHINA'S UNPREPAREDNESS submission of the foreigner came in direct response to the imperial benevolence, which was itself a sign of the potent imperial virtue. Finally, it was unavoidable that these reciprocal relations of compassionate benevolence and humble submission should be carried out in ritual form, without which they could hardly be said to exist. Tribute became one of the rites of the court, a part of the ceremonial of government. In fact, the presentation of tribute was not a rite limited to barbarians. Under the Manchus tribute (kung) was also received by the court at Peking from the provinces of China proper. Its presentation by the barbarians was a sign of their admission to the civilization of the Middle Kingdom - a boon and a privilege, not an ignominious ordeal. In this way the formalities of the tributary system were a mechanism by which formerly barbarous regions outside the empire were given their place in the all-embracing Sino-centric cosmos. Tribute as ritual. This will appear most plainly from an analysis of the rules and regulations of the tribute system as published in the various editions of the Collected Statutes of the Ch'ing.6 First of all the tributary ruler who tendered his submission was incorporated into the charmed circle of the Chinese state by several forms. An imperial patent of appointment was bestowed upon him - a document which recognized his status as a tributary. A noble rank was also conferred upon him, sometimes, as with the Mongol princes, a relatively high rank in comparison with those of Chinese subjects. An imperial seal was also granted him, to be used in the signing of his tributary memorials. Such memorials and other communications were to be dated by the Chinese dynastic reign-title - that is, the Chinese calendar was extended over the tributary state. A tributary envoy who died within the Middle Kingdom received unusual Confucian honors: a funeral essay was recited and burned at his grave, where sacrificial offerings were made, and later a stone was placed above it with an imperial inscription. Even for the burial of an attendant of the mission, if he died at the capital, a wooden coffin and red satin were to be supplied. The tribute missions themselves were carefully limited in size but, within the limit, were well provided for. The officers and servants of a mission were not to exceed one hundred men, of whom only twenty might go to the capital while the rest remained at the border under the care and on the provision of the local authorities. A mission coming by sea should not consist of more than three ships, of one hundred men each. On the way to the capital the mission received its keep and transportation, the latter being supplied by the men, horses, boats and carts of the imperial post (the service of transport and communication maintained in each province for imperial use). At the capital the mission was lodged at the official Residence for Tributary Envoys - a collection of hostelries where statutory ,i£4££ TRIBUTE AND TRADE 29 daily amounts of silver, rice, or fodd~r were paid from the imperial treasury for the maintenance of men and ammals. When an envoy returned to the frontier he was escorted by a ceremonial usher. Both going and coming he was accompanied by troops who combined protection with ~urveillanc~. In the court ceremonies there was an exchange of courtesies. The tnbute mission was entertained at banquets, not once but several .times, a~d feasted also in the presence of the emperor, from whom they mIght receIve tea or even delicacies of the table. On their part the tributary envoys performed the kotow. European participants were inclined to feel that this ceremony more than made up for the imperial benevolence which filtered down to them through the sticky hands of their official supervisors. The kotow in principle is a knocking of the head upon the ground, in itself an act of surrender but the full kotow as performed at court was a good deal more. It consist~d of three separate kneelings, each kneeling accompanied by three separate prostrations, and the whole performed at the strident command of an usher-"Kneel! ", "Fall prostrate! ", "Rise to your knees! ", "Fall prostrate! '0', and so on. An envoy went through this calisthenic. ceremony not once but many times, since it was the chief means by whIch he repaid the imperial board and lodging, and his o£?cial super~isors were charged to see that he did it before the emperor wlth acco:uphshed. ease. It was the rite of all others which left no doubt, least of all III the mmd of the performer, as to who was the superior and who the inferior in st~tus .. Yet it should not be forgotten by egalitarian Westerners (who mvanably did forget) that the kotow was merely a part of. the ~nivers~l order of Confucian ceremony which symbolized all the relatIOnshIps of Me. The emperor performed the kotow to Heaven and to his p~rents, th~ h.igh~st officials of the empire performed it to the emperor, and fnends or dlgmtanes might even perform it mutually to each other. From a tribute envoy it was, therefore, no more than good manners. The tribute itself was no gain to the imperial court. It was supposed to consist of native produce, a symbolic offering of the fruits of the tribut~;; country. "Things that are not locally produced .are not to be. ~resen~ed. Rare and strange items might be included, lIke the ausplcIOUS gIraffes which were brought from Africa in the early Ming period as unicorns (ch'i-lin), omens of good fortune. 8 ~ut ther~ ,;as lit.tle ben.eM to the imperial treasury in anything that a tnbute mISSIOn mlght .brmg. The va.lue of the tribute objects was certainly balanced, if not outweIghed, by the lmperial gifts to the various members of the mission ~nd t~ the vassal ruler. The expense of entertaining a mission was not Inconslderable, b~t the court was repaid in kudos. Tribute was ordinarily presented at the tIme .of a great audience at the New Year, when the bureaucracy o.f all th~ e~pIre paid reverence to the Son of Heaven and when the dramatrc submISSIon of
