The Experience of Importing and Translating a Semantic System:
’Civilization’, ’West’, and ’
V.Tikhonov
(
I. Foreword.
Among many differences between the radical reformers of the 1880s (Kim Okkyun, Pak Yŏnghyo, etc.), and their successors in the 1890s (Sŏ Jaep’il, Yun Ch’iho, etc.), one of the most important may be termed “linguistic”. The radicals of the 1880s, brought up and schooled in Confucian tradition, used classic Chinese – or, in some cases, a form of vernacular Korean heavily loaded with Chinese logographs – as their medium of choice. While taking European/American modernity as the point of reference in theory, they were unable to use books in European languages or communicate without interpreter (or resorting to the written discussion in classic Chinese) with the people from outside of the East Asian cultural sphere. Very much as it was the case with the members of Korean Courtiers’ Observation Mission of 1881 who had to translate Japanese documents and books into classic Chinese to make them available for usage in Korean practice, the radical reformers of the 1880s used mainly Japanese texts as the media for understanding “civilization and progress”, simply appropriating the Meiji-coined logograph-based neologisms for their classic Chinese treatises and memorials. In many cases, such ”linguistic appropriation” was highly superficial – the 1880s radicals hardly were able to convincingly explain the original meaning of those Western concepts, Japanese-coined “translation words” for which they were using. The descriptive models they used in their classic Chinese writings hardly showed any signs of “modernization”: citations from Confucian classics, traditional idioms, as well as general tendency to begin with abstractly formulated “laws” and “rules” and then proceed with more concrete examples, demands, and conclusions, mark their writings. In a word, they did invoke Meiji-coined equivalents of “modern” Western terms whenever political necessity urged them to do so, but certainly were not qualified to translate and explain the “new world” of “civilization and enlightenment” to the Korean public.
The radical reformers of the 1890s, who, on
the top of earlier Confucian background were, for the most part, schooled in
What
kind of phraseology did the English-enchanted radical reformers use for
describing and explaining
The appropriation of the 19th C.
language of “civilization and progress” by America-educated Korean reformers
will be analysed here from the viewpoint of the theoretical approach to the
problems of cultural dialogue pioneered in Russian cultural studies by Yu.
Lotman (1922-1993). Lotman used to emphasize that, in case of “asymmetrical”
dialogues between the dominant cultural discourse and a non-dominant culture
relegated to the “peripheral” position, the language of the former is supposed
to be thoroughly mastered, and the texts in “dominant” language are supposed to
be produced. As texts in “dominant” language and/or their direct translations
into “peripheral” language are taken as (semi)-sacred, “true by definition”,
the “dominant” culture is described as “absolute light”, as opposed to the
“darkness” of autochthonous tradition. This kind of attitude was adopted, for
example, by the Byzantium-educated/influenced representatives of mediaeval
Russian ruling class towards Slavic local cults (“heathenism”), as well as by
Russian Westernizers of 18th C. and after towards Russified
Byzantine traditions[1].
Arguably, the totality of the espousal of Western “enlightenment” and
renunciation of local (Confucian, Buddhist, Shamanist) “darkness” by the
pro-American reformers of the 1890s featured all the traits of such “wholesale”
acceptance of the “dominant” language/discourse. In Western post-colonial
studies, essentializing/homogenizing, and glorifying as “ideal”/”model”,
simultaneously with discounting “local tradition” as “backward” – phenomenon
known in most Western-dominated “peripheral” societies – is classified sometimes
as one form of “auto-Orientalism”, or “Occidentalism”[2]. It is well known that “Occidentalism” in all
its forms tends to generalize the discourse on “the West”, often to the point
of effacing important differences between the political/cultural entities
lumped together as “Western”. In this way, inability of The Independent authors
to give “
II. The Aim and Limits of the Present Work:
The present report is a part of an ongoing research project, which is devoted to the analysis of The Independent’s attitude towards Russia throughout the whole periods of its publication (1896 April 7th – 1899 December 4th). Due to the time restrictions, I am going to confine the current presentation to the “honeymoon” period of close cooperation between pro-American reformers in power and Russian Legation – the period of King Kojong’s prolonged stay in Russian diplomatic mission (up to February 20th, 1897). As political aspects of the collaboration between “Chŏngdongp’a” – the pro-American group – and Russian diplomats in the troubled 1894-1899 period are already well described in research literature[4], I will not dwell on them and instead, will focus on how, in what ideological forms, through which semantic idioms, these relationship of political collaboration were represented in The Independent. Among the existing analyses of The Independent’s content, Kim Yuwŏn’s recent work[5] was of much use in the process of writing the present article. But, unlike Kim Yuwŏn, the