중･근세 동아시아의 해금정책과 경계인식 -동양삼국의 해금정책을 중심으로-

Abstract

Chinese could not leave personally China, and foreigners could not be admitted to China except for official affairs in Ming-Qing Periods. It was a closed society which allows only envoys to visit China and the other neighboring countries. The general public and merchants were not allowed to communicate with overseas areas due to the policy of ocean prohibition in the early era of Emperor Hongwu, and the foreign trademen could not visit to the Chinese shores. Ocean prohibition was part of controlling the ocean on the basis of the political purpose for the public order, and the tribute system was to achieve the diplomatic relations, which both purposes were the different. However, Emperor Myungjo integrated the traditional tribute system and the new ocean prohibition, and created the unique tribute system in the Ming period, which the nation completely controls the traffic and trade. It is regarded that opening doors completely and brisk exchanges narrow the economic and cultural gap between regions. In this regard it might be possible to regard the policy of ocean prohibition in Ming-Qing Periods as the retrogression policy for East Asia. On the contrary, it might be also possible to assess the policy in the positive manner from the standpoint of promoting the tributes instead of flaunting the nations´s power by the use of arms based on imperialism. The Chosun Dynasty had been influenced by the policy of ocean prohibition of Ming from the beginning of its foundation, and had followed ‘Grand Ming Codes’ and controlled the private ocean access and trade of the general public. In addition, the Chosun accepted scholar-related system of Ming and applied not only internally but to the relation of Japan and Jurchen. However, the relations of the Chosun toward Japan and Jurchen were pluralistic, so it is compared to the fact that Emperor Myungjo unified the relation toward Chosun with only tributes from King of Chosun. The purpose of pluralistic policy of Chosun toward Japan was to protect the Chosun people near the coastal areas by placating Japanese raiders (or semi Japanese raiders), but it is estimated that the policy might have promoted coexistence/symbiotic relationship between Chosun and Japan. On the other hand, if it is possible to assume that the rampant Japanese raiders in the mid-sixteenth century are resulted from the alliance of those who complain about the policy of ocean prohibition in Chinese coastal areas and the specific Japanese groups under the tributes, the policy of Emperor Myungjo can be evaluated as the one which is far from the economic coexistence/symbiotic relationship in East Asia. ‘Ocean prohibition’ in Japan had been explained as ‘the closed-door policy’, but recently it has been also explained as ‘Ocean prohibition’ from the aspect of East Asia. But Dejima (Dutch merchants settlement) or Tojin-yashiki (Chinese merchants settlement) were totally different from Japanese settlment in Chosun or the foreign towns in Fujian, China, in terms of their operation or cost sharing. Dejima or Tojin-yashiki was regarded as the private areas in Japan, which means that Dutch or Chinese people paid the room charge and they took the responsibility for all costs while staying there. On the contrary, the envoys in Japanese settlment in Chosun or the foreign towns in Fujian, China were regarded as the envoys for tributes, so all costs were shared at the expense of the state while staying there. The policy of ocean prohibition in Japan was not established until the mid-seventeenth century. This can be compared to the fact that the similar policy was specified in the late- fourteenth century for China, and in the early- fifteenth century for Chosun. Moreover, considering that the purpose of ocean prohibition in Japan was to suppress Christianity instread of Japanese raiders, the policy included not the tribute trade but the private trade, and it did not include Chinese-Barbarian dichotomy, the policy in Japan was different from that of Chosun or Ming. Consequently, it won’t be enough to explain the external policy in Edo period with only ‘Ocean prohibition’ rather than ‘Closed-door’.