일제 강점기 한반도에서의 러시아난민들의 일상

일제의 한반도 강점 기간 중에 일어난 한국과 러시아 관계는 오랫동안 베일에 가려져 왔다. 한국과 러시아 관계사를 전공하는 연구자들도 한러관계에 마치 아무 일도 발생하지 않은 것처럼 이 시기를 공백상태로 남겨두고 있다. 그러나 근대 한국의 대외관계사에서 유래가 없을 정도로 많은 러시아인들이 일시에 한반도를 찾은 중요한 사건이 바로 이 시기에 발생했다. 1920년대 초 한반도는 러시아 연해주지역에서 볼셰비키를 피해 피난 온 러시아난민들의 피난처이었다. 비록 이들 중 상당수는 상하이, 하얼빈, 샌프란시스코 등지로 다시 떠났지만 일부는 그대로 한반도에 남아 식민지시대 러시아인의 주류를 이루었다. 이 글을 식민지 시대 한반도에서의 러시아난민들의 일상을 소개하기 위한 것이다.
1922년 10월 25일은 시베리아에 파병된 일본군이 연해주에서 철군하는 마지막 예정일이었다. 블라디보스토크에 정치적 공백이 발생하고 볼셰비키의 입성이 다가오면서 연해주지역은 일대 혼란에 빠졌다. 연해주지역에서 볼셰비키에 대항하는 백계러시아인들의 전투는 1922년 10월까지 계속되었다. 그리고 이 내란에서 백계러시아군의 주된 병력은 미하일 디테리흐스(Mikhail Diterikhs) 중장이 이끄는 극동군이었다. 1922년 블라디보스토크의 함락 직전 극동군은 4개단으로 구성되어 있었다. 볼가군은 극동군 제3단으로 조직되었고, 시베리아군은 제2단으로 조직되었다. 그리고 시베리안 코자크단은 과거 제1단의 남은 병력으로 조직되었다. 그리고 극동군의 제1,2단 일부 병력으로 별도의 극동군이 조직되었다. 1922년 9월 1일까지 전체 극동군은 거의 괴멸당하고 8천 명 정도의 병력만 유지하고 있었다. 그나마 이들 가운데 수백 명이 1922년 10월 13일과 14일의 마지막 전투에서 전사했다. 백군이 연해주에서 후퇴할 당시 대부분의 극동군은 만주지역으로 피신했고, 극동군의 제1, 2단만이 블라디보스토크를 향하고 있었다. 한반도로 피신한 백계러시아 난민들은 대부분 극동군에 소속된 병사들과 이들의 가족들이었다.
백계러시아인들의 블라디보스토크 탈출은 1922년 10월 21일부터 시작되었다. 볼셰비키의 입성이 다가오면서 이들은 황급히 블라디보스토크를 떠나야만 했다. 그나마 운이 좋은 사람들은 프랑스제 자동차를 60루블에 팔거나 혹은 보관하고 있던 귀금속을 가지고 피신할 수 있었다. 대부분의 난민들은 모든 것을 포기하고 배에 올라야만 했다. 10월 24일 글레보프F.L. Glebov중장이 이끄는 극동군 병사들이 가족들과 함께 블라디보스토크와 한반도 북부 사이에 위치한 포시에트Pos'et에 도착했다. 곧 이어 레베데프D.A. Lebedev 장군이 이끄는 우랄-헌치맨여단Ural-Huntsmen의 병사와 가족들도 포시에트에 도착했다. 그리고 극동군의 코자크 병사들도 도착해 주력부대에 가담했다. 10월 25일에는 스타크Yu. K. Stark 제독이 해군 병사들과 가족들이 승선한 시베리아함대를 이끌고 포시에트에 도착했다.
이와 같이 대규모 병력과 민간인들이 갑자기 블라디보스토크를 탈출하는 상황에서 극동군 사령관 미하일 디테리흐스 중장은 앞으로의 행로에 대해 어떠한 결정도 내리지 못하고 있었다. 이에 스타크 제독은 독자적으로 원산 행을 결정했다. 스타크 제독은 러시아난민들의 피난처로서 한반도 이외에 다른 대안이 없었다. 가장 인접한 중국은 신해혁명 이후 중앙정부의 통제력이 약화되어 군벌들이 지역별로 득세해 러시아난민들을 보호할 수 있는 상황이 아니었다. 극동지역에 항구를 가지고 있는 영국 등 일부 서방세력은 모두 백계러시아인들을 수용하길 거부하고 있었다. 미국은 볼셰비키 정권에 반대하고 있었지만 가장 가까운 항구는 마닐라로 포시에트에서 2천마일 이상이나 떨어져 있었다. 반면에 일본은 볼셰비키 정권을 인정하지 않고 백계러시아 지도자들과 가까운 관계를 유지하고 있었다. 따라서 스타크 제독이 자연스럽게 그리고 유일하게 선택할 수 있는 항구는 바로 일본의 식민지로서 포시에트에 가장 가까이 위치한 원산뿐이었다.
1922년 10월 28일 러시아난민들은 시베리아 함대를 포함해 동원 가능한 모든 선박들을 타고 포시에트를 출발했다. 사람들이 모여들면서 이들을 태울 선박이 턱없이 부족한 상황이었다. 난민들은 비좁은 배안에 승선할 수밖에 없었다. 날씨는 춥고 음식은 물론 심지어 음료수도 부족해 난민들은 엄청난 고통을 받았다. 높은 파도를 헤치며 원산으로 항해하는 도중 일부는 갑판에서 새우잠을 자야만 했고 심한 격랑 속에서 두 명의 어린이들이 죽기도 했다. 10월 31일 피난선들이 원산에 도착했다. 이후 수차에 걸쳐 난민을 태운 선박들이 계속해 원산에 도착했다. 조선총독부 내무국에서 발행한 露國避難民救護誌에 의하면 1922년 11월 1일 현재 원산항에 도착한 러시아난민의 숫자는 총 7504명이었다. 이들은 부상병이 541명, 해군과 선박 승무원 1221명과 이들의 가족 342명(남 5명, 여 208명, 어린이 129명) 그리고 군인 2830명, 유년학교 생도 307명, 일반 피난민 2263명(남 668명, 여 793명, 어린이 802명)로 대부분은 시베리아 함대 사령관인 스타크 제독이 이끄는 함선을 타고 피난 온 사람들이었다. 1922년의 겨울 한반도로 피난 온 백계러시아인들은 약 9천명에 달했다.
러시아난민을 실은 배들이 원산 앞바다에 도착하자 일본정부는 크게 우려했다. 무엇보다도 중무장한 군인들이 일반 피난민에 비해 압도적으로 많아 한반도에 정치적 군사적 불안을 야기 시킬 수 있다는 우려 때문이었다. 일본정부는 난민의 상륙을 허용하지 않고 즉시 다른 지역으로 떠나도록 촉구했다. 한편 배 위에서 상륙을 기다리고 있던 러시아난민들의 건강은 급속히 악화되고 있었다. 무엇보다도 음료수와 석탄과 같은 긴급한 구조용품이 필요했다. 하루하루가 급박한 상황에서 일본정부는 스타크 제독에게 선박들이 즉시 항구를 떠나는데 사용할 것이라는 전제하에 물과 석탄을 공급하겠다고 제안했다. 일본정부는 백계러시아의 육군과 해군 병사 그리고 일반 난민에 대해 각기 다른 정책을 채택했다. 일본해역에서 백계러시아 전함의 출현은 볼셰비키정부와 일본정부간의 협상에 커다란 장애가 되기 때문에 일본정부는 가능한 빨리 이들이 일본영해 밖으로 나가 줄 것을 원했다. 한편 일본정부는 지상병력에 대해서는 피난민으로 간주하고 만약 이들이 무장을 해제한다면 상륙을 허가할 것이라고 제안했다. 그러나 당시 볼셰비키에 대항해 적의에 불타고 있는 이들의 무장을 해제한다는 것은 거의 불가능했다. 이들은 곧 전열을 다시 가다듬어 볼셰비키와 일전 불사를 기대하고 있었던 것이다. 때문에 이들은 무엇보다도 무기를 그대로 소지한 채 가급적 러시아에 가까운 지역으로 이동하기를 원했다. 일본정부는 이들을 한반도에서 해산시켜 만주를 통해 바이칼지역이나 블라디보스토크로 귀환시키길 희망했다. 그러나 당시 중국은 러시아난민 문제에 대해 엄정 중립을 취하고 만주를 통해 난민들이 고향으로 돌아가는 것을 허용하지 않았다.
난민들을 이끌고 있는 스타크 제독은 일본정부의 이러한 소극적 태도에 대응할 수 어떠한 있는 수단도 없었다. 더구나 곧 겨울이 다가와 난민들의 생활이 어려워지면서 불가피하게 11월 21일 14척의 함선에 약 1970명(해군 약 1500명, 유년학교 생도 335명 및 그 가족 129명)을 분승해 원산을 출발할 수밖에 없었다. 11월 23일 부산에 도착한 스타크 일행은 일부 선박을 보수한 후 러시아난민을 실은 다른 함선과 합류해 12월 2일 한반도를 떠났다.
스타크 제독 일행이 원산을 떠난 후 원산에 남아 있는 피난민의 수는 5572명에 이르렀다. 이들은 주로 지상군 병력들과 이들의 가족이었다. 이중에는 고향으로 돌아가기를 원하는 사람도 있었다. 그러나 추운 겨울이 다가오고 부상자가 500여명이나 있어 이동하는 것이 어렵기 때문에 일본정부는 다음해 봄까지 이들이 원산에서 체류하는 것을 허용했다. 따라서 부상자를 포함해 여성과 어린이 등 약 2500명에 대해서는 인도적 견지에서 육지 상륙을 허가하고 원산세관 안에 마련된 임시 창고(제1수용소)에 이들을 수용했다. 반면에 백계러시아 군인들에 대해서는 상륙을 허용하지 않고 잠시 함정 안에 체류하도록 조치했다. 이어 12월에 원산 세관항구 안에 간이 건물 5동을 설치하고 함경남도 문천군 명효면 영흥만에 위치한 국립감화원 영흥학교 소속 건물을 일부 차용해 제2수용소를 설치해 러시아난민들을 수용했다. 제2수용소를 원산에서 떨어진 장소에 설치한 이유는 선박 안은 물론 제1수용소 내에서 이질, 디프테리아, 발진티푸스 등의 전염병 환자가 발생하고 심지어 소아 홍역까지 퍼지고 있었기 때문이다. 이러한 상황에서 이들을 원산주민으로부터 격리시켜 위생을 지키고 질서를 유지하기 위한 조치였다.
러시아난민들의 수용소 생활은 안락하지는 않았지만 기본적인 의식주가 제공되었고 무엇보다도 안전이 보장되었다. 모든 것이 부족한 상황에서도 난민들은 규칙적인 식사를 통해 건강을 유지하고 종교의식을 통해 다소나마 정신적 위안을 찾을 수 있었다. 난민들이 스스로 빵을 만들 수 있는 시설이 수용소 안에 마련되었고, 방안에는 차를 마실 수 있도록 항상 사모바르가 제공되었다. 난민들은 풍족하지는 않았지만 그나마 끼니를 거르지 않고 먹을 수 있었다. 보통 식사 전에는 홍차가 그리고 주식으로는 자신들이 만든 검은 빵 그리고 부식으로 고기와 채소가 제공되었다. 그리고 콩기름과 동물성 기름 등을 사용해 만든 반찬도 제공되었다.
난민들은 어려운 여건 하에서도 러시아 정교회 종교의식을 통해 상호간의 강력한 유대관계와 몰락한 조국에 대한 충성심을 유지할 수 있었다. 난민들은 크리스마스(1월 6일부터 10일)와 부활절(4월 8일) 행사를 철저히 준수했다. 특히 1923년 크리스마스에는 조선총독 부인이 크리스마스트리를 기증하고 애국부인회가 1393개의 위문품 등을 이들에게 기증하기도 했다. 어른들은 파티를 열고 춤을 추며 연극을 공연하고 학생들은 악대를 조직해 행진하기도 했다. 부활절에는 엄숙하게 제사를 거행하기도 했다. 이외에도 매달 적어도 1,2 차례의 종교적인 기념일이 있어 이런 날에는 만사를 제치고 특별한 음식을 만들어 같이 기도하고 식사하며 동질성을 유지할 수 있었다. 원산에서의 피난 생활 약 9개월 동안 221명의 백계러시아인들이 사망했다. 연령별로는 5세 미만의 어린이가 160명으로 가장 많았고 주된 사망원인은 주로 폐렴이었다. 이들에 대한 장례식도 러시아 정교회 의식에 따라 성직자들에 의해 거행되었다.