present author is taking into consideration not only editorials but also all the remaining sections of the newspaper – chappo (“miscellaneous news”), kwanbo (“official news”), and weguk t’ongsin (“foreign news”) in Korean editions and “local items”, “department news”, “exchange”, and “latest telegrams” in English editions – as well, for the selection and manner of coverage of Russia-related items in these non-editorial sections were also obviously influenced by both immediate political considerations and deeper ideological sympathies. While the traditional viewpoint on the ideological inclinations of the pro-American reformers’ group centered on Sŏ Jaep’il describe them as “enlightenment” and characterize Sŏ himself as “Korean Voltaire”[6], revisionist historians emphasize his “statist” (kukkwŏnjuŭijŏk), elite-centered view of “civic rights”, Euro-centric and Social Darwinist background of his understanding of “civilization”, as well as subsequent “defeatism” (p’aebaejuŭi) in his views on Korea’s development – once Korea would follow China in its perceived “failure” to civilize itself, imperialistic “grab” of its territory and national rights was seen by Sŏ as historically inevitable[7]. While agreeing that Sŏ’s “auto-Orientalism” certainly can be described as a form of “self-peripherizing”, and essentially Euro-centric thinking, the present author still insists that his model of “catch-up development” did not completely lack positive features. Although his idea of “civilizing” Korea through “transplanting” generalized “Western” ideas and institutions (including, for example, Russian military discipline) did emphasize “strong” developmental state (as well as unquestioned loyalty to it on the part of the subjects), state-promoted internalization of “modern” discipline on personal level, and state-driven campaigns against “backward” local culture (Chinese acupuncture, shamanism, etc.), his view of “modernity” cannot be reduced to its “oppressive” and “destructive” aspects exclusively. Lots of “modernization” questions vital to the underprivileged – first and foremost, the unchecked official corruption that virtually nipped in the bud the sprouts of the capitalist growth “from below” in the country – were often addressed by The Independent, Russia being mentioned, among other things, as an example, of “modern”, “clean” bureaucracy that allowed Korean settlers in the Maritime Province to prosper economically (see below). The present author hopes that this article will contribute to the drawing of more accurate, fuller picture of the views of the 1890s radicals by showing concretely, in details, what aspects of European (Russia included) “modernity” were thought worth “transplanting”, and how the “civilizing”/”transplanting” process was conceived.
III. Russia as a “Model” of and “Helper” in “Civilization”: The Independent, April 1896 – February 1897.
The first English issue of The Independent (1896, April 7th) opened with the editorial, which ended with elucidating on the paper’s “platform”. “Platform” was formulated in the following way:
“Korea for the Koreans, clean politics, the cementing of foreign friendships, the gradual though steady development of Korean resources with Korean capital as far as possible, under expert foreign tutelage, the speedy translation of foreign textbooks into Korean that the youth may have access to the great things of history, science, art and religion without having to acquire a foreign tongue, and Long Live to His Majesty, The King”[8].
As we can see, the reformers were open
about what they considered the main element of “civilizing”
“The time has now come when
The editorial did also make a point that,
unlike the government-run schools of English established before, the newly
projected schools should not become simply “interpreter-mills” churning out
nothing more than speakers of the language; “thorough rounded elementary
education” was suggested as the goal,
“The students of
the different schools give us more hope than any other class of Koreans,
especially those children who are under foreigner’s supervision. The boys in
the schools under a foreign teacher are entirely different from the lads who
are idling away their time at their homes or who waste the precious moments of
their young lives in committing to memory the Chinese classics. The students
who are taught by the foreigners have the same kind of ambitions as the boys of
European and American schools. They have eagerness for knowledge; they acquire
independent, manly habits, spirit and disposition; they are ambitious to be
well informed on all subjects so that they can converse and deal with the
people of the world on equal terms; they look down on those who are not
honourable nor patriotic (…). As to the athletic sports, young Koreans take to
them like ducks to water. They are passionately fond of military drill (…). The
As we can see, the foreign “tutelage” mentioned in the paper’s “platform”, was to lead Koreans to attaining both agile, docile (in Foucauldian sense of the term) “modern” bodies, and “modern” Weltanschuung marked by the attitude of equality towards the “civilized” world (“converse and deal with the people of the world on equal terms”) and contempt towards the “uncivilized native” (“look down on those who are not honourable nor patriotic”). In a word, by The Independent’s own expression, “tutelage” was a necessary tool for turning an “uncivilized” Korean into a “modern” “new being”.
