By Roger Chifeng Liu

The first can be read here: Part 1: The Historical Linkage Between Korea, China and Taiwan 

The second can be read here: Part 2: The Historical Linkage Between Korea, China and Taiwan

(From Yeongjo Annals of the Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty)

Third month, day 2: The king received the grand councilors and officials of the Ministry of Rites and said: “The Imperial Altar was established to repay the Ming for the grace of re-creating our state during the Imjin War (the Japanese invasions beginning in 1592). In the Chongzhen reign, though the realm was in turmoil, he still ordered generals to march in the hope of rescuing a tributary. When he learned our fortresses had fallen, he reproached only his own commanders for failing to act in concert; he did not censure us. His sympathy and compassion are evident. This favor does not differ from that shown in the Imjin years. How can we not include him in the rites?”

Chief State Councillor Kim Jae-ro said: “The nineteenth day of the third month is the date on which Emperor Chongzhen died for his country. In 1704 (year Jia-shen), in accordance with precedent, the late king offered rites to him at Seochongdae on that very day; but the Great Altar of Gratitude (Daebodan) was from the outset dedicated only to the Wanli Emperor. Our country has received the Ming’s favor for generations. Though the Ming had fallen, even if we were to offer separate rites to the Hongwu Emperor, it could hardly be said that sentiment and propriety had thereby been fully expressed. The Wanli Emperor mobilized the strength of the entire empire to rescue a state on the brink of extinction—such favor is rarely seen in history. Hence, the altar was dedicated to him alone, not jointly to Emperor Chongzhen.”

Minister of Rites Kim Yak-ro said: “In the Jiashen (1644) year, the Ming had already fallen, so rites for Emperor Chongzhen were (provisionally) held at Seochongdae, while the Great Altar of Gratitude was reserved for the Wanli Emperor; the two have different natures. The Wanli Emperor mobilized the realm’s forces to re-create the Eastern Kingdom; Emperor Chongzhen, though he ordered an expedition, soon recalled it. Their merits and intentions do differ in weight.”

The king interjected: “If a minister serves his lord by tallying ‘greater’ or ‘lesser’ favors received, what use is such a minister? Consider the circumstances of the Chongzhen reign: Qing armies filled Liaoyang; rebels ravaged the Central Plain; yet he still contemplated crossing the sea to rescue a distant vassal. When these thoughts come to me at midnight, I cannot help but weep. His merit and intention are no less than the Wanli Emperor’s. Yet since the Jiashen (1644) year, he has not received even one formal sacrifice. If anywhere in the world there should be ‘a small shrine to King Zhao,’ would it not be in our Green Hills [Cheonggu, a classical epithet for Korea]? Had the late king seen the relevant passages in the Ming History, the matter of ‘including him in the rites’ would never have required a memorial from the ministers.”

This is third in a three article series by Roger Chifeng Liu, an Indo-Pacific analyst and a professor of International Relations at Taiwan’s National Sun Yat-Sen University.

The first can be read here: Part 1: The Historical Linkage Between Korea, China and Taiwan 

The second can be read here: Part 2: The Historical Linkage Between Korea, China and Taiwan

We are working on this three-part series more, trying to fill in the gaps for the non-natives. If you have information to add, gaps to fill, please do so in the comments.