The Tale of Ji Zi : the lie that changed the history
The Great Chinese Gentleman Zhou Enlai. If you are a student of Korean history, you may have heard of Ji Zi 箕子, or Gija as pronounced in Korean. Koreans believe the founding father of their country is a culture hero figure called Dangun, who was born to a being that came down from the heaven to benefit the land and people. They celebrate October 3rd as national holiday every year to celebrate the coming of the heavenly being to the land, that the legend says took place four and half millennia ago.
That first ancient Korean state was called Joseon and to tell it from
the last Korean dynasty that had used the same name before deceasing in the early 20th
century after six hundred years of existence, they call the founding kingdom
Gojoseon 古朝鮮, or Old Joseon. Its history remained largely in the realm of the myth
with no known written history passed down except for the founding myth. Yet,
for hundreds of years a Chinese figure named Ji Zi came in to account for the last
one millennium of Gojoseon’s existence as another cultural hero who enlightened
the ancient Koreans to get to the civility and agricultural civilization the ancient
Korean society was found with. As result, the early part of the ancient Korean
history ended up looking like a patchwork with two culture hero figures, both
agricultural.
The Ji Zi story entirely depended on the Chinese records, Shiji 史記 or Records of the Grand Historian being the first record with the tale, that suddenly came to appear one thousand years after the active time of Ji Zi with no records in the vicinity of the account in between. However, the story that was made in China was sold to the Korean society under the later Joseon Dynasty as true and influenced the course of the history for hundreds of years in the Northeast Asia. When we look back on the history with the power of hindsight, the period when the story was taken as true in the Korean society, forced or not, coincides with the Korea’s period of decline and slumber.
The Ji Zi story is a archtypal case of historical fabrication. Its producer and beneficiary was the Chinese society. They say history repeats itself. Now we see CCP government busy embarking on another chapter of the historical forgery in the name of the Northeast Historical Project 東北工程. I believe that, if you don’t understand why the Ji Zi story had to be invented at that time far back in the past, you can never apprehend the reason why the CCP China regime is so eager about reinventing their history, so brazenly as governmental project, in relation with the ancient Koreans and their civilization.
What the Ji Zi
story intended to cover up
In the early Chinese records that grafted the Ji Zi story into the ancient Korean history, the account was always used as pretext to the Confucius’ reverence for the ancient Korean society. They had to explain so high a level of civility and ethical standards of the ancient Korean societies that Confucius himself expressed his admiration openly, while preserving the superiority of the Chinese civilization that the their history narratives were supposed to establish.
The part in Lun Yu, or
Analects, where Confucius mentioned about the Nine Yi People goes as following:
Confucius wished
to live among Nine Yi people. Asked how he could
live in such
shabby place, he replied, “how can a place where Jun Zi ( Noble Men ) live be shabby ?”
子欲居九夷, 或曰, 陋如之何, 子曰, 君子居之何陋之有.
The Nine Yi people Confucius mentioned referred to the people that lived to the north of his country Lo, in the lower Manchuria near the Bohai Bay area, who would later be called “DongYi” collectively, referring to ancient Koreans. The ancient names for peoples and countries are often confounding, but the fact that later Chinese records would never fail to mention the above Confucius saying in the preface or epilogue of the records on Ancient Korean kingdoms evidences that the ancient Chinese people of the time unequivocally identified the people Confucius referred to as the ancient Koreans.