What kind of image for
1) 1896:
1. April:
While Korean editorials for April, 1896, did
not deal with
“(…) As all people of the world are
brothers, every person who comes to live in
2.
May: Russia-related coverage is centred on its military capacities and
political course in connection with the Korean affairs. Russian warship and
gunboats sent to the Pacific (English edition, May 9th) are mentioned,
as well as Korean purchase of Russian rifles and ammunition (English edition,
May 14th). At the same time, Russia’s might was not portrayed as
“threatening”: the Novosti’s stance that Russia did not intend to
entrench itself in Korea, but just did not want any other state to do so, is
introduced uncommented (English and Korean editions, May 16th), as
well as the Vedomosti’s claim that Russia supported Korea’s independence
(Korean edition, May 5th), while the North China Herald’s
claim that Russia was dominating Korean affairs already, is refuted in details
in a special editorial (English edition, May 7th). Symbolically, Russia’s “civilized” status is
emphasised in the accounts on the garden party given by Russian Minister
K.Waeber (English and Korean editions, May 28th), “one of the most
brilliant entertainments ever given in Korea” where K.Waeber was reported to
escort the wife of American Minister to the refreshments, while his own wife
was escorted by the American-educated Japanese Minister[17].
Admonitory articles on how to further make Korean closer to the “civilized powers”, continued to appear in the Korean edition in May. For one good example, on May 2nd, Korean edition editorialised on how to “improve” Korean “race” (injong), which, as Sŏ Jaep’il stated, was innately better than any other “Oriental race” – “more diligent than Chinese race, and stronger than Japanese race”. Sŏ Jaep’il’s advice to the government on the matter of “race improvement was “to follow the example of other countries” and “benefit the commoners” (literally: “bestow favour” – ŭnhye-rŭl kkich’ida) with a new water pipes system, so that “Korean race” might grow healthier[18]. Japanese-coined term for the newly introduced Western concept of “race”[19], as well as Galtonian ideas of “race improvement”, were presented in that editorial in an skilful combination with the time-honoured concept of government “benefiting” the “people below”. In such a combination, the advice “to follow the example of other countries” could look more acceptable to the readers.
The idea of the “inherent superiority” of
“Korean race” in comparison with other “Orientals” was again explained in
simplest possible terms in the May 30th Korean editorial. That
Koreans enjoyed some “inborn advantages” in comparison with “slow, filthy,
stubborn Chinese, unable to learn good things and insensitive to the mockery by
others”, sounded more or less commonsensical for the ears of “progressive”
1890s readership, already accustomed to the Orientalist rhetoric of “poor
wretched China”. But the statement that
even Japanese, however “quick to learn the civilization from others” they might
be, were still “inferior to Koreans” due to their “impetuous character”, was
certainly rather novel. The agenda beyond all these “racial” comparisons is
visible from the last sentence of the statement – Koreans were “to become the
first race of the Orient once taught properly”[20].
Sŏ Jaep’il obviously tried hard to persuade his readership that
“enlightenment of Korea” along the lines of the “civilized powers” was a fully
feasible project with tremendous prospects of success: Koreans were to become “the
first race of the Orient” not just a “civilized nation”, once his
admonitions would be paid heed to.
3. June: A visit to Russian and French
schools by Russian and French Ministers was given ample coverage in both Korean
(June 4th) and English (June 4th); Korean article
expressed its hopes on “civilizing influence” of Russian and French teaching
pointing out that the pupils (one of whom gave a welcome speech in French) were
“becoming the same as in other countries”. A report from Kobe Chronicle
on the demarche by British and American Ambassadors in St.-Petersburg
who had reportedly asked both Russia and Japan to safeguard Korea’s neutrality
was given due attention in Korean (June 9th) and English (June 11th)
editions, but much more prominence was accorded to the detailed reports from
Moscow where Nikolai II’s coronation ceremony was in full swing (English and
Korean editions – June 18th). At the same time, Khodynka Field
catastrophe (which took the lives of more than 1000 coronation spectators!) was
covered by rather brief notices (English and Korean: June 13th).
