[KS] Kanghwa Treaty diplomatic protocol

gkl1 at columbia.edu gkl1 at columbia.edu
Thu Nov 15 15:10:23 EST 2007


     The T'ongsinsa missions to Japan are very well documented in
Japanese art (and to a lesser extent in Korean paintings) and there is
no doubt that protocol was driven by the custom in both countries to
sit on the floor for eating and casual socializing. But there's also
little doubt that T'ongsinsa protocol was long dead and irrelevant in
1876. In 1869 Japan had sent a mission to Pusan formally shutting down
the traditional relationship through the daimyo of Tsushima and
telling Koreans that from now on relations would be conducted only
through the new Foreign Ministry. That effectively shut down the
entire T'ongsinsa institution. More importantly, the T'ongsinsa
missions had gone only from Korea to Japan; there were no reciprocal
Japanese missions to Korea. (This latter condition, which had been at
Korea's insistence, was in my opinion much to Korea's disadvantage,
because the Tokugawa Shogunate was able to publicly spin the Korean
embassies as tribute missions, a coloring that was given credibility
by the absence of any such missions from Japan to Korea.)
     Even without the T'ongsinsa connection, protocol issues in 1876
were pretty much beside the point when the "negotiation" itself was
unilaterally dictated by Japan and carried out under military threat.
Frank might have more accurately written "forced opening" rather than
"forceful opening." (That said, it was good that opening had begun.)
     I don't have any knowledge of the atmospheric details of the
Kanghwa negotiations, but my strong inclination is to suspect that
there were no chairs. One might wonder whether there were even any
chairs on Kanghwa island. Given that there was no precedent in
Korean-Japanese relations for the Kanghwa encounter, there could have
been no protocol apart from ad hoc arrangements that evolved during
the negotiations. Kuroda Kiyotake and Inoue Kaoru needed to get their
treaty, and Koreans wanted the Japanese to leave as soon as possible.
It would have been both natural and expedient for Koreans and Japanese
to deal with each other as they always had, sitting in the customary
fashion on the floor, or in this case--in winter--on a nice, warm,
polished ondol surface.
     The fact that contemporary Japanese depictions of the event show
chairs does not count for much insofar as the facts are concerned. It
is widely known that illustrations in the Japanese media at the time
were produced in Japan through an imaginative reliance on reports. It
does count that they reflect the westernizing atmosphere of the time
and that the Meiji government was very skilled at leading its public
in that direction.
     On the matter of chairs in Korea during the years 1875-1884, it
might be worth considering that they reflect Chinese influence more
than "Western." Beginning in 1880, Korea's foreign relations were
generally guided by China's Zongli Yamen. Not only did China use
chairs for sitting, but it had had much experience of western-style
diplomacy in the preceding half-century. It was the Chinese who in
1882 suggested that Korea hire a Western foreign affairs consultant,
resulting in Paul Georg von Möllendorf appearing at the banquet table
in the painting by An Chungsik commemorating an 1883 negotiation with
Japan, helpfully provided in Frank's link.
     Apart from Möllendorff, that painting is interesting in other
ways. It seems odd that the the two Japanese are sitting at the far
opposite end of the table from the host. The Japanese man at the lower
right seems to be the principal diplomat, while the one at the upper
right looks like his samurai assistant. There are three Korean civil
officials (in white), one military official and probably a military
officer (both in darker garb), two Korean interpreters (in plain light
brown), and a kisaeng to the left of the guest of honor. The figure at
the lower left next to the host is unclear.
     Finally, just look at those chairs-- as Chinese in style as they can be.

Gari Ledyard

Quoting Frank Hoffmann <hoffmann at koreaweb.ws>:

> And hello again:
>
> My apologies for putting this in two postings -- this is an afterthought.
>
> Christine dropped the term Chosôn t'ongsinsa. That seems to be the    
>    keyword, in a sense. I now think that professor Sand's question  
> in      itself might need to be rephrased. After the 16th century    
> Hideyoshi    Invasion there were twelve Chosôn t'ongsinsa (Korean    
> envoys) to    Japan: 1607, 1617, 1624, 1636, 1643, 1655, 1682, 1711,  
>   1719, 1748,    1764, and 1811. None after 1811, as far as I know.   
>  Korea    encapsulated itself, as we all know (and Japan had done so  
>   before,    but still kept up its relations with Korea). I think --  
>   please    correct me if I am wrong -- that Korean historians  
> usually   do not    place that Japanese delegation to Korea for the  
> Kangwha   Treaty    within the traditional exchange of delegations  
> between the   two    countries. And I think it should not, as it  
> obviously   resulted in    the forceful opening of Korea (or was the  
> result of   the forceful    'opening,' however way one wants to  
> phrase it). It   is also no    coincidence that the place of that  
> meeting was on   Kanghwa, and not    Pusan or elsewhere close to Japa
> n. This delegation's meeting simply did not follow the traditional    
>    Chosôn period diplomatic protocol (which, of course, must have     
>   changed a lot over time). I would rather address the question in a  
>      different way: was it Japan that had demanded the chairs and to  
>      otherwise also follow the diplomatic protocol of Western  
> countries,      or was it the Korean court that wanted to "keep up"  
> with the new      situation? After all this was now Meiji Japan, not  
> anymore  Tokugawa.
>
> Best,
> Frank

> Hi Christine, hi Professor Sands:
>
> Long time no see ... nice to hear from you this way.
> I have something that comes at least close. The Treaty of Kanghwa was
> in 1876, and there sure must be some eyewitness reports of it, but I
> haven't seen any, nor looked in that time frame in any more detail. But
> here is a painting from seven years later that depicts the state
> banquet celebrating the Korean-Japanese Trade Agreement of 1883.
> http://koreaproject.info/images/AnChungsik1883.jpg
> It has been painted by An Chung-sik (1861-1919) in that year, who     
>   was then a still very young court painter at the Chosôn Bureau of   
>     Painting (Tohwasô). He should become one of the three four most   
>     important painters marking the transition period from late  
> Chosôn  to     early colonial Korea. I love to show this image as  
> uri kyopo  Paul     Georg von Möllendorff (1847-1901) is depicted on  
> it (upper  left     corner), and because it demonstrates the Korean  
> effort to   westernize    (see the chairs, table, table cloth,  
> candle holders,   and other    details), yet also shows how far  
> behind Korea was in   that respect if    looking at the painting  
> technique (e.g. comparing   techniques of    perspective with  
> Hanekawa Tóei's 1719/20 colored   wood print of a    Korean  
> delegation      http://koreaproject.info/images/Michinobu1720.jpg).  
> Interestingly,      many Korean art histories point out that An  
> Chung-sik was the  first     to introduce a "Western" (Renaissance)  
> technique of  perspective  in  a 1915 painting series -- but looking  
> closer, he  really doesn't,  it
> still isn't.
> Anyway, my general impression from reading through various foreigners'
> accounts of the 1880s -- which, of course is 5 to 10 years later than
> the Kanghwa Treaty -- is that Koreans made every effort to westernize
> even if just for the purpose of making foreign delegations feel welcome.
>
> ----------------------------------------
> Frank Hoffmann
> http://koreaweb.ws







----- End forwarded message -----
Quoting Frank Hoffmann <hoffmann at koreaweb.ws>:

> And hello again:
>
> My apologies for putting this in two postings -- this is an afterthought.
>
> Christine dropped the term Chosôn t'ongsinsa. That seems to be the   
> keyword, in a sense. I now think that professor Sand's question in   
> itself might need to be rephrased. After the 16th century Hideyoshi   
> Invasion there were twelve Chosôn t'ongsinsa (Korean envoys) to   
> Japan: 1607, 1617, 1624, 1636, 1643, 1655, 1682, 1711, 1719, 1748,   
> 1764, and 1811. None after 1811, as far as I know. Korea   
> encapsulated itself, as we all know (and Japan had done so before,   
> but still kept up its relations with Korea). I think -- please   
> correct me if I am wrong -- that Korean historians usually do not   
> place that Japanese delegation to Korea for the Kangwha Treaty   
> within the traditional exchange of delegations between the two   
> countries. And I think it should not, as it obviously resulted in   
> the forceful opening of Korea (or was the result of the forceful   
> 'opening,' however way one wants to phrase it). It is also no   
> coincidence that the place of that meeting was on Kanghwa, and not   
> Pusan or elsewhere close to Japa
> n. This delegation's meeting simply did not follow the traditional   
> Chosôn period diplomatic protocol (which, of course, must have   
> changed a lot over time). I would rather address the question in a   
> different way: was it Japan that had demanded the chairs and to   
> otherwise also follow the diplomatic protocol of Western countries,   
> or was it the Korean court that wanted to "keep up" with the new   
> situation? After all this was now Meiji Japan, not anymore Tokugawa.
>
> Best,
> Frank






More information about the Koreanstudies mailing list