承繼還是變革？：荷鄭時期臺灣島統治策略與財稅制度的演化過程

Inherit or Innovate？：Formosan Statecraft and Institutional Formulation from the Period of Ming to Ching Dynasty

吳立宣(Li-Husan Wu)

指導教授 ： 何輝慶

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/國家發展研究所/碩士(2010年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2010.03501

摘要

本文的意旨，主要在於探討荷蘭與明鄭時期臺灣島內財稅與統治策略的演化過程。傳統上，關於這樣的討論有著兩種不同的論調，其中一種論調居於主流，認為荷蘭人帶有相當濃厚殖民統治的剝削性質，而鄭成功進入臺灣的過程當中，不僅屏除東印度公司各種殖民制度外，更帶入一套中國式的制度體系。另一派的聲浪則與之相對，他們認為荷蘭人的制度遺緒並沒有隨著鄭成功的進入而遭到消滅，反而在某種程度上為明鄭當局所利用，甚或成為日後清領時期島內各種病灶的來源。面對到兩種論點的矛盾，本文對三個命題進行懷疑，一為荷蘭與明鄭時期在制度的面向上到底是接續還是變革？一為鄭成功所帶入的制度體系是否與中國傳統的政治典範有所相同？尤其是在十七世紀中葉的中國東南，鄭成功建構起他的軍事王國，而這與明王朝深層的政治典範似乎存在著本質上的差異。最後為東印度公司是否同上述的論調般，在統治福爾摩沙的過程中採取剝削性質的殖民統治？

誠如本文所揭示的一般，荷治時期東印度公司採取分類的方式進行統治，大員商館賦予不事生產的土著村社封建臣屬的地位，由其補充商館所不足的軍事武力，並配合商館各項的經濟措施；而具有生產能力的漢人則被授予開發與商業貿易的任務，由其擔任經濟活動的主軸。總體而言，在荷蘭人的治理框架下，商館、漢人與土著村社形成一套完整的互動架構，東印度公司在此三角關係當中居於高位，不斷穩定與協調兩者間的互動模式，並藉此達成商館獲利的目標。

與之相對，明鄭當局發跡於明王朝崩壞的當下。不過鄭成功並沒有受到王朝文武與道統問題的影響，透過皇帝的授權，他著手建立起一套軍事行政的系統；當中用以支持王朝存續的文人被屏除於這套行政體系之外，重要職位全由他的親屬、部眾與家人充任；而這套系統所服務的對象也並非遠在西南的永曆朝廷，反而是具獨裁者地位的國姓爺。

1662年，鄭成功因北伐失敗轉而攻略臺灣，他對荷蘭人所遺留下的制度並沒有加以重視。1664年，鄭經失去了他在中國的基地，將明鄭當局的焦點放入臺灣；也在這個時候開始，明鄭當局開始對荷蘭時代的制度遺緒進行梳理。誠如本文所論及的一般，明鄭當局對於東印度公司的制度模式既在某些面向上加以消滅，卻又在某些面向上採取便宜主義的方式逕行沿用；一方面明鄭當局受到這些先驗制度的影響，但又不理解荷蘭人的統治策略與制度脈絡；一方面明鄭當局也並非以營利為目的，因之東印度公司所形構的互動體系遭到明鄭當局破壞，且明鄭當局也並沒有因此將臺灣形構成一個大同世界。依照本文的考證，軍事統治的明鄭當局，其所收的稅賦重於荷治時期，而之所以產生如此的差異，除了與明鄭當局和東印度公司所面臨到的局勢不同外；更重要的在於，兩者在統治目的上有著本質上的差異。

