Changes

As the Manchus gained strength in Northeast Asia in the early decades of the 17th century, factions emerged within the Joseon Court for and against submission to the Qing. [[Prince Gwanghae]], who reigned as king from [[1608]], sought to accommodate the Manchus, and was supported by the Puk'in faction; however, the rival Sŏin faction saw this as submission to barbarians, as a violation of the recognition of Ming China as the source of great civilization, and as a betrayal to the Ming, who had so aided Korea in defeating Hideyoshi's forces. In [[1623]], the Sŏin faction staged a coup, and placed [[King Injo]] on the throne, marking the beginning of an even deeper adherence to Confucian orthodoxy, and Ming loyalty. This came to be known as the Injo Revolt. Manchu attacks on Korea in [[1636]] only strengthened anti-Manchu attitudes within the Korean court, and though the court did eventually capitulate to paying tribute to the Qing, they maintained their loyalty to the Ming as one of the central ideals of their state.<ref>Seo-Hyun Park, "Small States and the Search for Sovereignty in Sinocentric Asia: Japan and Korea in the Late Nineteenth Century," in Anthony Reid & Zheng Yangwen (eds.), Negotiating Asymmetry: China's Place in Asia (NUS Press, 2009), 36-37.</ref> The Qing record ''Taizong shilu'', as well as certain official Chosŏn records, give 1637/1/30 as the date Chosŏn officially declared its submission to the Qing.<ref name="rawski139">Rawski, 139.</ref>

As the Manchus gained strength in Northeast Asia in the early decades of the 17th century, factions emerged within the Joseon Court for and against submission to the Qing. [[Prince Gwanghae]], who reigned as king from [[1608]], sought to accommodate the Manchus, and was supported by the Puk'in faction; however, the rival Sŏin faction saw this as submission to barbarians, as a violation of the recognition of Ming China as the source of great civilization, and as a betrayal to the Ming, who had so aided Korea in defeating Hideyoshi's forces. In [[1623]], the Sŏin faction staged a coup, and placed [[King Injo]] on the throne, marking the beginning of an even deeper adherence to Confucian orthodoxy, and Ming loyalty. This came to be known as the Injo Revolt. Manchu attacks on Korea in [[1636]] only strengthened anti-Manchu attitudes within the Korean court, and though the court did eventually capitulate to paying tribute to the Qing, they maintained their loyalty to the Ming as one of the central ideals of their state.<ref>Seo-Hyun Park, "Small States and the Search for Sovereignty in Sinocentric Asia: Japan and Korea in the Late Nineteenth Century," in Anthony Reid & Zheng Yangwen (eds.), Negotiating Asymmetry: China's Place in Asia (NUS Press, 2009), 36-37.</ref> The Qing record ''Taizong shilu'', as well as certain official Chosŏn records, give 1637/1/30 as the date Chosŏn officially declared its submission to the Qing.<ref name="rawski139">Rawski, 139.</ref>

The Manchus demanded Chosŏn express its loyalty to the Qing in a number of ways: adopting the Qing calendar and Qing reign names; switching the Ming-granted royal seal for a Qing-granted one; and by addressing the Qing in formal communications in the way Chosŏn had previously addressed the Ming (e.g. with terms such as "Heavenly Realm" 天朝, rather than simply "the Qing" 清朝 or 清国, let alone terms referring to the Manchus as "barbarians"). Chosŏn court officials were united in opposing the Manchu invasion, but after their kingdom was defeated, they ultimately agreed to participate in the tribute/investiture relationship, and to many of the associated practices mentioned above. At the same time, however, in internal (domestic) documents, Chosŏn continued to employ the Ming calendar, and to refer to the Qing as simply the Qing, or as barbarians; the Court also put into place numerous anti-Qing or Ming loyalist state rituals, which ritually, symbolically, represented loyalty to the Ming, and a view of the Qing as an illegitimate regime.<ref name=rawski139/>

The Manchus demanded Chosŏn express its loyalty to the Qing in a number of ways: adopting the Qing calendar and Qing reign names; switching the Ming-granted royal seal for a Qing-granted one; and by addressing the Qing in formal communications in the way Chosŏn had previously addressed the Ming (e.g. with terms such as "Heavenly Realm" 天朝, rather than simply "the Qing" 清朝 or 清国, let alone terms referring to the Manchus as "barbarians"). Chosŏn court officials were united in opposing the Manchu invasion, but after their kingdom was defeated, they ultimately agreed to participate in the tribute/investiture relationship, and to many of the associated practices mentioned above. At the same time, however, the fall of the Ming necessitated the development of a Korean identity separated from China. The kingdom could no longer draw legitimacy from (contemporary) China, which had fallen to chaos and to barbarian invaders, but had to find new ways to continue to base its legitimacy in the idea of the Ming. In internal (domestic) documents, Chosŏn continued to employ the Ming calendar, and to refer to the Qing as simply the Qing, or as barbarians; the Court also put into place numerous anti-Qing or Ming loyalist state rituals, which ritually, symbolically, represented loyalty to the Ming, and a view of the Qing as an illegitimate regime.<ref name=rawski139/>

While Joseon maintained a policy of [[kaikin|maritime restrictions]] more or less just as strict as that of the Tokugawa shogunate, it was less strict in banning [[Christianity]], and a number of Christian missionaries managed to sneak into Korea from China over the course of the period.<ref>Mitani Hiroshi, David Noble (trans.), ''Escape from Impasse'', International House of Japan (2006), 2.</ref>

While Joseon maintained a policy of [[kaikin|maritime restrictions]] more or less just as strict as that of the Tokugawa shogunate, it was less strict in banning [[Christianity]], and a number of Christian missionaries managed to sneak into Korea from China over the course of the period.<ref>Mitani Hiroshi, David Noble (trans.), ''Escape from Impasse'', International House of Japan (2006), 2.</ref>