30 CHINA'S UNPREPAREDNESS TRIBUTE AND TRADE 31 foreign lands could most effectively reinforce the imperial prestige within deal with the Hsiung-nu of the northern steppe.Under the T'ang such an China proper. emissary was called "an envoy to foreign countries"(ju-fan shik);under Functions of the tribute system.This brings us to the interesting ques- the Sung,"an envoy with a state message"(kuo-lisin skik).The Mongols tion,what made the tribute system work?Why did missions from neighbor- in the course of their expansion sent officers of this sort in all directions,to ing states come to the Chinese court year after year,century after century? the Uigurs and Japan,and to Annam and various countries of southeastern Something more tangible than the imperial virtue must have lain behind Asia.This diplomatic activity was,of course,to be expected.It is unfor- this impressive and persistent institution.The question is essentially one tunate that it has not been studied systematically. of motive.Without a constant incentive on both sides,the system could One function of these envoys was to confer the imperial seal and recog- never have functioned as it did. nition upon vassal rulers.Plainly such a formality could be two-faced and The motivation of the court is not difficult to see.The ruler of China of use to China as a mere cover for practical negotiations.Another function claimed the mandate of Heaven to rule all mankind.If the rest of mankind was to make condoling inquiries when the local ruler had suffered a be- did not acknowledge his rule,how long could he expect China to do so? reavement or had himself died.In A.D.55,after the death of the danger- Tribute had prestige value in the governing of China,where prestige was ous and troublesome chieftain of the Hsiung-nu,the Han sent a lieutenant- an all-important tool of government. general "to go and offer condolences,"and it is further recorded that he went More than this,the tribute system was a diplomatic medium,the "in command of an army."Thus all types of international intercourse, vehicle for Chinese foreign relations.Whenever a new ruler ascended the if they occurred at all in the experience of China,were fitted into the throne of a tributary state,he was required by the regulations to send an tribute system.It permitted spying out the enemy,seeking allies,and all envoy to obtain an imperial mandate from the Chinese court.By imperial manner of negotiations,including the threat of force. command he was then appointed ruler of his country,and the imperial At different times tribute served different purposes,and the system could patent of appointment was given to his envoy.After receiving this docu- be used by China for defense quite as much as for aggression.Broadly ment,the new ruler sent a tribute mission to offer thanks for the imperial speaking,it appears to have been used mainly for defense under the Sung. favor.In other words,his regime was recognized.In the Far Eastern scene, Under the Mongols it served for expansion;under the Ch'ing it promoted this recognition,or perhaps we might say "investiture,"by the Middle stability in foreign affairs.In the first of these periods,one of weakness,it Kingdom was perhaps at times comparable to recognition in Europe by the has been suggested that the suzerain-vassal relationship was an isolationist Pope or by the concert of powers.It might help to establish a claimant upon device,a means of avoiding the dangers inherent in foreign relations on his throne.A recognized vassal might appeal in time of need for Chinese terms of equality.10 In a sense this is the secret of the whole system.Out- help,as did the king of Malacca after his ousting by the Portuguese in I5rI. siders could have contact with China only on China's terms,which were, Chinese influence abroad was also exerted through personal contact with in effect,that the outsider should acknowledge and enter into the Chinese tributary rulers,who sometimes came to court.In the ancient period this scheme of things and to that extent become innocuous.So China tried to had been a chief form of submission.When the chieftain of the Hsiung-nu derive political security from her accepted cultural superiority.Tribute (Huns)visited the Han or when the king of the Uigurs or of Korea came was a first step toward Sinicizing the barbarian and so neutralizing him. to the Mongol court,they placed themselves literally under the imperial Apparently the dogma of superiority waxed when China grew weak.This control.In later periods such activity grew rare,although several visits to interpretation,if supported by further research,may indicate the perennial Peking of kings from Malacca and such places are recorded in the Ming value of the institution to the Son of Heaven. period;perhaps they came for the junket.Sometimes the heir-apparent of If tribute had this obvious political value for the Chinese court,what a tributary state might appear in a mission,an almost equally useful custom. was its value to the barbarian?Did the tributaries subscribe to the Chinese Even more important was the tradition of sending Chinese envoys view of their position,or is the whole great tradition partly an official abroad.Chang Ch'ien,who was sent to the Western Regions in the years Chinese myth,foisted with great consistency upon the emperor's subjects 138-126 B.C.to gain for the Han an alliance against the Hsiung-nu,is only and later historians?When we find that Lord Macartney,sent by George the most famous of these envoys.Even before the time of Chang Ch'ien, III in 1793 to demand trade concessions,refused to kotow but is faithfully the first emperor of the Han had sent Lu Chia on an official mission to enshrined in the Chinese records as a tributary envoy,what are we to Nan-yueh,the region of Canton,and numerous envoys were later sent to think of the preceding millennia of so-called tribute missions?Why should
30 CHINA'S UNPREPAREDNESS foreign lands could most effectively reinforce the imperial prestige within China proper. Functions of the tribute system. This brings us to the interesting question, what made the tribute system work? Why did missions from neighboring states come to the Chinese court year after year, century after century? Something more tangible than the imperial virtue must have lain behind this impressive and persistent institution. The question is essentially .one of motive. Without a constant incentive on both sides, the system could never have functioned as it did. The motivation of the court is not difficult to see. The ruler of China claimed the mandate of Heaven to rule all mankind. If the rest of mankind did not acknowledge his rule, how long could he expect China to do so? Tribute had prestige value in the governing of China, where prestige was an all-important tool of government. More than this, the tribute system was a diplomatic medium, the vehicle for Chinese foreign relations. Whenever a new ruler ascended the throne of a tributary state, he was required by the regulations to send an envoy to obtain an imperial mandate from the Chinese court. By imperial command he was then appointed ruler of his country, and the imperial patent of appointment was given to his envoy. After receiving this docu- . ment, the new ruler sent a tribute mission to offer thanks for the imperial favor. In other words, his regime was recognized. In the Far Eastern scene, this recognition, or perhaps we might say "investiture," by the Middle Kingdom was perhaps at times comparable to recognition in Europe by the Pope or by the concert of powers. It might help to establish a claimant upon his throne. A recognized vassal might appeal in time of need for Chinese help, as