關鍵字

鄭成功 ； 明鄭 ； 東寧政權 ； 延平王國 ； 荷蘭 ； 東印度公司 ； 土地制度 ； 財稅制度

並列摘要

This paper mainly discusses the development of taxation and ruling strategies in the island of Taiwan during the period of the Netherland occupation and pro-Ming dynasty founded by Koxinga. Traditionally, there are two different views in such a discussion. The mainstream view argues that the Netherlanders had a prominent characteristic of colonial exploitation. Yet, while Koxinga moved into Taiwan, he not only removed various colonial systems established by the Dutch East India Company (Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie– VOC), but also brought in the Chinese systems. On the contrary, the other view argues that the systems established by the Netherlanders were not eliminated while Koxinga entered Taiwan, but to a certain extent, they were used by the authorities of pro-Ming dynasty, and later on even became the source of a variety of focuses in Qing dynasty. Regarding the contradictory of the two views, this paper discusses three topics: first, were the systems of pro-Ming dynasty continuous to the ones of the Netherland occupation or a reformation of the latter one? Second, were the systems that Koxinga brought into Taiwan the same as the traditional Chinese political paradigm? Especially, Koxinga established his own military kingdom in southeast China in mid 17th century, which was essentially different from the traditional Chinese political paradigm. Third, did the Dutch East India Company, in accordance with the argument above, take the way of colonial exploitation while occupying Formosa?

As the paper reveals, the Dutch East India Company ruled Taiwan by adapting the approach of classification. The kantoor van Taiwan granted the indigenous villages that were unable to make any production the positions of feudal vassalage, making them complete the kantoor’s insufficiency of military force, and cooperate with the various economic policies of the kantoor. On the other hand, the Han people who were capable of making production were assigned the mission of business development and trade. They were the key figures of economic activities. On the whole, under the ruling structure, kantoor, the Han people and indigenous villages formed a complete interactive structure, and the Dutch East India Company was in the highest position among this triangular relation. It constantly stabilized and coordinated the interactive model with the others in order to achieve the purpose of profit making.

In comparison to the Dutch East India Company, the authorities of pro-Ming dynasty were founded when Ming dynasty collapsed. However, Koxinga was not affected by the problems of the civil and military and orthodoxy of Ming dynasty. With the authorization from the Emperor, he established a military administrative system, in which the scholars supporting the existence of the dynasty were excluded from this administrative system while his relatives, subordinates and family members took the important positions. In addition, the system did not serve the Junglieus Court far away in the Southwest, but Koxinga who had a position equal to a dictator.

In the year 1662, Koxinga turned to Taiwan after failing the Northern Expedition, he did not pay attention to the systems that the Netherlands had left. In 1664, Zheng Jing lost his base in China, and placed focus on Taiwan. From then on, the authorities of pro-Ming dynasty started to sort out the systems left by the Netherlands. As the paper has indicated, the authorities of pro-Ming dynasty eliminated certain aspects of the systems established by the Dutch East India Company, and meanwhile, adapted the doctrine of free evaluation and followed some aspects of the systems. While the authorities of pro-Ming dynasty were influenced by the prior systems, they did not understand the ruling strategies and system context of the Netherlanders. On the other hand, profit making was not the purpose for the authorities of pro-Ming dynasty. Thus, the interactive systems formed by the Dutch East India Company were destroyed by the authorities of pro-Ming dynasty, and the authorities also did not make Taiwan as “one world.” On the basis of the paper’s research, the taxation under the military rule in pro-Ming dynasty was heavier than the period of the Netherland occupation. Why such a difference arose was due to the situations of the authorities of pro-Ming dynasty and the Dutch East India Company varied. Most important of all, their ruling purposes were essentially different.

並列關鍵字

zheng chenggong of ming dynasty ； koxinga ； VOC ； nertheland ； land institution ； fiscal institution

參考文獻

1958，《海上見聞錄》，臺北：臺灣銀行經濟研究室。

1958，《從征實錄》，臺北：臺灣銀行經濟研究室。

1958，《閩海紀略》，臺北：臺灣銀行經濟研究室。

1958，《賜姓始末》，臺北：臺灣銀行經濟研究室。

臺灣銀行經濟研究室編