Multiple other records testify that the Confucius’ respect for the people was not just a personal blip, but reflected the general view within the Chinese society of his time and until much later. Representative of them would be Shuowen Jiezi [說文解字], the first Chinese dictionary written around the end of the first century during the Han Dynasty, and Shan Hai Jing [山海經], or Classics of Mountains and Seas, the oldest extant compilation on Chinese geography traceable as far back as to the 4th century BCE. Shuowen Jiezi pays utmost tribute to DongYi people as the model for Jun Zi 君子, the idea of the accomplished man that Confucianism set as ideal personality that one should aspire to attain through the lifetime's effort of self-restraints and edification, and goes as far as saying the following of their example would bring blessings.[] Shan Hai Jing points to Gojoseon, the oldest known ancient Korean kingdom, as a country where people love each other and carry high ethics and civility on top of the advanced social systems such as the writing system, written law and currency. ][
[] 說文解字 [ 夷 ]…..” 此與君子如夷 有夷之行降福 ......“
][ 山海經 [ 朝鮮 ] 東海之內 北海之隅 有國名曰 朝鮮天毒 其人水居 偎人愛之 [朝鮮 今樂浪郡也. 天毒卽天竺國 貴道德 有文書金銀錢貨 浮屠出此國中也]
The bottom line we can draw from those
records on the DongYi and ancient Koreans, in addition to the Confucius’
comment, is that there was a country outside the boundary of the Chinese society
of the time that they looked up to. We do not know to what extent the thoughts
and customs of the Chinese society then were affected in detail by their
awareness and knowledge of the foreign civilization, especially in terms of the interpersonal
civility and social ethical standards. Yet, given the presence of the
neighboring civilization whose superiority had been known and was admired at
least among the people that formed the intelligentsia of the Chinese society of
the time, it would be irrational to say the early Chinese philosophers and thoughts
were not influenced to any extent by the presence of the neighboring civilization
that they perceived as their cultural superior and that those early Chinese thoughts emerged
solely by themselves with no impact from the extraneous inspirations. What is important to note
and remember here is the bottom-line fact that there had already been a foreign
civilization known to the Chinese society before and at the time of Confucius that the
then-Chinese looked up to, that might have served as the benchmarking model for
individual cultivation and social order for them to follow.
The Birth of the Ji Zi story
Ji Zi was one of the three noble men from the fallen dynasty Shang 商 around the end of 11th Century BCE, and in the very same book Lun Yu 論語, or the Analects , where Confucius' reverence for the ancient Koreans was mentioned, the name Ji Zi appeared in another part in the words of Confucius as punished by enslavement by the last king of Shang in the part dealing with Wei Zi, who fathered the Song Kingdom, which was a predecessor of the Lo kingdom where Confucius would be born about five hundreds of years later. After that one line on Ji Zi, there was not any further comment on Ji Zi under Zhou after the fall of Shang. In Lun Yu, briefly mentioned under the treatise for Wei Zi, Ji Zi was not a figure important enough to command a separate chapter and in the brief comment on him he was not associated with Korea at all.
Also, given the way the ancient Koreans - the nine Yi people 九夷 – were mentioned in the conversation in the Analects, it can be inferred easily that Confucius and the Chinese of his time did not have much direct information on the ancient Koreans, except about the high level of civility and personal accomplishment of the people as expressed in their awe. Then, suddenly Ji Zi’s name began to appear in relation to Joseon or ancient Koreans in the historical narratives from Han Dynasty, starting with the “Records of the Grand Historian” by Sima Qian around the beginning of the 1st Century BCE. Followings are the initial stories regarding the Ji Zi’s new roles and activities that showed up in the records from the Han Dynasty, abruptly and after more than 900 years since the alleged death of Ji Zi.
- Shiji 史記
( Records of the Grand Historian)
:The King Wu of Zhou
after the conquest of Shang made a visit to JI Zi at his place and tested him
for his knowledge of the virtues (Great Plan) and then, “The King Wu of Zhou
conferred the governorship of Joseon to Ji Zi, but Ji Zi was not his
vassal.”
* This part discussing Ji Zi is included in the biography of
Wei Zi.
- Shangshu Dazhuan 尙書大傳
:King Wu released Ji Zi after he conquered Shang. Ji Zi, not
being able to get over the disgrace of being set free by Zhou, fled to Joseon,
at the news of which King Wu ( of Zhou ) conferred the dukedom of Joseon on
him. Ji Zi, hence enfeoffed, could not avoid showing his acceptance of vassalage
and came to see King Wu in person in the 13th year of King Wu’s
reign. There King Wu asked him about the Great Plan.
- Sanguozhi
or Records of Three Countries 三國志
: Long time ago, Ji Zi went to Joseon and taught the eight
articles of law. So, they leave the doors of their house open and there is no
thief.
