REPERTOIRES OF POWER: EARLY QING-CHOSŎN RELATIONS (1636–1644)

Abstract

A few months after the founding of the Great Qing in 1636, Manchu troops descended on Chosŏn and eliminated a serious military threat. Situated to the immediate south of Manchuria, the kingdom of Chosŏn presented the new Qing Empire with a strategic problem. As an ally of the Ming, Chosŏn posed the serious threat of a combined Ming-Chosŏn attack on two fronts. The conquest began a period in which the Qing used the menace of a more devastating conquest to force Chosŏn to deliver soldiers and logistic aid to support its war efforts against the Ming. The Manchus complemented this with more “cultural” ways to persuade the Chosŏn. These combined efforts to treat Chosŏn as one of them, an insider who partook in practices such as hunting which were coded as Manchu, while at the same time recognizing the specific culture of Chosŏn and positioning the Qing in relation to that, mostly by manipulating Confucian discourse and practices. This essay argues that even before taking over Beijing in 1644 the Qing pursued imperial designs, and implemented them by utilizing a multiplicity of registers of power, some identified as Manchu, others associated with the locals, something that historians who studied the later period have come to see as defining the Qing Empire.

Keywords:

• Manchus
• Qing-Chosŏn relations
• Qing Imperialism
• Tribute
• Shenyang

Notes

1 Chosŏn wangjo sillok, Injo 1637/1/30; Pyŏngjarok, vol. 1, n.p. (1637/1/30); Qing shi gao, 526:14580.

2 For a detailed study of Chosŏn’s tribute embassies to the Qing court, see Haejong Chun, Hanjung kwan’gyesa yŏngu (A Study of the Sino-Korean Relations), (Seoul: Ilchogak, 1977).

3 Jing Xu ed., Qing shi lu zhong chao guan xi shi liao zhai bian (Changchun Shi: Jilin wen shi chu ban she, 1991), 79–80.

4 The scholarship on empires is as vast as it is varied. In this essay, I use Anthony Pagden’s definition of empire, which, in spite of its European focus, is broad enough to apply to the Qing. Anthony Pagden, Lords of All the World: Ideologies of Empire in Spain, Britain, and France c. 1500–c.1800 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 13. For a useful discussion of colonialism, empire, and imperialism, see Jürgen Osterhammel, Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview, trans. Shelly Frisch (Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers, 2005), 15–22. For a definition of empire emphasizing interconnected networks of contact and exchange, see Tony Ballantiyne and Antoinette Burton eds., Bodies in Contact: Rethinking Colonial Encounters in World History (Durham: Duke University Press, 2005), 3. For the application of “empire” and “colonialism” to the Qing context, see Peter C. Perdue, “China and Other Colonial Empires,” in John E. Wills Jr. ed., Past and Present in China’s Foreign Policy: From “Tribute System” to “Peaceful Rise” (Portland ME: Merwin Asia, 2011), 82–84; Peter C. Perdue, “Comparing Empires: Manchu Colonialism” in International History Review, 20, no. 2 (1998): 255–62. For a study applying Edward Said’s definition of imperialism to the Qing colonial representation of Taiwan, see Emma Jinhua Teng, “An Island of Women: Gender in Qing Travel Writing about Taiwan,” in Ballantyne and Burton eds., Bodies in Contact: Rethinking Colonial Encounters in World History, 38–53. For a study of Qing-Chosŏn relations in the nineteenth century using the concept of “informal empire,” see Kirk W. Larsen, Tradition, Treaties, and Trade: Qing Imperialism and Chosŏn Korea, 1850–1910 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2008).

5 For example, see Evelyn S. Rawski, The Last Emperors: A Social History of Qing Imperial Institutions (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 17; Angela Zito, Of Body and Brush: Grand Sacrifice as Text/Performance in Eighteenth Century China (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1997), 23; David Farquhar, “Emperor As Bodhisattva in the Governance of the Ch’ing Empire,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 38 (1978): 5–34.

6 See, for example, Perdue, “China and Other Colonial Empires,” 84. For a useful definition of empire with an emphasis on the collaboration of the subject elites, see Charles S. Maier, Among Empires: American Ascendancy and Its Predecessors (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), 7.

