sign in sign up
<<
Home , Hanyang University, Korea University (Japan), Ming (typefaces)

International Journal of Korean (Vol.16 No.1, Feb. 2011) 81

The Formation and Transformation of the Awareness of a Common Cultural Identity in 19th Century Chosŏn*

Cho Sung-san (Cho Sŏngsan)**

Introduction

The origins of the term tongwen (同文, same characters; K. tongmun) can be traced back to the phrase, “Now throughout the nation, the carriages have all the same axle-widths, all writings are written with the same characters, and all conducts are regulated with the same ethics” found in Chapter 28 of the Zhongyong (中庸, The Doctrine of the Mean).1 While Zhu Xi(1130-1200) explained that this phrase referred to the ‘unification of the world (天下統一)’,2 Emperor Qin Shi Huang (秦始皇), the first emperor of China, used the term ‘tongwen tonggui (同文同軌, same characters and same wheels)’ following his unification of China.3 Thereafter, this term, which was widely used within the Chinese-character cultural sphere or what can be referred to as the Sinosphere in East Asia, was understood to mean a sort of common cultural identity. This was of course closely related to the great influence exercised by China. This study deals with 19th century East Asia, and more specifically the period in which the long-germinating awareness of a common cultural identity (同文意識, tongmun ŭisik) was given concrete form.

** This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of (NRF) Grant funded by the Korean Government (MEST)(KRF-2007-361-AL0013). ** HK research professor, Research Institute of , 82 The Formation and Transformation of the Awareness of ~

One important aspect that must be considered in conjunction with the cultural phenomena that emerged in East Asia during the 19th century is the active literary exchanges that took place between Chosŏn, Qing, and . These three countries exchanged thoughts through the writing known as (漢字) which they shared. While such literary exchanges took place during previous eras as well, those that took place during the 19th century were much more significant both in quantitative and qualitative terms. Thus the awareness of a common cultural identity can be regarded as the perception of a common cultural zone possessed by all three of these countries. This newly formed awareness of a Chinese-character cultural sphere can be better comprehended through an analysis of what kind of intellectual exchanges existed, as well as of what kind of cultural identity people sought to construct through such exchanges. In other words, by pinpointing the characteristics of the awareness of a common cultural identity which existed in East Asia during the 19th century, this study seeks to examine the common civilizational consciousness shared by these three countries. The analysis of the conditions that surrounded this common cultural identity can also provide an effective means to delve into the issue of the common problem awareness that formed in these countries during this period. While a few studies have dealt with the matter of the awareness of a common cultural identity directly, 4 many studies have in fact only brushed the surface when it comes to this awareness during the 19th century. In other words, numerous studies regarding the exchanges between Qing and Chosŏn intellectuals have been accumulated. 5 In addition, it is necessary to pay attention to the phrase, ‘awareness of the contemporary era’ (並世 意識, pyŏngse ŭisik) found in existing studies. This can be construed as the perceptions possessed by the East Asian intellectuals who lived through the contemporary era.6 Building on the results of existing studies, this study seeks to define the specific awareness of a cultural community which was formed through literary exchanges as the awareness of a common cultural identity, and traces Cho Sung-san 83 back the origin, development and transformation of this awareness of a common cultural identity. This study is expected to provide effective vantage points from which to explain the specific cultural phenomenon that emerged during the 19th century.

The origin of the awareness of a common cultural identity

The near impossibility of developing a common phonetic rendering of Chinese characters served to further heighten the importance of developing visual uniformity. As a result, a common understanding of the meaning of Chinese characters was developed despite the fact that they could be read in many different manners. This proved to be an important element in terms of the establishment of a unified ruling structure in China. To this end, such exchanges based on visual rather than audible language proved to be an effective means of communication not only during the ancient era, but also during the medieval era in which it became impossible to unify the various languages that were spoken. The Chinese dialects were so disparate that they could almost be regarded as different languages rather than simple linguistic variations.7 As such, visual language played an important role in helping the ruling class to control China as a unitary state. 8 In this regard, it would be no exaggeration to say that the unification of China was made possible by Chinese characters. Emperor Qin Shi Huang and Zhu Xi’s claim of the same characters, same wheels, and same ethics (同文·同軌·同倫) as the notion of the unification of the world was closely related to this issue. Viewed from this standpoint, the awareness of a common cultural identity can be regarded as a discourse on unity and oneness. The awareness of a common cultural identity is clearly evidenced in the following cases. During a conversation which he had with the Chinese intellectual Sun Youyi (?-?), Hong Taeyong (1731-1783) stated that while Chosŏn shared a common with China they used different sounds. Sun Youyi answered, “There is no reason to be concerned about 84 The Formation and Transformation of the Awareness of ~ the presence of linguistic differences in every region. Just look at China, although different languages are spoken in the east, west, south and north, the government does not discriminate based on the sound of a language when it selects literati for official positions.”9 Sun Youyi’s claim that the writing system was the main factor involved in the government’s selection of human resources stands as proof positive of the importance which China attached to Chinese characters. As such, the spoken language was not as important as the written language to the intellectuals of East Asia during the medieval era. Of course, the existence of regional differences ensured that this system was not applied in a uniform manner in Chosŏn, Japan, and Vietnam. It is a fact that many regional variations emerged during the process that saw individual countries’ attempt to harmonize the Chinese characters with their own indigenous languages. However, Chosŏn’s geopolitical location inevitably led it to develop a stronger view than was the case in other places of Chinese characters as the predominant written language. Chosŏn’s closer geographical proximity to China than Japan and Vietnam ensured that Chinese culture was actively introduced. This situation in great part explains why Chosŏn’s invention of its own writing system during the reign of King Sejong of Chosŏn came after the Japanese had created their writing system known as (仮名), the Vietnamese had crafted a writing system known as Chữ-nôm (字喃), and the Jurchens and Mongols had developed their own alphabetical systems.10 Chosŏn had of course traditionally boasted its own indigenous writing systems such as Hyangch΄al (鄕札, literally vernacular letters, used to transcribe the into ( 漢字, Chinese characters) and Idu (吏讀, Korean phonology system used from the Three Kingdoms Era to Chosŏn). While these systems were similar to the Japanese and Vietnamese writing systems, they were not as fully developed as the latter. The roots of this situation can be traced back to the trend that developed within Chosŏn of seeking to directly seize the meaning of Chinese characters rather than having to rely on incomplete transliterations that were based on indigenous phonological systems. One Cho Sung-san 85 of the reasons why certain segments of society were strongly opposed to the creation of the Hunmin chŏngŭm (訓民正音, literally The Correct Sounds for the Instruction of the People; later came to be known han΄gŭl) during the reign of King Sejong was the very existence of such an awareness of a common cultural identity.11 These in turn can be regarded as the key reasons why Chosŏn constitutes an important element of any discussions on the formation and development of a Chinese character- centered awareness of a common cultural identity in East Asia. As is evidenced by a look at the actions of the Tongmun΄gwan (同文館), the body which was responsible for receiving Chinese envoys, and the Tongmun hwigo (同文彙考), or documents related to diplomatic relations with China, this awareness of a common cultural identity was mainly rooted in a profound respect for the Chinese imperial order, a fact that also lay at the core of the diplomatic concept of sadae (事大, literally ‘serving the great’). This type of awareness is also evident in the writings of many intellectuals. For example, Sin Sukchu (1417-1475) argued that the use of the same characters and wheels would allow Chosŏn to bask in the benevolence of the sacred Son of Heaven (聖天子).12 The collection of poems exchanged between Chosŏn government officials and Ming envoys known as the Hwanghwajip (皇華集) saliently reflects the diplomatic awareness of a common cultural identity which revolved around the concept of sadae. These thoughts were closely related to the perceptions of respect for the unified Chinese empire symbolized by the notion of same characters and same wheels. On the other hand, there is also a need to pay attention to not only this sadae-based awareness of a common cultural identity, but also to the awareness of a common cultural identity that developed with neighboring countries such as Japan and Vietnam. In this regard, Kim Chongjik (1431- 1492) maintained that a Japanese poem describing the king’s bestowal of a brush to the Japanese king was proof positive of the existence of a certain cultural oneness throughout the region.13 For his part, Chang Yu (1587-1638) made mention of the inspiration he felt after reading a poem that had been left behind by an envoy to China who hailed from Annam 86 The Formation and Transformation of the Awareness of ~ or Vietnam. Annam (Vietnam) lies about 10,000-ri away from China. This great distance means that different customs and features, including the climate, must inevitably have developed. Nevertheless, a closer look at the rule of four tones employed in poetry writing (聲律) and the implication of poetic sentiment (詩意) reveals that they are exactly the same in both countries. As a poem is in fact a manifestation of man’s nature and emotions, it would be no exaggeration to say that this is the reason why “People use the same characters when writing.” Furthermore, the need to continue using this system is evidenced by the fact that such a system makes it possible for a person from the remotest areas like our own southern provinces to make his existence known to the east through his poems.14 This passage exhibits a different aspect of the awareness of a common cultural identity as relates to China. Thus, while relations with China were rooted in the notion of sadae, the exchanges with persons from other countries were conducted using Chinese characters, also leading to a shared sense of belonging. This clearly shows that the awareness of a common cultural identity included not only the vertical concept of imperial unity, but also the horizontal notion of an identical cultural zone.