did the king of Malacca after his ousting by the Portuguese in l5II• Chinese influence abroad was also exerted through personal contact with tributary rulers, who sometimes came to court. In the ancient period this had been a chief form of submission. When the chieftain of the Hsiung-nu (Huns) visited the Han or when the king of the Uigurs or of Korea came to the Mongol court, they placed themselves literally under the imperial control. In later periods such activity grew rare, although several visits to Peking of kings from Malacca and such places are recorded in the Ming period; perhaps they came for the junket. Sometimes the heir-apparent of a tributary state might appear in a mission, an almost equally useful custom. Even more important was the tradition of sending Chinese envoys abroad. Chang Ch'ien, who was sent to the Western Regions in the years I38- I26 B.C. to gain for the Han an alliance against the Hsiung-nu, is only the most famous of these envoys. Even before the time of Chang Ch'ien, the first emperor of the Han had sent Lu Chia on an official mission to Nan-yueh, the region of Canton, and numerous envoys were later sent to TRIBUTE AND TRADE 31 deal with the Hsiung-nu of the northern steppe. Under the T'ang such an emissary was called "an envoy to foreign countries" (ju-fan shih); under the Sung, "an envoy with a state message" (kuo-hsin shih). The Mongols in the course of their expansion sent officers of this sort in all directions, to the Uigurs and Japan, and to Annam and various countries of southeastern Asia. This diplomatic activity was, of course, to be expected. It is unfortunate that it has not been studied systematically. One function of these envoys was to confer the imperial seal and recognition upon vassal rulers. Plainly such a formality could be two-faced and of use to China as a mere cover for practical negotiations. Another function was to make condoling inquiries when the local ruler had suffered a bereavement or had himself died. In A.D. 55, after the death of the dangerous and troublesome chieftain of the Hsiung-nu, the Han sent a lieutenantgeneral "to go and offer condolences," and it is further recorded that he went "in command of an army." 9 Thus all types of international intercourse, if they occurred at all in the experience of China, were fitted into the tribute system. It permitted spying out the enemy, seeking allies, and all manner of negotiations, including the threat of force. At different times tribute served different purposes, and the system could be used by China for defense quite as much as for aggression. Broadly speaking, it appears to have been used mainly for defense under the Sung . Under the Mongols it served for expansion; under the Ch'ing it promoted stability in foreign affairs. In the first of these periods, one of weakness, it has been suggested that the suzerain-vassal relationship was an isolationist device, a means of avoiding the dangers inherent in foreign relations on terms of equality.lO In a sense this is the secret of the whole system. Outsiders could have contact with China only on China's terms, which were, in effect, that the outsider should acknowledge and enter into the Chinese scheme of things and to that extent become innocuous. So China tried to derive political security from her accepted cultural superiority. Tribute was a first step toward Sinicizing the barbarian and so neutralizing him. Apparently the dogma of superiority waxed when China grew weak. This interpretation, if supported by further research, may indicate the perennial value of the institution to the Son of Heaven. If tribute had this obvious political value for the Chinese court, what was its value to the barbarian? Did the tributaries subscribe to the Chinese view of their position, or is the whole great tradition partly an official Chinese myth, foisted with great consistency upon the emperor's subjects and later historians? When we find that Lord Macartney, sent by George III in I793 to demand trade concessions, refused to kotow but is faithfully enshrined in the Chinese records as a tributary envoy, what are we to think of the preceding millennia of so-called tribute missions? Why should
32 CHINA'S UNPREPAREDNESS TRIBUTE AND TRADE 33 an upstanding barbarian come and kotow?The answer is partly,of course, needs.Exports in a tribute vessel,however,were exempt from customs duty. that he had little choice in the matter,being obliged either to accept the con- In these terms the tribute system was made to cover foreign trade as well ditions of the gargantuan Middle Kingdom or stay away.But the unbroken as diplomacy. continuity of tributary relations between China and surrounding states This sketch is,of course,only a faint reflection of the plethora of rules argues for a strong and consistent motivation on the foreigner's part as well and regulations on the subject of tributary trade.Considering their extent, as on that of the court.This motivation seems clearly to lie in trade,so and the extent of the trade,it seems anomalous that foreign trade could be much so that the whole institution,viewed from abroad,appears to have considered in Chinese theory to be subordinate to tribute,but so it was. been an ingenious vehicle for commerce. It was officially regarded as a boon granted to the barbarian,the necessary Tributary trade.That tribute was a cloak for trade has been axiomatic means to his sharing in the bounty of China,and nothing more.No doubt, ever since merchants from the Roman orient reached Cattigara in southern- this quixotic doctrine reflected the anti-commercial nature of the Con- most China in A.D.166 claiming to be envoys of Marcus Aurelius.Testi- fucian state,where the merchant was low in the social scale and nominally mony on the subject abounds,particularly regarding the sham embassies beneath both the farmer and the bureaucrat,who lived off the produce of of merchants on the Central Asian caravan routes.The Kansu governor in the land.It was strengthened perhaps by the self-sufficiency of the empire, I502 reported that there were more than one hundred and fifty self-styled which made supplies from abroad unnecessary.At all events,it was the rulers (wang)trading with China from the Western Regions.The Jesuit, tradition that foreign trade was an unworthy objective for high policy,and Benedict de Goez,who crossed Central Asia a century later in 1604,de- this dogma was steadily reiterated in official documents down into the scribed how the caravan merchants "forge public letters in the names of nineteenth century.Meanwhile,foreign trade developed and grew ever kings whom they profess to represent"and "under pretense of being am- larger within its ancient tributary framework. bassadors go and offer tribute to the Emperor."11 This brings us to a paradox in the history of modern China and one of So fundamental was this commerce