Beyond the four great powers and the spirit of the scholar
Another Framework for Reading Korean History: "Sinocentrism"

We read history because we hope that by reflecting on past experiences, we can gain something that will be helpful to our lives today.
Accordingly, history is very interested in how to summon past experiences to the present.
Is that why?
The argument that we must revive the scholarly spirit to overcome individualism and materialism, or that we must eliminate the remnants of the servility that led to the downfall of the nation and design a more independent future, does not feel so unfamiliar.

The two words 'scholarly spirit' and 'servility' do not go together very well.
Because we consider one of them to be reviving and the other to be discarded.
However, looking at it through the eyes of history, it was the scholars who spoke of the four great powers.
This would be impossible without a common abyss running through the two words, scholar and scholar-official.
That is why the author is rereading Zhonghua here and now.
The author uses China as a medium to meticulously interpret its abyssal history and attempts to reveal its current significance in a way different from the spirit of the scholar or Confucianism.

We cannot help but carefully examine the problematic awareness of Chinese thought regarding 'Sinocentrism' and 'traitors', 'China' and 'traitors'.
The idea begins in the “Chapter on the King’s Regulations” of the “Book of Rites.”
--- p.24

The problem is when China fails to overpower the foreign influence, and the foreign influence overtakes China's territory or contaminates Chinese culture.
In this case, China must cut off the transfer culturally and territorially.
It is called 'the difference between China and the barbarians'.
--- p.25

The historical origin of the word 'China' dates back to the time of King Wu of the Zhou Dynasty.
It was during the Zhou Dynasty that this word began to be paired with the words ‘between’ or ‘transfer.’
The reason why Shi Kai's "On China" is important is because the meaning of the word "China" during the Song Dynasty is presented in the most well-organized form in this essay.
--- p.32

Jinryang distinguished between 'Junghwa' and 'Ijeok' with the terms 'heaven and earth' and 'outside the heaven and earth'.
It seems that the geographical/spatial division has been accepted.
However, those spaces are again modified by ‘Jeonggi’ and ‘Sagi’.
The land of 'Jeonggi' and the land of 'Sagi' are also distinguished by the presence or absence of 'Heaven's Mandate', 'People's Heart', 'Etiquette and Music', and 'Clothes'.
‘Zhonghua’ was justified by such Confucian cultural elements.
--- p.39

The revolutionaries of the late Qing Dynasty adopted Western ideas and promoted nationalism, inheriting the 'Huaiji Incident'.
It meant criticizing the great nationalism advocated by the reformists, or the great unity thought and discussion of 'great unification' of the Jinmun School that formed its theoretical basis.
--- p.45

According to the perspective that defines "Zhonghua" and "Yiji" based on blood, geography, and culture, since ancient times, the Chinese have used three types of words to refer to themselves.
The Xia? Jeha? Zhongxia branch, the Hua? Zhonghua? Huaxia branch, and the Zhongzhou? China? Zhongyuan? Zhongto branch.
--- p.50

In Korean history, 'China' has always been an issue of center and periphery.
The fact that words like ‘Sadae’, ‘Dongguk’, and ‘Bukhak’ were used together with ‘Junghwa’ symbolizes the individuality of the meaning of ‘Junghwa’ in Korean history.
--- p.56

The opposition of Tang officials was also a thorn in his side.
Choi Chi-won believed that the officials' opposition to his appointment was "to prevent the lowly from interfering with the noble" and at the same time "to prevent the barbarians from disturbing the state of China."
--- p.70

Choi Chi-won was a Confucian scholar who did not reject Taoism or Buddhism as heresy, but rather tried to communicate them with Confucianism. He was also a supporter of the Dong-in consciousness based on the idea of ​​Pungryu, and the Dongmun consciousness that assumed the existence of universal civilization.
--- p.71

It is noteworthy that Choi Chi-won, while calling Balhae “a country of gentlemen who practice courtesy” and Silla “a country of gentlemen who practice courtesy,” did not use words like “neutralization” or “disaster” to refer to Silla or himself.
This is surprising given the common belief that Confucianism justifies an international order centered on the emperor.
--- p.80

In the pre-Qin period, 'Dongyi' was a name for groups in the Jiangsu and Shandong provinces, but after the Han Dynasty, 'Dongyi', which appears in history books, was a name referring to groups in the northeast of the continent.
… … As the target of ‘Dong-i’ changed… … the Han people began to think of ‘Dong-i’, who they remembered through images of hair loss and tattoos, as a being who ‘respects’ and ‘protects’.
--- p.90