Strengthening of the awareness of a common cultural identity during the late 18th – mid 19th centuries

The establishment of the Qing dynasty proved to be an important turning point in terms of the development of the awareness of a common cultural identity (同文意識, tongmun ŭisik) in East Asia. More to the point, the emergence of this barbaric and foreign (夷狄) dynasty greatly influenced and changed the perception of a Han Chinese-centered Sinosphere. The Manchu people had their own writing system known as the Manwen (滿文). However, their ability to maintain control over the vast empire they inherited was predicated on their acceptance of other people’s writing systems.15 Hence, unlike the China of the past that had Cho Sung-san 87 been ruled by the Han Chinese, a new hierarchal structure based on writing systems had to be established. The policy of showing respect for various writing systems, including the Manchu-Chinese writing system (滿漢文字), can as such be regarded as a direct result of the emergence of such circumstances. Here, special attention should be paid to the point that the notion of ‘same characters’ emphasized by the Qing dynasty was meant to display respect for the ‘natural ethical values’ inherent in the writing systems of individual ethnic groups. This stands in direct contrast to the notion of writing with the same script (書同文) promoted by traditional Chinese dynasties as a means to consolidate their political power through a policy of a unitary writing system.16 Although some differences emerged between Chosŏn and Japan, both experienced situations that led to the display of interest in their respective languages. The development of new perceptions of indigenous languages during this period led to the emergence of numerous phenomena that could be perceived as precursors to the modern era characterized by the emergence of national languages. On the other hand, this period also saw the emergence on an unprecedented scale of the publication and exchange of books written in the universal language known as Chinese characters. The development of simultaneous prosperity and of a universal language and indigenous languages proved to be important cultural phenomena in East Asia. Although many reasons can be given for the emergence of such phenomena, the ruling principles adopted by Qing following the change from the Ming to the Qing dynasties can be identified as a core factor. The ability of the barbaric and foreign dynasty known as Qing to control the Han Chinese and other ethnic groups was in large predicated on its simultaneous acceptance of universality and individuality. To this end, Qing sought to rationalize its rule by giving the notion of civilized (中華, Zhonghua) and barbarian (夷狄, Yidi) realms a more a posteriori and cultural meaning.17 Although the traditional notion of Zhonghua had included strong ‘cultural’ overtones that go beyond ethnicity and region, these overtones were further strengthened during the early Qing period. The definition of 88 The Formation and Transformation of the Awareness of ~ the notions of Zhonghua and Yidi as falling under culturalism naturally served to further increase the role of Chinese characters. Simply put, Chinese characters emerged as the most important cultural tool through which one could gain access to Sinocentric culture. Although the Manchu language played an important role in the management of the imperial order, Chinese characters continued to serve as both the universal language and the common language of Qing.18 Thus, the on the cultural attributes associated with the notion of Zhonghua, and the tracing back of the origin of this notion of Zhonghua to Chinese characters resulted in the latter becoming a cultural asset that belonged not only to China, but also Chosŏn, Japan, and Vietnam. This is evidenced by Hong Kilju (1786-1841)’s statement to the effect that Zhonghua was an asset that belonged to all human beings.19 The compilation of the Siku quanshu (四庫全書, Complete Library of the Four Treasuries); (1782) resulted in a further consolidation of this awareness of a common cultural identity within East Asia’s intellectual circles. The Siku quanshu was a huge academic project designed to foster the unification of literary works and further academic learning. Several projects that revolved around the collection of all the books in the world as part of efforts to classify and summarize rare works (善本) were initiated and implemented during the heyday of Qing. The compilation of the Siku quanshu was motivated by the political goal of not only highlighting the prosperity of Qing, but also making sure that the intellectuals of the day remembered this. Nevertheless, the summary of works written in Chinese characters contained in the Siku quanshu proved to be of great significance in the formation of the awareness of a common cultural identity in East Asia. To this end, the Siku quanshu greatly influenced the perceptions of East Asian intellectuals regarding literary works and publications. In particular, there emerged during the process of securing lost books (佚書) and rare works a search in surrounding countries for ancient works from China. This situation in turn provided an opportunity for neighboring countries to confirm their cultural capacity. 20 During the process of conducting Cho Sung-san 89 comparative analyses of literary works, foreign countries reached the conclusion that certain domestically works were of the same or even higher quality than those produced in China. Chosŏn for one responded very quickly to the news of the compilation of the Siku quanshu. As early as 1777, King Chŏngjo made his intention of purchasing the Siku quanshu known. However, as no copy was yet available, he ordered that the Gujin tushu jicheng (古今圖書集成, Complete Collection of Illustrations and Writings from the Earliest to Current Times) be purchased instead.21 This was of course prior to the actual compilation of the Siku quanshu. As interest in this project grew, the question of which Chosŏn works, if any, would be included in the Siku quanshu became a hotly debated topic amongst Chosŏn intellectuals. In the end, the Siku quanshu included works from Chosŏn, Japan, and Vietnam. During his encounter with Pan Tingjun(1742-?), Yi Tŏngmu (1741-1793) asked his counterpart whether the Siku quanshu included books from Chosŏn, Vietnam, Japan, and Ryukyu; whether Chosŏn books other than Koryŏsa (高麗史, History of Koryŏ) and Tongŭi pogam (東醫寶鑑, Exemplars of Korean Medicine) had been published in China; and whether Ch΄oe Chŏn’s (1567-1588) Yangp΄ojip (楊浦集, Collection of Ch΄oe Chŏn’s Works), which had been cited in the Peiwenzhai shuhua pu (佩文齋書畫譜, Collection of the and Paintings of the Peiwen Study)22, was still available to the public. 23 Yi’s questions implied that works equivalent to those produced in China existed in Chosŏn, Vietnam, Japan, and Ryukyu, and that these books should be included as part of the collection of the glory of Sinocentric culture known as the Siku quanshu. Viewed in this context, special attention should be paid to the conversations that took place between Yu Tŭkkong (1749-1807) and the Qing literatus Ji Yun (1724-1805). These conversations are noteworthy because they exposed the pride which Chosŏn intellectuals’ took in the Chinese character culture that had developed in Korea. In one particular exchange, Ji Yun asked Yu whether he was happy that the Hwadamjip (花潭集; The Collected Works of Sŏ Kyŏngdŏk [1489-1546]) had been included in the Siku quanshu, thereby making it the only individual 90 The Formation and Transformation of the Awareness of ~ collection of works produced in countries other than China to be included in the Siku quanshu. However, contrary to expectations, Yu asked his interlocutor why the Hwadamjip was the only Korean work included in the Siku quanshu, thereby implying that there were in fact many outstanding works produced in Chosŏn.24 Thus, Yu’s answer provides us with some insight into the strong sense of pride in Chosŏn culture that animated Chosŏn intellectuals. The statements by Yi Tŏngmu and Yu Tŭkkong make it evident that the compilation of the Siku quanshu served to stimulate the awareness of a common cultural identity which shared the same characters. The inclusion of Korean works in the great project designed to bring about the unity of the cultural sphere that was the Siku quanshu spurred such scholars to have the works of Chosŏn be accepted as part of the Chinese-character cultural sphere. In addition, the scale and scope of the cultural exchanges that took place between the intellectuals of Chosŏn and China increased exponentially during the late 18th-19th centuries.25 These active exchanges between the intellectuals of Chosŏn and Qing, which were based on the sense of a shared cultural identity, created a unique cultural phenomenon. The intellectuals of China also started to exhibit a significant interest in the works of Chosŏn and Japan. As mentioned above, the compilation of the Siku quanshu allowed Chinese intellectuals to discover that books believed to have been lost as well as rare works continued to exist in neighboring countries, and that in some case even books no longer extant in China continued to circulate in Chosŏn and Japan.26 This trend began with the discovery of ancient Chinese works in Japan. The presumption that many books believed to have been lost remained extant in Japan was already on display as far back as in Ouyang Xiu’s(1007-1072) poem, “Song of Ribendao (日本刀歌)”.27 During the period spanning from 1799-1810, or the period that followed the compilation of the Siku quanshu, Hayashi Jussai (1768-1841) collected 16 traditional works that remained extant in Japan, such as the Gu wen xiao jing (古文孝經, Ancient Textbook on Filial Piety), and published them as part of a new work entitled Itsuzon Sosho (佚存叢書) (Series of Lost Cho Sung-san 91