- Hou hanshu 後漢書 ( Book of Later Han )
: Long ago, King Wu of Zhou enfeoffed Ji Zi to Joseon, so Ji
Zi taught about civility, how to farm and to grow silkworm. As he established
the rule of eight articles, people do not steal and they do not lock the door
at night and the married women keep chastity and use bowls when eating food.
While the first two records written during the Han dynasty
focused on how Ji Zi happened to go over to Joseon with some discrepancies with
each other, the last two narratives now take the Ji Zi’s move to Joseon as
given and focus on what he did after his assignment to Joseon to civilize and
enlighten the people there. The development of the stories shows the typical
pattern of the Chinese historical records where the later ones manifest higher
definition in descriptions of an event with more enriched details. In all the Chinese historical narratives in the later
records repeat the Ji Zi story at the introduction of the treatise on ancient
Korean societies and unfailingly attribute their high standard in ethics and
social civility to the Ji Zi’s enlightenment of the people, to the effect of ascribing
those cultural superiority of the ancient Korean societies as admired by
Confucius to the achievement of the Chinese influence.
Reasonings and evidence why the Ji Zi story was a fabrication
First of all, the Confucius’ comment by itself evidences the untruthfulness of the Ji Zi story. On top of the fact that Confucius was the historian with an unchallengeable authority, the story of Weizi 微子 and Ji Zi in the last years of Shang Dynasty was the history of the Lo Kingdom, the state he and his family belonged to. No one could be more knowledgeable than Confucius about the historical figures. While he knew of Ji Zi, as he enumerated him as one of the three sages from the Shang, he did not make any mention on him in relation to the Nine Yi people or Joseon. For him and the Chinese of his time, the ancient Koreans were still of mythical being with no direct information, though the state where he was born and taught his disciples in his later years was one of the nearest to them, being the old territory of Shang. The Ji Zi story was apparently meant and used to cover up the superiority of the ancient Koreans in cultural attributes as recognized in the Confucius’ dialogue, but the very content that the tale was intended to cover up testifies against the veracity of the story ascribable, if really happened, to the time about 500 years prior to Confucius, who still apparently did not have any first-hand knowledge about the people and society.
Secondly,
before Shiji, the Records of the Grand Historian, there had been no single
credible record about Ji Zi in relation to ancient Koreans, not to say of his
contribution to the enlightenment of the ancient Korean society, for the span
of one millennium since the demise of Shang. The origin of Shangshu Dazhuan was
allegedly attributed to Confucius, but the extant version is what was claimed
to have been recovered during the Han Dynasty, after Shiji, by a person who
argued he had read and remembered some remains of the original bamboo script,
so it can be hardly said to have been reliable reproduction of its original content, free from the influence of Shiji or social atmosphere of the Han Dynasty. In
the book titled Guanzi 管子,
which is ascribed to around 4th century BCE during the Warring
States period, about a philosopher and bureaucrat who was active in the 7th
century BCE, before Confucius’ time, Joseon was referred to as one of the
remote neighboring countries, but it was not accompanied by any comment on Ji
Zi. It is impossible that such important
historical event as Ji Zi’s governance of the kingdom that would become the
most important neighbor for China could have been buried without a record for a
span of almost one thousand years before it appeared suddenly without any
reference to the prior records.
