[KS] Qing–Chosŏn royal exchanges or marriages?

Sun Sep 24 16:14:10 EDT 2023

Hello all:

So, I was about to send a long response, then stopped, and the Jonathan Best’s comment caused me to revive it.

Frank, that is all very interesting, except that I am perplexed by your first sentence: " Adam, your reference to Ming -- instead of Qing -- is well taken. However ... "

My comment explicitly did not emphasize the Ming, but rather suggested, despite the fact that Chiang Kai-shek outwardly modelled himself on the Ming, that a better comparison was with the Qing. So we agree, and there is no "However" about it! 😊 My only thought it might be desirable to research a bit to see if Qing practices were communicated through the warlord era. Perhaps they weren't. I have no idea. I think merchants in Southern China did take in each other's sons and educate them - which might also have been a model. Or perhaps it is all simply a matter of Chiang responding to the particular stresses of the moment.

Second, to respond to both Frank’s comment and Jonathan’s comment – I don’t think it is useful either a) treat European royal marriage patterns as the main comparator or b) speak of general East Asian practices here – either in terms of the multiple countries involved or over time. I think it is necessary to be, on the one hand, much more precise and specific and on the other, much broader in our comparisons. First. I think that marriage plays a role in the international politics of many monarchies, but there are certain specificities about European marriage practices in the medieval, early modern, and lets face it, well into the twentieth century and despite the rise of nationalism, that is pretty specific to the Europe (at least the Protestant, Roman Catholic end of it). So – roughly, and cutting down my longer comment, and skipping over I am sure enormous variation over the long periods of time that I am discussing –  by the early modern period, royal families in Europe married extensively with each other, but avoided intermarriage with people below them in rank, including people who were merely aristocratic. Marriage with a mere aristocrat could cause one to lose your royal status. Aristocrats also married across boundaries within Europe/Christendom, but not below them, so one had in effect one continent-wide network of aristocrats and royalty, and by WW1 the crowned heads of the warring powers were all cousins (and Siegfried Sasoon and Robert Graves were shooting at their German cousins at the other side of the trenches). So, to some extent, you can talk about generalized European practices of intermarriage among both royalty and aristocracy. During the Medieval period, of course, even monarchs accepted their formal position in the hierarchy below both pope and emperor of the west, even if they were generally loathe to accept direction from either – William of Rubruck, when quizzed by Mongke Qan about who was in control of the Latin World, said, conventionally, the emperor, and Mongke said that was not true, it was the King (of France) – either this was Mongke recognizing the reality as opposed to the formal hierarchy, ro this was William of Rubruck (who wrote this exchange down) flattering Louis. And right up to the eighteenth century, people in Europe were still exchanging territory via marital alliance, although this territory maintained its separate legal identity and was only bound through a personal union – which is true of the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man to this day, after all.

Let us turn to another empire that also practiced extensive marriage politics: The Chnggisids. They intermarried with other monarchies, both receiving brides from other monarchies and especially sending them, and this was enormously important to them, but otherwise, their marriage politics was quite different from what I described above. Above all, the Chinggisids wanted subordinate states to send their princes to serve in the keshig and accept a Chinggisid or at least Mongol bride, in part as a tool to bring them clearly under Chinggisid control. The fact that many Mongols were Christian helped them exchange brides with Christian countries – so Chinggisid brides intermarried with the Novgorod leadership, and an Eastern Roman emperor sent an illegitimate daughter to the Ilqanate. None of these intermarriages, I believe, also included an exchange of territory, but primarily served to strengthen the power of the Chinggisid patriline and were predicted on Chinggisid superiority. Otherwise, the Chinggisids, and then the Da Yuan accepted their primary wives from the Onggirat people, a practice that only ended at the very end with the Empress Ki, a non-royal Korean, but otherwise had quite large harems of women, whose children could also play a significant role.

Then, for early modern East Asian countries – as I understand (and I am open to being corrected), Ming palace women were generally not of high status, and in fact the social background of the empress was not very important, while those Ming princes who did not become emperor were deliberately marginalized from politics. Certainly, the Ming emperor would not generally have wanted his brothers and cousins forming alliances with frontier people. Otherwise, the Ming emperor had no peer. The Qing by contrast, generally took their primary wives from Manchu families, and the princes that did not become emperor continued to play a prominent role within the court, but also weren’t sent outside to form exterior alliances. They did send Aisin Gioro daughters to marry with Mongol princes, something that the Ming would not ordinarily do. Choson monarchs, contrasting with both, did intermarry with aristocratic families, and royal sons-in-law  and fathers-in-law could be quite influential, although many Choson monarchs had lwo status mothers. The Ming and Qing emperors were not, of course, their peers, but if were are speaking of “the Confucian tribute system,” the peers of the Choson monarch were, theoretically, governors of Ming and Qing provinces who were not permanent or hereditary rulers. Where they were permanent and hereditary rulers, as with the Northeastern Princes under the Yuan, I guess that the Yuan would not be enthusiastic at the prospect of close marital alliances (and I think consequently the Koryo monarchy did not intermarry with the Northeastern Princes, although as always I am wiling to be corrected).  Dai Viet under the Le house adds to the fun by a) also like Choson participating as a feudal tributary in its formal relations with the Ming but b) having a proud history of war against the Ming with continued territorial claims on parts of Guangdong and Guangxi province, and c) calling themselves emperors at home while d), by the seventeenth century, in fact being under the control of the Trinh lords. I mean – Confucian tribute system aside, who would the Le emperors intermarry with? The Governor of Guangdong province? Imagine the scandal and security crisis!