Works). This work is heavily laden with the sense of pride that Japan took in being able to convey such works about the ancient culture of China and the essence of Sinoculture to China itself. Hayashi Jussai asserted that the reasons why these ancient Chinese works could be preserved could be traced back to the absence of dynastic revolution(易姓革命) in Japan and the promotion of writing culture (右文之化).28 Hayashi Jussai’s statements were based on a keen awareness of China. In fact, the compilation of the Itsuzon Sosho would have been next to impossible without such a clear understanding of China.29 As Japan had purchased three copies of the Gujin tushu jicheng before Chosŏn, and imported many books from China through the direct trade the two sides conducted in Nagasaki, it was well aware of the publishing process in China and the demand that existed for specific works.30 In this regard, Japan’s compilation of the Itsuzon Sosho can be regarded as having reflected academic demands within China proper. Many copies of the Itsuzon Sosho were taken by Chinese commercial vessels from Nagasaki to China.31 This situation also serves to shed light on the fact that these ancient Japanese works were not only regarded as having academic value, but also a commercial one as well. Some of the books found in the Itsuzon Sosho were discovered by Ruan Yuan (1764-1849) and subsequently included in the Siku quanshu. 32 Others were included in the Zhi buzu zhai congshu (知不足齋叢書, Collected Books of the Studio of Insufficient Knowledge) compiled during 1774-1823 by the book collector Bao Tingbo (1728-1814).33 The fact that Ruan Yuan showed Kim Chŏnghŭi (1786-1856) the Japanese copy of the Qijing Mengzi kaowen bing buyi (七經孟子考文補遺, Addendum Together with Textual Research on The Seven Confucian Classics & Mencius) that had been included in the Itsuzon Sosho34 lends itself to the conclusion that Ruan Yuan expected similar results from his interactions with Kim Chŏnghŭi of Chosŏn. Kim Chŏnghŭi however presented Ruan with a copy of the Sanhak kyemong (算學啓蒙, Ch. Suanxue qimeng, Introduction to Computational Studies), a work that had only been distributed in Chosŏn.35 In addition, the intellectuals of Qing 92 The Formation and Transformation of the Awareness of ~ continuously requested that their counterparts in Chosŏn provide them with history texts and literary works produced in Chosŏn. The outcome of these literary exchanges is particularly interesting. To begin with, the use of Chinese characters allowed the intellectuals of these countries to form a sense of cultural solidarity. The formation of this sense of cultural solidarity during the 19th century was in large part motivated by the introduction of Western civilization. The sense of crisis created in Chosŏn by Western encroachment was extremely widespread. In this regard, seminal events included the Catholic Persecution of 1801 in Korea and the 1st and second Opium Wars (1840-1842, 1856-1860) in China. Anti-Western features became a common cultural phenomenon in Chosŏn from the 19th century onwards. The main difference which emerged in terms of policy lines during this period was over the question of whether the Sinocentric cultures of Qing and Japan should be accepted and an alliance forged with these countries, or Qing and Japan should be regarded as enemies, with the necessary steps taken to protect the Sinocentric culture that had been established in Chosŏn. While the Confucianists who supported the Northern Learning (Pukhak) School adopted the former position, the conservative Confucianists opted for the latter.36 This proves that the perception of a Chinese-character cultural sphere or Sinosphere was one that revolved not only around the sharing of Chinese characters and Confucianism, but also opposition to Western civilization. This context led some Chosŏn intellectuals to develop a favorable perception of Qing and a new perception of Japan. In other words, they started to look at Japan as a civilized country rather than as a barbarian one. For instance, Chŏng Tongyu (1744-1808) was able to confirm the existence of a Confucian mindset in Japan based on Aizu Fudoki’s study of Neo-Confucianism and Ito Jinsai’s (1627-1705) study on Ancient Learning (古學) and Yangming Learning (陽明學).37 Meanwhile, Chŏng Yagyong (1762-1836) evaluated the writings of Japanese Confucianists as being refined and sharp. He also stressed the fact that Japan’s purchase of quality books from China via it trade with Province and the Cho Sung-san 93 absence of any civil examination system in Japan allowed its literature to be much ahead of Chosŏn’s.38 Kim Chŏnghŭi possessed an even more profound knowledge of Japanese academic circles.39 While Kim had been made aware of the existence of the Itsuzon Sosho through his interactions with Ruan Yuan, he was also an expert on the level of development that had been achieved in Japan in terms of Evidential Study. He also paid close attention to Japan’s cultural exchanges with China carried out via Nagasaki.40 Yi Sangjŏk (1804-1865), who was one of Kim’s disciples, stated that not only had Japan’s purchases of Chinese works increased, but that this had resulted in the prompt development of its culture.41 The change in these perceptions is evidence of the fact that the intellectuals in East Asian countries were cognizant of the fact that knowledge in East Asia was in the process of being reorganized. To this end, certain intellectuals developed a sense of cultural solidarity that effectively linked together Chosŏn, China and Japan.

Transformation of the awareness of a common cultural identity during the late 19th –early 20th centuries

The awareness of a common cultural identity underwent a transformation after the Sino-Japanese War of 1894. The Sino-Japanese War paved the way for a movement amongst Qing intellectuals to learn from Japan, a process that led many Qing students to be dispatched to Japan. This process allowed the intellectuals of Qing to discover the features of its own past, a past which had been all but lost to them, in Japan.42 Chinese intellectuals soon came to the conclusion that a more complete Zhonghua culture had been achieved in the neighboring state of Japan than was the case at home. The Guyi congshu (古逸叢書, A Collection of Lost Ancient Writings) published by Li Shuchang (1837- 1891) and Yang Shuojing (1839-1915) in 1880 stands out as proof positive of this discovery. The Guyi congshu is a collection of ancient 94 The Formation and Transformation of the Awareness of ~ works found in Japan that were no longer extant in China, and a follow- up to the above mentioned Itsuzon Sosho. In addition to Li Shuchang and Yang Shuojing, He Ruzhang, Xu Chengzu, Yao Wendong, Chen Ju, and Fu Yunlong also sought to collect ancient Chinese works found in Japan.43 Such works forced China to include Japan as a part of Zhonghua culture. The following statement attributed to Li Shuchang perfectly illustrates this point. Some of our ancient works which were believed to have been lost were discovered in a foreign country. It is my hope that these lost books can be obtained and published in the future. What a fortunate development! I do not know the reason why, but the heavens must want me to undertake this great task. The continued existence of these ancient books means that the spirit of our ancestors has been preserved. Who am I to try and follow in their footsteps! I have simply been bestowed the task of collecting these books. I must do my sincere best to bring this about.44 Japan did not actively respond to the issue of Zhonghua culture during the early Meiji Era. During the Tokugawa Period Japan had been concentrated on condemning elements of Chinese Learning such as Confucianism and accepting Western Learning. However, the full-scale crisis occasioned by the advent of the Freedom and People’s Rights Movement from 1874 onwards forced the government to develop a new perception of Confucianism and Chinese characters. 45 The Japanese government started to gradually realize the usefulness of Confucian ethics as a tool with which to maintain the imperial system and establish the nation-state. Confucian organizations such as the Shibun Gakkai (斯文学会) and the Yangming Learning were once again highlighted.46 The depth and width of the socialization and politicization of Confucianism that took place during this period was more pronounced than it had ever been at any time during the Edo Period.47 Therefore, considering from the position of Japan, the Chinese intellectuals’ collection of ancient Chinese works was never perceived as disadvantageous to the imperial system which was being advocated. As can be seen in the preface to the Itsuzon Sosho, Japan boasted that its Cho Sung-san 95 ability to preserve these ancient works emanating from China was the result of the fact that, contrary to China, it featured an emperor (tennō)- centered system and had not experienced reforms for a long period of time. In other words, Japan’s ability to maintain the Zhonghua culture can be explained by its successful actualization of a loyalty-based order (忠), a task which China had failed to achieve. Not only did this not conflict with the emperor system being advocated by the Meiji government, but it could in fact be effectively used to prop up Japan’s imperial system. While China needed to collect ancient works to expand the Zhonghua culture, Japan needed such activities to promote the outstanding nature of its own imperial system. To this end, the collection of ancient works was more than the mere collection and summarization of such works, but also an activity which helped to establish the identity of Confucianism and the Chinese-character cultural sphere. Li Shuchang’s letter of appreciation sent to the Ashikaga School clearly illustrates this point. Libraries were established in Yangzhen, Zhejiang, and Dengchu during the reign of Emperor Qianlong. It was there that the works of the four storehouses (四庫) were preserved and the people were allowed to read and transcribe these classics. The only regulation put in place was that the books not be brought outside of the buildings. By and large, people abided by this regulation. The Tian Yi Library owned by the Fan Family was the most famous of such libraries, and managed to preserve this tradition for several hundreds of years. Taking a look at the Ashikaga School in Japan, it is evident that its regulations are identical to those in place in China. In addition, the decline of Confucian Learning in the aftermath of the reforms has resulted in the Ashikaga School becoming the only entity in which these ancient works are preserved. It stands out as a success story in terms of the promotion of our way under the current unfavorable situation. Recently, we established a relationship with this school that has revolved around the transcription of the Lunyu Yishu (論語義疏, Elucidation of the Meaning of the Analects) written by Huang Kan, with exchanges carried out through our attendant, Xu Zhiyuan. I would like to express my appreciation to the dean of the Ashikaga School 96 The Formation and Transformation of the Awareness of ~ for receiving him so warmly.

