Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:34:16.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tributary Trade and China's Relations with the West

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

J. K. Fairbank
J. K. Fairbank
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access

Extract

Until a century ago, China's foreign relations were suzerain-vassal relations conducted through the ancient forms of the tributary system. This traditional Chinese basis for diplomacy was finally turned upside down by the “unequal” treaties of the period 1842–1858, but vestiges of the old Chinese way of dealing with the barbarians survived much longer and today still form a considerable though latent portion of the heritage of Chinese diplomats. It is of course a truism that tribute was not exactly what it seemed, and that both diplomacy and international trade were conducted within the tributary framework. The following essay offers a preliminary interpretation of the origin, function, and significance of this great Chinese institution.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , February 1942 , pp. 129 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1942

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This article is chiefly based upon the data presented in Fairbank, J. K. and Teng, S. Y., “On the Ch'ing tributary system,” Harvard journal of Asiatic studies, 6 (1941), 135–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 This topic has been analyzed at length by Lattimore, Owen, Inner Asian frontiers of China (New York, 1940).Google Scholar For a bibliography on tribute in general see Fairbank, and Teng, , op. cit., pp. 238–43.Google Scholar

3 Fairbank, and Teng, , op. cit., p. 141.Google Scholar

4 Ibid., p. 159.

5 Cf. regulations translated in ibid., pp. 163–73.

6 Ibid., p. 171.

7 Duyvendale, J. J. L., “The true dates of the Chinese maritime expeditions in the early fifteenth century,” T'oung pao, 34 (1939), 341–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Cf. Ta Ming chi-li, ch. 32, pp. 1–3, partially translated in Fairbank, and Teng, , op. cit., p. 146.Google Scholar

9 Cf. Tsiang, T. F., “China and European expansion,” Politica, 2 (Mar., 1936), 3–4.Google Scholar

10 See Fairbank, and Teng, , op. cit., p. 139.Google Scholar

11 Ibid., pp. 167–70.

12 These have been studied particularly by Professors Pelliot and Duyvendak in a series of monographs in T'ung pao, espec. vols. 30 and 34.

13 See Duyvendak, J. J. L., “The true dates …”, op. cit., 395–99.Google Scholar

14 Gardner, C. S. in Langer, W. L., ed., An encyclopedia of world history (Boston, 1940) p. 134.Google Scholar

15 Rockhill, W.W., “Notes on the relations and trade of China …“, T'oung pao 15 (1914), 419–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 The official Ch'ing lists published in the five editions of the Collected Statutes between 1690 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.

17 Letter of Capt. Francis Light in Journal of Malayan branch of the R.A.S., 16, part 1 (July, 1938), 123–26.

18 See Schurz, W. L., The Manila galleon (New York, 1939).Google Scholar

19 See Fairbank, and Teng, , op. cit., pp. 174–76.Google Scholar

20 See ibid., pp. 193–98, table 5.

21 See sources cited in ibid., 232–35.

22 Ibid., pp. 187, 232. For a pertinent discussion of the reasons for the failure of Ricci's map to gain acceptance see Ch'en, Kenneth, “Matteo Ricci's contribution to and influence on geographical knowledge in China,” JAOS, 59 (Sept., 1939), 325–59Google Scholar, especially pp. 347 et seq.

23 Ibid., pp. 189–90.

24 Ibid., pp. 188–89, table.

25 This Dutch embassy has been carefully studied by Prof. Duyvendak, , “The last Dutch embassy …“, T'oung pao, 34 (1938), 1–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 223–27; 35 (1940), 329–53.

26 See Fairbank, and Teng, , op. cit., pp. 206–19Google Scholar for a list of some 35 Ch'ing works on maritime relations which await further study.