7 In order to retain the contingency and complexity of these related facets of Qing empire building, scholars such as James Hevia adopted the notion of “imperial formations” as an alternative to “empire” or “tribute.” James L. Hevia, “Tribute, Asymmetry, and Imperial Formations: Rethinking Relations of Power in East Asia,” in Wills Jr. ed., Past and Present in China’s Foreign Policy, 68.

8 James A. Millward, et al. eds., New Qing Imperial History (New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004); Peter C. Perdue, China Marches West: The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005); James A. Millward, Beyond the Pass: Economy, Ethnicity, and Empire in Qing Central Asia, 1759–1864 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998); Evelyn Rawski, “Re-envisioning the Qing: The Significance of the Qing Period in Chinese History,” The Journal of Asian Studies, 55, no. 4 (November 1996): 829–50.

9 The nature and character of Manchu identity has been the subject of serious discussion centering on the applicability of the term “ethnicity” as a stable marker of identity (Mark C. Elliot) and appropriate analytical tool only for specific historical period (Pamela K. Crossley). Recognizing that the Qing court manipulated ideas that are commonly understood as being “ethnic” and insisting that these ideas evolved over time, I use the term “ethnicity” without attributing to it characteristics that are essential and non-historical. See Pamela Kyle Crossley, “Conquest Elite of the Ch’ing Empire,” in Willard J. Peterson, ed., The Cambridge History of China, 9, Part One The Ch’ing Dynast to 1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 310–59; Pamela Kyle Crossley, A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999); Elliott, The Manchu Way; Joanna Waley-Cohen, The Culture of War in China: Empire and the Military under the Qing Dynasty (London: I. B. Tauris, 2006); Michael Chang, A Court on Horseback: Imperial Touring and Construction of Qing Rule 1680–1785 (Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center, 2007); R. Kent Guy, “Who Were the Manchus? A Review Essay,” The Journal of Asian Studies, 61, no. 1 (February 2002): 151–64.

10 James A. Millward and Ruth W. Dunnell, “Introduction ,” in Millward et al. eds., New Qing Imperial History, 3. Cf. Ping-Ti Ho, “In Defense of Sinicization: Rebuttal of Evelyn Rawski’s ‘Re-envisioning the Qing,’” The Journal of Asian Studies, 57, no. 1 (February 1998): 123–55; John K. Fairbank, ed., The Chinese World Order: Traditional China’s Foreign Relations (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1968).

11 A notable exception in this regard is Gertraude Roth Li, “State Building before 1644,” in Peterson, ed., The Cambridge History of China 9, Part One The Ch’ing Dynasty to 1800, 9–72.

12 Simyang Ilgi (The Shenyang Daily Record), vols. 1–8 (Seoul: Kyujanggak), ms. no. 12825-1. Two copies of the Simyang Ilgi are available at the Kyujanggak Archive, an 8-volume and a 10-volume version. Despite the difference in the number of volumes, the content is the same. Although not used in this article, Shenguan lu (The Record of the Shenyang Residence) (7 juan) is another source that sheds light on the experience of Chosŏn Crown Prince in Shenyang. Included in the Liaohai congshu, it provides much of the same information as the Simyang Ilgi. Compared to Simyang Ilgi, however, it omits many entries, and sometimes the same entries are much briefer, suggesting that it is an abridged version of the Simyang Ilgi. The Liaohai congshu also includes a source entitled Simyang Ilgi (1 juan). Although it has the same title as the Simyang Ilgi of the Kyujanggak Collection, it is a travelogue written by Sŏn Yakhae (1579–1643), a Chosŏn military official, about his diplomatic mission to Shenyang in 1630.

13 Simyang Changgye (The Letters from Shenyang), vols. 1–10 (Seoul: Kyujanggak), ms. no. 1878. Both the Simyang ilgi and Simyang Changgye recorded activities of the Shenyang Residence focusing on the Crown Prince and affairs of the Qing court. However, the latter included more details and analyses of various issues deemed important to the Chosŏn court. Authored by Chosŏn officials and tutors (Nam Yiung, Pak Ro, and Pak Hwang) of the Crown Prince Tutorial Office (seja sigangwŏn) at the Shenyang Residence, these letters seem to have been collected by the Chosŏn court, hand-copied, and bounded with the title of Simyang Changgye. At the Kyujanggak, two versions of the Simyang Changgye are available: the original and the copied version.

