Boundless Winds of Empire: Rhetoric and Ritual in Early Chosŏn Diplomacy with Ming China

Sixiang Wang’s Boundless Winds of Empire: Rhetoric and Ritual in Early Chosŏn Diplomacy with Ming China is an extraordinary feat that reshapes our understanding of Korea’s diplomatic history and its connections and parallels to the wider currents of empire-building in East Asia and beyond. This intellectual tour de force immerses readers in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, a transformative period in Korean history whose significance reverberates in present-day geopolitics. Blending eloquent and captivating prose with rigorous insights and sophisticated interpretations, Wang draws upon a remarkable array of source materials, including court records, diplomatic missives, and envoy poetry, to craft a narrative that is as richly detailed as it is broadly comparative.Wang’s unassuming preface positions Boundless Winds of Empire as a modest reconsideration of diplomacy between Chosŏn (1392–1910) and Ming (1368–1644), a topic extensively addressed by generations of scholars. His intended audience is primarily anglophone academics of Korea and East Asia, as well as historians of empire, diplomacy, and sovereignty (vii). The author’s overarching objective is to situate Chosŏn within the dynamics of Eurasian history without becoming overly entangled in narrower debates in East Asian area studies. However, as I will argue in the final section of this review, Wang’s historiographical and methodological interventions have significant implications for unresolved questions across various facets of medieval and early modern Korean studies and Sino-Korean cultural interactions. What sets Wang’s work apart, and what new perspectives does he bring to light that earlier scholarship may have missed?Many readers will readily recognize that Boundless Winds of Empire challenges long-standing narratives in international relations and premodern East Asian history shaped by John K. Fairbank’s influential notions of the “tributary system” and the “Chinese world order.” Toward the end of the book, Wang also subtly critiques Peter Weber-Schäfer’s oikumenischen Reiche, the “tribute-investiture” moniker preferred in South Korean and Japanese scholarship, Huang Zhilian’s “East Asian ritual world,” and various proposed translations for the early modern Chinese empires and their diplomatic systems (282–83). However, Wang’s aim is neither to supplant the existing scholarly terminologies and approaches with a definitive theory of his own nor to simply introduce rhetoric and ritual as a corrective. Instead, he departs from the formulaic portrayals of Sino-Korean relations and draws attention to the creative decisions, strategic adaptations, and negotiated compromises shaped not only in Beijing and Hanyang but also in the intermediary spaces where high-ranking officials, emissaries, translators, merchants, petty functionaries, and border security personnel interacted.Historicization resists fixed terms and rigid definitions. Reliance on a priori blueprints risks obscuring important nuances and insights. Academic discussions about Chosŏn’s “subservience,” “autonomy,” or “sovereignty” within the suzerain-vassal hierarchy have not proved to be the most robust tools for unpacking the complexities of Chosŏn-Ming relations. Contrary to the portrayal of Korea as Ming’s model tributary state, which arose from selective and idealized readings of their interactions, neither Chosŏn nor Ming operated according to a fixed formula in their diplomatic engagements. Both sides projected a facade of certitude, yet neither consistently adhered to a singular strategy for navigating the political and cultural challenges they encountered in both international and domestic spheres. This lack of a stable framework underscores the fluid and contingent nature of their relations, along with the historical processes by which norms and practices were continually refined and adapted. In other words, what is now referred to as the “tributary system” serves as a convenient shorthand for the culmination of what Chosŏn and Ming collaboratively developed over 250 years. One should avoid reducing this dynamic and evolving relationship to an oversimplified, internally consistent, or logically coherent framework.From this perspective, Boundless Winds of Empire serves as a critical lens for interrogating the reified ideas, assumptions, rhetorical devices, and ritualistic practices that modern academics and state actors who adhere to the tributary system paradigm treat as immutable. Empires, particularly early modern ones, simultaneously define and blur territorial boundaries and cultural