An historiographical study of the Ming Dynasty's cefeng peerage system

Abstract

In the recent research on one epoch-making event in the history of Sino-Japanese relations; namely, the Ming Dynasty conferring the title of “King of Japan” on the head of the Muromachi Bakufu, a revision has been made in the dating of the event from 1402（Jianwen 4）to 1404 （Yongle 2）. However, such an interpretation has not by no means been backed up with authoritative historiographical evidence.
If we attempt to confirm this dating utilizing methodology from the science of diplomatics, in which historical facts are ascertained one step at a time by measuring the accuracy to what extent the available sources of evidence are removed from actual fact or event in question, the choice of 1404 leaves only two candidates for the title, Ashikaga Yoshimitsu and Toyotomi Hideyoshi. From the viewpoint emphasizing the actual substance of “feng” 封（vassalage）---that is, the head of the Muromachi Bakufu being recognized within East Asian international society as Japan’s head of state---the author of the present article argues that the year 1402 is a far more significant date.
In the documentation issued by the emperor of China for implementing “feng” status, various forms were used depending on the perceived rank of the conferee: for example, there existed such forms as gaoming 誥命（direct imperial appointment）, zhao-shu 詔書（imperial edict）and chiyu 勅諭（imperial directive, admonition）. Referring to the case of the three princes of the southern, central and northern regions of the Ryukyu Islands, whether in their interregional affairs or in their relations with the Ming Dynasty, besides the document conferring “feng” issued by the emperor, we also observe the issuance of official calendars, seals and crowns in orderly fashion according to specific purposes. The selection of the specific imperial “feng” document form can also be ascertained in the case of the Ryukyus, as well as changes in the practice occurring over a relatively short period of time.
In addition, a survey of “feng” conferees among the Dongnayi 東南夷 “barbarians” of the coastal states from East Asia to India, reveals that during the Hongwu and Jianwen eras（1368‐1402）only two, the heads of Korean states of Koryo and Chosun, had been conferred via gaoming, the most prestigious form of investiture, in contrast to the reign of Emperor Yongle, who lavishly issued gaoming and accompanying seals to countries far and wide, according to a diplomatic posture focused on rendering authoritative, but benevolent, rule over the whole world, symbolized by the great maritime voyages being led during the time by Commander Zheng He to destinations as distant as Kenya.
Finally, as to the extant sources related to the Japanese archipelago, including the Ryukyus, the author praises this body of historiography composed of several original diplomatic documents, as well as two compilation of diplomatic records, the “Rekidai-hoan” by Ryukyu Kingdom and the “Zenrinkokuho-ki” collected in Muromachi era Japan, as irreplaceable in gaining an understanding of the East Asian international order during the Ming Period.