that the regulations for tribute devote the fundamental reasons for the collapse of the Confucian state.Trade a whole section to it.12 Tribute missions arriving at the frontier normally and tribute in the Confucian view were cognate aspects of a single system included merchants,either as private individuals or as agents of the of foreign relations.The important thing to the rulers of China was the tributary ruler,who often monopolized the trade.They brought with them moral value of tribute.The important thing for the barbarians was the ma- commercial goods which they were allowed to sell to the Chinese merchants terial value of trade.The rub came when the foreign trade expanded, at the frontier emporium or,alternatively,they might at their own expense and finally,in some cases,eclipsed tribute entirely,without changing the bring these goods duty free in the train of the envoy to the capital and sell official myth.Tribute continued to dominate Chinese official thought after them there at a special market set up at the Residence for Tributary En- trade had begun to predominate in the practice of Chinese foreign relations. voys.This market lasted for three or five days,according to the regulations In the modern period the Confucian bureaucrats tried to treat the new trad- of 16g0,and was carefully superintended by officers of the Board of ing nations of the West as mere tributaries.When this proved impossible Revenue.Trade outside of the official market and trade in certain types of goods were both strictly prohibited.The contraband list included works of they were incapable of changing their immemorial theory to fit the new situation.The paradox in this tragedy lies in the fact that the new situa- history,implements of war,saltpetre,and copper and iron-things which tion to which the Chinese government could not adjust itself had been might weaken the defense of the realm. created largely by the maritime trade of Chinese merchants.China had been Meanwhile,for independent foreign merchants who did not come in the for too long a continental empire,accustomed to foreign relations across a train of an embassy there were emporia on the frontier.For Korean mer- land frontier.Her new maritime relations not only caught her unprepared chants there was a market on the Manchurian frontier.For the Western but destroyed her ancient defense,the tribute system itself. border peoples there were one or two markets a year near Chengtu and The eclipse of tribute by trade.The high point of recorded tributary Lanchow,each lasting twenty days.These appear to have been similar to activity in China came early in the Ming period.Between the years 1403 the market set up in the eighteenth century at Mai-mai-chen for the cara- and 1433 seven imperial expeditions were dispatched into the waters of van trade with Russia.For the maritime nations the chief market was southeastern Asia and the Indian Ocean.13 They were under the general at Canton.Foreign merchant vessels were forbidden to carry away contra- superintendence of the famous eunuch Cheng Ho,and are said to have band goods,or Chinese passengers,or rice and grain beyond the ship's own included as many as sixty vessels and twenty-seven thousand men at a time
32 CHINA'S UNPREPAREDNESS an upstanding barbarian come and kotow? The answer is partly, of course, that he had little choice in the matter, being obliged either to accept the conditions of the gargantuan Middle Kingdom or stay away. But the unbroken continuity of tributary relations between China and surrounding states argues for a strong and consistent motivation on the foreigner's part as well as· on that of the court. This motivation seems clearly to lie in trade, so much so that the whole institution, viewed from abroad, appears to have been an ingenious vehicle for commerce. Tributary trade. That tribute was a cloak for trade has been axiomatic ever since merchants from the Roman orient reached Cattigara in southernmost China in A.D. I66 claiming to be envoys of Marcus Aurelius. Testimony on the subject abounds, particularly regarding the sham embassies of merchants on the Central Asian caravan routes. The Kansu governor in 1502 reported that there were more than one hundred and fifty self-styled rulers (wang) trading with China from the Western Regions. The Jesuit, Benedict de Goez, who crossed Central Asia a century later in 16°4, described how the caravan merchants "forge public letters in the names of kings whom they profess to represent" and "under pretense of being ambassadors go and offer tribute to the Emperor." 11 So fundamental was this commerce that the regulations for tribute devote a whole section to it.12 Tribute missions arriving at the frontier normally included merchants, either as private individuals or as agents of the tributary ruler, who often monopolized the trade. They brought with them commercial goods which they were allowed to sell to the Chinese merchants at the frontier emporium or, alternatively, they might at their own expense bring these goods duty free in the train of the envoy to the capital and sell them there at a special market set up at the Residence for Tributary Envoys. This market lasted for three or five days, according to the regulations of I690, and was carefully superintended by officers of the Board of Revenue. Trade outside of the official market and trade in certain types of goods were both strictly prohibited. The contraband list included works of history, implements of war, saltpetre, and copper and iron - things which might weaken the defense of the realm. Meanwhile, for independent foreign merchants who did not come in the train of an embassy there were emporia on the frontier. For Korean merchants there was a market on the Manchurian frontier. For the Western border peoples there were one or two markets a year near Chengtu and Lanchow, each lasting twenty days. These appear to have been similar to the market set up in the eighteenth century at Mai-mai-chen for the caravan trade with Russia. For the maritime nations the chief market was at Canton. Foreign merchant vessels were forbidden to carry away contraband goods, or Chinese passengers, or rice and grain beyond the ship'S own TRIBUTE AND TRADE 33 needs. Exports in a tribute vessel, however, were exempt from customs duty. In these terms the tribute system was made to cover foreign trade as well as diplomacy. This sketch is, of course, only a faint reflection of the plethora of rules and regulations on the subject of tributary trade. Considering their extent, and the extent of the trade, it seems anomalous that foreign trade could be considered in Chinese theory to be subordinate to tribute, but so it was. H was officially regarded as a boon granted to the barbarian, the necessary means to his sharing in the bounty of China, and nothing more. No doubt, this quixotic doctrine reflected