Khodynka tragedy – which gave the reason for harsh criticism of
Encouragements to ”study the civilization” from the generalized
”West” remained in June the main fare of The Independent’s Korean
editorials. On June 2nd, the newspaper editorially advised Korean
publishers to “hire some highly learned Westerners proficient in Korean (nop’ŭn
hangmun innŭn Chosŏn mal hanŭn Sŏyang saram) in order
to translate” Western technical and scientific literature[22].
On June 6th, the Korean editorial on the evil of traditional
pre-arranged marriages extolled the “customs of other countries” (of course,
“West” was meant) where lovers were free to marry through romance, which,
according to The Independent’s colorful description, ended usually when
the two “go to church and pledge in face of God to love, respect, and help each
other”[23].
And, in the famous June 20th Korean editorial advocating the
erection of the Independence Arch (Tongnip mun; to be afterwards
designed by a Russian architect), The Independent explained how Koreans
could earn the “respect” and “equal treatment” by the “other countries”. Only
equal standing of Korean king with “other sovereigns”, Sŏ Jaep’il
editorialized, might lead Korean people to the equality with “other nations”:
thus, “love and sacrifice for His Majesty King of
4. July: Russia was mentioned in rather
passing way, mostly in connection with its Far Eastern policy: the rumours of
secret treaty concluded with China (English edition, July 9th), its
relations with Japan as seen by Japanese Minister to Korea (English edition:
July 14th; Korean edition: July 16th), its hospitable
treatment of Min Yŏnghwan (1861-1905), Korean Envoy to the coronation
(Korean edition: July 23rd), and decorations presented by Russian
Government both to Min and his interpreter, Yun Ch’iho (Korean and English
editions: July 28th)[25].
Information was exclusively positive: while low productivity of Korean
agriculture was a constant topic for editorials, dreadful hunger catastrophes
in contemporary
5. August:
Coverage on
On more general note, the August 13th
Korean editorial pointed out that the primary object of Social Darwinist
“competition”, in case of Koreans, are Chinese and Japanese. To be able to
“compete and win”, Koreans were, according to The Independent, to free
themselves from the “wrong custom” of “parasitic” reliance on one’s relatives
and friends, and from old yangban obsession with getting the official
post by all ways and means, right and wrong – any sort of work, however “base”
in old view, had to be honoured[32].
And the surest way to raise
6. September: The Independent’s
interest to
7. October:
As Russian advisers and concessionaires became visible in
8. November: The
news that the Russo-Chinese convention signed by Li Hung-chang and S.Witte in
St.-Petersburg (1896, May 22nd), was eventually ratified by the
Chinese Government (1896, September 30th; a.k.a. “Cassini
Convention”), prompted The Independent to editorialise in details on
both “unavoidability” and “progressiveness” of concession-taking by the
“civilized” countries on the less blessed territories. The key points of the
Convention, as reported by The North China Daily News, - permission to
Russia to extend Trans-Siberian Railway to Vladivostok across Manchuria,
protect this planned railroad by its own armed forces in certain points,
acquire mining concessions in Northern China, and lend a “ice-free port” on
China’s eastern coast[45]
- were hailed by The Independent in no uncertain terms, as a great step
forward in the “development” of the lands and resources previously “wasted” by
China – “the Sick Man of the Far East” (English edition: November 12th,
14th; Korean edition: November 12th). Korean editorial,
in rather condensed, succinct form, stated that, as “barbarian government of
Ch’ing can not make, unlike other countries, these good lands and ports useful
for its own populace and the people of other countries”, it should “better
lease them to others, so that both them and Chinese would be benefited”.
Moreover, The Independent wished to show its Korean readership that
“barbarism” should be punished even stricter: “Even if come countries will like
to divide not only Shantung and Manchuria, but the whole China among
themselves, we wish it to succeed, as it will civilize the populace and develop
the land for the whole world”[46].