The logic of a group of scholars, from Lee Je-hyeon to Lee Saek, who acknowledged the ‘Seongwon’ who received the ‘Mandate of Heaven’ is not much different from the ideas of Heo Heung (1209-1281) during the Yuan Dynasty.
Heo Hyeong argued that if he became the subject of 'Daeiltong' and accepted the cultural traditions of 'China', he could be recognized as the legitimate dynasty of 'China'.
--- p.103

Yi Saek simply regarded 'Zhong Hua' as the antonym of 'Bian Yuan'.
Confucianism was not considered the only 'Chinese' religion, nor was Buddhism considered 'foreign'.
--- p.104

It was in the 11th century that Goryeo began to speak of 'small and medium-sized'.
In 1055 (9th year of King Munjong's reign), Goryeo claimed in a letter to the Khitan that it had succeeded the 'country of Gija'.
In 1102 (the 7th year of King Sukjong's reign), a shrine to Gija was built in Pyongyang and his rites were included in the national rites.
--- p.119

The Hongwu Emperor claimed to be the successor to the Liu Song Dynasty, and Goryeo had to face the Ming Dynasty, which said that the Mongols were “not a copycat.”
… … In this way, Goryeo rediscovered ‘small China.’
And they began to use the 'Yongha Byeoni', which had only been passed down in scriptures, to justify the identity of 'Sojunghwa'.
--- p.125

Yi Saek never called the Yuan Dynasty 'Yuan', nor did he call the Ming Dynasty 'Uiju'.
However, even for such a strange person, it was important to accept the system of ‘China’ through the Ming Dynasty.
‘Sojunghwa’ and ‘Yonghabyeoni’ were the two pillars that supported such an unusual idea.
--- p.129

In the month in which the letter was received, Goryeo used the Khitan era name, and two years later, it received investiture from the Khitan.
Their demands were accepted in order to end the war with the Khitans.
… … The Khitans used the expression ‘Iso Sa-dae’ when deciding to end the war.
In 1038 (the 4th year of King Jeongjong's reign), he requested Goryeo not to neglect tribute, saying the following:
“The four great nations are a common rule, and it is the noble lesson of a feudal lord to abandon the old and seek the new.”
--- p.184

The issue of interest and harm and right and wrong was one of the arguments that Choi Myung-gil considered important.
He paid attention to the actions of Seong Hon (1535-1598), who agreed to peace negotiations at the request of a Ming general during the Imjin War.
“There are right and wrong in work, so in general, we should follow right and wrong, that is, righteousness.
But in the case of adjustment, things are different.
If it benefits the adjustment, then it is justice.
There is a way to preserve the balance by strengthening it and a way to perish by upholding righteousness.
The latter is the way to uphold one's integrity as a subject, but the question of whether or not to preserve the ancestral rites is a different matter from the integrity that ordinary people must uphold."
--- p.192

Choi Myeong-gil was undoubtedly a realist in that he considered the preservation of the ancestral shrine and its ancestral temples to be of the utmost importance.
However, he never said anything like, “If I can protect the ancestral shrine and the temple, I don’t need to follow righteousness and morality.”
His idea is closer to “We must find a way to preserve righteousness and morality by protecting the ancestral shrine and temple.”
--- p.194

A situation was created where King Injo came down from Namhansanseong and bowed his head to Emperor Taizong of Qing.
… … “It is an old custom to die for the sake of the living, so I have no regrets even if our country perishes for the sake of the Ming Dynasty” is a choice made for ‘righteousness.’
“I cannot allow a country that has lasted for over 300 years to be destroyed overnight,” he thought, and so he bowed his head and endured the humiliation of being called a subject. This was done for the sake of “interest.”
--- p.202

From the standpoint of a small country, speaking of a small country as a small nation means acknowledging the circumstances and interests that make it inevitable to do so.
Song Si-yeol, who advocated for the Northern Expedition, also acknowledged that small countries had no choice but to submit to large countries.
However, Song Si-yeol never said something like, “Understanding is righteousness.”
--- p.219

He also argued that the sacrifice was justified rather than the benefit.
According to him, the Great Bodhan was a way to repay the favor of the Ming Dynasty.
If it had not been for the help of the new king during the Imjin War, Joseon would not have been able to be 'rebuilt', so... Even though the Ming Dynasty had already fallen, the descendants would have no choice but to perform ancestral rites for their ancestors, so the position of the 'subject' is no different from that of their descendants.
--- p.246

Seong Hon also once said this.
“The most urgent task today is to preserve the country and provide comfort to the people. Therefore, you must consider both interests and harms deeply to achieve this great task.” … … What is needed is “to clarify righteousness, set the people straight, and consider interests.”
In other words, that is the way to achieve self-reliance while maintaining ‘etiquette.’
--- p.291