Thirdly, the manner the Ji Zi story fans out in Shiji is quite unnatural. The Ji Zi episode in relation to Joseon appears is in 宋微子世家 the treatise for Wei Zi 微子. There the Ji Zi story accounts for more than half of the treatise. And then the episodes about Ji Zi is only about the fiefdom of the ancient Korea conferred to him. Furthermore the great part of the episode is about the interview between King Wu of Zhou and Ji Zi on the “Great Plan” as if the visiting king had tested Ji Zi for his capacity for governance before the conferment of the dukedom. If the "Great Plan" part had to be there, even at the risk of appearing out of place and proportion in the Ji Zi story, it must have been for the need to impose the Chinese origin upon the high level of the civility and ethical framework of the ancient Korean society. Everything about the story looks abrupt and unnatural, in the way the story was introduced and rolled out. Then it oddly adds, “but he, Ji Zi, was not his vassal.” This story contradicts the description in Shangshu Dazhuan, a later-day compilation of the Confucius' life and teachings, which does not command reliability by itself for the way it surfaced in the world, on the manner Ji Zi was appointed to Joseon significantly. In Shiji, the king visits Ji Zi while in the other Ji Zi visits the king to pay homage. The meeting between the two happens before the conferment in Shiji, while it was made in the reverse order with Shangshu Dazhuan. In Sanguozhi or Records of Three Countries published in late third century AD, about 400 years after Shiji, first mentioned about the eight written articles of law of Joseon, in explanation of their near-zero crime rate. Then, in the Hou Hanshu or Book of Later Han, published about 150 years after Sanguozhi, the story of Ji Zi teaching skills of farming and silkworm growing appears for the first time. The way the story develops about Ji Zi in relation to Joseon seems to manifest archetypal pattern of the history forgery that has been the consistent practice throughout the past two millennia of “ the Chinese History ”. The practice is still going on. Not just in the broad sense. If the ancient Chinese had to invent Ji Zi story to cover up the existence of a superior civilization as expressed in Confucius’ admiration for ancient Koreans, their CCP descendants are trying every means in their hand to do the same even now that the Ji Zi story is no more recognized as of true history by historians.
Fourth, China at the time of the early Zhou, if we can call it China, was nothing more than a kingdom country located around the middle stream of Yellow River and did not share the border with Joseon. The Shang Dynasty had been located nearer to Joseon, which was located in the lower Manchuria surrounding Bohai Sea, but still it was far, by the standard of the time, from the later centers of the Shang Dynasty, which were modern-time Anyang and Luoyang. Joseon at the time had its own polity and civilization, trading with other countries around, so the story of the Joseon polity being enfeoffed to a foreign individual from nowhere could be nothing more than a fairytale with no probability of happening in reality. It could better be referred to as another example of the megalomaniac proclivity of the Chinese literature applied retroactively.
Fifth,
if the Ji Zi story in the Chinese records were true, there should be
corresponding stories in the form of myth or tradition on the Korean side, but
there is no known records remaining of such nature, while the legends and myths
abound about the ancient Korean states before and after the alleged Ji Zi
event. There are found five tombs that have been claimed to be of Ji Zi so far.
Notable and the most likely of them would be the one remaining in Cao County
near Heze City in Shandong Province. If it is the real tomb of Ji Zi and the Ji
Zi story in the Chinese records is true, then it means that the area belonged
to the realm of Joseon, though not the center, in correspondence to some ancient
Chinese records and the recent arguable findings by some historical studies
that the modern-time Beijing and Shandong Province belonged to the polity of
the ancient Koreans. Despite the historical value of the tomb the Chinese
government has abandoned the place with no fence or information panel in the
middle of a private farmland, totally ignoring its existence.
Zhou
Enlai’s Apology to Koreans for the Historical Distortion and Fabrication,
exemplifying the JI Zi story
Followings
are the excerpts from the speech made by the Zhou Enlai, the prime minister and
founder of CCP, made in 1963 in his official meeting with the visiting North
Korean delegate of scientists for the historical research project on the
ancient Korean states in the Manchurian area. He discourses at length about the
history of the two countries in the meeting. His views manifested in the speech
was in line with that of Mao Zedong in his meeting with Kim Ilsung of North
Korea in 1957. His comments made in the 1963 meeting was so clear and free of
obfuscation by itself, so it would need no more than word-for-word translation
to get to his points. The English translation will be followed by the original
Chinese record of the speech hereunder.
-from the Bulletin of
Foreign Affairs, Issue 10, 1963
摘自《外事工作通报》1963年第十期
“For
certain periods of antiquity, some records of historians of the two countries
are not true to the facts. It was mainly Chinese historians, many of whom
wrote history from the viewpoint of great power and great power
chauvinism. So many issues were written unfairly. First of all, the
views of some Chinese historians in the past about the development of the two
nations were not so correct and did not correspond with the real facts.”