the anti-commercial nature of the Confucian state, where the merchant was low in the social scale and nominally beneath both the farmer and the bureaucrat, who lived off the produce of the land. It. was strengthened perhaps by the self-sufficiency of the empire, which made supplies from abroad unnecessary. At all events, it was the tradition that foreign trade was an unworthy objective for high policy, and this dogma was steadily reiterated in official documents down into the nineteenth century. Meanwhile, foreign trade developed and grew ever larger within its ancient tributary framework. This brings us to a paradox in the history of modern China and one of the fundamental reasons for the collapse of the Confucian state. Trade and tribute in the Confucian view were cognate aspects of a single system of foreign relations. The important thing to the rulers of China was the moral value of tribute. The important thing for the barbarians was the material value of trade. The rub came when the foreign trade expanded, and finally, in some cases, eclipsed tribute entirely, without changing the official myth. Tribute continued to dominate Chinese official thought after trade had begun to predominate in the practice of Chinese foreign relations. In the modern period the Confucian bureaucrats tried to treat the new trading nations of the West as mere tributaries. When this proved impossible, they were incapable of changing their immemorial theory to fit the new situation. The paradox in this tragedy lies in the fact that the new situation to which the Chinese government could not adjust itself had been created largely by the maritime trade of Chinese merchants. China had been for too long a continental empire, accustomed to foreign relations across a land frontier. Her new maritime relations not only caught her unprepared but destroyed her ancient defense, the tribute system itself. The eclipse of tribute by trade. The high point 'of recorded tributary activity in China came early in the Ming period. Between the years 1403 and 1433 seven imperial expeditions were dispatched into the waters of southeastern Asia and the Indian Ocean.13 They were under the general superintendence of the famous eunuch Cheng Ho, and are said to have included as many as sixty vessels and twenty-seven thousand men at a time
34 CHINA'S UNPREPAREDNESS TRIBUTE AND TRADE 35 Some forty states were included in their points of call and most of them sent It is most significant that tribute from Southeast Asia declined after back envoys with the Chinese fleets and became enrolled as tributaries. the time of Cheng Ho,although trade did not.In the early fifteenth century These included Pahang,Kelantan,and Malacca on the Malay peninsula; the official Ming list of tributaries from which tribute missions were re- Palembang (ancient Srivijaya),Samudra,Lambri (mod.Achin),and Aru ceived included Japan,the Philippines (Lu-sung,i.e.,Manila),Cambodia, in Sumatra;Ceylon,Cochin,Chola,Calicut,and several other places on Java,Pahang on the Malay peninsula,and Achin and Samudra on the the southern coasts of India;Barawa and Mogadisho on the Somali coast island of Sumatra.Later,under the Ch'ing,none of these places was listed of Africa;Aden and Djofar in Arabia,and the ancient port of Hormuz on as tributary.But in the 1818 edition of the Ch'ing Statutes these various the Persian Gulf.These distant places of Africa and Arabia were visited places-Japan,the Philippines,and the others just mentioned-were but a few times and by few vessels,yet the fact remains that representatives listed in a special section as "trading countries"(hu-shih chu-kuo),that of the Chinese court touched there in the early fifteenth century,a genera- is,countries that traded with China but did not send tribute.Of course, tion before the Portuguese came into the Indian Ocean round the Cape.A this is understandable in the cases of Japan,the Philippines,and Java party from one Chinese expedition even saw the sights of Mecca. (Batavia),where the Tokugawa shogun,the Spanish,and the Dutch To call these Chinese voyages spectacular is an understatement,but it respectively,could not easily be considered tributary (although the Dutch it not easy to comprehend their object or to understand the reason for their had actually sent tribute as recently as 1794).But this classification is less complete cessation after 1433.Professor Duyvendak,14 the closest student logical in the case of the small places of Malaya.The full list of "trading of the problem,has pointed out that they were the work of the palace countries"printed in 1818 was as follows:Chiang-k'ou (i.e.,Siam),Cam- eunuchs,a group whose considerable power depended upon the imperial bodia,Yin-tai-ma,Ligor,Jaya (Chaiya),Sungora,Patani,Trengganu, favor,and that the flow of vassal envoys and rare objects,unicorns and Tan-tan,Pahang,Johore,Achin (defined as the same as Samudra,by black men among them,was well calculated to please the imperial fancy. error),Lui-sung (the Philippines),Mindanao,and Java (Batavia).Most The cessation of the voyages was dictated,he suggests,partly by their ex- of these were small kingdoms under petty sultans,similar to the states of pense,which plainly must have been considerable when one includes the Pahang and Achin which Cheng Ho had enrolled as Ming tributaries.Why largesse bestowed upon prospective tributary rulers to win them over.No were they not now listed in the early nineteenth century as vassals of the scholar has as yet ventured a complete explanation.The Chinese historians' Ch'ing? tradition that the expeditions went to seek out a vanished claimant to the The answer plainly lies in the fact that it was no longer they who came Ming throne does not give us much satisfaction.The suggestion seems in to China but the Chinese who went to them.Chinese trade with Southeast order that these official voyages must have been connected with the private Asia had developed since the days of Cheng Ho to the point where the Chinese trade which we know had been expanding for some time into the barbarians,or the Arab traders of the region,no longer came to Canton to waters of southeastern Asia.This commercial background deserves atten- obtain the products of the Middle Kingdom.Instead,the great junk fleets tion. of Amoy and Canton now carried Chinese produce into all parts of the We know,first of all,that tribute from this area had begun long before archipelago.The list of "trading countries"made out in 1818 really consti- the time of Cheng Ho."Java"(perhaps then Sumatra)sent tribute as early tutes a catalogue of the ports of call on the two great sea routes of the as A.D.132.15 A regular and extensive maritime trade with China from the Chinese junk trade,which went down the Malay peninsula and through regions of the Indian Ocean had begun at least as early as the T'ang period the Philippines,respectively.Indeed,it