14 When Princes Sohyŏn or Pongnim traveled back home, the Manchus required that the Chosŏn send replacements. They were the Great Prince Inpyŏng, the third son of King Injo, and Royal grandsons, i.e. the sons of Sohyŏn and other Chosŏn princes. Qing Taizong Wen huangdi silu, 50:9–22.

15 For more on this practice, see Ch’i-ch’ing Hsiao, The Military Establishment of the Yuan Dynasty (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978), 33; Lien-sheng Yang, “Hostages in Chinese History,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 15, nos. 3/4 (1952): 507–21; Lien-sheng Yang, Studies in Chinese Institutional History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961).

16 Chosŏn wangjo sillok, Taejo 1397/5/2; Sejong 1440/11/7; Yŏnsangun ilgi, 1497/6/1.

17 Qing shi gao, 3:60. On the functions of the Shenyang Residence, see Kim Yongdŏk, “Sohyŏn seja yŏngu” (A Study of Crown Prince Sohyŏn), Sahak yŏngu, 8 (1964): 433–89; Tagawa Kozo, “Sinkango” (On Shenyang Residence), Oda sensei shōju kinen chōsen ronshu (Kyosei, 1934), 469–544; Yamaguchi Seiji, “Sohyŏn seji to Tang Ruowang” (Crown Prince Sohyŏn and Adam Schall), Seikyu gakuso, 5 (1931). For more recent studies, see also Ahn Yourim, “The Role of Shenyang Residence in the Ming-Qing Transition” (Myŏngchŏng kyochegi simyanggwan ŭi yŏkal), Hanguk munhwa, 50 (June 2010): 57–81; Song Miryŏng, “Ipkwanjŏn chŏngjo ŭi simyanggwan tongje yangsang” (Qing Control of the Shenyang Residence before 1644), Myŏngch’ŏngsa yŏngu, 30 (October 2008): 129–55; Kim Namyun, “Simyang ilgi wa Sohyŏn Seja ŭi Polmosari” (The Shenyang Diary and the Hostage Life of Crown Prince Sohyŏn), Kyujanggak (December 2007), 45–60; Choe Soja, “Ch’ŏngjŏng esŏŭi Sohyŏn seja” (Crown Prince Sohyŏn in the Qing Court), Myŏngch’ŏng sidae chunghan kwan’gyesa (The History of Sino-Korean Relations in the Ming-Qing Period), (Seoul: Ewha Women’s University Press, 1997).

18 Qing shi gao, 1:15.

19 For studies of Qing capitals, see Fred W. Drake, “The Mukden Palace and Nurhaci’s Tomb as Symbolic Architecture,” Proceedings of the 35th Permanent International Altaistic Conference (September 14–17, 1992), 87; Philippe Foret, Mapping Chengde: The Qing Landscape Enterprise (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2000), 21, 105–07; Frederick W. Mote, Imperial China, 900–1800 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 790; Rawski, The Last Emperors, 18–19; Joanna Waley-Cohen, “Changing Spaces of Empire in Eighteenth-Century Qing China,” in Nicola Di Cosmo and Don J. Wyatt eds., Political Frontiers, Ethnic Boundaries, and Human Geographies in Chinese History (New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003), 333–44.