피난민들이 안정을 찾으면서 가장 먼저 고민한 문제는 자녀들의 교육이었다. 일본에서도 이미 1920년 가을에 백계러시아인들을 대상으로 요코하마에 노국중학교가 그리고 1930년대에는 동경에 푸시킨학교가 문을 열었다. 원산에서도 수용소의 생활이 안정되면서 백계러시아인들의 자녀를 위한 임시학교가 문을 열었다. 영흥만에 있는 제2수용소에는 1922년 12월부터 그리고 원산의 세관항 안에 있는 제1수용소에는 1923년 1월부터 수업이 시작되었다. 임시학교의 교실이 비좁았기 때문에 조선불교연합회 원산지부가 중심이 되어 공사비 2천2백 원을 지원해 42평 규모의 예배당을 신축해 학교로 사용하기도 했다. 약 1개월에 걸친 공사 끝에 1923년 2월 18일에 건물이 완성되어 2월 27일 개교식이 거행되었고 같은 날부터 수업이 시작되었다. 개교 당시에는 200여명의 학생으로 수업이 시작되었지만, 제2수용소에 있는 학교가 이전해서 합병한 이후에는 전체 학생수가 336명으로 증가했다. 학생들의 학용품은 주로 기부금으로 구입하거나 경성기독교연합회에서 제공하는 기증품으로 충당했다.
수업은 크게 초등과와 중등과의 두 그룹으로 나누어 진행되었다. 초등과는 8세에서 10세 어린이들을 1-3학급으로 나누어 진행되었으며, 전체 240명의 학생들이 초등과에 재학했다. 초등과 수업은 오전 8시부터 오전 11시 그리고 오전 11시부터 오후 2시 등 2부제 하루 3시간씩 진행되었다. 수업과목은 종교, 러시아어, 역사, 산수, 박물학, 지리, 영어, 일본어, 대수 등으로 구성되었다. 중등과는 11세에서 16세의 학생들을 대상으로 4-6급으로 분류해 구성되었고 전체 학생 수는 96명이었다. 중등과 수업은 초등과 수업이 종료된 오후 2시부터 6시까지 하루 4시간씩 이루어졌다. 교원은 초등과가 13명 중등과가 17명으로 구성되었다. 교원의 대부분은 러시아난민 중에서 선발했고, 단지 초등과의 영어과목과 일본어과목의 교사만 현지에서 거주하고 있는 사람들 가운데 선발했다. 또한 교실은 예배당으로도 사용되었다. 기도는 매일 오전 6시부터 8시까지 오후 6시부터 8시까지 하루에 2차례 진행되었다. 러시아난민들을 위한 수용소가 1923년 7월말로 폐쇄되었기 때문에 이 임시학교 겸 예배당도 1923년 7월 25일 폐쇄되었다.
일본정부는 피난민들에 대해 약간의 급양금을 지급해 왔다. 그러나 급양금 지급이 1923년 3월말로 중단되자 피난민들은 스스로 자립해야만 했다. 전체 피난민 가운데 610명이 일자리를 신청했고 이중 43명이 직업을 찾았다. 이들이 얻은 주요 일자리 중에는 원산에 살고 있는 한 일본인의 햄 제조공장에 10명(남), 운산금광의 광부 감독 7명(남4, 여3) 경성의 러시아영사관 구제회에서 고용한 구두제조공 7명(남), 원산의 러시아영사관 사무원 6명(남4, 여2), 강원도 농장에서 고용된 3명(남) 등이었다. 이 가운데는 경성에서 일본인과 결혼한 러시아 여성도 있었다.
이외에도 2814명이 노동집단을 조직해 단체로 취업을 희망했다. 이중 1/3 가량이 농업분야에 진출을 원했다. 일본정부는 이들에 대해 장기적이며 영구적인 직종보다는 토목작업과 같이 임시로 일할 수 있는 직업을 알선해 배정했다. 일본정부는 영흥만 제2수용소에서 문천역까지 약 6리에 걸친 도로를 자동차가 다닐 수 있도록 보수하는 공사에 러시아난민 노동자 286명을 배정해서 약 1개월 만에 보수공사를 완료할 수 있었다. 이어 강원도 철원 지역의 평야를 벼농사가 적합하도록 만드는 철원중앙수리조합공사에 1700명의 러시아난민들이 투입되었다. 처음 도로공사는 성공적으로 진행되었다. 특히 러시아인들은 체격이 좋아 육체노동에 적합했기 때문이다. 그러나 두 번째 철원의 공사실적은 저조했다. 무엇보다도 조선인과 중국인들은 하루 12시간씩 열심히 일하고 비가와도 쉬지 않고 일하는 반면 러시아인들은 단지 하루에 6시간 정도 일하고 종교적 축제 등을 이유로 일을 하지 않아 노동시간이 절대적으로 부족했기 때문이다. 이외에도 성진부터 단천까지 함경선 철도 주변의 노선보수 공사에 350명이 참여했다. 이 작업은 철원중앙수리조합공사에 비하면 비교적 성적이 좋은 편이었다. 원래 이런 육체노동은 군인들에게 익숙하지 않았고 또한 미래도 전혀 보이지 않아 노역에 종사하는 것을 피했고 현장에서 도망가는 사람도 많았다. 무엇보다도 원산 이외의 지역에서 중국인이나 조선인 노동자들에 비해 러시아인들은 노동생산성이 떨어져 직업을 얻기도 어려웠다.
일본정부는 러시아난민들에 대한 급양금 지원을 1923년 3월말로 중단하겠다고 통고했다. 그러나 난민들의 만주지역 통과에 관한 중국과의 협상이 원만하게 이루어지지 않자 고향으로 귀환을 희망하는 사람들에 한해 이후에도 6월말까지 약 3개월간 급여를 계속 제공했다. 이러한 가운데 난민들의 미래는 더욱 암울해져 갔다. 1923년 6월 21일 레베데프 소장이 이끄는 700여명의 우랄연대 병력이 엘도라도Eldorado호를 타고 상하이로 떠난 사건이 발생했다. 이 소식을 들은 피난민들은 크게 동요했다. 철원과 단천에 파견되어 일하던 피난민들 가운데 일부가 도주하기도 했다. 이에 난민 대표자들은 겨울이 다가오기 전에 피난민의 이송을 완료하는 것이 필요하다고 생각하고 7월 중순부터 퇴거를 위한 준비에 박차를 가했다. 7월이 지나도 난민들의 만주통과에 대한 중국 측의 동의를 확보하지 못한 일본정부는 불가피하게 7월 31일 전체 피난민들에 대한 지원금을 중단하고 원산을 떠나 줄 것을 요청했다. 일본정부는 본국으로의 귀환을 원하는 난민들을 일부러 장춘에서 도중하차시키거나 만철과 만주 동부지역 부근에서 도망가도록 그대로 방치했다. 8월 7일 글레보프 중장은 대략 1030명의 난민들을 오호츠크Ohotsk호 등 3척에 싣고 부산과 상하이를 향해 출발했다. 이것으로 원산 난민의 철수는 완료되었다.
스타크 제독, 레베데프 소장, 글레보프 중장은 선단을 구성해 백계러시아 난민들을 데리고 상하이로 떠났다. 러시아인들은 약 9개월이라는 한정된 기간이었지만 원산지역에 임시로 설치된 수용소에 거주하면서 기본적인 의식주를 해결할 수 있었다. 그리고 이들의 어린 자녀들을 위해 학교 겸 교회가 신축되었고, 원산을 중심으로 조그마한 러시아 사회가 구성되었다. 이들이 떠난 다음 한반도에 남은 러시아인들은 평양, 함흥, 경성 등 여러 지역에 흩어져 살면서 각자 힘든 망명생활을 겪어야만 했다.
조선총독부 내무국 조사에 따르면 1926년 9월 1일 현재 한반도에 거주하는 백계러시아인 수는 128명에 달했다. 이들은 대부분 극동군과 우랄연대에 소속된 병사들이었다. 이들을 통해 식민지시대 한반도 외딴 시골까지 춤과 노래 등 러시아 문화의 영향이 폭 넓게 파급되었다. 이들에 대한 기록은 동시대 신문, 소설, 잡지, 시 등에서 간헐적으로 나타나고 있다. 지난 2010년 2월 21일 KBS TV를 통해 식민지시대 서민들의 생활상을 보여주는 희귀한 단편 무성영화가 전국으로 방영되었다. 116분 분량의 이 무성영화는 1925년 독일 성 베네딕도회 오틸리엔 연합회 대수도원장인 노르베르트 베버(Norbert Weber, 1870-1956)신부가 한국을 두 번째 방문했을 때 직접 촬영한 것이다. 이 영화에는 원산의 한 학교 교정에서 열린 운동회의 모습이 담겨 있는데 특히 한 소년이 러시아 코자크의 춤을 추는 모습이 눈길을 끌고 있다. 특히 식민지시대 한반도에 거주한 러시아인들은 한국인들의 북방문학에 지대한 영향을 미쳤다. 백석의 시 그리고 이효석의 소설에는 백계러시아인들을 주제로 한 이야기들이 수시로 등장하고 있다.
식민지시대 한반도에 거주한 백계러시아인들은 모두 철저한 왕정주의자들이었다. 이들과 볼셰비키와의 관계는 마치 물과 기름 같았다. 1925년 일본이 소비에트정권과 외교를 정상화하고 정동 소련영사관에 볼셰비키 외교관들이 주재하기 시작했지만, 한반도에 거주하는 백계러시아인들은 이들과 관계를 철저히 단절하고 지냈다. 한반도에서 백계러시아인들의 역사는 1945년 해방이 되어 한반도 북부에 소련이 후원하는 김일성 공산정권이 들어오면서 다시 시련을 맞이했고, 우리들의 기억 속에 철저히 사라지게 되었다.

Western Views on Chemulpo

I had a chance to work with Mr. Don Southerton for following book.
Enjoy rare pictures on Chemulpo.
http://chemulpotosongdoibd.com/

VI. Conclusion

This study sought to investigate the nature and source of information on Korea available to modern Europe. For practical purposes, the study limited its purview to the first half of the 17th century and to records of Jesuit missionaries active in China at the time. Prior to the advent of Hendrick Hamel's famous account, reports published by Matteo Ricci and Nicolas Trigault, Alvaro Semedo, Martino Martini, and Juan de Palafox y Mendoza were the West's exclusive source of information on Korea. It is important to note that during their time and for a considerable span thereafter, these reports were widely disseminated and were very popular among Europeans. During the 17th century, these accounts were translated into Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, English, French, German, Italian, Dutch, Swedish, and Danish, in major cites like Rome, London, and Paris. All in all, no fewer than 48 different editions of the accounts are known to exist. Furthermore, as in the case of Athanasius Kircher, Voltaire and William Griffis, these accounts were valued as source materials for Western intellectuals interested in Korea and/or seeking to write about Korea.
For the Jesuit missionaries working in China during the first half of the 17th century, the primary window to Korea was the military confrontations waged in China and in the Korean Peninsula. Just as reports on the late 16th century Imjin War trickled into Europe via Jesuit missionaries in Japan at the time, China based missionaries were Europe's primary source of information on the Invasion of the Manchu into the Korean Peninsula, the so-called 'Humilitation at Samjeondo,' and Crown Prince Sohyeon's coerced sojournment in Beijing. For the Western missionaries, the Imjin War, albeit fought on Korean soil, was a military confrontation between the two main regional superpowers of China and Japan. Consequently, it was ultimately through the heroism of the Ming expeditionary forces that Korea was spared from the clutches of its mortal enemy.