shows an almost one-to-one cor- (618-907)under the aegis of the Arabs.In the Sung period it had at- respondence with a list of the trading countries of the region made by tained very considerable proportions.Mongol fleets had swept the seas of Francis Light,the British founder of Penang,about 1788:he listed Siam, Java and Malaya in the time of Khublai,t6 and by the end of the four- Chantebon,Chia,Sangora,Pattany,Ligore,Tringano,Pahang,Jahore, teenth century a number of states in Southeast Asia had become regular and others,including Acheen.17 tributaries of the Ming.They included Java,Brunei (in Borneo),Pahang That Chinese junks had long been the local carriers of Malaya hardly on the Malay peninsula,Palembang and Samudra on the island of Sumatra, Thef Ch'ing lists published in the five editions of the Collected Stater between and and even Chola from the Coromandel coast of India in 1372.It is patent 1899 Included only Korea,Turfan,Liu-ch'iu,Holland,Annam,Siam,the countries of the Western Ocean,Burma,Laos,and Sulu,and not even all of these at one time:these tributaries of the Manchus that Cheng Ho after r403 was following well-known commercial paths.He were fewer in number,although it must be admitted that they e more substantial political entit was exploring the established sources of trade and tribute rather than terra than of the small isands and out-of-the-way by Cheng Ho tobecome vassals of the Ming. incognita
34 CHINA'S UNPREPAREDNESS Some forty states were included in their points of call and most of them sent back envoys with the Chinese fleets and became enrolled as tributaries. These included Pahang, Kelantan, and Malacca on the Malay peninsula; Palembang (ancient Srivijaya), Samudra, Lambri (mod. Achin), and Aru in Sumatra; Ceylon, Cochin, Chola, Calicut, and several other places on the southern coasts of India; Barawa and Mogadisho on the Somali coast of Africa; Aden and Djofar in Arabia, and the ancient port of Hormuz on the Persian Gulf. These distant places of Africa and Arabia were visited but a few times and by few vessels, yet the fact remains that representatives of the Chinese court touched there in the early fifteenth century, a generation before the Portuguese came into the Indian Ocean round the Cape. A party from one Chinese expedition even saw the sights of Mecca. To call these Chinese voyages spectacular is an understatement, but it it not easy to comprehend their object or to understand the reason for their complete cessation after I433. Professor Duyvendak,14 the closest student of the problem, has pointed out that they were the work of the palace eunuchs, a group whose considerable power depended upon the imperial favor, and that the flow of vassal envoys and rare objects, unicorns and black men among them, was well calculated to please the imperial fancy. The cessation of the voyages was dictated, he suggests, partly by their expense, which plainly must have been considerable when one includes the largesse bestowed upon prospective tributary rulers to win them over. No scholar has as yet ventured a complete explanation. The Chinese historians' tradition that the expeditions went to seek out a vanished claimant to the Ming throne does not give us much satisfaction. The suggestion seems in order that these official voyages must have been connected with the private Chinese trade which we know had been expanding for some time into the waters of southeastern Asia. This commercial background deserves attention. We know, first of all, that tribute from this area had begun long before the time of Cheng Ro. "Java" (perhaps then Sumatra) sent tribute as early as A.D. 132.15 A regular and extensive maritime trade with China from the regions of the Indian Ocean had begun at least as early as the T'ang period (6 I 8-907) under the aegis of the Arabs. In the Sung period it had attained very considerable proportions. Mongol fleets had swept the seas of Java and Malaya in the time of Khublai,16 and by the end of the fourteenth century a number of states in Southeast Asia had become regular tributaries of the Ming. They included Java, Brunei (in Borneo), Pahang on the Malay peninsula, Pal em bang and Samudra on the island of Sumatra, and even Chola from the Coromandel coast of India in 1372. It is patent that Cheng Ro after 1403 was fonowing well-known commercial paths. He was exploring the established sources of trade and tribute rather than terra incognita. TRIBUTE AND TRADE 35 It is most significant that tribute from Southeast Asia declined after the time of Cheng Ho, although trade did not. In the early fifteenth century the official Ming list of tributaries from which tribute missions were received included Japan, the Philippines (Ui-sung, i.e., Manila), Cambodia, Java, Pahang on the Malay peninsula, and Achin and Samudra on the ~sland of Sumatra. Later, under the Ch'ing, none of these places was listed as tributary.b But in the 1818 edition of the Ch'ing Statutes these various places - Japan, the Philippines, and the others just mentioned - were listed in a special section as "trading countries" (hu-shih chu-kuo), that is, countries that traded with China but did not send tribute. Of course, this is understandable in the cases of Japan, the Philippines, and Java (Batavia), where the Tokugawa shOgun, the Spanish, and the Dutch respectively., could not easily be considered tributary (although the Dutch had actually sent tribute as recently as 1794). But this classification is less logical in the case of the small places of Malaya. The full list of "trading countries" printed in 1818 was as follows: Chiang-k'ou (Le., Siam), Cambodia, Yin-tai-ma, Ligor, Jaya (Chaiya), Sungora, Patani, Trengganu, Tan-tan, Pahang, J ohore, Achin (defined as the same as Samudra, by error), Ui-sung (the Philippines), Mindanao, and Java (Batavia). Most of these were small kingdoms under petty sultans, similar to the states of Pahang and Achin which Cheng Ho had enrolled as Ming tributaries. Why were they not now listed in the early nineteenth century as vassals of the Ch'ing? The answer plainly lies in the fact that it was no longer they who came to China but the Chinese who went to them. Chinese trade with Southeast Asia had developed since the days of Cheng Ho to the point where the barbarians, or the Arab traders of the region, no longer came to Canton to obtain the products of the Middle Kingdom. Instead, the great junk fleets of Amoy and Canton now carried Chinese produce into all parts of the archipelago. The list of "trading countries" made out in 1818 really constitutes a catalogue of the ports of call on the two great sea routes of the Chinese junk trade, which went down the Malay peninsula and through the Philippines, respectively. Indeed, it shows an almost one-to-one correspondence with a list of the trading countries of the region made by Francis Light, the British founder of Penang, about 1788: he listed Siam, Chantebon, Chia, Sangora, Pattany, Ligore, Tringano, Pahang, Jahore, and others, including Acheen.17 That Chinese junks had long been the local carriers of Malaya hardly b The official Ch'ing lists published in lhe five editions of the Collected Statutes, between r690 and 1899 included only Korea, Turfan, Liu-ch'iu, Holland, Annam, Siam, the countries of the Western Ocean, Burma, Laos, and Sulu, and not even all of these at one time; these tributaries of the Manchus were fewer in number, although it must be admitted that they were more substantial political entities than were some of the small islands and out-of-the-way principalities induced by Cheng Ho to become vassals of the Ming