20 Qing Taizong Wen huangdi shilu, 34: 17–18.

21 For studies of the Qing-Chosŏn relations based on the tribute model, see Haejong Chun, “Sino-Korean Tributary Relations in the Ch’ing Period,” in Fairbank ed., The Chinese World Order: Traditional China’s Foreign Relations, 110–11; Key-Huik Kim, Last Phase of the East Asian World Order: Korea, Japan, and the Chinese Empire, 1860–1882 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980); M. Frederick Nelson, Korea and Old Orders in Eastern Asia (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1945); David Kang, East Asia before the West: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute (New York: Columbia University Press, 2012). For more recent studies that seek to rethink tribute as a framework, see Nicola Di Cosmo, “Kirghiz Nomads on the Qing Frontier: Tribute, Trade, or Gift-Exchange?” in Di Cosmo and Wyatt eds., Political Frontiers, Ethnic Boundaries, and Human Geographies in Chinese History, 351–72; Seonmin Kim, “Ginseng and Border Trespassing between Qing China and Chosŏn Korea,” Late Imperial China, 28, no. 1 (June 2007): 33–61; Joshua Van Lieu, “Politics of Condolence: Contested Representations of Tribute in Late Nineteenth-Century Qing-Chosŏn Relations,” The Journal of Korean Studies, 14, no. 1 (Fall 2009): 83–116.

22 SI, 1: 19–20 (1637/4/14).

23 Tagawa Kozo, “Singoku mondai ni tsuite” (On the Issue of Shenyang Prison), Seikyu gakuso, 17 (1934): 116–51.

24 Qingchao tongdian, 59:2439, 59:2441.

25 For Qing military rituals, see Joanna Waley-Cohen, “Military Ritual and the Qing Empire,” in Nicola Di Cosmo ed., Warfare in Inner Asian History (500–1800) (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 405–44; Joanna Waley-Cohen, “Militarization of Culture in Eighteenth-Century China,” in Nicola Di Cosmo ed., Military Culture in Imperial China (Cambridge, MA, and London, UK: Harvard University Press, 2009), 278–95.

26 Simyang Ilgi (hereafter SI), 3: 27 (1639/5/20). The emperor went 10 li outside the capital city to personally receive the generals and their armies (Ch. jiaolao, Ko. kyoro).

27 Arthur W. Hummel, Eminent Chinese of the Ch’ing Period (1644–1912), (Kent, UK: 2010), 1: 397–98.

28 SI, 3: 27–28 (1639/5/21).

29 For the distribution of spoils in Qing, see Nicola Di Cosmo, “Military Aspects of the Manchu-Caqars Wars,” in Di Cosmo ed., Warfare in Inner Asian History (500–1800), 347; For a description of the distribution of the spoils, also see Dzengseo, The Diary of a Manchu Soldier in Seventeenth-Century China: “My Service in the Army,” trans. Nicola Di Cosmo (London and New York: Routledge, 2006), 72; Frederic Wakeman Jr., The Great Enterprise: The Manchu Reconstruction of Imperial Order in Seventeenth-Century China, vol. I (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1985), 163.

30 SI, 3: 27–28 (1639/5/21).

31 Jinan was an important administrative center in Shandong located along the Yellow River.

32 SI, 3: 22 (SI, 1639/4/21).

33 SI, 5: 26 (SI, 1641/4/25).

34 Simyang Changgye (hereafter SC), 8: 48 (SC, 1642/4/28).

35 SI, 6: 34 (SI, 1642/5/5). For biographic information of these Ming generals, see Wakeman, The Great Enterprise, 1: 157–224.

36 SC, 8: 48 (SC, 1642/5/10).

37 SC, 8: 48 (SC, 1642/5/10).

38 Even less subtle, Hong Taiji used the occasion to express his displeasure at Chosŏn’s delay in providing logistic and military support.

39 Qingchao tongdian, 59:2436.

40 SI, 8: 22 (SI, 1644/4/8). Hummel, Eminent Chinese of the Ch’ing Period, 215–19.

41 Hummel, Eminent Chinese of the Ch’ing Period, 215.

42 Renqiu Yu, “Imperial Banquets in the Wanshu Yuan,” in Millward, et al. eds., New Qing Imperial History, 84–90.

43 During the official Qing ceremonies, the princes were seated “below the beile.” Qing Taizong Wen huangdi shilu, 33:34; Qing shi lu zhong chao guan xi shi liao zhai bian, 81.

44 SI, 1: 38–39; SI, 2: 3 (1637/7/16; 1638/1/1).

45 For their development of multi-lingual dictionaries, see James A. Millward, Beyond the Pass: Economy, Ethnicity, and Empire in Qing Central Asia, 1759–1864 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 197. See also Millward, et al. eds., New Qing Imperial History.