Yun Gi is also the person who argued that there is no reason to call Joseon a 'small China' any longer.
“In terms of righteousness and courtesy, there is no country greater than the East.” He argued this in the first paragraph of his work, “The East’s Rivers.”
According to him, the people of the 'East' are sad that their territory is small, but they do not know that in the world today, only the 'East' has the largest territory.
--- p.302

In January 1779 (the 3rd year of King Jeongjo's reign), King Jeongjo went to the main altar, knelt down, bowed, and looked around to see if there were any collapsed areas.
In King Jeongjo's eyes, the fact that the king personally performed a ritual at the Daebodan meant that Joseon remembered the Ming emperors.
Joseon, the only country in the world to honor the Ming emperors, is undoubtedly the sole successor to Chinese culture.
--- p.351

Yi Ik's view on orthodoxy is confirmed in the article "Theory of the Three Kingdoms' Orthodoxy."

“The rise and fall of the Eastern Kingdom roughly coincides with the beginning and end of the Middle Kingdom.” Lee Ik said so in the introduction to the article.
As far as the content and flow of 'orthodoxy' are concerned, it is declared that the history of our country is always one set with Chinese history.
… … According to him, Dangun arose at the same time as King Yao, and when King Wu of Zhou received the Mandate of Heaven, Gija was enfeoffed in Joseon.
The reporter's eight-pronged law is the same as the three chapters of the covenant of the Han Dynasty's Gaozu, and... ... the time when Baekje destroyed Mahan was the same as when Wang Mang usurped the Han Dynasty. In the "Samhan Jeongtongnon", 'Dongguk' was always paired with 'Junghwa'.
--- p.360

According to Kim Chang-hyeop, although the world has long followed the customs of barbarians, only 'Adong' (我東) in a remote corner has maintained its clothing and etiquette and music, and has maintained its status as a noble people.
However, it would be excessive to regard the land and people of the old Chihyeon Shenzhou, where Yao, Shun, and the Three Kings ruled and where Confucius, Mencius, Zhengzi, and Zhu Xi taught, as barbarians and a place where no further literature can be found.
--- p.396

Hong Yang-ho sent a letter to Lee Jeong-un, who was heading to Beijing as an envoy in 1784 (the 8th year of King Jeongjo's reign).
… … According to him, the ‘East’ is small and located in a remote place, but because it is polite and values ​​education, the Chinese people have held the East in high regard.
Now, the only place in the world that wears the 'Chinese' clothing and observes the 'Chinese' etiquette of bowing and respect is our 'East'.
--- p.402

What is the Ming Dynasty? What is "China"? What is "Zhonghua"? Kim Jong-hoo... ... didn't take issue with Hong Dae-yong's assertion that "thinking about the Ming Dynasty for 100 years is impossible, both in human nature and in the principles of nature."
… … But we can’t say that about the Ming Dynasty.
No matter how much time passes, the reason we cannot forget the Ming Dynasty is because after the Ming Dynasty, ‘China’ disappeared.
Therefore, “rather than scolding them for not thinking of ‘Ming Dynasty,’ we are rebuking them for not thinking of ‘China.’”
--- p.419

“Although the Manchus are wearing barbarian clothing [left?], the land they occupy has been under the Han, Tang, Song, and Ming dynasties for three generations, and the people living in that land are refugees.
If the laws and systems are good, we should learn from the barbarians, so how can we not learn from the ancient laws of China?” This passage, which argues for the need for Northern learning, is exactly in line with the point that Park Je-ga emphasized in “On the Study of the Capital.”
--- p.443

By placing the language of 'China' and 'foreign', 'Zhonghua' and 'dialect' on opposite sides of a binary opposition and distinguishing them as concepts, he (Hong Hee-jun) affirmed the superiority of 'Zhonghua' and the a priori centrality of the Central Plains, the center that makes dialects into dialects.
Opposite the 'China' or 'Zhonghua' he sees, there is always a 'foreign country'.
… … Even if the Central Plains continent falls under the rule of the Qing Dynasty, its structure will not change.
In this case, the Qing Dynasty was merely a 'foreign country' that had become the master of the Central Plains, and the Manchu language used by the Qing Dynasty could never be the character for 'China.'
--- p.478

In terms of this passage, it is clear that the West is a “misfortune among militaries,” but the culture of “chibal” and “zuorim” left behind by the Qing Dynasty cannot be said to be essentially different from what the interpretation of “the West” symbolizes.
In either case, it means that 'China' has been contaminated or disappeared from the continent.
However, from Park Mun-il's perspective, the extent of the harm inflicted by the Qing Dynasty was not comparable to the negative influence of the 'West'.
It's not that teeth and feet are not variables, but they are much smaller variables compared to the 'West'.
--- p.502