This notion of Korea's subservience of Korea toward China is also evident in the Jesuit missionaries reports on the Korea situation during the late Ming/early Qing period. As the invading Manchu hordes marched toward the capitol, the desperate Ming Court requested military assistance from Korea, and the Korean Court had no recourse but to comply. However, no sooner had Manchu gained the upper hand, the seemingly opportunistic Korea cowed down to the Manchu. The image of Korea as the consummate subservient irrecoverably clouded the missionaries' assessment of Korea's political disposition.
The missionaries consistently described Korea as being not only politically but also economically and culturally subservient to China. In particular, Martini was the first westerner to introduce the theory of Gija Joseon to Europe at large. João Rodrigues, a Catholic missionary in Japan, had uncritically accepted the 'Imnailbonbu theory(任那日本府說)' and propagated the notion to other Europeans through his História da Igreja do Japã o, published in the 1620s. It is beyond the purview of this study to add to the debate concerning the validity of the 'Imnailbonbu theory.' It is, however, relevant to note that such theories have been made known to the West much earlier than had previously been thought. Suffice it to say that the Jesuit missionaries were directly responsible for the West's uncritical acceptance of agenda-ridden propositions that seem to justify the colonialization of Korea, such as those of 'Gija Joseon' and 'Japanese Mimana,' which succeeded in molding the biased perceptions of western books on Korea up to the first half of the 20th century.
Undoubtedly missionaries working in China during the first half of the 17th century were instrumental in introducing to the Europeans the history, culture, geographical characteristics, and local special products of Korea. However, as with their brethren in Japan, they were united in their view of Koreans as being secluded and exclusive. They were in fact reinforcing the negativism previously voiced by Guillaume de Rubrouck and Marco Polo in the 13th century.
The one determining factor that weighed heavily in the Jesuit missionaries' conception of Korea was sinocentricism. The missionaries readily accepted the Chinese world view, which placed them at the center of the world and all peripheral states as being politically, economically, and culturally subordinate to it. These satellite states were naturally thought to be haplessly barbaric, with little in the way of national identity. However, the 'Middle Kingdom' mentality of the Jesuit missionaries proved to be problematic in two respects: First, the Jesuits accommodated sinocentricism to facilitate their missionary work among the natives, yet later when addressing their European audience through their publications they had to justify their views by trying to convince their readers that the Chinese had the level of history and culture comparable to nothing less than the ancient Roman Empire. Secondly, since the missionaries assumed the infallibility of the Catholic doctrine, they had to reinterpret Chinese history and culture according to established Catholic norms. The ensuing 'Chinese Rites Controversy' was in fact a clash between sinocentricism and eurocentricism. The Jesuit missionaries inevitably saw the overrun of China by Manchu barbarians as a working out of the Divine Will of God, just as God had fulfilled His will by allowing the Ottoman Turks to bring about the downfall of the Roman Empire.
To be sure, not all Catholic missionaries in China at the time accommodated the 'Middle Kingdom' mentality. For instance, Juan de Palafox y Mendoza rejected the conventional hierarchy of China above Korea and basically regarded both as being equal under the grand Christian world view. However, Mendoza was certainly in the minority. Most Jesuit missionaries working in China during the first half of the 17th century regarded Korea on the basis of a unique multiple world view of sinocentricism and eurocentricism.

V. The Accounts of Juan de Palafox y Mendoza

During the first half of the 17th century, along with Martini's book, numerous other sources kept Europeans informed about the social turmoil in China at the time. It is interesting to note that among these sources, the Spanish accounts and the Portuguese accounts differ considerable in terms of their views pertaining to the political shifts in the Far East during the first half of the 17th century, such as the downfall of the Ming Dynasty and the ensuing rise of the Manchu as the dominant power in the region, as well as the First and Second Manchu Invasion of Korea. In particular, those such as Mendoza and Montanus, who were openly critical of the Jesuits, sought to remedy Europeans' negative conceptions of the Manchu people, as well as of the Koreans.
Palafox y Mendoza, who came from an aristocratic Spanish family, had never personally set foot on Chinese soil. Nevertheless during his tenure as Bishop of Puebla de los Ángeles in Mexico, he was able to receive regular dispatches from Macao and Manila on the China situation up to the end of 1647, which later served as the basis for his Historia de la conquista de la China por el Tartaro (History of the Conquest of China by the Tartars), a fact stipulated by Mendoza in the preface to the book. Interesting enough Mendoza does not acknowledge Martini as a source for his accounts. Given the fact that at the time, Portugal had been granted exclusive rights to conduct mission work in China, it is understandable that the Spanish Mendoza would have harbored some amount of animosity toward the Jesuit missionaries in China.
Despite Mendoza's manifest anti-Jesuit sentiments, his book went a long way in challenging the Europe's established conception of the Chinese people and the Manchu people. If Martini is overtly favorable toward Ming China based on his sinocentric propensities, Mendoza is outspoken in his rebuff of the notion of the 'Middle Kingdom' and does not hide his admiration for the Manchus. In Mendoza's view, the Manchus, in contrast to the Mings, did not stand on ceremony and were not antagonistic toward Westerners. Praising the Manchus for the uncommon valor, Mendoza foresaw that China would be born anew through them. He goes as far as to state, "the Golden age [of European antiquity] was gone from Europe into Tartar." According to Mendoza's assessment, unlike the Japanese, the Manchus, once regarded as barbaric, tended to be much more reasonable and judicial in their treatment of foreigners. Mendoza also sees Emperor Shunzhi as a ruler moderate in character and endowed with abundant virtue.
Mendoza compares the breakup of the Christian nations in Europe in the face of the Islam threat to the Manchu invasion of China and urges the European monarchs to learn from China's mistakes. He reminds them that different peoples (namely the Mongols and the Manchus) had united to overthrow the oppressive Chinese, and chastised Europe's Christians for their petty squabbles even with the Ottoman Turk at the gates. Just as Scipio faced up to reality after Rome defeated the Carthages, Mendoza stipulates that there was a lesson to be learned from the collapse of China and implores neighboring countries like Japan and Cochin China not to repeat the failures of China. Furthermore, he writes in no uncertain terms that the Emperor and the officialdom of Manchu were considerably more effective in the enforcement of law and order than the European leadership and that they should try to emulate the so-called "barbarians." Clearly Mendoza's assessments were motivated by his God-centered view of history, in lieu of sinocentricism. Thus from his standpoint, nations in the Far East were essentially equal under God. This also serves as basis for his views on Korea.
Mendoza's Historia is comprised of 32 chapters, and the third chapter is devoted to the Manchu invasion of Korea. Mendoza's account seems to augment Martini's own account of the incident. Martini fails to mention the 'Humilitation at Samjeondo,' was well as the Crown Prince Sohyeon's captivity in Beijing. In contrast, Mendoza's is the first instance in which the 'Humilitation at Samjeondo' is mentioned in a book published during the first half of the 17th century.
According the Mendoza's account of the incident, the Manchus were able to occupy the greater part of Korea at great cost. The Korean king was well aware that in terms of military strength, Koreans was no match for the Manchus, and in lieu of pointless resistance, he ultimately opted to yield to the aggressors. Confident that he would retain his throne once the Manchus acknowledged Korea as a subject state, the Korean king lay down his crown before the feet of the Manchu emperor. Manchu estimated that faced with an almost impossible situation, the Korean king acted most sagaciously.
The truth be known, Mendoza's account of Korea leaves much to be desired. The dates of specific events are not accurate, and Mendoza glosses over certain proper names, in the fashion of 'this Korean king' or 'that Korean prince,' apparently in consideration of his novice readers at large. Nevertheless, Mendoza's Historia provides the most comparative factual and insightful rendering of the Korea situation of related books of the period. Mendoza contends that Korea had enjoyed a long history as an independent state, made to pay tribute to China only due to its inferiority in strength. He graciously surmises that Korean King Injo's humiliating submission at Samjeondo was in fact an unavoidable choice of a sagacious leader of a weak country. Throughout his account, Mendoza consistently portrays Korea as a politically independent state nation.
Historia was published in Paris in 1679 in Spanish, after Mendoza's death. The French edition came out in Paris the same year. The English edition was translated from the French edition and published in London in 1671, the second and third edition coming out respectively in 1676 and 1679. For nearly ten years, Mendoza's Historia succeeded in capturing the interest of the Europeans.

IV. The Accounts of Martino Martini

During the first half of the 17th century, the person most responsible for bridging the cultural gap between the East and West was Martino Martini. Martini was born in the northern Italian city of Trent in 1614. Martini was Italian by heritage, but since Trent had at one time been part of the Hapsburg Austria, some sources record him as being of German origin. Martini joined the order in 1623 and studied mathematics under Athanasius Kircher, arguably one of the most brilliant minds of the times, at the Collegio Romano. As soon as he was ordained, Martini requested and was granted permission to be assigned to China. He arrived in Macau in 1643. Ming China, at the time, was in a topsy-turvy state owing to incessant attacks by the Manchu. Nevertheless, Martini managed to personally travel to the inner 7 cities, observing and faithfully recording what he was able to learn about Chinese history, culture, and geography. In order to defend the position of the Chinese Jesuit order in the so-called "Chinese Rites" controversy and also to muster support for the mission, Martini traveled back to Italy in 1651, and he drafted a series of books during transit. Bellum Tartaricum, Novus Atlas Sinensis, and Sinicae historiae decas prima were all China books and drew a vivid picture of the chaotic period of the late Ming and early Qing Dynasties. Reports on the Ming military involvement in the Imjin War and the Manchu invasion of the Korean Peninsula were included in the volumes.
Martini's Bellum Tartaricum was published in Antwerp, Cologne, and Vienna in 1654. It was in a mass market format, comparable to today's paperback edition, and was immensely popular. In the preface, Martini states that the purpose of the book was to (1) provide public information on Jesuit mission activities, (2) satisfy Europe's growing interest in Chinese history, culture, and geography, and (3) provide advertisement for the two upcoming books on China. However, for all means and purposes, Bellum Tartaricum took on the characteristics of an on-site report of sort on the decline of the Ming Dynasty and the corresponding rise of the Manchu.
Historically speaking, Bellum Tartaricum is particularly significant in that it was first to provide Europe with news of the ill fated Korean expeditionary forces of 12 thousand (under General Gang Hong-rip) sent to aid Ming China against its struggle against the Manchu and the ensuing invasion of Korea by Manchu forces. Martini relates that even after the fiasco, the Chinese Emperor sent an envoy to Korea bearing gifts to coax the Korean King to dispatch additional troops. Martini adds that since he left for Europe in 1651, he did not know the result of the war in Korea. In Novus Atlas Sinensis, published in 1655, Martini states that the Koreans rebelled against the occupying Manchu when the latter required Koreans to wear Manchu attire. Despite this, it is interesting to note that very little in the way of information is provided about the First and Second Manchu Invasion of Korea, respectively in 1627 and 1636. Neither does he mention by name General Gang Hong-rip or Crown Prince Sohyeon. Despite this, Martini's account of the Korean crisis was generally on the mark. Commenting on the warlike disposition of the Korean people (which he qualified was not as poignant as the Japanese), Martini includes an interesting piece of information that the Manchu troops were known to disguise themselves as Koreans when attacking the Ming forces.
Bellum Tartaricum portrays Korea as a tributary state of the Chinese, in every sense of the word. Korea not only dutifully dispatched troops at the Ming China's request but also later survived by the skin of their teeth by sheepishly establishing a new tributary relationship with Manchu, on the proviso that they be allowed to keep their traditional hair style and customs. Martini goes on to add that later when the Manchu reneged on their promise and demanded that Koreans following Manchu hair style and attire, the obstinate and conservative Koreans rebelled, compelling the Manchu to stage another invasion.
Martini's Bellum Tartaricum was aimed at the general populace and was thus relatively short (some 200 pages) and penned in a comfortable writing style. Between 1654 to 1706, it was translated and republished in Latin, French, German, English, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, and Danish. The Latin edition in particular underwent no fewer than 7 printings. By the late 17th century, some 25 versions of the book were in circulation. Such a printing history was unprecedented, considering the pathetic printing conditions at the time. The English edition came out in London in 1654, the same year as the Latin edition. This English edition was published by John Crook, the same John Crook who had published the English edition of Semedo's Imperio de la China. As previously stated, the two books were later combined and published as a single volume by Crook.