In English editorials, the “civilizing”, “benevolent” colonialism was advocated
in much more florid terms: “Is it wise for the world to sit still and watch the
waste of the natural resources of these fertile lands? We congratulate
Apparently,
Sŏ Jaep’il’s image of “civilized”
As to the
countries, which were adversely affected by Russian Imperial expansion, the
attitude of Sŏ and his close colleagues from The Independent hardly
contained at that point any elements of “anti-imperialistic” sympathy. Just as
Among the ”Latest
telegrams”, which appear in The Independent on November 28th (English
edition), one could have been of no small importance for the understanding of
contemporary situation on the world’s colonial periphery by the Korean
reformers. The cable – marked ”London, 17th Nov.” – informed that ”The Treaty
of Peace recently arranged between Italy and Abyssinia was undoubtedly due to
Russian and French influence. King Menelik wired to both the Czar and President
Faure the moment the treaty was signed”[52]. The Independent did not elaborate but, in fact, the Treaty
of Addis-Abeba (concluded on October 26th, 1896) meant the recognition of
Ethiopian sovereignty by Italy, and was forced on Italy by its humiliating defeat
in the battle of Adowa (March 1st, 1996), where 14500 of Italian
troops were rounded (70% of them were killed or wounded) by Russia and
France-armed Ethiopian army. The outcome of that battle was a staggering
reminder about the shaky grounds of European colonial power outside
9. December: Russian Legation still remained an important
focus of Sŏ Jaep’il’s attention. “Kindness” of Russian diplomats, who
generously compensated a Korean packhorse driver (mabu) for the latter’s
horse taken by the “Righteous Army” insurgents while he was transporting
Russian baggage, became a news item[55]. Not only “generosity”, but also
business-friendly “rationality” of
2) 1897 (Korean and English editions are separated):
1. January:
I.B.Bishop’s lectures on the conditions of Koreans in Russian Maritime Province
– held in the Russian Legation-patronized Seoul Union – remained an important
topic for the editorials: they were mentioned thrice in English (January 12th,14th,
16th)[61] and twice in Korean
(January 5th, 16th)[62]
editions in great details. The credit for the well-being of “enterprising,
thrifty, clean, honest and honourable” – in a word, “civilized”, - Koreans in
the Maritime Province was given by the newspaper both to the “humane and
enlightened” Russian administration of the region (the Russian governmental aid
distributed among the first settlers was scrupulously listed) and Russian
education, and to the innate “goodness” of Korean race, fully able to
“civilize” itself once “well-governed”. Of special interest to Sŏ and his
circle as a possible model for Korea’s ”civilized” future was the local
self-government in Korean-populated districts of the Maritime Province, where
Koreans were allowed to elect their own village headmen (along the same lines
as Russian peasants that could elect obshchina and volost’
heads). In fact, being at the first time unable and unwilling to challenge his
governmental patrons by directly proposing the democratisation of
“(…) In foreign
countries, such persons as provincial governors, country chiefs, and
governmental clerks, are elected by the commoners (paeksŏng). So,
even if these officials are making mistakes, the commoners do not bear a grudge
against the ruler, but scold themselves for their own mistaken choice. On the
next voting, such officials are not given even the pettiest post. Even before
being punished by the government, a wicked official is put to shame by the
commoners: so, fears the commoners more than governmental punishment, and knows
that he would not be able to avoid punishment through private solicitation. It
is right if the ruler personally appoints ministers and their deputies, but the
governors and county chiefs should be elected by the commoners of the
respective provinces and counties. Only in this case the commoners will not
resent the government, and these elective provincial officials will do their
jobs better than those appointed upon recommendations by one or two influential
In January 1897, using now very concrete
example of Russian local government instead of abstract “foreign countries”, The
Independent again proposed that once ”the people have the right of electing
their Magistrates, the present system of corruption and squeezing will die a
natural death”, as the popular-elected Magistrates ”will serve the people as
their masters”. The people, at the same time, ”will consider themselves as
parts of political fabric” and develop ”free and independent spirits”[64]. The limited local peasant
self-rule that existed in late 19th C. Russia, seemingly have looked
to Sŏ as a practical way to advance
2. February: In connection with the petition campaign in
favour of Kojong’s return to his palace, The Independent, while taking a
sceptical view on such action as “premature”, commended once again Russian and
its diplomatic representatives for “defending” and “helping” the Korean
sovereign (Korean edition, February 13th)[68].
The news of the two Russo-Japanese agreements that were meant to determine
Korea’s future without consulting with Korean Government – Waeber-Komura
Memorandum (Seoul, May 4, 1896) and Lobanov-Yamagata Protocol (St.-Petersburg,
June 9, 1896), - and were made public for the first time by the Japanese side
in the end of February, did appear in the Korean edition of The Independent
(February 27th)[69]
uncommented. Obviously, at that point of time that must have been unclear for
Sŏ and his collaborators how
IV: Concluding Remarks.