January, 14th year of Emperor Guangxu (1888) Li Shuchang48

Li Shuchang praised the Ashikaga School for having successfully preserved what he termed as ‘our way’ under extremely risky circumstances. Moreover, he also had his attendant engage in exchanges with the Ashikaga School that revolved around the Lunyu Yishu (論語義疏, Elucidation of the Meaning of the Analects) written by Huang Kan. The Lunyu Yishu was an ancient work which, while having been lost in China, remained extant in Japan. Established during the Heian or Kamakura Period, the Ashikaga School represented the oldest academic institution in which Classical Chinese Studies (漢學) was taught. Li Shuchang’s interactions with the Ashikaga School regarding the Lunyu Yishu had the effect of confirming the existence of a common cultural sphere to which China and Japan both belonged. Here, special attention needs to be paid to the use of the expression ‘our way (吾道)’. ‘Our way’ referred to the learning of Confucius or Confucianism and of the Chinese characters needed to actualize Confucianism. Consequently, whether Li Shuchang intended to or not, he played a role in establishing a common cultural sphere between China and Japan that was rooted in Confucianism and Chinese characters. Meanwhile, it is essential that attention be paid not only to the strengthening of the awareness of a common cultural identity based on Chinese characters and Confucianism, but also to the notion of ‘ Toa (東亞, East Asia)’ that was created in Japan. Regardless of the fact that Zhonghua was defined as ‘culturalism,’ this was in reality a notion which reflected a strong Sino-orientation. On the other hand, ‘Toa’ was a notion of regional culture which was designed to relativize and transform the unitary Chinese orientation encompassed in the Zhonghua concept. 49 More to the point, although keenly aware of China, the advocates of the notion of ‘Toa’ sought to move beyond the unilateral focus on China and Cho Sung-san 97 emphasize the multilateral origins and transformation of Zhonghua culture. The notion of Toa should be perceived as part of the developmental process that saw indigenous Zhonghua orders (中華主義) emerge in Chosŏn, Japan and Vietnam following the dynastic change from Ming to Qing. The notion of Toa is one that is laden with an awareness of the regional and unilateral concept of Zhonghua as a cultural and multilateral form of Zhonghua. While such a notion first developed in Japan, this school of thought in all likelihood also emerged in Chosŏn and Vietnam. Given this reality, attention must be drawn to the pro-Japanese organization known as the Taedong hakhoe (大東學會, The Society of Great East Asian Learning) which was established in Korea in 1907. Centering on its chairman Sin Kisŏn (1851-1909), the Taedong hakhoe asserted that Confucianism was in fact the transformed face of the awareness of a common cultural identity that had existed during the pre- modern era.50 The main actors within this organization were from the moderate enlightenment faction that had advocated the theory of Tongdo sŏgi (東道西器, Eastern Way- Western ). The main goals of the Taedong hakhoe were to maintain the principles of Confucius and Mencius’ teachings, to reveal the circumstances of affairs, and to promote usefulness (利用) and improve living conditions (厚生) by rectifying virtue (正德). 51 As part of their efforts to maintain the Confucian civilization, the members of the Taedong hakhoe sought to develop and strengthen the awareness of Chinese characters.52 Chinese writing was regarded as the basic tool with which to convey and preserve the great way of Confucius. 53 This outlandish focus on Chinese writing and Confucianism even led them to perceive the Chinese writing system as their own. Korea has been using the Chinese writing system along with its own language for 4,000 years, or since it was founded by Tan΄gun and Kija. As such, Chinese writing was not introduced from the outside, but inherent to Koreans. However, the secular world says that we can only establish a modern state after the Chinese writing system has been 98 The Formation and Transformation of the Awareness of ~ abolished in favor of the Korean writing system. Such thinking is obviously foolish. Nevertheless, it is essential that we distinguish between right and wrong. Or else, these foolish people will never realize what is right and wrong.54 For Yŏ Kyuhyŏng (1848-1921),55 the Chinese writing system could no longer be regarded solely as the written language of China. More to the point, as it had been used in Korea for a long period of time, the components of this writing system could in fact be regarded as Korean characters. Furthermore, he identified Chinese characters as ‘Asian writing (亞文)’.56 By asserting that Chinese writing should be referred to as ‘Asian writing (亞文), Yŏ Kyuhyŏng effectively transformed Chinese characters into the property of not only China, but also Korea and Japan.57 In other words, the Chinese writing system came to be perceived as being essential to the forging of communication amongst the three countries in East Asia.58 This perception was in turn based on the awareness of a common cultural identity that had held since the medieval era. However, this did not mesh with the nation-state centered global trend towards the emphasis on indigenous languages. This notion further developed into an ideology which in effect advocated the establishment of a modern imperial order. In addition, the Japanese regard the three countries of East Asia as belonging to one family. Regarding each other as members of one family does not simply mean promoting friendly relations with one another. Only after we unite, can we form the tripartite relationship needed to resist against our external enemies. If we promote the use of our indigenous languages, then Korean and Chinese people will no longer be able to communicate with each other unless they are assisted by interpreters. How can these three countries become one if the use of the Chinese writing system is abandoned?59 In the strictest sense of the word, the existing traditional awareness of cultural identity was one that revolved around the spread of Chinese culture. As such, it could be referred to as a China-centered awareness of a common cultural identity. However, a Japan-centered awareness of a Cho Sung-san 99 common cultural identity was now taking shape. Yŏ Kyuhyŏng’s mention of a tripartite relationship appears to be one that emphasizes the equality of the three countries. However, by referring to Chinese writing as ‘Asian’ writing, Yŏ actually hinted at the fact that Japan had now become the main center of gravity. Thus, such statements should be perceived as part of the promotion of a Japan-centered sense of Asian solidarity that was spreading at the time. We can as such clearly see how the medieval universalism known as the awareness of a common cultural identity was transformed in the modern era. Here it is interesting to note that the awareness of a common cultural identity linking together Chosŏn, China, and Japan had already been strengthened before the emergence of a transformed version of the awareness of a common cultural identity during the 19th century. It was this awareness of a common cultural identity that led many of those who supported the theory of Tongdo sŏgi to see no problems associated with cooperation with Japan. Although not directly linked to the School of Northern Learning,60 Sin Kisŏn nevertheless exhibited a great interest in the tenets of this school, and in particular in the preface to the Yŏnam sokchip (燕巖續集, Extended Collection of Yŏnam Pak Chiwŏn’s Works).61 The theory of Tongdo sŏgi, under which Western technology could be accepted based on the belief that even the laws of barbarians should be accepted as long as they were beneficial to the people, not only ran contrary to the belief of those who advocated the defense of orthodoxy and rejection of heterodoxy (衛正斥邪派, wijŏng ch'ŏksap΄a), but was in fact in close philosophical proximity to the tenets of the School of Northern Learning. Viewed from this standpoint, the notion of Zhonghua asserted by the Northern Learning School can be said to have been based on the perception that Zhonghua could exist anywhere, and this regardless of ethnicity or location. While the advocates of Northern Learning accepted the civilization of Qing, supporters of the theory of Tongdo sŏgi used the same logic to accept Western technology. This kind of thought became possible as a result of the doing away with the fixed dichotomy of 100 The Formation and Transformation of the Awareness of ~