46 Qing Taizong Wen huangdi shilu, 35:2.

47 For the significance of hunting see Mark Elliott, The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001), 57–58; Mark Elliott and Ning Chia, “The Qing Hunt at Mulan,” in Millward, et al. eds., New Qing Imperial History, 66–83.

48 Crossley, “Conquest Elite of the Ch’ing Empire,” 316.

49 A Chancellery (wenguan) was established in 1629 and in 1631, the Six Boards were formed, modeled after the Ming government structure. Gertraude Roth Li, “State Building Before 1644,” in Peterson ed., The Cambridge History of China, vol. 9, Part One The Ch’ing Dynasty to 1800, 60–62; Wakeman Jr., The Great Enterprise, 160–70.

50 Roth Li, “Early Manchu State,” 154–55.

51 Qing shi gao, 3:58.

52 Waley-Cohen, The Culture of War, 8, 108.

53 John K. Fairbank, “A Preliminary Framework,” in Fairbank ed., The Chinese World Order: Traditional China’s Foreign Relations, 13.

54 SI, 1: 40, 44; SI, 2: 46; SI, 3: 40–41; SI, 6: 47 (1637/7/26; 1637/8/18; 1638/9/28; 1639/8/24; 1642/7/11); SC, 2: 58 (1638/10/1). These military inspections later became an important military ritual known as dayue. Qingchao tongdian, 58:2423. They were later formalized and became the Grand Inspection (Ch. dayue, Ko. taeyŏl). See Waley-Cohen, The Culture of War in China, 71.

55 Large-scale hunting trips later became more formalized as dashou. Qingchao tongdian, 59: 1426.

56 See Choe Soja, Myŏnch’ŏng sidae chunghan kwan’gyesa yŏngu (A Study of Sino-Korean Relations in Ming-Qing Periods), (Ewha Women’s University Press, 1997), 247.

57 For an environmental historical approach to hunting and the Manchu identity, see David Bello, “The Cultured Nature of Imperial Foraging in Manchuria,” Late Imperial China, 31, no. 2 (December 2010): 1–33.

58 SI, 6: 13 (1642/2/5).

59 SI, 6: 13 (1642/2/5).

60 SI, 6: 14 (1642/2/7).

61 SI, 6: 13–14 (1642/2/3; 1642/2/4; 1642/2/5; 1642/2/6; 1642/ 2/7).

62 SI, 6: 98–113 (1642/10/6–1642/11/22). Such proceedings had also taken place in Shenyang the previous year. In 1640–1641, the Manchus arrested and tried Kim Sanghŏn, Ch’ae Ihang, Sin Tŭgyŏn, and Cho Hanyŏng four yangban who excited anti-Manchu opinion in Chosŏn. See SI, 6: 60; SI, 5: 3–5 (1640/12/26; 1641/1/8).

63 SI, 6: 87–88 (1642/12/2).

64 Choe Soja, Myŏnch’ŏng sidae chunghan kwan’gyesa yŏngu (A Study of Sino-Korean Relations in Ming-Qing Periods), (Ewha Women’s University Press, 1997), 246–247.

65 No less important were the activities of the Shenyang Residence in providing soldiers and logistical support to Qing armies.

66 On the effects and limits of rituals, see Catherine Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 204–218.

67 Chosŏnwangjo sillok, Injo 1645/4/25.

68 Qing Taizong Wen huangdi shilu, 49:12–49:16; Qing shi gao, 526:14581. The official name for the stele erected at Samjŏndo is the Da Qing huangdi gong de bei (Ko. taech’ŏng hwangje kongdŏkbi).

69 For a useful study of the stele inscriptions in Qing military culture, see Waley-Cohen, The Culture of War in China, 30.