In February 1897,
“honeymoon” relationships between the Russian Legation and the circle of
pro-American reformers were swiftly approaching their end. The concession
requests presented by Waeber to Kojong on February 23rd, were, in
the end, to become a first stumbling block in the development of that unusual
partnership between an absolutist monarchy and
While being neither the ultimate “civilization
ideal” of the radical reformers nor their long-time supporter, Russia still did
contain in its image many features that were essential for the radicals’
“Occidentalist” project of “civilizing” Korean under “enlightened” foreign
“tutelage”. As believers in “rich state, strong army”-centred, state-led
“development”, and in “modern” army as a powerful “civilizing tool”, the
radicals found essential such features of Russian “modernity” as strict –
almost to the point of cruelty – military discipline, eventually adopting them
as a part of their “reference model” of “civilization”.
[1] Yu. M. Lotman, “Problema vizantiyskogo vliianiya na russkuyu kulturu v tipologicheskom osveshchenii”, - Izbrannye statyi, Vol. 1, Tallynn, 1992, pp. 121-128.
[2] L.Lindstrom, "Cargoism and Occidentalism," - Occidentalism:
Images of the West, James Carrier, ed.,
[3] Thongchai Winichakul, “The Quest for Siwilai: A Geographic Discourse of Civilizational Thinking in the Late 19th and Early 20th C. Siam”, - The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 59, N. 3, August 2000, pp. 528-550.
[4] I used Han Ch’ŏrho, Ch’inmi kaehwap’a yŏn’gu, Kukhak charyowŏn, 1998, pp. 125-211, as main secondary source for references.
[5] Kim Yuwŏn, Paengnyŏn twi-e tasi ing-nŭn tongnip
sinmun, Kyŏngin munhwasa,
[6] Yi Gwangnin, “Sŏ Jaep’ir-ŭi kaehwa sasang”, - Tongbang hakchi, Vol. 18, 1978, pp. 148-193.
[7] Chu Jino, “Tongnip hyŏphwe-ŭi taewe insig-ŭi kujo-wa chŏn’gae”, - Hangnim, Vol. 8, pp. 69-105; Chu Jino, “Sŏ Jaep’il chasŏjŏn”, - Yŏksa Pip’yŏng, Vol. 14, 1991, pp. 297-307.
[8] Tongnip sinmun, Han’guk munhwa yesul chinhŭngwŏn,
[9] Op. sit., p. 72.
[10] Op. sit, p. 416.
[11] As is well known, Russian officials considered Mokp’o a convenient and strategically important port, assiduously followed the development of Japanese settlement there after the decision to ”open” Mokp’o was reached by Kojong in October, 1897, and afterwards encouraged Russian purchases of land there: Hangukchi (Korean translation of Opisanie Korei), Han’guk chŏngsin munhwa yŏn’guwŏn, 1984, pp. 226-227.
[12]Tongnip sinmun, Han’guk munhwa yesul
chinhŭngwŏn,
[13] Op. sit., p. 1. An English translation, though not literal, is available: Yŏng-ho Ch’oe, Peter H.Lee, Wm. Theodore de Bary (ed.), Sources of Korean Tradition, Vol. 2, Columbia University Press, NY., 2000, p. 280.
[14] This term was widely used, among others, by famous “enlightenment” thinker Fukuzawa Yukichi (1835-1901). See, for example, an opening passage from his Bunmeiron no gairyaku: “(…) Present-day Europe can only be called the highest level that human intelligence has been able to attain at this juncture in history. Since this is true, in all countries of the world, be they primitive or semi-developed, those who are to give thought to their country’s progress (my italics. – V.T.) in civilization must necessarily take European civilization as the basis of discussion, and must weigh the pros and cons of the problem in the light of it” (Fukuzawa Yukichi’s “An Outline of a Theory of Civilization,” David A. Dilworth and G. Cameron Hurst (tr.), Tokyo, Sophia University Press, 1973, p. 14-15).
[15] Tongnip sinmun, Han’guk munhwa yesul chinhŭngwŏn,
[16] See the Confucian Analects (12:5): “If the noble person is reverent, unfailingly courteous toward others, and observant of the rites, then all within the four seas are his brothers”, Wm. Theodore de Bary & Irene Blum (ed.), Sources of Chinese Tradition, Vol. 1, Columbia University Press, NY., 1999, p. 55.