36 CHINA'S UNPREPAREDNESS TRIBUTE AND TRADE 37 seems to require documentation,although it is a much neglected subject. degrees no longer came to China,that the Chinese went to them.As this The Portuguese at Malacca after I5,the Spanish at Manila after I571, foreign-carried trade dried up,tribute probably dried up with it. and the Dutch at Batavia after 1619 had all found Chinese traders much in If we look at the great fifteenth-century voyages of Cheng Ho in this evidence.It is not too much to say that the early European trade in eastern light,perhaps we can regard them as an effort to bring the sources of Asia was actually grafted onto the junk trade which already flourished Chinese maritime trade back into the formal structure of the tribute sys- there,much of it in Chinese hands.The British and French East India tem,so as to make the facts of foreign trade square with the theory that Companies appear to have been well aware of the desirability of tapping all places in contact with China were tributary to her.Foreign places com- this local commerce.Manila,indeed,lived upon it,the cargoes of the municating by land,like Samarkand,Isfahan,Arabia,or the Kingdom of Acapulco galleons coming not so much from the Philippines as from the Rum in Asia Minor,were enrolled as tributaries of the Ming although con- vast storehouse of China,whither the Spanish themselves were not allowed tact must have been extremely tenuous (particularly when the Kingdom to go.1s In short,it seems incontestable that the migration of the Chinese of Rum,for example,had long since ceased to exist).Was it not logical to into southeastern Asia,which has been one of the significant phenomena enroll similarly the places communicating by sea?Mixed motives naturally of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries,is merely the later phase of a must be assumed,but this desire to preserve the traditional system must Chinese commercial expansion which had begun much earlier. have been one of them.In any case,the tribute system gradually ceased To this early Chinese maritime trade it would seem that the tribute sys- to operate by sea although it continued to do so by land.20 From the first tem had been for some time successfully applied.The system had developed it had been a passive system,the Middle Kingdom waiting for the bar- on the land for operation across easily controllable land frontiers,and barians to approach,and it could not be maintained when the Chinese were every approach to China from the continental side had offered convenient themselves active.By the beginning of the nineteenth century its demise points of control like the Jade Gate (Yu-men kuan)on the west or Shanhai- was officially acknowledged in the case of the"trading countries"of South- kuan on the north.Under the Ch'ing the missions from Korea were required east Asia which traded without sending tribute,as recorded in the Collected to enter via Feng-huang-ch'eng and Shanhaikuan,those from Annam via Statutes of 1818. P'ing-yang or T'ai-p'ing-fu in Kwangsi,and those from Burma via Yung- The increase of trade in the early nineteenth century may also be evident ch'ang or T'eng-yueh in Yunnan.19 in the fact that the number of recorded tribute missions showed a decided Over maritime tributaries a similar control had been established by re- increase.21 From 1662 to 176r the total of recorded embassies was about quiring missions from Liu-ch'iu to enter only at Foochow,those from Sulu two hundred and sixteen.In the following century from 1762 to I861 it only at Amoy,and those from Siam only at Canton;the Dutch were repri- was about two hundred and fifty-five.This increase must be examined as a manded for coming to Fukien instead of Kwangtung.The greater volume possible index of greater commercial activity taking the form of tribute of maritime trade had led to the growth of foreign communities in the sea- missions. ports,like those of the Arabs at Zayton (Ch'iian-chou)and Canton,but From the data available in the records the fact stands out that tribute these communities had been kept under control through their own headmen missions coming by sea,from Liu-ch'iu and from Siam,increased remark- in their own restricted quarter,and trading operations had been supervised ably in the half century beginning about 1800.They became decidedly more by Chinese officials.So long as the foreign traders came to the frontier of frequent than required by statute.Since we must suppose that their China,whether by land or by sea,tributary forms could be preserved and tribute missions could be sent to the capital,either on the initiative of .The statutory frequency of tribute missions under the Ch'ing was as follows:from Korea an- nually.from Liu-ch'iu every two years,Annam every three,six,or four years (the regulations acquisitive merchants and rulers or at the instigation of the face-seeking changed),Siam every three years,Sulu every five years,Laos and Burma every ten years,Holland Chinese bureaucracy. every eight and later every five years,the Western Ocean (Portugal,etc.)indefinite.How did this square with practice? These observations offer some support for the hypothesis that the first Korea sent tribute every year steadily until74 and so need ot becosdered.Tbute from cwas recorded in some seventy years out of the one bundred blow at the Chinese tribute system was struck not by the Europeans who and forty-four years from 1662 through I8o5,that is,on the average almost exactly as required by refused to accept tributary status after I5oo but by the expansion of statute.But in the next ffty-four years from 1806 to 1859,tribute from Liu-ch'iu instead of being biennial was recorded forty-five time ge in five out of every six years:this is doubly Chinese trade even before that time.We know in a general way that the ennial was recodmber that the Liu-ch'iu islands,n thems mportant,served as ar Arabs who had once dominated trade between China and Southeast Asia entrepot for trade between Japan and Korea on the one hand and China on the other,in this period before either Japan or Korea was open to foreign trade.Tribute from Annam was recorded forty-five were supplanted by Chinese merchants,that traders from the southeast by times in the two hundred years from 1662 to 186t,somewhat less than an average of one in four years, which agrees fairly well with the shiiting regulations for Annam.There was no significant increase