Zhonghua-Barbarian, and viewing the notion of Zhonghua from the standpoint of universal civilization which anyone could share in. In this regard, some of the supporters of Tongdo sŏgi came to believe that regardless of their ethnicity or location, it was possible for Japan to possess Zhonghua culture perceived as a universal good. Some individuals even went as far as to believe that Japan could preserve this Zhonghua culture in a more complete manner than Chosŏn or China.62 This Zhonghua culture which they expounded upon was of course based on Chinese characters and Confucianism. The ease with which Japan’s assertions were accepted in some quarters can as such be traced back to the preexistence of awareness of a common cultural identity, or of a common notion of civilization that had been in place for a long period of time. For such individuals, the most urgent task became the protection of the Confucianism and Chinese characters which they regarded as the core of their Zhonghua culture.

Conclusion

The awareness of a common cultural identity based on Chinese characters was one that had deep roots in the East Asian world. The notion of tongwen/tongmun should be regarded as being embedded in the characteristics of Chinese characters. The combination of Chinese characters and the establishment of an imperial order served as an important implement with which to unify a Chinese society whose linguistic heterodoxy rendered it difficult to integrate. This can be regarded as an important reason why the notion of using the same script for writing emerged as one of the key orders of the empire. The Chinese characters introduced against this backdrop, and the awareness of a common cultural identity, which was subsequently formed, were closely linked with the notion of sadae. However, the importance of Chinese characters during the ensuing interactions with Japan and Vietnam had the effect of facilitating the development of a Sinocultural sphere that was Cho Sung-san 101 based on Chinese characters. The compilation of the Siku quanshu (四庫全書, Complete Library of the Four Treasures of Knowledge) at the end of the 18th century provided a great impetus for the formation of the awareness of a common cultural identity. The move from the Ming to the Qing dynasty in China set off a process that saw the notion of Zhonghua be transformed into one rooted in a sense of culturalism that revolved around the notions of civilization and culture rather than those of and ethnicity. This also influenced the perception of Chinese characters as the of Zhonghua civilization. As part of the process of collecting and summarizing outstanding works from the world over, the Siku quanshu included works from Chosŏn, Japan, and Vietnam. This particular work as such made it possible to create ties between the intellectuals of Chosŏn, China and Japan based on their common use of Chinese characters. The growing encroachment of the Western powers in the 19th century pushed East Asian intellectuals to imagine a Chinese-character cultural sphere that could be regarded as a counterpart to the Western world. The perception of a Confucian-cultural sphere took on different features during the late 19th –early 20th centuries. It was during this period that the concept of a Confucian-cultural sphere that could act as a counterpart to Western civilization became an important element of the rationale for Japanese imperialism. The development of a Confucian-cultural sphere was rooted in the belief that Chinese characters and Confucianism represented the main implements through which universal civilization could be brought about, and that Chosŏn, Japan and Vietnam were civilized countries that all boasted these implements of universal civilization. The Sinocentric order, or Zhonghua, which had heretofore been monopolized by China, was as such dismantled and transferred to each individual country. In this regard, Chosŏn, Japan, and Vietnam all came to take great pride in their status as the possessors of Zhonghua. Under these circumstances, the rise of Japan was accepted as a sign of its status as a new center of Zhonghua. More to the point, the belief emerged that Japan’s actualization of Zhonghua 102 The Formation and Transformation of the Awareness of ~ meant that it could no longer be regarded as a barbarian country, but rather had to be perceived as a civilized one. It was in keeping with this logic that many of the members of Korea’s Taedong hakhoe who advocated the theory of Tongdo sŏgi began to push for closer cooperation with Japan. The awareness of a common cultural identity greatly contributed to the transformation of this logic. Rather than perceiving them solely as Chinese writing, Chinese characters were regarded as an ‘Asian’ form of writing. By hailing Chinese characters as a writing system shared by Korea, China and Japan, these individuals in effect removed the ethnic component of Chinese characters. Thus, we can clearly see how the universalism of the medieval era was transformed during the modern age. This study exposed the historical phenomenon known as the awareness of a common cultural identity that existed in Chosŏn in the 19th century and to highlight how this awareness was eventually transformed into the rationale for the justification of Japanese imperialism. The world order in the aftermath of the move from Ming to Qing was one in which the China-oriented nature of this order was replaced in Chosŏn, Japan, and Vietnam by an indigenous state-oriented culture that saw each nation portray themselves as the center of Zhonghua culture. Under such circumstances, the notion of Zhonghua came to be transformed into an abstractive concept of civilization. Consequently, this became an important element in the rationale used to justify Japanese imperialism. Thus, if Japan was able to actualize Zhonghua, then China and Chosŏn had no choice but to accept its status as the new center of Zhonghua.

Keywords : awareness of a common cultural identity (同文意識, tongmun ŭisik), notion of writing with the same script (書同文), Chinese characters (漢字), Zhonghua (中華) civilization, change from the Ming to the Qing dynasties, Siku quanshu (四庫全書, Complete Library of the Four Treasuries), Toa (東亞, East Asia), Taedong hakhoe (大東學會, The Society of Great East Asian Learning), Theory of Tongdo sŏgi (東道西器, Eastern Way-Western Technology), Cho Sung-san 103 culturalism, Asian writing (亞文)

Notes :

1 Zhongyong Zhangju (中庸章句, Commentary on the Doctrine of the Mean), Chapter 28, “今天下 車同軌 書同文 行同倫” 2 Zhongyong Zhangju, Chapter 28, “今子思自謂當時也 軌轍跡之度 倫次序之體 三者皆同 言天下一統也” 3 Sima Qian, Shiji (史記), Vol.6, 秦始皇本紀, Chapter 6, “一法度衡石丈尺 車同軌 書同文字” 4 The following studies have to some extent dealt with the awareness of a common cultural identity: Park Jinsu, “Hancha munhwa wa kŭndae tongasia ŭi ŏnŏ (The Chinese –character culture and the language of modern East Asia)” in Journal of Asian Cultural Study (Asia munhwa yŏn΄gu), Vol.11 (2006); Chin Chaegyo, “Tongasia esŏ han΄guk hanmunhak ŭi pop΄yŏnsŏng kwa t΄ŭksusŏng (The universality and uniqueness of Korean Literature rendered in Chinese Characters)” in Journal of Cultural (Inmun yŏn΄gu), Vol.57 (2009) 5 The following studies have addressed the characteristics of the intellectual exchanges that took place during this period: Fujitsuka Chikashi, Nissensei no bunka koryu (日鮮淸の文化交流, The Cultural Exchanges between Japan, Chosŏn and Qing) (Chubunkan shoten, 1947); Fujitsuka Chikashi, Sinchō Bunka Tōden no Kenkyu (淸朝文化東傳の硏究, Study of the Transmission of Qing Culture to the East) (Kokusho Kankokai, 1975); Ch’oe Wansu, “Ch’usa mugyŏngi (Account of Ch’usa’s brush-bonding)” in Kansong munhwa, Vol. 48 (1995); Pak Hyŏn΄gyu, “Chosŏn ch΄ŏngjoinŭi yŏn΄gyŏng kyoyujip (Essays on the friendships that developed in Yanjing between Chosŏn and Qing nationals)” in Han΄guk hanmunhak yŏn΄gu(Journal of Korean literature in Hanmun), Vol.23 (1999); Chin Chaegyo, “18 segi chosŏnjowa ch΄ŏngin haninŭi haksul kyoryu (The academic exchanges between Chosŏn and Qing scholars during the 18th century)” in Kojŏn munhak yŏn΄gu, Vol.23 (2003); Lee Guen Seon, “Kiyun΄gwa chosŏn munin΄gwaŭi kyoyuwa kŭ ŭimi (The exchanges between Ji Yun of Qing and the literati of Chosŏn and the significance thereof)” in Hanmun kyoyuk yŏn΄gu (Journal of Korean Classical Chinese Education), Vol.24 (2005); Park Hyun Kyu, “Chosŏn sasin΄gwa ch΄ŏngjo munsaŭi ch΄amdoen ujŏnggwa p΄ildamnok: Kukho p΄ilhwa (The 104 The Formation and Transformation of the Awareness of ~