[17] Tongnip sinmun, Han’guk munhwa yesul chinhŭngwŏn,
[18] Op. sit, p. 45.
[19] On the origins of Japanese-coined word for “race”, jinshu (injong
in Korean pronunciation), see: Michael Weiner, “The Invention of Identity: Race
and Nation in Pre-War Japan”, - Frank Dikotter (ed.), The Construction of
Racial Identities in China and Japan: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives,
[20] Tongnip sinmun, Han’guk munhwa yesul chinhŭngwŏn,
[21] Op. sit, pp. 100-148.
[22] Op. sit., p. 97.
[23] Op. sit., p. 105.
[24] Op. sit., p. 129.
[25] Op. sit., pp. 164-200.
[26] R. Robbins, Famine in
[27] Tongnip sinmun, Han’guk munhwa yesul chinhŭngwŏn,
[28] Peter Duus, The Abacus and the Sword: the Japanese Penetration
of
[29] Tongnip sinmun, Han’guk munhwa yesul chinhŭngwŏn,
[30] Op. sit., p. 161-162.
[31] Op. sit., pp. 204-252.
[32] Op. sit., p. 221.
[33] Op. sit., p. 201
[34] His book, Puteshestvie na Vostok (SPb., 1893), was
translated into English: Travels in the East of Nicholas II, Emperor of
[35] Tongnip sinmun, Han’guk munhwa yesul chinhŭngwŏn,
[36] Op. sit., pp. 253-304.
[37] Op. sit., p. 292.
[38] Op. sit., p. 308.
[39] Op. sit., pp. 345, 348.
[40] Op. sit., p. 336; M.Foucault, Surveiller et punir, Gallimard, 1975, pp. 424-425.
[41] Tongnip sinmun, Han’guk munhwa yesul chinhŭngwŏn,
[42] Op. sit., p. 344.
[43] Op. sit., p. 352.
[44] On the Korean governmental expectation concerning the arrival of Russian military advisers and instructors, see: Yi Minwŏn, “19 segi mal Rŏsiya kunsa kyogwandan-ŭi hwaltong-gwa yŏkhal”, - Kunsa, Vol. 44, 2001, pp. 293-301.
[45] See one of the earliest descriptions of the Convention in: Henri Cordier, Histoire des
relations de la Chine avec les puissances occidentales. 1860-1902, Vol. 3 (
[46] Tongnip sinmun, Han’guk munhwa yesul chinhŭngwŏn,
[47] Op. sit., p. 380.
[48] Op. sit., p. 384.
[49] B.A.Romanov, Diplomaticheskoe razvyazyvanie russko-yaponskoi voiny, 1904-1905, - Istoricheskie zapiski, 1940: http://grandwar.kulichki.net/books/romanov_01.html
[50] Tongnip sinmun, Han’guk munhwa yesul chinhŭngwŏn,
[51] Op. Sit., pp. 397, 400.
[52] Op. Sit., p. 408.
[53] Akpan, M. B. 1985. “
[54] Tongnip sinmun, Han’guk munhwa yesul chinhŭngwŏn,
[55]Op. sit., p. 416.
[56] See also a separate chapter on Koreans in
[57] Tongnip sinmun, Han’guk munhwa yesul chinhŭngwŏn,
[58] Op. sit., p. 428.
[59] Op. sit., p. 432.
[60] Op. sit., p. 464.
[61] Tongnip sinmun, Han’guk munhwa yesul chinhŭngwŏn,
[62] Tongnip sinmun, Han’guk munhwa yesul chinhŭngwŏn,
[63] Tongnip sinmun, Han’guk munhwa yesul chinhŭngwŏn,
[64] Tongnip sinmun, Han’guk munhwa yesul chinhŭngwŏn,
[65] On the political ideals of Sŏ and his circle, see: Yu
Yŏngnyŏl, Taehan cheguk-ki-ŭi minjok undong, Ilchogak
Publishers,
[66] Tongnip sinmun, Han’guk munhwa yesul chinhŭngwŏn,
[67] Op. sit, pp. 18, 26; Tongnip sinmun, Han’guk munhwa yesul
chinhŭngwŏn,
[68] Tongnip sinmun, Han’guk munhwa yesul chinhŭngwŏn,
[69] Op. sit., p. 94.
[70] Op. sit., p. 73.
[71] Op. sit., pp. 51, 69.
[72] Han Ch’ŏrho, pp. 220-242.