70 Chosŏn wangjo sillok, Injo 1640/10/30; Injo 1641/11/8; Injo 1642/12/16.

71 Hummel, Eminent Chinese of the Ch’ing Period, 231–32.

72 Ibid., 394–95.

73 SI, 2: 6–7 (1638/1/21).

74 SC, 2: 2–3 (1638/1/26).

75 For studies of the Stele at Samjŏndo, see Yi Sangbae, “Pyŏngja horan kwa samjŏndobimun ch’ansul” (The 1636 Qing-Chosŏn War and the Composition of the Samjŏndo Stele Inscription), Kangwŏn sahak, 19–20 (2004): 85–122; Lee Eun-Soon, “Yi Kyŏngsŏk ŭi chŏngch’ijŏk saeng’ae wa samjŏndobimun sibi” (The Political Career of Yi Kyŏngsŏk and the Controversy on the Samjŏndo Stele Inscription), Hanguksa yŏngu, 60 (March 1998): 57–102; Sŏng Paek-in, “Samjŏndobi manjumun” (The Manchu Script of the Samjŏndo Stele Inscription), Tonga munhwa, 9 (May 1970): 117–48; Kim Panghan, “Samjŏndobi mongmun e kwanhayŏ” (On the Mongol Script of the Samjŏndo Stele Inscription), Tonga munhwa, 4 (October 1965): 59–96.

76 Chosŏn wangjo sillok, Injo 1637/6/26.

77 For more on Qing epigraphic monuments, see Peter C. Perdue, China Marches West: The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005), esp. 429–42; Giovanni Stary ed., On the Tracks of Manchu Culture 1644–1994: 350 Year after the Conquest of Peking (Harrassowitz Verlag Wisebaden, 1995), esp. 27–42; Waley-Cohen, The Culture of War in China, 23–47; Peter Zarrow, “The Imperial Word in Stone: Stele Inscription at Chengde,” in Millward, et al., New Qing Imperial History, 146–63.

78 The sedentary elites’ discourse on beastly barbarians was well-established. See, for example, Morris Rossabi ed., China Among Equals: The Middle Kingdom and its Neighbors 11th–14th Centuries (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983); Yonglin Jiang, The Mandate of Heaven and the Great Ming Code (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2011).

79 On Ming-Chosŏn relations before 1636, see Kenneth M. Swope, A Dragon’s Tail and a Serpent’s Tail: Ming China and the First Great East Asian War, 1592–1598 (University of Oklahoma Press, 2009); Donald N. Clark, “Sino-Korean Tributary Relations Under the Ming,” in Denis C. Twitchett and Frederick W. Mote eds., The Ming Dynasty, 1368–1644, part 2, vol. 8 of the Cambridge History of China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 272–300; Peter Yun, “Confucian Ideology and the Tribute System in Chosŏn-Ming Relations,” Sachong, 55 (September 30, 2002): 67–88.

80 More on this, see Han Myŏnggi, Imjin Waeran kwa hanjung kwan’gye (The Imjin War and Sino-Korean Relations), (Yŏksa pip’yŏongsa, 1999), esp. 67–88; Han Myŏnggi, “Imjinwaeran sigi chaejojiŭn ŭi hyŏngsŏng kwa gŭ ŭimi” (The Construction of chaejochiŭn in the Era of the Imjin War and its Meaning ), Tongyanghak, 29 (June 1999): 119–36; Han Myŏnggi, “Chaejojiŭn kwa Chosŏn hugi chŏngch’isa: Imjin waeran—chŏngjodae sigirŭl chungsim ŭro” (Chaejojiŭn and the Late Chosŏn Political History: Focusing on the Imjin War to King Chŏngjo’s Reign Period), Taedong munhwa yŏngu, 59 (2007): 191–230.

81 Chosŏn wangjo sillok, Kwanghaegun ilgi 1618/4(Intercalary)/23; Kwanghaegun ilgi 1618/4(Intercalary)/24; Kwanghaegun ilgi 1618/6/19.

82 Chosŏn wangjo sillok, Injo 1643/2/19.

83 Ray Huang, “The Liao-tung Campaign of 1619,” Oriens Extremus, 28 (1981): 33–54.

84 Chosŏn wangjo sillok, Injo 1643/2/19.

85 SI, 7: 10 (1643/2/2).

86 For Qing use of righteous principles and loyalty, see Lynn A. Struve, The Ming-Qing Conflict, 1619–1683: A Historiography and Source Guide (Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Asian Studies, 1998), 14. Cf. Christopher P. Atwood, “Worshipping Grace: The Language of Loyalty in Qing Mongolia,” Late Imperial China, 21, no. 2 (December 2000): 86–139; Johan Elverskog, Our Great Qing: The Mongols, Buddhism and the State in Late Imperial China (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2006).