friendship between Chosŏn envoys and Qing literati and related essays)” in Tongbang hanmunhak, Vol. 28 (2005); Kim Yŏngjin, “Chosŏn hugi chungguk sahaenggwa sŏch΄aek munhwa - t΄ŭkhi 18·19 segirŭl chungsimŭro (The dispatch of royal envoys to China and book culture during late Chosŏn –with a special focus on the 18th and 19th centuries)” in 19 segi chosŏn chisikinŭi munhwa chihyŏngdo (The Cultural Geography of Chosŏn intellectuals during the 19th century), ( Press, 2006); Yi Kunsŏn, “Kwanam hong kyŏngmoŭi chungguk munin΄gwaŭi kyoyuwa kŭ yangsang – 2 ch΄a yŏnhaengŭl chungsimŭro (The exchanges between Hong Kyŏngmo and Chinese literati and the characteristics of their friendship –with a special focus on the 2nd dispatch of the royal envoys to China)” in T΄oegyehakkwa han΄guk munhwa, Vol.33 (2008); Kim Yunjo, “18 segi huban han·chung t΄onghap sisŏnjipŭi ch΄ulhyŏn΄gwa yŏngnongjip (The emergence of Korea-China joint poetry during the late 18th century and the Yŏngnongjip)” in Hanmun hakpo, Vol.18 (2008); Kim Yong Tai, “1790 nyŏn yu tŭkkongi mannan tongasia (The East Asia encountered by Yu Tŭkkong in 1790)” in Hanmun hakpo, Vol.20 (2009); Yi Ch΄unhŭi, 19 segi han·chung munhak kyoryu (Korea-Chinese literary exchanges in the 19th century), (Saemunsa, 2009) 6 For more on the awareness of the contemporary era, please refer to Kim Yŏngjin, “Chosŏn hugi myŏng ch΄ŏng sop΄um suyonggwa sop΄ummunŭi chŏngae yangsang (The acceptance of the prose of Ming and Qing and the characteristics of the development of prose during late Chosŏn)”, PhD dissertation (Korea University, 2003), 75-85,; Jung Min, 18 segi chosŏn chisikinŭi palgyŏn (The Discoveries made by Chosŏn Intellectuals during the 18th century), (Humanist Press, 2007), 32-33 7 Ch΄oe Yŏngae, Chunggukŏran muŏsin΄ga (What is ), (Tongnamu Publishing, 1998), 68-69 8 Yi Pogyŏng, Kŭndaeŏŭi t΄ansaeng (The Birth of Modern Language), ( Press, 2003), 12 9 Hong Taeyong, Tamhŏnsŏ (湛軒書, Collection of Hong Taeyong’s Works), Vol.7, 燕記 10 This is evidenced by the following reference. Hong Hŭijun, Chŏn΄gu (傳舊), Vol.4, 諺書訓義說 “外國如西域西洋蒙古日本之文字 有聲無義 只因其聲而辨事物 則似可以盡其聲 然盖是偏邦之方言 非可以通行於天下萬國者也 惟我東方壤接中華 事物之命名 悉用華字” 11 Sejong sillok (世宗實錄, Annals of King Sejong), Vol.103, 26th year of King Cho Sung-san 105

Sejong, 2nd month, 20th day. 12 Tongmunsŏn (東文選, Selected Writings of the Eastern Kingdom), Vol.3, 次倪謙雪霽登樓賦 (Sin Sukchu) 13 Kim Chongjik, Chŏmp΄ilchae jip (佔畢齋集), Vol.20, 四月二十七日賜經筵官日本筆各一枝 14 Chang Yu, Kyegok manp΄il (谿谷漫筆), Vol.2, 中國通州驛樓有安南國使臣題詩 15 Ye Gaoshu, Qingchao Qianqi de Wenhuazhengce (淸朝前期的文化政策, Cultural Policy during the Early Qing Period), (Banqiao City, Taipei Prefecture: Das Shiang Publishing Co. 2002), 45-48 16 Ye Gaoshu, ibid. (2002), 97-98 17 For more on this topic, please refer to Emperor Yongzheng, Great Righteousness Resolving Confusion (大義覺迷錄). Min Tugi, “Taeŭi kakmiroke taehayŏ (Analysis of the Great Righteousness Resolving Confusion (大義覺迷錄))” in Chindan hakpo, Vol.25 (1964); Jonathan D. Spence, Treason by the Book, (New York; Viking, 2001), translated by Yi Chun΄gap, (2004). 18 As the influence of the Manchurian language gradually decreased from the 18th century onwards, the imperial government of Qing implemented various measures to restrict the Sinicization of the Manchurian people. This also proved the widespread influence of Chinese characters. In fact, a correct definition of the characteristics of the Manchurian people after 1750 should not include the Manchurian language as one of the outstanding features (Mark C. Elliott, The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in late Imperial China, (Stanford University, 2002), Translated by Yi Hun and Kim Minsŏn, (Pureun Yeoksa Publishing, 2009) 429. In addition, Emperor Qianlong’s responses to the envoys from Chosŏn, Ryukyu, and Vietnam written in Chinese poetry show the extent to which Chinese characters had become a universal language. Despite having their own languages, such as Manchurian and Korean, they used Chinese characters to converse with each other. (Cho Tongil, hananimyŏnsŏ yŏrŏtin tongasia munhak (East Asian Literature Exhibits Oneness but also Variousness), (Chisik Saneop Publishing, 1999), 262-269) 19 Hong Kilju, Hanghae pyŏngham (沆瀣丙函, Collection of Hong Kilju’s Works), Vol.1, 釋夢 20 Cho Sung-san, “18 segi huban- 19 segi chŏnban chosŏnŭi pihak yuhaenggwa kŭ ŭimi (The popularity and significance of the study of epigraphy during the late 18th –early 19th centuries)” in Chŏngin munhwa yŏn΄gu, Vol.33-2 (2010), 134-135 106 The Formation and Transformation of the Awareness of ~

21 Chŏngjo sillok (正祖實錄, Annals of King Chŏngjo), Vol.3, 1st year of King Chŏngjo, 2nd month, 24th day 22 The Peiwenzhai shuhua pu is a book compiled by order of the Kangxi Emperor in 1708, collected the references on the calligraphy and paintings. 23 Yi Tŏngmu, Ch΄ŏngjanggwan chŏnsŏ (靑莊館全書, Collection of Yi Tŏkmu’s Works), Vol.19, 潘秋 庭筠 24 Yu Tŭkkong, Yŏlha kihaeng siju (熱河紀行詩註, collection of poems written during the visit to Beijing), (Asea Munhwasa, 1986), 486 25 Yi Kawŏn, “Cho·Ch΄ŏngŭi munhwajŏk kyoryu (The cultural exchanges between Chosŏn and Qing)” in Han΄guk hanmunhak yŏn΄gu, Vol.5 (1980), 222-223. The literary exchanges between Chosŏn and Qing during this period were different from those that occurred during other periods in that such exchanges continued even after the Chosŏn party’s visit to Beijing. For more on this point, please refer to Yi Ch΄unhŭi, ibid., 17 26 One salient trend at the time in China was the intellectual interest that existed toward Chosŏn and foreign nations. For more on this, please refer to Fujitsuka Chikashi, ibid., 25-32; Pak Hyŏn΄gyu, “Chunggukesŏn kanhaeng toen Chosŏn husaga chŏjakmul ch΄ongnam (A comprehensive bibliography of Korean authors published in China)” in Han΄guk hanmunhak yŏn΄gu, Vol.24 (1999), 290 27 Ouyang Xiu, Collection of Ouyang Xiu’s Works (歐陽脩全集), Vol.54 (Lu Xueju, Time Literature and Art Publishing House); Jushi weiji (居士外集), Vol.4, 日本刀歌 28 Hayashi Jussai, Itsuzon Sosho (佚存叢書) (Series of Lost Works) 29 This attitude is also evident in the preface to the Lunyu Yishu (論語義疏, Elucidation of the Meaning of the Analects) written by Hattori Genkyou. “此擧 也 余惟非獨海以內行旣弘矣 卽傳之海外 而俾知吾邦厚固有關文明 則伯修之勤 有功於國華哉” 30 For more on such cultural exchanges, please refer to Matsuura Akira, Edojidai kentōsen ni yoru nitchūbunka kōryū (江戶時代唐船による日中文化交流, Sino- Japanese Cultural Interaction via Chinese Junks during the Edo Era), (Kyoto: Shibunkaku Shuppan, 2007_, 141-216 31 Matsuura Akira, “江戶時代唐船 が 中國 へ 持ち歸つた日本書籍-安徽鮑氏 知不足齋叢書 所收 の 日本刻書” in Higashi Asia bunkakōshōkenkyū (東アジア文化交涉硏究, Study of Cultural Interactions in East Asia), Vol.2 (2009), 371 Cho Sung-san 107