Although the rebel leadership was anti-establishment toward the Joseon Dynasty, they did not necessarily consider Confucianism as something they had to reject.
After the uprising, Hong Gyeong-rae attempted to offer a sacrifice to Seonwoohyeop at Ocheonsa Shrine in Taecheon, but failed.
… … Seonwoohyeop was a man who was renowned for his scholarship and virtue and was considered a ‘rich man of Gwanseo.’
--- p.546

There is no doubt that calling the West 'quantitative' is an extension of traditional fire theory.
… … In comparison, the scene where King Cheoljong and Jo Du-sun casually refer to the Qing Dynasty as ‘China’ is impressive.
Of course… … just because we call the Qing Dynasty that way, the binary opposition between ‘China’ and ‘Treason’ and all the structures built on top of it will not immediately become meaningless.
However, if we consider the fact that Park Ji-won, who advocated for ‘Northern Learning,’ did not call the Qing Dynasty ‘China,’ and even Hong Hee-jun, who affirmed the ‘Yi’ nature of the Qing Dynasty, did not call the Qing Dynasty ‘China,’ its significance cannot be underestimated.
--- p.549

Around the end of the 19th century, as the meaning of 'China' began to change, the way 'Zhonghua' was spoken also began to change.
… … In the fall of 1898, when tensions between King Gojong and the Independence Association were rising, Choi Ik-hyeon was appointed Chanjeong of the State Council.
He submitted a letter of resignation stating his political stance against the reformists and the Independence Association.
In the 12th article of this petition he said:
“Establish a strong defense by strictly distinguishing between the Chinese and the foreign.”
--- p.562

On September 5, 1897 (34th year of King Gojong’s reign), a month before the founding of the Korean Empire, Confucian scholars including Lee Su-byeong submitted a petition… … From Lee Su-byeong’s perspective, Joseon, although small in land, was worthy of becoming a nation of ten thousand victories, and Emperor Gojong’s virtues and achievements were sufficient to “carry on the legacy of the Great Ming Dynasty.”
… … “I respectfully believe that Your Majesty should deeply understand the will of the Mandong and exert great effort to revive the country. He should quickly establish the emperor’s position and quickly issue orders to follow the mandate of Heaven and comply with the will of the people, so that he can continue the lineage of the Ming Dynasty and enjoy endless blessings forever.”
--- p.569

The early 20th century, when translated words were overflowing in Korean history, was also a time when signs of extinction were confirmed in the semantic field of 'Sinocentrism'.
From that perspective, it is noticeable that the Hwangseong Sinmun refers to ‘China’ as ‘Jina’ and denies the central status of ‘Jina’ or ‘Qing Dynasty.’
--- p.571

Hwang Hyeon believed that he was living in an era in which the distinction between 'Chinese' and 'Israeli' had disappeared.
In his writing titled “Yangyeong School Record,” he said this:
“……There is no longer any distinction between the Chinese and the Westerners in the world, so how can one distinguish between the royal way and the way of hegemony?
Compared to the barbarians of the past, such as the Western Rong and Jingman, the various countries outside the sea today are nothing short of 'treasonous.'
… … We are not beings with whom we can sit down and discuss morality.
But the country cannot be left to perish like this, and the people cannot be left to die like this.
… … We must emulate their wealth and strength.
“If you want to become rich, you must learn from them.”
--- p.576

Before the Korean Empire, 'Dongguk' was a synonym for the pre-modern dynasties that came and went on the Korean Peninsula, and it always implied the meaning of 'the eastern country' centered on 'China'.
However, to Shin Chae-ho, ‘Dongguk’ is simply a word that refers to a ‘state’ that is separate from the ‘government.’
This country is no longer a 'country' in relation to 'China', but rather a country in the 'East'.
So, there is no longer any need to define ‘Dongguk’ in relation to ‘Junghwa’.
--- p.579

The Hwangseong Shinmun cited three countries in the ‘Orient’ as examples.
… … The Qing Dynasty … … calls itself a ‘great nation’ or ‘China’ and foreign countries ‘traitors’ or ‘beasts.’
… … The situation in ‘A-guk’ is even more problematic.
They always follow the example of the Qing Dynasty, call foreign countries barbarians, and refer to their own country as ‘Little China.’
In terms of scholarship, the Han, Tang, Song, and Ming dynasties are considered the best, and in terms of extortion, they are not inferior to the Qing dynasty.
… … There is no plan to enlighten the people, understand foreign affairs, or preserve the nation.

--- p.586