English intellectuals such as Robert Howard (1626-98) and John Webb (1611-72) were known to have relied on this book as one of the primary sources of information on China. Martini's Bellum Tartaricum also served as the basis for a dramatic play. During the 1673-1674 season, English playwright Elkanah Settle (1648-1724) is said to have staged a play at Duke's Theatre about a heroic love story based on Martini's book. The play turned out to be a flop; nevertheless, the very fact that such a play was staged in the first place is revealing of the wide recognition of Martini's book among the British and other Europeans at the time.
Almost all editions of the Bellum Tartaricum, including the 1654 Amsterdam first edition, includes a map of China, and each map also includes a rendering of the Korean Peninsula. Among these, the 1654 London edition is noteworthy because (1) Korea is correctly pictured as a peninsula instead of as an island, (2) in lieu of the customary state designation of 'Chosun,' Korea is marked as 'Corea,' (3) a specific region (namely Kingki, which presumably refers to the modern day Province of Kyonggi) is marked, (4) Jeju Island (known to Europeans at the time as 'Fungma') is not drawn in, and finally (5) the shape and location of the Korean peninsula is distorted to the point that the lower tip stretched all the way down to Nanjing. Interesting enough, in the 1655 Novus Atlas Sinensis, published barely a year after Bellum Tartaricum, Martini does include Jeju Island in the map. The discrepancies between the two are likely attributable not so much to Martini's lack of accurate geographical information of the region but rather to poor editing due to his overeagerness to get the book published as expeditiously as possible.
Martini's Novus Atlas Sinensis went a long way in broadening the geographical knowledge of Asia for Europeans of the time. In 1655 Novus Atlas Sinensis was incorporated into the 6th volume of the famous Dutch cartographer Joan Blaeu's Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, sive, Atlas Novus. This atlas was a scholarly tour de force of current day map-making technology and geographical information. Although Martini was not directly involved in the production of the maps of China included in his Bellum Tartaricum, he did personally supervise the production of maps and illustrations included in Joan Blaeu's edition. Whereas the illustrations in the previous book depict the Chinese as mere 'asianized' renderings of western characters, the drawings in the latter book was comparatively more realistic. Until the publication of J. B. B. D'Anville's atlas of Asia in the 18th century, Martini's Novus Atlas Sinensis was widely recognized as the authoritative map of the Far East.
In truth Novus Atlas Sinensis was not based on Martini's own geographical surveys but rather on Luo Hongxian's Guang Yu Tu, arguably the most accurate map of Chinese origin to date, and Matteo Ricci's Kunyu Wanguo Quantu. Novus Atlas Sinensis is composed of a 171 page main section, 81 pages of preface and appendix, a single page inner cover page, and 17 colored maps. Of the colored maps, there are a full page map of China, entitled "Imperii Sinarum Nova Descriptio," and 15 separate detailed maps of major Chinese cities. Also included is a map of Korea and Japan, entitled "Japonia Regnum." In this map, the Korean Peninsula is distorted into an elongated oval and is designated as "Corea." The Peninsula is decorated with geographical icons depicting mountains and two rivers (one marked as "Yalo" for the Yalu River, and the other unmarked but presumed to be the Han River) are clearly identifiable. The eight provinces are marked as "Hienking," "Pinggan," "Kingki," "Kianguen," "Hanghai," "Kingxan," "Chungcing," and "Ciuenlo," following the Chinese pronunciation. The Jeju Island is accurately marked as "Fungma" , based on the Chinese pronunciation of "Tamna."
Novus Atlas Sinensis can be best described as a combination of sociology and geology, what in modern terms would be known as the multi-disciplinary field of sociogeology. Martini allots 19 pages of the appendix to cataloguing the longitude and latitude of major cities and forts, as well as the contents of his conversation with Jacobus Golius, the leading Asian specialist in the Netherlands. The last page of the catalogue includes references to Liaodong and the Korean Peninsula. For Martini, depicting China in terms of specific longitude and latitude proved to be a formidable undertaking. As an ardent proponent of the notion of the 'Middle Kingdom,' Martini was naturally inclined to set Beijing as the latitudinal center of the world. This, however, was in direct contradiction to the European convention of Greenwich as prime meridian. Martini cunningly circumvents this problem by setting not one but two prime meridians.
Information on the Korean peninsula provided therein was more detailed and extensive than any other source available at the time. Korea, a peninsula state, borders Manchu (transcribed here as Niuche) at a large river. This much had already been provided in the accounts of Luís Fróis and Richard Hakluyt. Furthermore, while Antonio Carletti does name the 8 provinces that comprise the Korean Peninsula, his manuscript was not published until the early 18th century. In Joan Blaeu's Atlas Novus, Martini provides the correct names of all 8 provinces (according to their pronunciation in Chinese). However, Martini incorrectly lists Pyongyang as the capital city. On an interesting note, Martini explains that the designation 'Corea' was in fact introduced to Europe via Japan, and that the Chinese prefer 'Chaosien' or 'Chaohsien.'
Martini was the first to introduce the theory of 'Gija Joseon(箕子朝鮮)' to the West. In truth João Rodrigues, a Jesuit priest in Japan had already made references to Gija Joseon in his manuscript; however, the manuscript was not published during his life time. In Novus Atlas Sinensis, Martini bases his outline of Korean history on Gija Joseon. According to Martini, the special relationship between Korea and China dates back as far as 1211 B.C., when Emperor Wu of the Chinese Zhou Dynasty conferred a new stretch of land to his close relative Gija, who subsequently become the founding ruler of Korea. As the story goes, this new kingdom was thereafter referred to as Joseon by later Chinese Han emperors. After the fall of the Han Dynasty, Korea seemed to be released from Chinese control, but later achieved political stability by becoming a tributary state during the Chinese Tang Dynasty. Martini relates that when new Korean rulers assumed the throne, they are obligated to travel to Beijing to pay their respects to the Chinese emperor. Martini also explains that in 1651, during the Chinese Qing Dynasty, Koreans rebelled against the Chinese when they were required to follow Manchu customs and dress. Clearly Martini regards Korean history as an inconsequential side story to Chinese own history. With the exception of Joseon, Martini makes no reference to other earlier Korean dynasties such as Goguryeo, Shilla, Baekje, or Goryeo, preferring to gloss over the names with the all encompassing designation of 'Corea.' Nevertheless Martini's was the first European account to provide an, albeit cursory, overview of Korean history.
Martini also writes about the natural environment of the Korean Peninsula. According to him, the land is so fertile that the Korean people can produce practically everything they need, and there is an abundance of rice and wheat. Korea is particular famous for its pears and pearls, and he also lists ginseng, paper, lacquer ware, and writing brushes as Korean goods particular prized by the Chinese. Gold and silver are in abundance in Korea, and the major cities are teaming with people, although Martini admits he doesn't know exactly how much. Martini surmises that despite (or owing to, as the case may be) its large population and land size, Korea tends not to associate with foreign countries outside China and Japan.
Martini makes reference to Korea's culture and customs. He states that Korea's cities, structure, administration, customs, attire, language, etiquette, and religious practices are similar to those of China. However, he qualifies that Korean women, unlike their Chinese counterparts, frequently appear in the public and customarily travel with their husbands. Furthermore, the youth of Korea are allowed to select their spouses without prior consent of their elders. In making comparisons between the funeral rites of Korea and Japan, Martini writes that Koreans house the tightly bound remains in a beautifully decorated coffin for three years before burial.
Martini's Sinicae historiae decas prima was published in Munich in 1658. In the book, Martini traces China's ancient history from the time of Noah's flood to the birth of Jesus Christ, more specifically from the beginning of the reign of Emperor Fu Hsi in 2952 B.C. to the middle of the Han Dynasty. Through the book, Martini sought to educate his European readers to the fact that China possessed a cultural history just as long and illustrious as that of Greece or the Ancient Roman Empire, and that China was as much a cradle of civilization as the Biblical Middle East. To be sure, the book was a must read for Europe's China specialists; however, it failed to achieve the notoriety or wide readership enjoyed by Bellum Tartaricum, evidenced by the fact that only two separate Latin editions (Munich in 1658 and Amsterdam in 1659) were ever published.
In providing a multifaceted description of China in Sinicae historiae decas prima, Martini consistently uses the ancient Roman Empire as a frame of reference. He contends that China and the ancient Roman Empire had indeed a lot in common, such as their long history, extensive territorial mass, and manifestation of resplendent culture. Whereas Semedo recognizes Europe's superiority in the areas of science and technology, Martini sees China as having the upper hand in both culture and science. He states that although the Europeans may well be superior in physical terms, the Chinese are nevertheless the more intellectually astute, evidenced by the marvelous achievements in industrial technology, bridge building, and waterway construction. In sum, Martini discerns China to be on at least equal, if not superior, footing to Europe.
Martini's drawing of cultural comparisons between China and the Ancient Roman Empire made for him the decline of the Ming Dynasty all the more unfortunate. Like the Roman Empire in the past, China was now beset and eventually conquered by barbarians. Martini's rather nonchalant reference to China's neighbors as 'barbarians' and his rather farfetched comparisons between the geographical characteristics and culture of Europe and those of China presumably derive from his eagerness to better reflect the tastes of his European readers, thereby facilitating their indoctrination to the realities in China.
Martini's narrative amply reflects his Christian view of history. If his accommodation of sinocentricism stemmed from his sense of pragmaticism, then his view of history was firmly grounded in his devout faith. He believed that the Manchu invasion of China was a fulfillment of nothing less than God's Divine Will. Just as He had brought down the once invincible Roman Empire to spread Catholicism throughout the world, God was doing the same here in China. In Martini's eyes, the Manchu people, as well as their leadership, possessed the tolerance to someday accept Catholicism. In this manner, both Martini and Ricci works exhibit the contradiction of uncritically accommodating the 'Middle Kingdom' mentality of the Chinese gentry in one hand, yet welcoming the so-called 'barbaric' Manchu people as potential promoters of their mission cause on the other hand.

III. The Accounts of Alvaro Semedo

With the demise of Matteo Ricci, the responsibility of introducing China to Europe passed on to Alvaro Semedo. Born in Portugal in 1585, Semedo joined the Jesuit Order in 1602. From his arrival in China in 1613 to his death in 1658, Semedo spent some 45 years engaged in missionary work there. He had travelled extensively throughout the southern and northern provinces, eventually mastering the Confucian classic texts, a feat that few foreigners in China at the time were able to equal. Adopting Ricci's policy of accommodation, Semedo sought to spread Catholicism in China by making full use of the indigenous Confucian culture. In 1625, Semedo travelled to Xi'an where he was able to personally peruse and later introduce to the West the recently discovered Nestorian Stele.
In 1636, the Chinese Jesuit Order dispatched Semedo to Rome. Semedo was tasked with the recruitment of new Jesuit missionaries to China, procurement of funding for the mission, and most significantly, the publication of books on China. Semedo left Macao in 1637, arriving in Goa in 1637, and finally reaching Lisbon in 1640. During the long journey Semedo was able to pen the first draft of a personal account of conditions in China, later published under the title Imperio de la China. At the time Semedo embarked on his journey back to Europe, the invasion of the Manchu was in full swing, and Semedo was able to carry back valuable information on the political turmoil engulfing China at the time. Since Semedo's Imperio de la China was based not only on available western books on China but also on his own empirical knowledge, the book was soon recognized as the primary source on China for Europeans.