87 Chosŏn wangjo sillok, Injo 1639/11/15; Sŭngjŏngwŏn ilgi, Injo 1639/6/25.

88 SI, 1:39 (1637/7/21).

89 Qing Taizong Wen huangdi shilu, 51:12–51:13. The Manchus consistently signaled their attachment to Manchu values and cultural heritage. For the useful concept of ethno-dynastic domination or ethnic sovereignty, see Michael Chang, A Court on Horseback: Imperial Touring and Construction of Qing Rule 1680–1785 (Harvard University Asia Center, 2007); Mark Elliott, The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001); Pamela Crossley, A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology.

90 Chosŏn wangjo sillok, Injo 15/11/22.

91 SC, 2: 32–33 (1638/7/8). The following is the speech made by Ingguldai upon delivering the Qing emperor’s order to the Shenyang Residence: “Our countries [Qing] and Chosŏn both have an ancient history. Crown Prince, are you alone in not seeing this? In the past, the state of Jin had occupied the west of Liaodong. After it perished, people of the Jin state scattered and went to Chŏlla and Kyŏngsang provinces of Chosŏn where they had descendants. When speaking of not having to repatriate the so-called descendants of the xianghuaren, you are referring to these people […] Many of the xianghuaren who came here [to Shenyang] still have their siblings and descendants in Chosŏn. It is only natural that father and son, older brother and younger brother desire to live together […] After asking a number of xianghuaren, we will send you a messenger with the names and residences of approximately 690 people. If you do not repatriate them immediately, one of us will personally go and bring them.” Xinghuaren (Ko. hyanghwain), literally “people who face toward transformation,” was the term that the Chosŏn used. The term suggests that the Chosŏn identified them as objects (or targets) of moral transformation or civilizing, implicitly fashioning itself as a source of civilization.

92 Chosŏn wangjo sillok, Injo 1639/11/15.

93 Chosŏn wangjo sillok, Injo 1640/10/30; Injo 1641/11/8; Injo 1642/12/16.

94 For studies of Chosŏon yangban resistance and philosophical development in relation to Ming-Qing transition, see JaHyun Kim Haboush, “Constructing the Center: The Ritual Controversy and the Search for a New Identity in Seventeenth-Century Korea,” in JaHyun Kim Haboush and Martina Deuchler eds., Culture and the State in Late Chosŏn Korea (Harvard University Asia Center, 1999), 46–90; JaHyun Kim Haboush, “Contesting Chinese Time, Nationalizing Temporal Space: Temporal Inscription in Late Chosŏn Korea,” in Lynn A. Struve ed., Time, Temporality, and Imperial Transition: East Asia from Ming to Qing (University of Hawaii Press, 2005), 115–41; Chŏng Okja, Chosŏn hugi Chosŏn chunghwa sasang yŏngu (Chosŏn’s Self-perception as the Civilization in the Late Chosŏn Period) (Ilchisa, 1998); Yi Uk, “Chosŏn hugi chŏnjaeng ŭi kiŏk kwa taebodan chehyang” (Memory of the War and Sacrificial Rites at the Altar of Great Retribution), Chonggyo yŏngu, 42 (2006), 127–63; Kuwano Eiji, “Chosŏn sojunghwa ŭisik ŭi hyŏngsŏng kwa chŏn’gae: taebodan chesa ŭi chŏngbi kwajŏng ŭl chungsimuro” (The Formation and Development of the Sojunghwa Consiousness in the Chosŏn: Focusing on the Taebodan Rites), in Pak Chungsŏk and Watanabe Hiroshi eds, Kukka inyŏm kwa taeoe insik: 17segi–19segi (Ayŏn ch’ulpanbu, 2002), 153–92; Yi Taejin, “Theoretical Changes over the Late Yi Dynasty’s Faithful Relationships to Ming Dynasty,” Asia Munhwa, 10 (1994): 5–22.