32 The Qijing Mengzi kaowen bing bu yi (七經孟子考文補遺, Addendum Together with Textual Research on The Seven Confucian Classics & Mencius) (199 volumes, Yamanoi Konron ji), Lunyu Yishu (論語義疏, Elucidation of the Meaning of the Analects) (10 volumes), and Gujin tushu jicheng (古今圖書集成, Complete Collection of Illustrations and Writings from the Earliest to Current Times were included in the Classics section) (Vol.199). For more on the reverse-import of the Lunyu Yishu (論語義疏) in China and the reactions of Qing scholars to this book, please refer to Jie Chen, Meijizenki nitchūgakujyutsu no kenkyū -Shinkoku chūnichi kōshikan no bunkakatsudō (明治前期日中學術交流の硏究-淸國駐日公使館の文化活動, Sino-Japanese academic exchanges during early Ming – the Japanese Legation in China and cultural activities), (Kyuko Shoin, 2003), 352-411 33 Matsuura Akira, ibid. 34 Ruan Yuan wrote the preface to Japan’s version of the Qijing Mengzi kaowen bing bu yi (七經孟子考文補遺) (Ruan Yuan, Yan jing shi ji (揅經室集), Vol.2, 七經孟子考文補遺序 35 Fujitsuka Chikashi, ibid., 75-77 36 Cho Sŏngsan, “18 segi huban -19 segi chŏnban taech΄ŏng insikŭi pyŏnhwawa saeroun Chunghwa kwannyŏmŭi hyŏngsŏng (Changes in the perceptions of Qing during the late 18th century –early 19th century and the formation of a new notion of Zhonghua)” in Han΄guksa yŏn΄gu, Vol.145 (2009), 92-95, 37 Chŏng Tongyu, Chuyŏng p΄yŏn (晝永編) II, translated by Nam Mansŏng, (Eulyoo Munhwasa, 1971), 73-82 38 Chŏng Yagyong, Tasan simunjip (茶山詩文集, Collection of Chŏng Yakyong’s Poems and Essays), Vol.21, 示二兒 39 For more on Kim Chŏnghŭi’s perceptions of Japanese culture, please refer to Fujitsuka Chikashi, ibid., 95-106 40 Kim Chŏnghŭi, Wandang chŏnjip (阮堂全集, Collection of Kim Chŏnghŭi’s Works), Vol.8, 雜識, “噫 長崎之舶 日與中國呼吸相注 絲銅貿遷 尙屬第二 天下書籍 無不海輸山運” 41 Yi Sangjŏk, Ŭnsongdang sokchip (恩誦堂續集), Vol.2, 讀薦錄 42 Yen Ansheng, Nihonryūgakuseisinshi -Kindaichūgoku chisikijin no kiseki (日本留學精神史-近代中國知識人の軌跡, History of Foreign Study in Japan – tracking modern Chinese intellectuals), (Iwanami Shoten, 1991); translated by Han Yŏnghye, Sinsanŭl ch΄aja tongssokŭro hyanghane – kŭndae chungguk chisikinŭi ilbon yuhak (Eastward in Search of the God Mountain – Modern 108 The Formation and Transformation of the Awareness of ~

Chinese intellectuals’ studies in Japan), (Ilchogak, 2005), 63-67 43 Jie Chen, ibid., 274-351 44 Li Shuchang, Guyi congshu (古逸叢書, Collection of Lost Ancient Writings), 刻古逸叢書序 45 For more on the mutual relationship between the formation of the modern imperial state and Confucianism, please refer to Wang Jiahua (王家驊), Nihon no kindaika to Jyugaku (日本の近代化と儒學, Modernization and Confucianism in Japan), Nōbunkyō, 1998, 269-289 46 For more on the Shibun Gakkai (斯文学会), please refer to Chen Weifen, “The Plebeian Character of Sinology in Modern Japan: The Chinese Studies Schools, the Chinese Studies Groups, and the Non-governmental Confucius-Memorial Activities (近代日本漢學的庶民性特徵-漢學私塾․漢學社群與民間祭孔活動)” in 成大宗敎與文化學報 第四期 (2004), 264-275 47 Wang Jiahua (王家驊), ibid., 277 48 This letter of appreciation, which is housed in the Ashikaga School, was sent from Li Shuchang to the Ashikaga School. Jie Chen, ibid., 378 49 Koyasu Nobukuni, Asia wa Dō Katararetekitaka: Kindai Nihon Orientalism (アジアはどう語られてきたか: 近代日本オリエンタリズム), (Fujiwara Shoten, 2003); translated by Yi Sŭngyŏn, Tonga, Taedonga, Tongasia; Kŭndae ilbonŭi orientalism (Toa, Dai Toa, East Asia: The Orientalism of Modern Japan), (Yeoksa pip΄ŏngsa, 2005), 83 and 96 50 For more on the organization and characteristics of the Taedong hakhoe (大東學會), please refer to Chŏng Ukchae, “Hanmal·ilcheha yurim yŏn΄gu – ilche hyŏmnyŏkŭl chungsimŭro (Study of Confucian scholars during the final period of the Taehan Empire and the Japanese colonial period –with a special focus on the Confucian scholars who cooperated with Japan)”, PhD dissertation, (The Academy of Korean Studies (AKS), 2008), 38-47 51 Sin Kisŏn, “Prospectus of the Taedong hakhoe (大東學會趣旨書)” in Taedong hakhoe wŏlbo (大東學會月報), Issue No. 1 (February 25, 1908), 10 (Asea Munhwasa, Institute of Korean Studies Bibliography, 1989) 52 For more on Sin Kisŏn’s promotion of Chinese characters, please refer to Kang Myŏnggwan, “Hanmun p΄yejiron΄gwa aeguk kyemonggiŭi kuk·hanmun nonjaeng (The abolition of Chinese writing and the disputes about the use of Korean and Chinese writing systems during the patriotic enlightenment period)” in Han΄guk hanmunhak yŏn΄gu, Vol.8, 212-215 53 Yŏ Kyuhyŏng, “Taedong chŏnmun hakkyo ch΄angsŏlgi (The establishment of Cho Sung-san 109