Semedo's book was published in tabloid size totalling 362 pages, and was divided into two sections. The first section, comprising approximately two thirds of the total length of the book, was composed of 31 chapters. It is devoted to introducing a variety of facets of Chinese history and culture, such as its geography, customs, language, education, literature, science, state recruitment examination system for high level officials, military weapons, form of government, prison system, court system, etc. The second section, presented in 13 chapters, delineates the history of the Jesuit mission in China, since it humble beginnings under Xavier. Semedo's underlying stance regarding Chinese history and culture deviates little from that of Ricci before him. He openly challenges the hitherto binary view of Chinese culture as being antithetical to that of Europe, and argues that rather than being savage, it boasted a cultural refinement that rivaled any nation in Europe. Semedo reports on the opulent life of the affluent, living in comfortable mansions and enjoying the amenities of civilization. Semedo does add that due to chronic overpopulation, the majority of the people lived in poverty. In terms of scientific capability, although lacking the systematic mind of Aristotle, Plato, and other Western philosophers, the Chinese exhibited a high degree of expertise in government and policy. One must keep in mind that Semedo's seemingly excessive adoration of China was due to a large measure to the fact that Imperio de la China was published to solicit further support from the Vatican and other European states.
In Semedo's Imperio de la China, reference to Korea is limited to four topics: the Imjin Japanese Invasion of Korea, Chinese civil strife during the transitionary period between the Ming Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty, Korea's paying of tribute to China, and the introduction of ginseng. Semedo recalls his encounter with Joãn Rodrigues, who was leading a contingent of mercenaries from Macao to help the Ming forces repel the invading Manchu forces. Rodrigues confided in Semedo that he had travelled to numerous major cities throughout China on a number of occasions and was in the process of examining Chinese historical documents. Rodrigues was a long resident of Japan, having served as Toyotomi Hideyoshi's translator, and was also the author of História da Igreja do Japã o. Rodrigues was one of the few westerns of the time to possess first hand knowledge of the Imjin War and also of the Chinese political turmoil of the transitionary period between the Ming Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty. In 1631, Rodrigues made a failed attempt to enter the Korean Peninsula, aided by Chung Du-won, who was in China as a special envoy from the Korean court.
Semedo's account of the Imjin War is basically a repeat of Ricci's earlier account. Semedo reports on the war situation in the Korean Peninsula, China's subsequent adoption of an isolation policy, and the Jesuit‘s position on the war. The Japanese forces "swarmed across the Korean Peninsula toward the Chinese mainland"; however, "In 1596(Semedo mis-records the year of the war's end to be 1596 rather than 1598), it was the Chinese forces, not the Korean forces, that had succeeded in repelling the Japanese." Semedo makes much of Japanese losses, emphasizing Chinese role while downplaying Korea's military feats. Semedo goes on to report that he reached Nanjing with the assistance of the Chinese general, a veteran of the Imjin War, only to find the Chinese engulfed by war fervor and antagonism toward all foreigners. Like Ricci, Semedo is genuinely concerned about the adverse effects of the Imjin war on missionary efforts in China. Even when the Jesuit missionaries arrived in Beijing, the mood of national crisis was such that they were unable to procure an audience with the Chinese Emperor. On this backdrop, it is understandable that Semedo's Imperio de la China would have little positive to say about Korea. In Semedo's eyes, Korea was an insignificant military power, plagued by self defeatism. It was a quintessential satellite state that lacked an orignal culture, as well as a sense of national identity.
Korea's image as a peripheral political presence is further enforced in Semedo's observations on Korea's toadyish diplomatic maneuvers. Semedo relates that when Manchu demanded that Korea now pay tribute to them, as they had to the Chinese Ming Dynasty in the past, Korea initially stubbornly clang to its past allegiance to Ming China. It is interesting to note that Semedo seemed to have some working knowledge of nuts and bolts of the tributary trade system. For example, Semedo explains that the Muslim states send a tributary mission to China every three to five years; however, the mission is in fact comprised of profit motivated merchants, without the knowledge or mandate of the Muslim royal court. In one instance, Semedo reports, the envoy from Saracen tendered to the Chinese emperor a tribute amounting to seven thousand crowns in their home nation, receiving in response a royal gift worth fifty thousand crowns. Although Semedo does not make direct reference to Korea's tributary relationship with China, he was astute enough to understand how China was inter-locked with neighboring states through the tributary system, and how the merchants were reaping monetary gains from this relationship. This level of insight notwithstanding, Semedo nevertheless parrots the other Jesuit missionaries in China in seeing Korea and others in the region as little more than satellites of China, lacking economical and cultural independence.
Semedo was one of the first westerns to talk about ginseng. He believes in the excellent medicinal properties of ginseng and reports that it was such a sought after commodity among the Chinese that it was worth twice its weight in silver. However, in naming the Liaotung (Yodong) Peninsula as the primary region of ginseng production, it seemed that Semedo was not privy to the fact that most of the ginseng consumed in China at the time were actually produced in Korea.
Semedo's original manuscript was in Portuguese, and while he was traveling in Lison and Madrid in 1642, he got it published in Portuguese under the title Relagao. At the time, however, books published in Portuguese enjoyed a rather limited readership, and consequently Portuguese historian Manuel de Faria I Sousa translated the book into Spanish and published it as Imperio de la China in 1642. The Italian edition and the French edition soon followed respectively in 1643 and 1645. The English edition was published in London in 1655. This English edition is notable in that it was combined into a single volume with the English edition of Martino Martini's Bellum Tartaricum. This combined edition was particularly well received by the English speaking readership. Although it is unclear who translated Semedo's work into English, the illustrations and maps of China newly included in this edition were for the most part taken from Samuel Purchas' 1625 London edition. The London publishers marketed the book as promoting trade and knowledge of foreign countries.
Like Matteo Ricci and Nicolas Trigault's De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas suscepta ab Societate Jesu, Semedo's Imperio de la China was also translated into numerous languages. Be it as it may, Semedo's book was not as well disseminated. One of the primary reasons for this is that Europeans at the time were hungry for the latest news of China, and Martino Martini's Bellum Tartaricum, which made direct references to the downfall of the Ming Dynasty, soon followed in the tracks of De Christiana expeditione, to eventually become a steady bestseller in the 1650s and the 1660s. Despite this, the contributions of Semedo's book in providing Europeans with news on China and Korea in the 17th century cannot be overlooked. Leading thinkers of the time such as Athanasius Kircher and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz cite passages from Semedo's book, and representative English writers of the time such as John Webb (1611-72), Thomas Brown (1662–1704), William Temple (1628-99), and Samuel Pepys (1633–1703) are known to have formulated their conception of China through this book.

II. The Accounts of Matteo Ricci and Nicolas Trigault

In mid 17th century the process by which information on Korea was introduced and incorporated into the basic reservoir of knowledge in Europe during the early modern era underwent a significant shift. Up to the mid 17th century, Spain and Portugal, which had emerged as major powers in Europe in the wake of the Great Sea Age, concentrated their economic might in lending support to Catholic nations against the Protestants and in expanding the Catholic sphere of influence into Asia and the American continent. In particular, Jesuit missionaries, backed by the Vatican and the Portugal court, conducted extensive missionary work in Japan and China. To their credit, the Jesuit missionaries were quick to pick up the local vernacular and endeavored to acquire working knowledge of the indigenous culture. It was only a matter of time before these missionaries, voluntarily or involuntarily, found themselves in the middle of momentous regional events, such as the Imjin Japanese Invasion of Korea and the social turmoil of the transitionary period between the Ming Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty. Consequently, they in due course became Europe's primary source of information on the Far East at the time. Their missionary venture into the Far East started with Japan, and the Jesuit missionaries in Japan were the first to provide Europe with information on Korea. Since the mid 16th century, Luis Frois, and other Jesuit missionaries stationed in Japan, regularly included information on Korea in their correspondences back home. These letters were subsequently collected and included in Richard Hakluyt's The Principall Navigations between 1598 and 1600 and in Luis de Guzman's Historia de las Missiones in 1601. At a time when materials on Korea were few and far between, these collection of letters served as an encyclopedia of sort on Korea for interested European intellectuals of the time. However, in 1614, the Jesuit missionaries in Japan were expelled from the island nation, and Catholic missionary work was outlawed. This effectively closed that window on Korea for the Europeans. With the advent of the 17th century, the Jesuit's missionary efforts in the Far East shifted from Japan to mainland China. Arguably the one person most instrumental in introducing China to Europe in the first half of the 17th century was the Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci. Ricci was blessed with a brilliant mind, being one of very few Europeans of the time to able not only to converse in Chinese but also to read and grasp the wisdom of the Chinese classics. Armed with advanced scientific knowledge of the West (exemplified in Kunyu Wanguo Quantu and his translation of books of Geometry by Euclide), Ricci vigorously championed the so called "policy of accommodation" in furthering the missionary agenda. In addition, Ricci personally authored De Christiana Expeditione apud Sinas specifically to introduce Chinese history and culture to Europeans. This work went a long way to bridging the gap between the East and the West. Ricci's work effectively superceded Juan Gonzales de Mendoza's Historia de las cosas más notables, ritos y costumbres del gran reyno de la China (the English version published in 1588 under the title The History of the Most Notable Rites and Customs of the Great Monarchy of China) as the authoritative book on China during the First half of the 17th century. Albeit to a lesser degree, Ricci's work also served as an introduction to Korea as well. From 1608, Superior General of the Society of Jesus Claudio Aquaviva commissioned Ricci to author De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas suscepta ab Societate Jesu (About Christian expeditions to China undertaken by the Society of Jesus), ostensively to muster financial as well as human resource support in Europe for the mission in China. By the time of his death in Beijing in May 11, 1610, Ricci had all but completed the draft of the work. Immediately following Ricci's death, his successor Nicholas Longobardi (1565-1655) succeeded in detaching the Chinese mission from the auspices of the Japanese mission and in getting Ricci's manuscripts published in Europe to rally support for the Chinese mission. To this end, he dispatched to Europe Nicolas Trigault (1577-1628), particularly astute in Latin. In Feb. 9, 1613, Trigualt left Macao, arriving in Rome in October of the following year. Apparently Trigualt made good use of the lengthy transit time, for by the time he arrived in Rome, he had transformed Ricci's crude script in Italian to a more refined Latin translation. The Latin version of Ricci's manuscript was finally published in Amsterdam in 1615. Since then, numerous translations of the 645 page De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas suscepta ab Societate Jesu appeared throughout Europe, solidifying its status as the authoritative book on China during the first half of the 17th century. The original Latin edition underwent reprinting in 1616, 1617, 1623, and 1648. The French edition was reprinted in Lyon in 1616, 1617, and 1618; the German edition came out in Augsbourg in 1615 and 1617; the Spanish edition was published in Seville and Rima in 1631; and the Italian edition was published in Naples in 1622. Most notably, British writer Samuel Purchas, one of the harshest critics of the Jesuits at the time, translated into English portions of Ricco's book and included it in his own sea voyage books published in London in 1625. The fact that De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas suscepta ab Societate Jesu was translated into no fewer than 6 languages within a decade of its initial publication, speaks to its enormous popularity among Europeans at the time. Portions of the book relating to Korea can be categorized into those written by Ricci and those later augmented by Trigualt. Ricci's contribution is mainly limited to accounts of the difficulties confronted by the Jesuit mission in China in the wake of the Japanese invasion of the Korean peninsula. In realistic terms, Ricci describes the brewing animosity of the Chinese against all foreigners, kindled by the recent Japanese treat. In truth, Ricco's account portrays Korea as a tributary state of China, haplessly inept in defending itself from the Japanese aggressors, and having to rely completely on the intervention of the powerful Chinese. The dread of war voiced by Ricci was shared by other Jesuit missionaries well into the next century. Ricci recalls that with the Japanese invasion of Korea, rumors became rampant among the Chinese populace that the Jesuit missionaries, allied with the Portuguese, the Dutch, and the Japanese, were planning to use Macao as a staging area to spread out into mainland