distinctions. Kwŏn Kŭn 權近 (1352–1409) captures this duality in his poetry, which opens the book’s introduction and serves as the inspiration for its title: “Imperial winds are not bound by limits of the civilized and the barbarian— / Why should the land’s lay distinguish one’s territory from another’s?” (1). While the Yalu River represents the physical demarcation of Ming and Chosŏn territories, the layered ambiguities of Ming’s universal and civilizational aspirations unveil the complexities of their peaceful coexistence.In this vein, Wang critiques the myopia introduced by the late nineteenth-century translation of “empire” into the calque of “emperor-state” (Ch. diguo; K. cheguk; J. teikoku 帝國) in East Asian languages (11). This rendering confines the concept of empire to a hegemonic power that exploits and extracts resources from weaker polities and communities. Modern East Asian usage also bears the weight of Japan’s anachronistic reinterpretations of history, employed to justify its annexation and colonization of Korea (11–12). To counter this narrow perspective, Wang advocates for broadening the analytical framework of “empire” and redirects attention away from high-level suzerain-vassal relationships of central states. As he explains, his focus is “less on the decisions of kings and emperors than on the envoys and rhetoricians who communicated between them” (18). This shift foregrounds the empire’s constituent elements, the mechanisms that sustained its functions, and the vital roles played by emissaries, attachés, translators, and intelligence gatherers in securing positive diplomatic outcomes (18).The most significant diplomatic achievement of Ming-Chosŏn relations was the sustained avoidance of military conflict. The dynamic between Ming, a dominant imperial power, and Chosŏn, a modestly sized neighboring state, was marked by cooperation and peace. This outcome stands in stark contrast to the punitive campaigns waged by earlier continental empires against Korean polities. Ming officials, well aware of these historical precedents, reminded Chosŏn’s founder in 1394 that Han (202 BCE–220 CE), Sui (581–618), Tang (618–907), Liao (916–1125), Jin (1115–1234), and Yuan (1271–1368) had launched military expeditions against Korea for even minor provocations (51). Despite other, similar warnings and several incidents that might have escalated into open hostilities, Ming and Chosŏn managed to avoid warfare, which is particularly notable given Ming’s militaristic actions elsewhere. In 1407, Ming annexed Vietnam, and the Yongle emperor (1402–24) may have had similar blueprints for Korea (54–56). In 1449, Emperor Yingzong’s (r. 1436–49, 1457–64) disastrous campaign against the Oirats ended in his capture. Wang examines this latter episode, known as the Tumu crisis, in chapter 3, presenting it as essential context for Prince Suyang’s calculated self-fashioning and eventual accession to the throne through a coup, becoming King Sejo (r. 1455–68) of Chosŏn (85–107). Although Wang does not explicitly address it, Ming’s 1380s subjugation of Yunnan, which had been ruled by non-Chinese dynastic states Nanzhao (738–902) and Dali (937–1253) for centuries prior to the Mongol conquest in 1253, further underscores the multifaceted and unpredictable nature of Ming empire-building and the precarious fate Chosŏn skillfully avoided.Korea’s diplomatic acumen was cultivated over centuries of navigating international relations through a mastery of classical Chinese. Fourteen of the 130 fascicles in Literary Selections of the East (Tongmunsŏn 東文選) comprise diplomatic documents written in parallel prose (35–36). Among China’s neighbors, Korea was one of the few capable of conducting diplomatic correspondence without translation (46). While Ming officials took this for granted, Korea’s high Sinitic proficiency, including nuanced expressions in various Sinitic literary forms, reflected a long tradition honed through sustained intellectual and political engagement. Long before the rise of Ming, Koreans extensively interacted with successive continental empires of varying power dynamics. During the period of “China among equals,” Koryŏ (918–1392) successfully maintained relations with Song (960–1279), Liao, and Jin, and its endurance under the expansive and cosmopolitan Mongol Eurasian empire further helped refine its diplomatic practices, with the Korean monarch recognized as küregen, or imperial son-in-law (181).Wang identifies two major rhetorical strategies that medieval and early modern Koreans perfected over time: autoethnography and the imperializing mode. Chosŏn deployed these tactics as ingenious “weapons of the weak” (17) to navigate