In contrast to Catholic and Protestant Europe in 1800, or indeed 1900, which had a unified European aristocracy which intermarried with each other before marrying those of lower social status, and basically one single incestuous royal family, nothing like that exists in East Asia in 1800. In fact, the different monarchies (the Choson Monarch, the Aisin Gioro, the Le, the Trinh and Nguyen lords, the Tokugawa shoguns, the Japanese imperial house), are not really equivalent categories. None except the Japanese imperial house even pretend the same continuity of European monarchs – in theory, each English “dynasty” is tracing itself back to William the conqueror, but in China, and Choson and Dai Viet, each “dynasty” is actually a break, a new family and a new mandate of heaven.

Go back to the Three Kingdoms period, or even the Koryo period, just in Korea, and all of their marriage patterns are different.

And that isn’t getting into broader comparisons either, with Ottomans, with India, with Southeast Asian monarchs – I think. So many aspects of European marriage practices (the theoretical unity of the warring monarchs under Popel and emperor, their official monogamy, their shared devotion Christianity and the corresponding lack of Christianity among rulers beyond Christendom) shaped that particular arrangement. It is no surprise then that East Asian countries lacking those circumstances would also not have similar royal marriage practices.

Yours,

Adam

From: Koreanstudies <koreanstudies-bounces at koreanstudies.com> On Behalf Of Jonathan Best
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2023 2:39 PM
To: Frank Hoffmann <hoffmann at koreanstudies.com>; Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreanstudies.com>
Subject: Re: [KS] Qing–Chosŏn royal exchanges or marriages?

Greetings from an earlier time in East Asian history, Frank et allia,

Frank wrote:
"In any case, aside from the specific context that piqued my interest,
it's fascinating to note that there were essentially no intermarriages
among royal families in East Asia. Perhaps this can be attributed to
the significant disparities between these countries, as they weren't
direct competitors. Alternatively, it could be due to the nature of
their relationships, which were characterized by Confucian tributary
dynamics rather than horizontal alliances. The intermarriages then
happened a level lower, within Chinese warlord families, for example
(Chiang himself is an example for exactly that)."

But according to the Samguk sagi, there were royal intermarriages in Northeast Asia—in fact, marriages between Silla and Paekche (allegedly twice)1, Silla and Kaya (once)2, and Japan and Silla (twice, at least formal proposals offered)3. In the latter case, both marriages are said to have been proposed by Japan, although it's unclear whether in either case the marriage was ever consummated, yet in the first case, the daughter of a named high official—whom I think was undoubtedly a close member of the royal clan, if not of born of the reigning family—was chosen for the honor. I believe that there is a factual basis for all these accounts, but in my estimation the dating in all cases but two (1a & 2 below) is anachronistic.

Jonathan

1a. Silla Annals: 493:3 (Soji 15:3) Paekche's King Modae [= Tongsŏng] sent an envoy requesting [a bride] for marriage. The King selected Ibǒlch'an Piji's daughter and sent her. [SGSG 3.128 (Soji 15:30; HU tr. pp. 106–07]
Paekche Annals: 493:3 (Tongsŏng15:3) The king sent an envoy to Silla to request a marriage alliance. The king of Silla chose the daughter of Ich’an Piji and sent her to be one of his secondary wives. [SGSG 26.371 (Tongsŏng 15:3; Best tr. p.311]

1b. Silla Annals: 553:10 (Chinhŭng 14:10) The [Silla] king married a Paekche princess making her a secondary queen. [SGSG 4.135 (Chinhŭng 14:10); HU tr. pp. 126]
Paekche Annals: 553:10 (Sŏng 31:10) A daughter of the king was sent in marriage to Silla. [SGSG 26.376 (Sŏng 31:3; Best tr. p.335]

2. Silla Annals: 522:3 (Pŏphŭng 9:3) The king of Kaya sent an envoy to our court to request establishing a marriage alliance. Our king favored the connection and, in response, selected the younger sister of Ich’an Pijobu and sent her. [SGSG 4.132 (Pŏphŭng 9:3); HU tr. 118]

3a. Silla Annals: 312:2 (Hŭrhae 3:2) The king of Wa sent an envoy proposing a marriage for his son, the king sent the daughter of Ach’an Kŭmni. [SGSG 2.118 (Hŭrhae 3:2); HU tr. p.82)

3b. Silla Annals: 344:2 (Hŭrhae 35:2) The king of Wa sent an envoy requesting a marriage with a daughter of the king, but the king declined because all of his daughters were married. [SGSG 2.119 (Hŭrhae 35:2; HU tr. p.83)

SGSG = Academy of Korean Studies edition, v. 1
HU tr. = Shultz & Kang, English translation of the Silla Annals
Best tr. = my English translation of the Paekche Annals

Frank wrote:
In any case, aside from the specific context that piqued my interest,
it's fascinating to note that there were essentially no intermarriages
among royal families in East Asia. Perhaps this can be attributed to
the significant disparities between these countries, as they weren't
direct competitors. Alternatively, it could be due to the nature of
their relationships, which were characterized by Confucian tributary
dynamics rather than horizontal alliances. The intermarriages then
happened a level lower, within Chinese warlord families, for example
(Chiang himself is an example for exactly that).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://koreanstudies.com/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com/attachments/20230924/b6da2727/attachment.htm>