China to ultimately exterminate the Chinese altogether. This was the direct cause for the murder of Francesco Martinez in 1606. Naturally, Ricci sees Japan's recent flaunting of its imperialistic ambitions as being antithetical to the Jesuit cause in China. In sharp contrast to Ricci's views, the Jesuit missionaries working in Japan did not necessarily see Japan's invasion of Korea in a negative light. A case in point is the personal accounts by Jesuit priest Gregorio de Céspedes, who accompanied the Japanese forces into Korea, thus becoming the first Jesuit to tread on Korean soil. It is clear that the Jesuit missionaries in Japan were anxious to use the military crisis to spread Catholicism throughout the Korean peninsula. In contrast, their brethren in China mainly saw the war as a potential hindrance to their missionary efforts among the Chinese. In the opening chapter, which is for all means and purposes Trigualt's introduction to the book, there are ample hints as to how the Jesuits viewed the delicate relationship between Korea, China, and Japan. According to Trigualt, all state nations in the Far East were within the Chinese cultural sphere of influence, evidenced by Korea and Japan's use of Chinese characters. Despite the differences in their respective spoken languages, Chinese characters provided the three states with the means to communicate with one another. In terms of the degree of reliance on Chinese culture, however, Trigualt identifies a significant difference between Korea and Japan. He reports that whereas the Japanese had independently developed their own alphabet system comparable to those of the European languages allowing the people to communicate in their own written language irrespective of the Chinese characters, whether the Korean could boast the same was yet to be determined. Trigualt did state that Korean had adopted the Chinese legal system, was a close trading partner with China, and was clearly more dependent on Chinese culture than were the Japanese. Trigualt's reportage of the Imjin Japanese Invasion of Korea was in line with Ricci's own observations, relating the Chinese people's general enthusiastic reception of the news of China's victory over Japan and the subsequent demise of Hideyoshi. Interestingly Trigualt also reports that due to the war, the Chinese relations with Korea had disintegrated, resulting in the complete breakdown of exchange between the two. As an example, Trigualt explains that the only foreigner that he was able to encounter during that time was a Korean female slave brought home by a Chinese general from the Imjin War. Foreigners were strictly prohibited from trading with the Chinese and entered the country without prior permission at their own peril. Those who did manage to get in were not allowed to leave the country. Any Chinese subject coming into contact with foreigners without the emperor's stated permission was liable for harsh punishment. Trigualt is openly critical of Chinese exclusionist policy which was overtly hostile not only to its enemy states but also to neighboring allies like Korea. The Jesuit's acceptance of the middle nation mentality of the Chinese is also evident in Ricci's World Map of 1602. Ricci places China at the center of the map and distortedly assigns Korea and other nations to its peripheral. In the eyes of Ricci and Trigualt, Korea in the early half of the 17th century was a hapless tributary state of China, which did not possess an independent culture nor the strength to effectively foil foreign aggression on its own. The Imjin Japanese Invasion of Korea was not actually a war between Korea and Japan, but a war between the two powerful states of China and Japan. In this vein, it was ultimately China, not Korea, who was victorious over the Japanese aggressors. III. The Accounts of Alvaro Semedo With the demise of Matteo Ricci, the responsibility of introducing China to Europe passed on to Alvaro Semedo. Born in Portugal in 1585, Semedo joined the Jesuit Order in 1602. From his arrival in China in 1613 to his death in 1658, Semedo spent some 45 years engaged in missionary work there. He had travelled extensively throughout the southern and northern provinces, eventually mastering the Confucian classic texts, a feat that few foreigners in China at the time were able to equal. Adopting Ricci's policy of accommodation, Semedo sought to spread Catholicism in China by making full use of the indigenous Confucian culture. In 1625, Semedo travelled to Xi'an where he was able to personally peruse and later introduce to the West the recently discovered Nestorian Stele. In 1636, the Chinese Jesuit Order dispatched Semedo to Rome. Semedo was tasked with the recruitment of new Jesuit missionaries to China, procurement of funding for the mission, and most significantly, the publication of books on China. Semedo left Macao in 1637, arriving in Goa in 1637, and finally reaching Lisbon in 1640. During the long journey Semedo was able to pen the first draft of a personal account of conditions in China, later published under the title Imperio de la China. At the time Semedo embarked on his journey back to Europe, the invasion of the Manchu was in full swing, and Semedo was able to carry back valuable information on the political turmoil engulfing China at the time. Since Semedo's Imperio de la China was based not only on available western books on China but also on his own empirical knowledge, the book was soon recognized as the primary source on China for Europeans. Semedo's book was published in tabloid size totalling 362 pages, and was divided into two sections. The first section, comprising approximately two thirds of the total length of the book, was composed of 31 chapters. It is devoted to introducing a variety of facets of Chinese history and culture, such as its geography, customs, language, education, literature, science, state recruitment examination system for high level officials, military weapons, form of government, prison system, court system, etc. The second section, presented in 13 chapters, delineates the history of the Jesuit mission in China, since it humble beginnings under Xavier. Semedo's underlying stance regarding Chinese history and culture deviates little from that of Ricci before him. He openly challenges the hitherto binary view of Chinese culture as being antithetical to that of Europe, and argues that rather than being savage, it boasted a cultural refinement that rivaled any nation in Europe. Semedo reports on the opulent life of the affluent, living in comfortable mansions and enjoying the amenities of civilization. Semedo does add that due to chronic overpopulation, the majority of the people lived in poverty. In terms of scientific capability, although lacking the systematic mind of Aristotle, Plato, and other Western philosophers, the Chinese exhibited a high degree of expertise in government and policy. One must keep in mind that Semedo's seemingly excessive adoration of China was due to a large measure to the fact that Imperio de la China was published to solicit further support from the Vatican and other European states. In Semedo's Imperio de la China, reference to Korea is limited to four topics: the Imjin Japanese Invasion of Korea, Chinese civil strife during the transitionary period between the Ming Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty, Korea's paying of tribute to China, and the introduction of ginseng. Semedo recalls his encounter with Joãn Rodrigues, who was leading a contingent of mercenaries from Macao to help the Ming forces repel the invading Manchu forces. Rodrigues confided in Semedo that he had travelled to numerous major cities throughout China on a number of occasions and was in the process of examining Chinese historical documents. Rodrigues was a long resident of Japan, having served as Toyotomi Hideyoshi's translator, and was also the author of História da Igreja do Japã o. Rodrigues was one of the few westerns of the time to possess first hand knowledge of the Imjin War and also of the Chinese political turmoil of the transitionary period between the Ming Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty. In 1631, Rodrigues made a failed attempt to enter the Korean Peninsula, aided by Chung Du-won, who was in China as a special envoy from the Korean court. Semedo's account of the Imjin War is basically a repeat of Ricci's earlier account. Semedo reports on the war situation in the Korean Peninsula, China's subsequent adoption of an isolation policy, and the Jesuit‘s position on the war. The Japanese forces "swarmed across the Korean Peninsula toward the Chinese mainland"; however, "In 1596(Semedo mis-records the year of the war's end to be 1596 rather than 1598), it was the Chinese forces, not the Korean forces, that had succeeded in repelling the Japanese." Semedo makes much of Japanese losses, emphasizing Chinese role while downplaying Korea's military feats. Semedo goes on to report that he reached Nanjing with the assistance of the Chinese general, a veteran of the Imjin War, only to find the Chinese engulfed by war fervor and antagonism toward all foreigners. Like Ricci, Semedo is genuinely concerned about the adverse effects of the Imjin war on missionary efforts in China. Even when the Jesuit missionaries arrived in Beijing, the mood of national crisis was such that they were unable to procure an audience with the Chinese Emperor. On this backdrop, it is understandable that Semedo's Imperio de la China would have little positive to say about Korea. In Semedo's eyes, Korea was an insignificant military power, plagued by self defeatism. It was a quintessential satellite state that lacked an orignal culture, as well as a sense of national identity. Korea's image as a peripheral political presence is further enforced in Semedo's observations on Korea's toadyish diplomatic maneuvers. Semedo relates that when Manchu demanded that Korea now pay tribute to them, as they had to the Chinese Ming Dynasty in the past, Korea initially stubbornly clang to its past allegiance to Ming China. It is interesting to note that Semedo seemed to have some working knowledge of nuts and bolts of the tributary trade system. For example, Semedo explains that the Muslim states send a tributary mission to China every three to five years; however, the mission is in fact comprised of profit motivated merchants, without the knowledge or mandate of the Muslim royal court. In one instance, Semedo reports, the envoy from Saracen tendered to the Chinese emperor a tribute amounting to seven thousand crowns in their home nation, receiving in response a royal gift worth fifty thousand crowns. Although Semedo does not make direct reference to Korea's tributary relationship with China, he was astute enough to understand how China was inter-locked with neighboring states through the tributary system, and how the merchants were reaping monetary gains from this relationship. This level of insight notwithstanding, Semedo nevertheless parrots the other Jesuit missionaries in China in seeing Korea and others in the region as little more than satellites of China, lacking economical and cultural independence. Semedo was one of the first westerns to talk about ginseng. He believes in the excellent medicinal properties of ginseng and reports that it was such a sought after commodity among the Chinese that it was worth twice its weight in silver. However, in naming the Liaotung (Yodong) Peninsula as the primary region of ginseng production, it seemed that Semedo was not privy to the fact that most of the ginseng consumed in China at the time were actually produced in Korea. Semedo's original manuscript was in Portuguese, and while he was traveling in Lison and Madrid in 1642, he got it published in Portuguese under the title Relagao. At the time, however, books published in Portuguese enjoyed a rather limited readership, and consequently Portuguese historian Manuel de Faria I Sousa translated the book into Spanish and published it as Imperio de la China in 1642. The Italian edition and the French edition soon followed respectively in 1643 and 1645. The English edition was published in London in 1655. This English edition is notable in that it was combined into a single volume with the English edition of Martino Martini's Bellum Tartaricum. This combined edition was particularly well received by the English speaking readership. Although it is unclear who translated Semedo's work into English, the illustrations and maps of China newly included in this edition were for the most part taken from Samuel Purchas' 1625 London edition. The London publishers marketed the book as promoting trade and knowledge of foreign countries. Like Matteo Ricci and Nicolas Trigault's De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas suscepta ab Societate Jesu, Semedo's Imperio de la China was also translated into numerous languages. Be it as it may, Semedo's book was not as well disseminated. One of the primary reasons for this is that Europeans at the time were hungry for the latest news of China, and Martino Martini's Bellum Tartaricum, which made direct references to the downfall of the Ming Dynasty, soon followed in the tracks of De Christiana expeditione, to eventually become a steady bestseller in the 1650s and the 1660s. Despite this, the contributions of Semedo's book in providing Europeans with news on China and Korea in the 17th century cannot be overlooked. Leading thinkers of the time such as Athanasius Kircher and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz cite passages from Semedo's book, and representative English writers of the time such as John Webb (1611-72), Thomas Brown (1662–1704), William Temple (1628-99), and Samuel Pepys (1633–1703) are known to have formulated their conception of China through this book. IV. The Accounts of Martino Martini During the first half of the 17th century, the person most responsible for bridging the cultural gap between the East and West was Martino Martini. Martini was born in the northern Italian city of Trent in 1614. Martini was Italian by heritage, but since Trent had at one time been part of the Hapsburg Austria, some sources record him as being of German origin. Martini joined the order in 1623 and studied mathematics under Athanasius Kircher, arguably one of the most brilliant minds of the times, at the Collegio Romano. As soon as he was ordained, Martini requested and was granted permission to be assigned to China. He arrived in Macau in 1643. Ming China, at the time, was in a topsy-turvy state owing to incessant attacks by the Manchu. Nevertheless, Martini managed to personally travel to the inner 7 cities, observing and faithfully recording what he was able to learn about Chinese history, culture, and geography. In order to defend the position of the Chinese Jesuit order in the so-called "Chinese Rites" controversy and also to muster support for the mission, Martini traveled back to Italy in 1651, and he drafted a series of books during transit. Bellum Tartaricum, Novus Atlas Sinensis, and Sinicae historiae decas prima were all China