著者

木土 博成

出版者

史学研究会 (京都大学大学院文学研究科内)

雑誌

史林 (ISSN:03869369)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.99, no.4, pp.525-557, 2016-07

---

本稿は、従来不分明であった琉球使節の成立過程を明らかにすることで、近世琉球の地位の確定を論じるものである。寛永一一(一六三四) 年に京都に上った琉球人は、再検討の結果、先行研究にいう「恩謝使」ではないことが判明した。「御代替」(徳川秀忠→家光) を名目に、薩摩藩が急遽仕立て上げたこの一行を、琉球使節の嚆矢と見ることはできない。寛永一一年には、家光が島津氏に琉球高を宛て行ったことから、琉球が島津氏に属するという側面、すなわち「附庸」が確定したのであった。その後、寛永二一年に挙行された江戸上りは、(1)徳川・尚家の慶弔事という継続性のある名目に対し、(2)薩摩藩主が引率したもので、(3)琉球国王が正式に派遣したものであることから、ここに琉球使節が成立したといえる。寛永二一年の琉球使節により、幕府と書を交わす「異国」=琉球が確定し、「附庸」と「異国」の二要素から成る近世琉球の地位は、ついに確定を見たのである。This paper discusses the early-modern establishment of the status of modern Ryukyu by clarifying the process of the formation of Ryukyuan embassies (Ryukyu shisetsu 琉球使節), which has not been previously clarified. The Ryukyu Kingdom (Ko-Ryukyu, meaning old Ryukyu), which had existed as a state (kokka 国家) since the Middle Ages, came to an end when it was defeated in the Shimazu clan invasion of Keicho 14 (1609) and the new era of early-modern Ryukyu began. Although early-modern Ryukyu continued to exist as a state, it had to build new relationships with the Edo shogunate and the Satsuma domain. Ryukyuan embassies represent these new relationships well It has been argued that the word Ryukyuan embassies refers to two kinds of missions: the Onshashi 恩謝使 (sent by the Ryukyu kings on the succession of a new shogun) and the Gakeishi 賀慶使 (sent by the shogunate on the enthronement of the Ryukyu king from the Sho family). Several studies concerning the meaning of these embassies for the shogunate, the Satsuma domain and the King of Ryukyu have been made. Nevertheless, it has not been made clear when and how the Ryukyuan embassies were established, which is one of the most fundamental issues. In reconsidering the issue, it became clear that the Ryukyuan people who arrjved in Kyoto in Kanei 11 (1634) who have been regarded as the beginning of Onshashi in the previous studies were not such a mission. In fact, at the time of miyogawari (the succession of Tokugawa Iemitsu following Hidetada) in Kanei 11, this party of Ryukyuan people (originally sent to the Shimazu clan) was suddenly constituted as an embassy to the shogunate by the Satsuma domain nominally as a miyogawari embassy. Therefore, we cannot regard this particular party as the beginning of the Ryukyuan embassies. In Kanei 11, the Shogun Iemitsu officially confirmed by letter that Ryukyu was a feudatory vassal state of the Shimazu clan and the status of fuyo (dependency) was thus established. About 10 years later in Kanei 21, an Edo-nobori (a mission to Edo) was conducted by the Ryukyuans. This mission was dispatched for consecutive events--the birth of Tokugawa Ietsuna and the enthronement of Sho Ken. Furthermore, this embassy was led by the Shimazu clan from Kagoshima to Edo as an embassy to the shogun in Edo from the beginning, not just suddenly reconstituted for that purpose as the one in Kanei 11 had been. Moreover, as symbolized by the fact that a letter provided by the King of Ryukyu was delivered, this embassy was officially sent by the King of Ryukyu. To sum up, the embassy of Kanei 21 satisfies the following three conditions: (1) the continuity of events involved, (2) havjng been led by the Shimazu clan and (3) having the official approval of the King of Ryukyu. These facts suggest that Ryukyuan embassies were formally established at this point. The exchange of letters with the Roju (members of the shogun's council of elders) by the Ryukyuan embassy of Kanei 21 confirmed Ryukyu as ikoku (a foreign country), and it can also be said that the status of early-modern Ryukyu as fuyo and ikoku had finally become formalized. In other words, the status of early-modern Ryukyu, which is well understood today, was confirmed only after going through the two phases of Kanei 11 and Kanei 21. The dual status confirmed at this point in time was exceedingly favorable to the Satsuma domain as it ensured Ryukyu as fuyo of the Shimazu clan and also an ikoku in the eyes of the shogunate. Therefore, we have to bear in mind that the Satsuma domain deftly used the two statuses of fuyo and ikoku for different strategies when they described Ryukyu to third parties. In other words, when we consider the establishment of early-modern Ryukyu, we must see the essence of the matter through the fluidity constituted by the dual statuses of fuyo and ikoku.