“这样一个历史年代，两国的历史学家有些记载是不甚真实的。这里面，主要是中国历史学家，许多人都是以大国主义、大国沙文主义观点来写历史。因此，许多问题写得不公道。首先对两国民族的发展，过去中国的一些历史学家的看法就不那么正确，不那么合乎实际”。
“Chinese historians must acknowledge this fact. Sometimes the ancient
history is distorted and added to your head, saying that the Koreans are the
"descendants of Ji zi", and insisting on finding a historical site in
Pyongyang to prove it. This is distorting history; how can it be like
this?”
“中国历史学家必须承认这个事实。有时候就把古代史歪曲了，硬加上你们头上，说什么朝鲜族是“箕子之后”，硬要到平壤找个古迹来证明。这是歪曲历史的，怎么能是这样的呢？”
In the same speech Zhou Enlai stressed the importance of the historical study based on scientific approach using the written records only as second material and mentioned that much of the North East China was the territory of ancient Koreans historically, proven by the ruins remaining and artifacts unearthed. Mao Zedong expressed the same stance on the historical and territorial issues between the two countries in multiple meetings with North Koreans, including the one with Kim Il Sung in 1957.
While their such views on the historical issues can be said to have reflected the typical Communist posture against the feudalistic chauvinism, the trend of scientific approach that formed the mainstream of the historical studies since 1930s in China contributed to the new perspective on the traditional Chinese history narratives as were written by the ancient Chinese historians. Just for the record, Zhou Enlai’s comment on the territorial issues went as following:
“The Korean people have lived there for a long time since they came to the
Korean Peninsula and the Northeast mainland ( China ). The Liaohe and
Songhua River basins have the footprints of the Korean people. This can be
proved from the cultural relics and inscriptions excavated in the Liaohe,
Songhua River and Tumen River basins. Many have traces of the Korean script. It
can be proven that Koreans have lived there for a long time. Near Jingbo
Lake, there is a historic site of the Bohai Kingdom, as well as the
capital. It is said that the local cultural relics prove that it is also a
branch of the Korean nationality. This country has existed for a long
period of time in its history. Therefore, it can be proved that there are
Koreans not only on the Korean Peninsula, but also in the Liaohe and Songhua
River basins for a long period of time. Historical records and unearthed cultural relics have proved it.”
“朝鲜民族自从到了朝鲜半岛和东北大陆以后，长时期在那里居住。辽河、松花江流域都有朝鲜 族的足迹。这可以从辽河、松花江流域、图们江流域发掘来的文物、碑文得到证明。许多都有朝鲜文的痕迹。可以证明很久以来，朝鲜族居住在那里。在镜泊湖附近，有一个渤海国的古迹，还有首都。据说出土文物证明，那也是朝鲜族的一个支派。这个国家在历史上存在了一个相当长的时期。所以，可以证明，不仅在朝鲜半岛上有朝鲜族，同时，在辽河、松花江流域，有很长一个时期也有朝鲜族在那里居住。至于朝鲜族是否在更古的时候，有一部分是从亚洲南部漂海过来的。这是另一个问题，但一定有一部分原来就居住在半岛上。居住在图们江、辽河、松花江流域的，这是肯定的。历史记载和出土文物都已证明了。
Conclusion
When we think of the time of more than two millennia
that lie inbetween since the historical compilation of Shiji by Sima Qian, the
period when the scientific perspectiveon their history was stressed by the early CCP leadership
was so short-lived now that the CCP under Xi Jinping has returned to their old
habit of fondling with the history to hang on to the false claims for the
over-extended cultural and territorial ownership the Chinese society had enjoyed and benefited for two thousand years. The nature of the Northeast History Project is no more than a
brazen effort to hold on to their forged framework of the “Yellow River
Civilization as the only source of culture in East Asia", this time by way of
now calling the ancient Koreans Chinese, to fend off the truth to the contrary
the science had begun to reveal coming into modern times.
Comments
Post a Comment