books and drew a vivid picture of the chaotic period of the late Ming and early Qing Dynasties. Reports on the Ming military involvement in the Imjin War and the Manchu invasion of the Korean Peninsula were included in the volumes. Martini's Bellum Tartaricum was published in Antwerp, Cologne, and Vienna in 1654. It was in a mass market format, comparable to today's paperback edition, and was immensely popular. In the preface, Martini states that the purpose of the book was to (1) provide public information on Jesuit mission activities, (2) satisfy Europe's growing interest in Chinese history, culture, and geography, and (3) provide advertisement for the two upcoming books on China. However, for all means and purposes, Bellum Tartaricum took on the characteristics of an on-site report of sort on the decline of the Ming Dynasty and the corresponding rise of the Manchu. Historically speaking, Bellum Tartaricum is particularly significant in that it was first to provide Europe with news of the ill fated Korean expeditionary forces of 12 thousand (under General Gang Hong-rip) sent to aid Ming China against its struggle against the Manchu and the ensuing invasion of Korea by Manchu forces. Martini relates that even after the fiasco, the Chinese Emperor sent an envoy to Korea bearing gifts to coax the Korean King to dispatch additional troops. Martini adds that since he left for Europe in 1651, he did not know the result of the war in Korea. In Novus Atlas Sinensis, published in 1655, Martini states that the Koreans rebelled against the occupying Manchu when the latter required Koreans to wear Manchu attire. Despite this, it is interesting to note that very little in the way of information is provided about the First and Second Manchu Invasion of Korea, respectively in 1627 and 1636. Neither does he mention by name General Gang Hong-rip or Crown Prince Sohyeon. Despite this, Martini's account of the Korean crisis was generally on the mark. Commenting on the warlike disposition of the Korean people (which he qualified was not as poignant as the Japanese), Martini includes an interesting piece of information that the Manchu troops were known to disguise themselves as Koreans when attacking the Ming forces. Bellum Tartaricum portrays Korea as a tributary state of the Chinese, in every sense of the word. Korea not only dutifully dispatched troops at the Ming China's request but also later survived by the skin of their teeth by sheepishly establishing a new tributary relationship with Manchu, on the proviso that they be allowed to keep their traditional hair style and customs. Martini goes on to add that later when the Manchu reneged on their promise and demanded that Koreans following Manchu hair style and attire, the obstinate and conservative Koreans rebelled, compelling the Manchu to stage another invasion. Martini's Bellum Tartaricum was aimed at the general populace and was thus relatively short (some 200 pages) and penned in a comfortable writing style. Between 1654 to 1706, it was translated and republished in Latin, French, German, English, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, and Danish. The Latin edition in particular underwent no fewer than 7 printings. By the late 17th century, some 25 versions of the book were in circulation. Such a printing history was unprecedented, considering the pathetic printing conditions at the time. The English edition came out in London in 1654, the same year as the Latin edition. This English edition was published by John Crook, the same John Crook who had published the English edition of Semedo's Imperio de la China. As previously stated, the two books were later combined and published as a single volume by Crook. English intellectuals such as Robert Howard (1626-98) and John Webb (1611-72) were known to have relied on this book as one of the primary sources of information on China. Martini's Bellum Tartaricum also served as the basis for a dramatic play. During the 1673-1674 season, English playwright Elkanah Settle (1648-1724) is said to have staged a play at Duke's Theatre about a heroic love story based on Martini's book. The play turned out to be a flop; nevertheless, the very fact that such a play was staged in the first place is revealing of the wide recognition of Martini's book among the British and other Europeans at the time. Almost all editions of the Bellum Tartaricum, including the 1654 Amsterdam first edition, includes a map of China, and each map also includes a rendering of the Korean Peninsula. Among these, the 1654 London edition is noteworthy because (1) Korea is correctly pictured as a peninsula instead of as an island, (2) in lieu of the customary state designation of 'Chosun,' Korea is marked as 'Corea,' (3) a specific region (namely Kingki, which presumably refers to the modern day Province of Kyonggi) is marked, (4) Jeju Island (known to Europeans at the time as 'Fungma') is not drawn in, and finally (5) the shape and location of the Korean peninsula is distorted to the point that the lower tip stretched all the way down to Nanjing. Interesting enough, in the 1655 Novus Atlas Sinensis, published barely a year after Bellum Tartaricum, Martini does include Jeju Island in the map. The discrepancies between the two are likely attributable not so much to Martini's lack of accurate geographical information of the region but rather to poor editing due to his overeagerness to get the book published as expeditiously as possible. Martini's Novus Atlas Sinensis went a long way in broadening the geographical knowledge of Asia for Europeans of the time. In 1655 Novus Atlas Sinensis was incorporated into the 6th volume of the famous Dutch cartographer Joan Blaeu's Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, sive, Atlas Novus. This atlas was a scholarly tour de force of current day map-making technology and geographical information. Although Martini was not directly involved in the production of the maps of China included in his Bellum Tartaricum, he did personally supervise the production of maps and illustrations included in Joan Blaeu's edition. Whereas the illustrations in the previous book depict the Chinese as mere 'asianized' renderings of western characters, the drawings in the latter book was comparatively more realistic. Until the publication of J. B. B. D'Anville's atlas of Asia in the 18th century, Martini's Novus Atlas Sinensis was widely recognized as the authoritative map of the Far East. In truth Novus Atlas Sinensis was not based on Martini's own geographical surveys but rather on Luo Hongxian's Guang Yu Tu, arguably the most accurate map of Chinese origin to date, and Matteo Ricci's Kunyu Wanguo Quantu. Novus Atlas Sinensis is composed of a 171 page main section, 81 pages of preface and appendix, a single page inner cover page, and 17 colored maps. Of the colored maps, there are a full page map of China, entitled "Imperii Sinarum Nova Descriptio," and 15 separate detailed maps of major Chinese cities. Also included is a map of Korea and Japan, entitled "Japonia Regnum." In this map, the Korean Peninsula is distorted into an elongated oval and is designated as "Corea." The Peninsula is decorated with geographical icons depicting mountains and two rivers (one marked as "Yalo" for the Yalu River, and the other unmarked but presumed to be the Han River) are clearly identifiable. The eight provinces are marked as "Hienking," "Pinggan," "Kingki," "Kianguen," "Hanghai," "Kingxan," "Chungcing," and "Ciuenlo," following the Chinese pronunciation. The Jeju Island is accurately marked as "Fungma" , based on the Chinese pronunciation of "Tamna." Novus Atlas Sinensis can be best described as a combination of sociology and geology, what in modern terms would be known as the multi-disciplinary field of sociogeology. Martini allots 19 pages of the appendix to cataloguing the longitude and latitude of major cities and forts, as well as the contents of his conversation with Jacobus Golius, the leading Asian specialist in the Netherlands. The last page of the catalogue includes references to Liaodong and the Korean Peninsula. For Martini, depicting China in terms of specific longitude and latitude proved to be a formidable undertaking. As an ardent proponent of the notion of the 'Middle Kingdom,' Martini was naturally inclined to set Beijing as the latitudinal center of the world. This, however, was in direct contradiction to the European convention of Greenwich as prime meridian. Martini cunningly circumvents this problem by setting not one but two prime meridians. Information on the Korean peninsula provided therein was more detailed and extensive than any other source available at the time. Korea, a peninsula state, borders Manchu (transcribed here as Niuche) at a large river. This much had already been provided in the accounts of Luís Fróis and Richard Hakluyt. Furthermore, while Antonio Carletti does name the 8 provinces that comprise the Korean Peninsula, his manuscript was not published until the early 18th century. In Joan Blaeu's Atlas Novus, Martini provides the correct names of all 8 provinces (according to their pronunciation in Chinese). However, Martini incorrectly lists Pyongyang as the capital city. On an interesting note, Martini explains that the designation 'Corea' was in fact introduced to Europe via Japan, and that the Chinese prefer 'Chaosien' or 'Chaohsien.' Martini was the first to introduce the theory of 'Gija Joseon(箕子朝鮮)' to the West. In truth João Rodrigues, a Jesuit priest in Japan had already made references to Gija Joseon in his manuscript; however, the manuscript was not published during his life time. In Novus Atlas Sinensis, Martini bases his outline of Korean history on Gija Joseon. According to Martini, the special relationship between Korea and China dates back as far as 1211 B.C., when Emperor Wu of the Chinese Zhou Dynasty conferred a new stretch of land to his close relative Gija, who subsequently become the founding ruler of Korea. As the story goes, this new kingdom was thereafter referred to as Joseon by later Chinese Han emperors. After the fall of the Han Dynasty, Korea seemed to be released from Chinese control, but later achieved political stability by becoming a tributary state during the Chinese Tang Dynasty. Martini relates that when new Korean rulers assumed the throne, they are obligated to travel to Beijing to pay their respects to the Chinese emperor. Martini also explains that in 1651, during the Chinese Qing Dynasty, Koreans rebelled against the Chinese when they were required to follow Manchu customs and dress. Clearly Martini regards Korean history as an inconsequential side story to Chinese own history. With the exception of Joseon, Martini makes no reference to other earlier Korean dynasties such as Goguryeo, Shilla, Baekje, or Goryeo, preferring to gloss over the names with the all encompassing designation of 'Corea.' Nevertheless Martini's was the first European account to provide an, albeit cursory, overview of Korean history. Martini also writes about the natural environment of the Korean Peninsula. According to him, the land is so fertile that the Korean people can produce practically everything they need, and there is an abundance of rice and wheat. Korea is particular famous for its pears and pearls, and he also lists ginseng, paper, lacquer ware, and writing brushes as Korean goods particular prized by the Chinese. Gold and silver are in abundance in Korea, and the major cities are teaming with people, although Martini admits he doesn't know exactly how much. Martini surmises that despite (or owing to, as the case may be) its large population and land size, Korea tends not to associate with foreign countries outside China and Japan. Martini makes reference to Korea's culture and customs. He states that Korea's cities, structure, administration, customs, attire, language, etiquette, and religious practices are similar to those of China. However, he qualifies that Korean women, unlike their Chinese counterparts, frequently appear in the public and customarily travel with their husbands. Furthermore, the youth of Korea are allowed to select their spouses without prior consent of their elders. In making comparisons between the funeral rites of Korea and Japan, Martini writes that Koreans house the tightly bound remains in a beautifully decorated coffin for three years before burial. Martini's Sinicae historiae decas prima was published in Munich in 1658. In the book, Martini traces China's ancient history from the time of Noah's flood to the birth of Jesus Christ, more specifically from the beginning of the reign of Emperor Fu Hsi in 2952 B.C. to the middle of the Han Dynasty. Through the book, Martini sought to educate his European readers to the fact that China possessed a cultural history just as long and illustrious as that of Greece or the Ancient Roman Empire, and that China was as much a cradle of civilization as the Biblical Middle East. To be sure, the book was a must read for Europe's China specialists; however, it failed to achieve the notoriety or wide readership enjoyed by Bellum Tartaricum, evidenced by the fact that only two separate Latin editions (Munich in 1658 and Amsterdam in 1659) were ever published. In providing a multifaceted description of China in Sinicae historiae decas prima, Martini consistently uses the ancient Roman Empire as a frame of reference. He contends that China and the ancient Roman Empire had indeed a lot in common, such as their long history, extensive territorial mass, and manifestation of resplendent culture. Whereas Semedo recognizes Europe's superiority in the areas of science and technology, Martini sees China as having the upper hand in both culture and science. He states that although the Europeans may well be superior in physical terms, the Chinese are nevertheless the more intellectually astute, evidenced by the marvelous achievements in industrial technology, bridge building, and waterway construction. In sum, Martini discerns China to be on at least equal, if not superior, footing to Europe. Martini's drawing of cultural comparisons between China and the Ancient Roman Empire made for him the decline of the Ming Dynasty all the more unfortunate. Like the Roman Empire in the past, China was now beset and eventually conquered by barbarians. Martini's rather nonchalant reference to China's neighbors as 'barbarians' and his rather farfetched comparisons between the geographical characteristics and culture of Europe and those of China presumably derive from his eagerness to better reflect the tastes of his European readers, thereby facilitating their indoctrination to the realities in China. Martini's narrative amply reflects his Christian view of history. If his accommodation of sinocentricism stemmed from his sense of pragmaticism, then his view of history was firmly grounded in his devout faith. He believed that the Manchu invasion of China was a fulfillment of nothing less than God's Divine Will. Just as He had brought down the once invincible Roman Empire to spread Catholicism throughout the world, God was doing the same