2010년 6월 25일 금요일

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.

댓글 없음:

댓글 쓰기