i I 36 CHINA'S UNPREPAREDNESS seems to require documentation, although it is a much neglected subject. The Portuguese at Malacca after I5II, the Spanish at Manila after 1571, and the Dutch at Batavia after 1619 had all found Chinese traders much in evidence. It is not too much to say that the early European trade in eastern Asia was actually grafted onto the junk trade which already flourished there, much of it in Chinese hands. The British and French East India Companies appear to have been well aware of the desirability of tapping this local commerce. Manila, indeed, lived upon it, the cargoes of the Acapulco galleons coming not so much from the Philippines as from the vast storehouse of China, whither the Spanish themselves were not allowed to gO.lS In short, it seems incontestable that the migration of the Chinese into southeastern Asia, which has been one of the significant phenomena of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, is merely the later phase of a Chinese commercial expansion which had begun much earlier. To this early Chinese maritime trade it would seem that the tribute system had been for some time successfully applied. The system had developed on the land for operation across easily controllable land frontiers, and every approach to China from the continental side had offered convenient points of control like the Jade Gate (Yii-men kuan) on the west or Shimhaikuan on the north. Under the Ch'ing the missions from Korea were required to enter via Feng-huang-ch'eng and Shanhaikuan, those from Annam via P'ing-yang or T'ai-p'ing-fu in Kwangsi, and, those from Burma via Yungch'ang or T'eng-yueh in Yunnan.19 Over maritime tributaries a similar control had been established by requiring missions from Liu-ch'iu to enter only at Foochow, those from Sulu only at Amoy, and those from Siam only at Canton; the Dutch were reprimanded for coming to Fukien instead of Kwangtung. The greater volume of maritime trade had led to the growth of foreign communities in the seaports, like those of the Arabs at Zayton (Ch'iian-chou) and Canton, but these communities had been kept under control through their own headmen in their own restricted quarter, and trading operations had been supervised by Chinese officials. So long as the foreign traders came to the frontier of China, whether by land or by sea, tributary forms could be preserved and tribute missions could be sent to the capital, either on the initiative of acquisitive merchants and rulers or at the instigation of the face-seeking Chinese bureaucracy. These observations offer some support for the hypothesis that the first blow at the Chinese tribute system was struck not by the Europeans who refused to accept tributary status after 1500 but by the expansion of Chinese trade even before that time. We know in a general way that the Arabs who had once dominated trade between China and Southeast Asia were supplanted by Chinese merchants, that traders from the southeast by TRIBUTE AND TRADE 37 degrees no longer came to China, that the Chinese went to them. As this foreign-carried trade dried up, tribute probably dried up with it. If we look at the great fifteenth-century voyages of Cheng Ho in this light, perhaps we can regard them as an effort to bring the sources of Chinese maritime trade back into the formal structure of the tribute system, so as to make the facts of foreign trade square with the theory that all places in contact with China were tributary to her. Foreign places communicating by land, like Samarkand, Isfahan, Arabia, or the Kingdom of Rum in Asia Minor, were enrolled as tributaries of the Ming, although contact must have been extremely tenuous (particularly when the Kingdom of Rum, for example, had long since ceased to exist). Was it not logical to enroll similarly the places communicating by sea? Mixed motives naturally must be assumed, but this desire to preserve the traditional system must have been one of them. In any case, the tribute system gradually ceased to operate by sea although it continued to do so by land.20 From the first it had been a passive system, the Middle Kingdom waiting for the barbarians to approach, and it could not be maintained when the Chinese were themselves active. By the beginning of the nineteenth century its demise was officially acknowledged in the case of the "trading countries" of Southeast Asia which traded without sending tribute, as recorded in the Collected Statutes of 1818. The increase of trade in the early nineteenth century may also be evident in the fact that the number of recorded tribute missions showed a decided increase.21 From 1662 to 1761 the total of recorded embassies was about two hundred and sixteen. In the following century from I762 to 186r it was about two hundred and fifty-five. This increase must be examined as a possible index of greater commercial activity taking the form of tribute missions. From the data available in the records the fact stands out that tribute missions coming by sea, from Liu-ch'iu and from Siam, increased remarkably in the half century beginning about 1800. They became decidedly more frequent than required by statute.C Since we must suppose that their • The statutory frequency of tribute missions under the Ch'ing was as follows: from Korea annually, from Liu-ch'iu every two years, Annam every three, six, or four years (the regulations changed) Siam every three years, Sulu every five years, Laos and Burma every ten years, Holland every ei~ht and later every five years, the Western Ocean (Portugal, etc.) indefinite. How did this square with practice? With perhaps a couple of exceptions. Korea sent tribute every year steadily until 1874 and so need not be considered. Tribute from Liu-ch'iu was recorded in some seventy years out of the one hundred and forty-four years from 1662 through 1805, that is, on the average almost exactly as required by statute. But in the next fifty-four years from 1806 to 1859, tribute from Liu-ch'iu instead of heing biennial was recorded forty-five times, on the average in five out of every six years: this is doubly significant when we remember that the Liu-eh'iu islands, in themselves unimportant, se'rved as an entrepot for trade between Japan and Korea on the ,one hand and China on the other, in this period before either Japan or Korea was open to foreign trade. Tribute from Annam was recorded forty-five times in the two hundred years from 1662 to 1861, somewhat less than an average of one in four years, which agrees fairly well with the shifting regulations for Annam. There was no significant increase