the Taedong Special School)” in Taedong hakhoe wŏlbo, Issue No.13 (February 25, 1909), 227 (Asea Munhwasa, Institute of Korean Studies Bibliography, 1989), “況漢文 乃東亞全局 孔子大道 相傳授維持之命脉 柄” 54 Yŏ Kyuhyŏng, “nonhanmun kungmun (Discussion about Chinese and Korean writing)” in Taedong hakhoe wŏlbo, Issue No.1 (Taedong hakhoe, February 25, 1908), 58 (Asea Munhwasa, Institute of Korean Studies Bibliography, 1989) 55 For more on the activities and logic of the members of the Taedong hakhoe and in particular Yŏ Kyuhyŏng, please refer to Kang Myŏnggwan, ibid., 212-247 56 Usan kŏsa (藕山居士), “Discussion of Asian writing (論亞文(續))” in Taedong hakhoe wŏlbo, Issue No.5 (Taedong hakhoe, June 25, 1908), 299-300 (Asea Munhwasa, Institute of Korean Studies Bibliography, 1989) 57 The author of this essay was revealed to have been an individual by the name of Usan kŏsa (藕山居士). However, Usan kŏsa is believed to have in reality been Yŏ Kyuhyŏng. For more on this, please refer to Kang Myŏnggwan, ibid. 58 Kim Munyŏn, “chonggyowa hanmun (Religion and Chinese writing)” in Taedong hakhoe wŏlbo, Issue No.19 (Taedong hakhoe, February 25, 1909), 512 (Asea Munhwasa, Institute of Korean Studies Bibliography, 1989) 59 Usan kŏsa, “Discussion of Asian writing (論亞文(續))” in Taedong hakhoe wŏlbo, Issue No.7 (Taedong hakhoe, August 25, 1908), 449 (Asea Munhwasa, Institute of Korean Studies Bibliography, 1989) 60 Kwŏn Oyŏng, “Sin Kisŏnŭi tongdo sŏgiron yŏn΄gu (Sin Kisŏn’s theory of Tongdo sŏgi (東道西器, Eastern Way- Western Technology))” in Ch΄ŏnggye sahak, Vol.1, 126-127 61 Sin Kisŏn, Yangwŏn yujip (陽園遺集, Collection of Sin Kisŏn’s Works), Vol.7, 燕巖續集序 (辛丑) 62 The pro-Japanese Confucianists actually perceived that the way of Confucianism existed in Japan. (Kim Wanjin, “Confucianism in the current period (時代之儒敎)” in Kyŏnghakwŏn chapchi (經學院雜識), Vol.24, 1923, 83- 84) For more on this, please refer to Chŏng Ukchae, ibid., 92-93 †

Submission Date: 2010. 9. 27. Completion Date of Review: 2010. 10. 24. Accepted: 2011. 1. 31. 110 The Formation and Transformation of the Awareness of ~

The Formation and Transformation of the Awareness of a Common Cultural Identity in 19th Century Chosŏn

Cho Sung-san

The origins of the awareness of a common cultural identity, which essentially referred to the common use of Chinese characters, originated from the ‘using the same script for writing (書同文)’ found in The Doctrine of the Mean (中庸, Zhongyong). This was used to denote not only a unified world, but also the presence of a unified empire. This can be regarded as the main reason why the notion of ‘using the same script for writing (書同文)’ emerged alongside the rise of the Chinese empire. The awareness of a common cultural identity was closely linked with the notion of sadae (事大, literally ‘serving the great’) in the wider East Asian region. Meanwhile, the growing importance of Chinese characters in the communication process with Japan and Vietnam resulted in the gradual emergence of the awareness of a Sinocultural sphere rooted in Chinese characters. This awareness is important in the point that it was a sign of the awareness of a common cultural identity that emerged in a full-scale manner from the late 18th century onwards. The compilation of the Siku quanshu (四庫全書, Complete Library of the Four Treasures of Knowledge) at the end of the 18th century provided a great impetus for the formation of the awareness of a common cultural identity. The move from the Ming to the Qing dynasty in China set off a process that saw the notion of Zhonghua (中華) be transformed into one rooted in a sense of culturalism that revolved around the notions of civilization and culture rather than those of geography and ethnicity. This also influenced the perception of Chinese characters as the symbol of Zhonghua civilization. As part of the process of collecting and summarizing outstanding works from the world over, the Siku quanshu included Cho Sung-san 111 works from Chosŏn, Japan, and Vietnam. This particular work as such made it possible to create ties between the intellectuals of Chosŏn, China and Japan based on their common use of Chinese characters. The growing encroachment of the Western powers in the 19th century pushed East Asian intellectuals to imagine a Chinese-character cultural sphere that could be regarded as a counterpart to the Western world. The perception of a Confucian-cultural sphere took on different features during the late 19th –early 20th centuries. It was during this period that the concept of a Confucian-cultural sphere that could act as a counterpart to Western civilization became an important element of the rationale for Japanese imperialism. The development of a Confucian-cultural sphere was rooted in the belief that Chinese characters and Confucianism represented the main implements through which universal civilization could be brought about, and that Chosŏn, Japan and Vietnam were civilized countries that all boasted these implements of universal civilization. The Sinocentric order, or Zhonghua, which had heretofore been monopolized by China, was as such dismantled and transferred to each individual country. In this regard, Chosŏn, Japan, and Vietnam all came to take great pride in their status as the possessors of Zhonghua. Under these circumstances, the rise of Japan was accepted as a sign of its status as a new center of Zhonghua. More to the point, the belief emerged that Japan’s actualization of Zhonghua meant that it could no longer be regarded as a barbarian country (夷狄, Yidi), but rather had to be perceived as a civilized one (中華, Zhonghua). It was in keeping with this logic that many of the members of Korea’s Taedong hakhoe (大東學會, The Society of Great East Asian Learning) who advocated the theory of Tongdo sŏgi (東道西器, Eastern Way- Western Technology) began to push for closer cooperation with Japan. The awareness of a common cultural identity greatly contributed to the transformation of this logic. Chinese characters were no longer regarded merely as Chinese writing, but rather as Asian writing (亞文). By hailing Chinese characters as a writing system shared by Korea, China and Japan, these individuals in effect removed the ethnic component of Chinese characters. Thus, we can clearly see how the universalism of the medieval era was transformed during the modern age.

112 The Formation and Transformation of the Awareness of ~

<국문초록>

19세기 조선의 同文意識 형성과 변용

조성산(고려대 민족문화연구원 HK연구교수)

同文意識은 漢字를 공유한다는 의식으로서 그것의 기원은 『中庸』의 “書同文”에 서 찾을 수 있다. 이것은 통일제국의 면모를 보여주는 것으로서 일체화된 세계의 의미로서 주로 사용되었다. 書同文이 제국과 함께 출현하였던 것은 이러한 이유에 서였다. 동문의식은 중국 밖의 동아시아 세계에서 주로 事大와 관련된 것으로 사 용되었다. 그러한 가운데 日本, 安南과의 소통과정에서 한자의 중요성에 대한 인 식이 등장하면서 한자를 통한 하나의 문명권 의식도 점차 생겨났다. 이러한 의식 은 18세기말에서부터 본격화되는 동문의식의 단서라는 점에서 중요하다. 18세기 말경의 四庫全書 편찬은 동문의식 형성에 커다란 전기를 마련하였다. 명청교체를 통하여 중화 개념은 문화주의적 성격을 더욱 강하게 가졌다. 이것은 중화문명의 상징인 한자에 대한 인식에도 영향을 끼쳤다. 특히 사고전서는 천하의 모든 문헌을 수집, 정리한다는 측면에서 조선과 일본, 안남의 서책들도 일부 포함 하였다. 이것은 결과적으로 청, 조선, 일본의 지식인들을 한자를 매개로 하나로 묶는 작업이 될 수 있었다. 특히 19세기 본격화되는 서양의 침입은 서양에 대비 되는 의미에서의 한자문명권을 상상할 수 있게 하였다. 이러한 한자문명권 인식은 19세기말과 20세기 초에 들어오면서 또 다른 모습으 로 전환되었다. 서양에 대비되는 한자문명권 인식은 일본 제국주의 논리에 있어서 중요한 바탕이 되어갔다. 한자문명권 인식의 배경에는 한자와 유교를 보편문명 그 자체로서 사유하고 이를 공유하는 조선, 일본, 안남은 문명국이라는 의식이 자리 하고 있었다. 중국이 독점했던 중화문명이 조선, 일본, 베트남 등의 나라로 이양 된 것이다. 따라서 모든 나라들은 자신들을 중화라고 자부하였다. 그러한 점에서 일본이 중화문명을 온전히 구현했다면 일본은 더 이상 夷狄이 아니라 중화문명국 가라는 인식이 마련될 수 있었다. 大東學會의 東道西器論者들 일부가 일본과 결합 할 수 있었던 것에는 이러한 논리가 있었다. 그들은 한자를 亞文, 즉 아시아의 글 Cho Sung-san 113

자라고 하면서 중국의 문자로서만 사유하지 않았다. 그들은 한자로부터 국적성을 탈각시키고 한, 중, 일 삼국이 공유하는 문자로서 한자를 상정하였다. 이것은 중 세적 보편주의가 근대에 어떠한 방식으로 전환·변용되었는가를 보여주었다.