here in China. In Martini's eyes, the Manchu people, as well as their leadership, possessed the tolerance to someday accept Catholicism. In this manner, both Martini and Ricci works exhibit the contradiction of uncritically accommodating the 'Middle Kingdom' mentality of the Chinese gentry in one hand, yet welcoming the so-called 'barbaric' Manchu people as potential promoters of their mission cause on the other hand. V. The Accounts of Juan de Palafox y Mendoza During the first half of the 17th century, along with Martini's book, numerous other sources kept Europeans informed about the social turmoil in China at the time. It is interesting to note that among these sources, the Spanish accounts and the Portuguese accounts differ considerable in terms of their views pertaining to the political shifts in the Far East during the first half of the 17th century, such as the downfall of the Ming Dynasty and the ensuing rise of the Manchu as the dominant power in the region, as well as the First and Second Manchu Invasion of Korea. In particular, those such as Mendoza and Montanus, who were openly critical of the Jesuits, sought to remedy Europeans' negative conceptions of the Manchu people, as well as of the Koreans. Palafox y Mendoza, who came from an aristocratic Spanish family, had never personally set foot on Chinese soil. Nevertheless during his tenure as Bishop of Puebla de los Ángeles in Mexico, he was able to receive regular dispatches from Macao and Manila on the China situation up to the end of 1647, which later served as the basis for his Historia de la conquista de la China por el Tartaro (History of the Conquest of China by the Tartars), a fact stipulated by Mendoza in the preface to the book. Interesting enough Mendoza does not acknowledge Martini as a source for his accounts. Given the fact that at the time, Portugal had been granted exclusive rights to conduct mission work in China, it is understandable that the Spanish Mendoza would have harbored some amount of animosity toward the Jesuit missionaries in China. Despite Mendoza's manifest anti-Jesuit sentiments, his book went a long way in challenging the Europe's established conception of the Chinese people and the Manchu people. If Martini is overtly favorable toward Ming China based on his sinocentric propensities, Mendoza is outspoken in his rebuff of the notion of the 'Middle Kingdom' and does not hide his admiration for the Manchus. In Mendoza's view, the Manchus, in contrast to the Mings, did not stand on ceremony and were not antagonistic toward Westerners. Praising the Manchus for the uncommon valor, Mendoza foresaw that China would be born anew through them. He goes as far as to state, "the Golden age [of European antiquity] was gone from Europe into Tartar." According to Mendoza's assessment, unlike the Japanese, the Manchus, once regarded as barbaric, tended to be much more reasonable and judicial in their treatment of foreigners. Mendoza also sees Emperor Shunzhi as a ruler moderate in character and endowed with abundant virtue. Mendoza compares the breakup of the Christian nations in Europe in the face of the Islam threat to the Manchu invasion of China and urges the European monarchs to learn from China's mistakes. He reminds them that different peoples (namely the Mongols and the Manchus) had united to overthrow the oppressive Chinese, and chastised Europe's Christians for their petty squabbles even with the Ottoman Turk at the gates. Just as Scipio faced up to reality after Rome defeated the Carthages, Mendoza stipulates that there was a lesson to be learned from the collapse of China and implores neighboring countries like Japan and Cochin China not to repeat the failures of China. Furthermore, he writes in no uncertain terms that the Emperor and the officialdom of Manchu were considerably more effective in the enforcement of law and order than the European leadership and that they should try to emulate the so-called "barbarians." Clearly Mendoza's assessments were motivated by his God-centered view of history, in lieu of sinocentricism. Thus from his standpoint, nations in the Far East were essentially equal under God. This also serves as basis for his views on Korea. Mendoza's Historia is comprised of 32 chapters, and the third chapter is devoted to the Manchu invasion of Korea. Mendoza's account seems to augment Martini's own account of the incident. Martini fails to mention the 'Humilitation at Samjeondo,' was well as the Crown Prince Sohyeon's captivity in Beijing. In contrast, Mendoza's is the first instance in which the 'Humilitation at Samjeondo' is mentioned in a book published during the first half of the 17th century. According the Mendoza's account of the incident, the Manchus were able to occupy the greater part of Korea at great cost. The Korean king was well aware that in terms of military strength, Koreans was no match for the Manchus, and in lieu of pointless resistance, he ultimately opted to yield to the aggressors. Confident that he would retain his throne once the Manchus acknowledged Korea as a subject state, the Korean king lay down his crown before the feet of the Manchu emperor. Manchu estimated that faced with an almost impossible situation, the Korean king acted most sagaciously. The truth be known, Mendoza's account of Korea leaves much to be desired. The dates of specific events are not accurate, and Mendoza glosses over certain proper names, in the fashion of 'this Korean king' or 'that Korean prince,' apparently in consideration of his novice readers at large. Nevertheless, Mendoza's Historia provides the most comparative factual and insightful rendering of the Korea situation of related books of the period. Mendoza contends that Korea had enjoyed a long history as an independent state, made to pay tribute to China only due to its inferiority in strength. He graciously surmises that Korean King Injo's humiliating submission at Samjeondo was in fact an unavoidable choice of a sagacious leader of a weak country. Throughout his account, Mendoza consistently portrays Korea as a politically independent state nation. Historia was published in Paris in 1679 in Spanish, after Mendoza's death. The French edition came out in Paris the same year. The English edition was translated from the French edition and published in London in 1671, the second and third edition coming out respectively in 1676 and 1679. For nearly ten years, Mendoza's Historia succeeded in capturing the interest of the Europeans. VI. Conclusion This study sought to investigate the nature and source of information on Korea available to modern Europe. For practical purposes, the study limited its purview to the first half of the 17th century and to records of Jesuit missionaries active in China at the time. Prior to the advent of Hendrick Hamel's famous account, reports published by Matteo Ricci and Nicolas Trigault, Alvaro Semedo, Martino Martini, and Juan de Palafox y Mendoza were the West's exclusive source of information on Korea. It is important to note that during their time and for a considerable span thereafter, these reports were widely disseminated and were very popular among Europeans. During the 17th century, these accounts were translated into Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, English, French, German, Italian, Dutch, Swedish, and Danish, in major cites like Rome, London, and Paris. All in all, no fewer than 48 different editions of the accounts are known to exist. Furthermore, as in the case of Athanasius Kircher, Voltaire and William Griffis, these accounts were valued as source materials for Western intellectuals interested in Korea and/or seeking to write about Korea. For the Jesuit missionaries working in China during the first half of the 17th century, the primary window to Korea was the military confrontations waged in China and in the Korean Peninsula. Just as reports on the late 16th century Imjin War trickled into Europe via Jesuit missionaries in Japan at the time, China based missionaries were Europe's primary source of information on the Invasion of the Manchu into the Korean Peninsula, the so-called 'Humilitation at Samjeondo,' and Crown Prince Sohyeon's coerced sojournment in Beijing. For the Western missionaries, the Imjin War, albeit fought on Korean soil, was a military confrontation between the two main regional superpowers of China and Japan. Consequently, it was ultimately through the heroism of the Ming expeditionary forces that Korea was spared from the clutches of its mortal enemy. This notion of Korea's subservience of Korea toward China is also evident in the Jesuit missionaries reports on the Korea situation during the late Ming/early Qing period. As the invading Manchu hordes marched toward the capitol, the desperate Ming Court requested military assistance from Korea, and the Korean Court had no recourse but to comply. However, no sooner had Manchu gained the upper hand, the seemingly opportunistic Korea cowed down to the Manchu. The image of Korea as the consummate subservient irrecoverably clouded the missionaries' assessment of Korea's political disposition. The missionaries consistently described Korea as being not only politically but also economically and culturally subservient to China. In particular, Martini was the first westerner to introduce the theory of Gija Joseon to Europe at large. João Rodrigues, a Catholic missionary in Japan, had uncritically accepted the 'Imnailbonbu theory(任那日本府說)' and propagated the notion to other Europeans through his História da Igreja do Japã o, published in the 1620s. It is beyond the purview of this study to add to the debate concerning the validity of the 'Imnailbonbu theory.' It is, however, relevant to note that such theories have been made known to the West much earlier than had previously been thought. Suffice it to say that the Jesuit missionaries were directly responsible for the West's uncritical acceptance of agenda-ridden propositions that seem to justify the colonialization of Korea, such as those of 'Gija Joseon' and 'Japanese Mimana,' which succeeded in molding the biased perceptions of western books on Korea up to the first half of the 20th century. Undoubtedly missionaries working in China during the first half of the 17th century were instrumental in introducing to the Europeans the history, culture, geographical characteristics, and local special products of Korea. However, as with their brethren in Japan, they were united in their view of Koreans as being secluded and exclusive. They were in fact reinforcing the negativism previously voiced by Guillaume de Rubrouck and Marco Polo in the 13th century. The one determining factor that weighed heavily in the Jesuit missionaries' conception of Korea was sinocentricism. The missionaries readily accepted the Chinese world view, which placed them at the center of the world and all peripheral states as being politically, economically, and culturally subordinate to it. These satellite states were naturally thought to be haplessly barbaric, with little in the way of national identity. However, the 'Middle Kingdom' mentality of the Jesuit missionaries proved to be problematic in two respects: First, the Jesuits accommodated sinocentricism to facilitate their missionary work among the natives, yet later when addressing their European audience through their publications they had to justify their views by trying to convince their readers that the Chinese had the level of history and culture comparable to nothing less than the ancient Roman Empire. Secondly, since the missionaries assumed the infallibility of the Catholic doctrine, they had to reinterpret Chinese history and culture according to established Catholic norms. The ensuing 'Chinese Rites Controversy' was in fact a clash between sinocentricism and eurocentricism. The Jesuit missionaries inevitably saw the overrun of China by Manchu barbarians as a working out of the Divine Will of God, just as God had fulfilled His will by allowing the Ottoman Turks to bring about the downfall of the Roman Empire. To be sure, not all Catholic missionaries in China at the time accommodated the 'Middle Kingdom' mentality. For instance, Juan de Palafox y Mendoza rejected the conventional hierarchy of China above Korea and basically regarded both as being equal under the grand Christian world view. However, Mendoza was certainly in the minority. Most Jesuit missionaries working in China during the first half of the 17th century regarded Korea on the basis of a unique multiple world view of sinocentricism and eurocentricism. Accounts on Korea by Jesuit Missionaries in China during the First Half of the 17th Century The purpose of this study is to examine European perception on Korea during the first half of the 17th century focusing on writings by Jesuit missionaries to China at the time. Jesuit missionaries such as Matteo Ricci, Martino Martini, and Alvaro Semedo regularly reported on major events in the Korean peninsula vis-à-vis the China's own political situation. Just as the European missionaries in Japan served as unofficial war correspondents during the Japanese invasion of Korea in 1592, the Jesuits in China faithfully reported on the first and second Manchu invasion of Korea, respectively in 1627 and 1637. In the eyes of the Jesuits, Korea was a consummate tributary state of China, not only politically but also economically and culturally dependent on the latter. In this vein, the Imjin War, albeit fought on Korean soil, was for all means and purposes a war between the two major powers in the regions, China and Japan. At the center of the Jesuit's partial perception of Korea and its people, lies the long-held notion of the 'Middle Kingdom,' which holds that China is at the center of the world, with all neighboring nation states being peripheral and subordinate to it. The missionaries struggling to establish a Christian base in China accepted, if not embraced, sinocentricism as a means to facilitate their missionary efforts. Yet at the same time, it was not lost on them that it was after all Eurocentricism that provided the justification of their missionary campaign among the Asian pagans in the first place. They sought to circumvent this quandary by tactfully elevating China on equal footing to any great nation in Europe itself. Nevertheless, the Jesuits were not successful in fully resolving the innate contradiction between the two polar world views. Perhaps until the publication of the celebrated Hamel journals, the accounts of the Jesuit missionaries in China was Europe's exclusive window into the 'Land of the Morning Calm.' During their time, these accounts were immensely popular, evidenced by the fact that no fewer than 48 different editions of the works are in circulation at the time. In addition, leading western minds of the time, such as Athanasius Kircher, Voltaire and William Griffis interested in Korea and/or seeking to write about Korea, relied on these accounts as primary source materials. To be sure, these early accounts, for better or for worse, continued to mold Western perception of Korea up to the early 20th century.