its relationship with Ming, “a neighbor twenty times its size” (17). To put it another way, autoethnography and the imperializing mode allowed Koreans “to shape empire and how Korea related to empire” (273). Koreans adeptly leveraged Ming’s dual claims of territorial and cultural distinction alongside universal authority, or the tension between its bounded administrative domain and the more amorphous “boundless winds” of influence that extended into ecumenical lands beyond the pale. Through autoethnography, Koreans appropriated and internalized imperial idioms and objectives, embedding these elements within their own traditions (17–18). The imperializing mode, on the other hand, called Chinese imperial agents to account and urged them to adhere to their espoused values, principles, and ritual norms (18).For these rhetorical strategies to succeed, Ming and Chosŏn required a shared intellectual and political foundation to foster mutual understanding of authoritative texts and legitimate historical empires. These ideas and genealogies were neither passively received nor static. Instead, they were collaboratively constructed, strategically adapted, and interwoven with historical narratives, apocrypha, and mythologies to address contemporary concerns (284). While the Confucian classics provided a shared cultural vocabulary, diplomats from both Ming and Chosŏn—similar to their counterparts elsewhere in early modern Eurasia—engaged with these elements “through an experimental and inductive mode” (283) rather than “deductively from formal, first principles” (283). Another critical foundation was the acknowledgment of Ming as the sole legitimate successor in the translatio imperii (Ch. Zhengtong; K. chŏngt’ong 正統) of Chinese empires (30), alongside Korea’s autoethnographic portrayal of an Eastern parallel translatio imperii coexisting with China (50, 68), as a unique neighbor identifying as both a barbarian outland and “a country of propriety and righteousness” (Ch. liyi zhi fang; K. yeŭi chi pang禮儀之邦). Historical precedents established by revered emperors, such as Qubilai (r. 1260–94) and Hongwu (r. 1368–92), further reinforced these frameworks. Both sides interpreted traditions, canonical texts, and historical precedents selectively and crafted pragmatic solutions to mitigate conflict and reinforce cooperative relationships.This delicate equilibrium, however, demanded effort and carried risks. Korea’s use of autoethnography and the empire’s eventual acceptance of the imperializing mode were outcomes of negotiation rather than inevitabilities. Success hinged on strategic engagement. Thus, Wang cautions against hasty conclusions regarding Korea’s exceptionality. After all, Vietnam and Dali also had comparable knowledge and rhetorical tools yet were absorbed into Ming. The process was far from smooth, and the lopsided availability of records suggests that Korea played a much more active role as the lesser power (97). For instance, Yuan almost rejected Koryŏ’s model of diplomacy that had been shaped by the latter state’s dealings with Liao and Jin (41). Similarly, the Kija legend was a subject of dispute. Hongwu initially dismissed the Kija narrative advanced by Chosŏn envoys. Representatives of Yuan, Ming, Koryŏ, and Chosŏn debated whether Kija migrated east to Korea and was indeed buried in P’yŏngyang (260–62). They also contested the meaning of his story—whether it represented a refusal to submit on the grounds of higher-order virtue or should be interpreted as an act of defiance against authority (265). Once accepted, however, such narratives established influential precedents. Korean diplomats adeptly invoked “the old precedents of Emperor Shizu” (42–45) as a means to acknowledge imperial virtue while safeguarding their kingdom’s autonomy (45). Over time, Kija emerged as a crucial instrument in shaping diplomatic rhetoric and legitimization strategies.Nonspecialist readers of Boundless Winds of Empire may find it challenging to distill its implicit arguments and subtle critiques into a concise summary. Wang’s goal is not to present a definitive alternative to the “tributary system” but to advance fresh, rigorous examinations of both familiar and underexplored sources. Rather than turning his findings to a general model, Wang invites readers to explore the many entangled layers of Chosŏn-Ming relations. He revisits well-known materials with exceptional precision, uncovering previously overlooked nuances and situating them within social, cultural, and geopolitical contexts. Concurrently, he brings attention to obscure or neglected sources and seamlessly integrates them into established Korean historical narratives. Emulating