Author: Sixiang Wang

2019 “Korean Eunuchs as Imperial Envoys: Relations with Chosŏn through the Zhengde Reign.” Chapter 23 in The Ming World, edited by Kenneth Swope

Introduction excerpt:

The usual way to describe Ming relations with Korea is through the notion of the “tributary system.” The Ming emperor, with the moral and cultural authority as a universal ruler of “all-under-heaven,” enforces a China-centered world order by investing foreign rulers as vassal-kings, with the expectation that they render obeisance through regular tribute missions. This formula for understanding pre-nineteenth century diplomacy in East Asia has received its fair share of criticism since its influential scholarly articulation in the work of John King Fairbank.[1] But for being overly general, anachronistic, Sinocentric, reductively functionalist, and culturally essentialist, its hold on Ming-Korea relations nevertheless remains tenacious. Its tenacity reflects in part the utility of the “tributary system” as an analytical framework for scholars and the malleability of tributary practices and institutions, which were used in flexible ways by both parties for domestic legitimation and foreign relations..[2]

Korean embassies were also notable for the frequency, regularity, and intensity of participation in Ming tributary practices. They arrived in the Ming capital at least three times a year. Unlike most other groups along the Ming’s maritime and land frontier, the Korean court also professed (at least in the context of these embassies) shared cultural values and an ideological commitment to Ming claims of universal sovereignty. Both countries were administered by a Confucian elite who could communicate with one another through literary Chinese (also referred to as classical Chinese or literary Sinitic). In other words, whatever the faults of the “tributary system” as a descriptor in general, the Ming-Korea case seems to fit the bill as a “paradigmatic”, if one-of-a-kind, example of tributary relations, with Korea stereotyped as imperial China’s most loyal vassal.[3]

This stereotype has its origins in historical Chinese perceptions of what Korea meant to for the imperial project. The primary narrative of Ming relations with Korea that could be gleaned official imperial historiography concerns precisely matters of imperial legitimacy. When Korea appears in the laconic entries of the Ming Veritable Records, it is usually in the context of routine tribute embassies, especially those who arrived to participate in the New Year’s rituals. On the other hand, the detail regarding the few years of the Imjin War of 1592–1598, when the Ming defended the Chosŏn dynasty (1392–1910) of Korea against the invasion launched by the Japanese warlord Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1536–1598) contrasts starkly with the terse coverage of the preceding two centuries.[4] The considerable attention devoted to the war is unsurprising, considering the Ming’s outlay of blood and treasure, though as scholars have argued the expedition to rescue Chosŏn also sought to reaffirm a “Ming-centered world order.”[5] These concerns are reproduced in the official Qing-compiled Ming History, which devotes an entire fascicle to the history of Ming relations with Korea. It largely reproduces the contours of Ming official sources, with a shared concern with imperial legitimacy extending into detailed coverage of how the Qing managed to replace the Ming as Korea’s tributary overlord.[6]

The prominence of these topics—dynastic transition, imperial legitimacy, and the Ming defense of Korea—reflect the historiographical concerns of the late imperial Chinese state, and revolve around the issue of Korea’s status as a tributary vassal. But it takes two to tango. Korea too played a part in shaping this relationship. As Ji-Young Lee has recently argued, the resilience of the Ming tributary institutions and practices have as much to do with the domestic interests of the states and rulers who participated in it as it does with Ming imperial ambitions and cannot simply be reduced to a function of Ming imposition or the logical consequence of shared Confucian culture.[7] While it is hard to gainsay the importance relations with the Ming for Korea, the view from Chinese official historiography is a pale reflection of the total picture. The preoccupation with tribute as a function of Ming legitimacy occludes whole swaths of the diplomatic experience: practices of envoy poetry,[8] cultural competition,[9] Korean realpolitik,[10] the importance of language interpreters,[11] the impact on Korean domestic politics,[12] and Korea’s lateral relations with the Ming’s other northeast Asian “tributaries”: the Jurchens, Japanese, and Ryūkyūans.[13] All in all, a much more in-depth and nuanced understanding of Ming-Korea relations have developed to not only challenge the once dominant, stereotypical view, but also broaden our understanding of how interstate relations operated in East Asia during the Ming period. Given the limitations of space, this chapter cannot provide a comprehensive discussion of the ramifications of these insights.. What it will offer instead are snapshots of two facets of Ming-Korean interactions before the cataclysmic Imjin War, the value of envoy travel for the Korean court as a vehicle for information gathering and the role of Korean-born eunuchs as mediators between the Ming and Korean courts that will both complement and challenge the usual diplomatic history of this period.

2018 “Loyalty, History, and Empire: Qian Qianyi and His Korean Biographies” to be included in Representing Lives in East Asia, China and Korea 1400–1900, Cornell East Asia Series

The life of Qian Qianyi 錢謙益 (1582–1664) straddled the tumultuous Ming-Qing dynastic transition. Though a self-identified Ming loyalist, Qian did not, as some of his contemporaries did, die as a martyr. Instead, he honored the Ming’s legacy through literary and historiographical projects. Many of his critics saw his literary commemoration as an attempt to make up for questionable loyalist credentials, permanently tarnished by his surrender to the Qing and his brief service as a Qing official. One of Qian’s literary projects was the massive anthology of Ming poetry, the Collected Poetry of the Successive Reigns (Liechao shiji列朝詩集). In this compilation, Qian wrote short biographies of the poets he included. The compilation included not only the works of Ming scholars and officials, but also a significant number of pieces by Korean poets. Most of the Korean writers, however, did not receive biographical treatment. Among the exceptions were the Koryŏ dynasty (918–1392) loyalists, Chŏng Mongju 鄭夢周, Yi Saek 李穡, and Yi Sung’in 李崇仁. The inclusion of their biographies raises several questions. What motivated Qian Qianyi to include them? How did he understand, in particular, the martyrdom of the Koryŏ loyalist Chŏng Mongju, vis-à-vis his own position as a self-identified Ming loyalist? And finally, how did Qian gain access to biographical information about these figures in the first place? The answers to these questions reveal numerous intriguing parallels that revolve around several key issues. What emerges from these Korean loyalist biographies are issues of moral and political authority, the purpose of historical writing, and how Korea fit into late Ming and post Ming imaginations of empire. The biographies of these historical figures were closely coordinated texts, and resonated across space and time, spurring discussion of a wide range of issues.