284 Boundaries and Beyond
additional revenue amounting to almost one-third of the total income
collected the preceding year.^57
Xu Guangqi (1562‒1633) was another outstanding statecraft
scholar. His name is often associated with Father Matthew Ricci, a
Jesuit missionary. As a far-sighted statesman and an agriculturist and
an economist, he explicitly expressed his views in favor of the tribute-
and-trade system. He did not regard the shibo trade as illicit and hence
implicitly criticized Zhu Wan for his rigidity in the handling of affairs
and his inability to resolve the maritime problem. His formula for the
elimination of seafaring outlaws was simply to legalize the trade. He
βirmly stated that:
Only after legalizing the trade, we can pacify the dwarves; only
after legalizing the trade, shall we be able to get to know them
better; only after legalizing the trade, can we subdue them; only
after legalizing the trade, can we plot against them.He even said he regretted not approving a request to send an expeditionary
βleet from Fujian to reinforce Satsuma, a feudatory state in southern
Japan, against the menace posed by Toyotomi Hideyoshi.^58 This non-
traditional expansionistic view is truly unorthodox.
On the other hand, Xu Xueju, the Governor of Fujian in the early
seventeenth century, proposed a differentiated policy toward the
maritime foreigners. Unquestionably, he was highly resentful of the
Dutch presence in the Penghu Islands,^59 located in the Taiwan Straits,
because they maintained close relations with Japan but he was deβinitely
not anti-trade, as seen from his attitude toward Spanish Manila.
He evidently had no objection to trading with Manila because this
destination was perceived to be less dangerous to the country’s maritime
defense. The trade with it also contributed to the customs revenue in
Haicheng in Zhangzhou prefecture. If the trade were banned, he said, the
revenue would be lost to the Dutch who had occupied the contiguous
and strategic islands off the Fujian coast.^60 In other words, he made a
distinction between the violent aggressors, namely the Japanese and
the Dutch, and the non-threatening trading counterpart, the Spanish in
- Gu Yanwu, TXJGLBS, Vol. 26, pp. 100‒1.
- For the whole passage, see the writing by Xu Guangqi 徐光启, “Haifang yu
shuo ‒ zhi Wo” 海防迂說：制倭 [Subduing the Wo], in MJSWB, 491: 29b‒47a. - The Dutch βirst arrived in Guangzhou in 1601. Three years later (1604), they
landed on and occupied Penghu. See Tongxi yang kao, 6: 20b‒22a. - Memorial by Xu Xueju 徐学聚, “Chu bao Hongmaofan shu” 初報紅毛番疏 [On
the Dutch as a threat to the country], in MJSWB, 433: 1a‒4a. Xu Xueju was
Governor of Fujian in 1603‒07.
http://www.ebook3000.com