the inductive approach of the Chosŏn and Ming diplomats he studied, Wang examines his materials with meticulous care and builds his historical interpretations from specific contexts rather than imposing overarching theories. His work serves as a reminder that historical certainty tends to oversimplify complex realities, and the historian’s task is to engage with the past in all its multifaceted intricacy rather than reducing it to neatly defined concepts.For medieval and early modern Korean studies, Wang’s work introduces invigorating perspectives on numerous unresolved topics and debates and challenges various blanket portrayals of Korea. Discussions that depict Chosŏn as the quintessential Confucian or Neo-Confucian society or that impose ethnicized and racialized misinterpretations on Koryŏ’s position in the Mongol empire, fail to produce meaningful insights. Instead, studies centered on specific individuals, texts, or larger geopolitical dynamics tend to yield more compelling interpretations. Boundless Winds of Empire, for instance, questions the simplistic civilization/barbarism binary and highlights its complexity with far greater nuance than previously assumed. This nuance stems from the historical legacies of Mongol rule in both Ming and Koryŏ/Chosŏn, which functioned as established precedents for ritual protocols (63) and shaped Korea’s ritual standing in Ming’s claim to universal empire (182). Wang’s conclusion that Chosŏn’s relationship with Ming resembles a quantum state—“yes, no, both, or neither” (281)—is equally applicable to Koryŏ’s interactions with Yuan and to Korea’s Confucian self-perception in relation to China. Likewise, Yi Sŏnggye’s (1335–1408) decision to found a new dynasty rather than rule Koryŏ as a military regent was likely influenced in part by diplomatic considerations rather than purely internal political factors (28).Finally, Wang’s research demonstrates the critical importance of mastering diverse genres of literary Sinitic—a skill that required centuries of dedicated preparation and rigorous training. Without imposing a teleological narrative, Boundless Winds of Empire renews our appreciation for the geopolitical contexts underlying textbook accounts of Confucian learning in Koryŏ and Chosŏn. It also illustrates the heavy emphasis placed on literary expertise for over a millennium, even during the peak of Neo-Confucian philosophical debates and hereditary factional strife in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. For the upper echelons of the yangban aristocrats, literary proficiency was a key marker of distinction. The most exceptional figures earned the privilege of receiving Ming envoys, and the king dispatched them in a manner reminiscent of a battleground. These individuals were expected to excel in a variety of poetic and prose styles, while staying attuned to the latest currents and trends in Ming-era Beijing and beyond. To fully grasp the acquisition and reprints of various anthologies, instructional primers, and style guides from the fifteenth century onward, one must consider the pivotal role of the exchange of ideas and goods facilitated by diplomatic contacts.Sixiang Wang’s Boundless Winds of Empire far surpasses the already high expectations I held before reading it, offering an intellectually enriching exploration of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Korea through the prism of diplomacy. Far more than a reference for occasional consultation, this book stands as a foundational text for historians of East Asia. Wang’s erudition, depth, precision, and narrative clarity has set a new benchmark, presenting a model of scholarly inquiry by expertise and analytical His to with detailed studies of Korea’s and cultural this work an of meticulous research and the book’s for both and new to Korean studies. nuanced interpretations and insights reinforce its significance not only for in Korean history but also for of premodern empires across Korea’s role in the dynamics of Eurasian history, Wang challenges while offering a that captures the and complexity of Chosŏn-Ming Winds of Empire is more than a of diplomatic it is an intellectual that opens new for inquiry into Korea’s in the currents of early modern Wang’s and interpretations of sources not only existing but also to questions in medieval and early modern Korean studies with His interventions a foundation for established debates in a it a privilege to engage with this Boundless Winds of Empire the that and have on a its rigorous scholarship and it stands as a to Wang’s to complex historical dynamics while further scholarly exploration of Korea’s role in the of East Asia and the early modern