SOAS 2022 Autumn seminars

The Tradition of Commons: Two Magna Cartas of England and Korea

Prof Hang-Nyeong Oh (Jeonju University)
18 November

‘Magna Carta’ was a charter approved by King John of England in 1215. And there was a constitution called the Great Compendium of Statecraft (經國大典) in Korea in 1485. Article 33 of Magna Carta stipulates that “In the Thames, the Medway River, and all of England the monopoly fishing-net shall be demolished.” It was a measure of protection for the common-land (commons) of the people. The Great Compendium of Statecraft of Korea also has a regulation that “Those who occupy pastures and forests in private are punished.”

The history of cooperation and conflict over public lands is a universal experience for mankind. Before the nation was established, even before farming, people settled down somewhere and lived. Various natural products around the house were used for living in mountain, field, stream and river. Forests and rivers was the in-depth structure of human history.

The issue of commons in East Asia begins with the statement of Mencius (孟子, about BC.372-289). He proposed to the king that Parks and lakes be used with the people. It is the thought of ‘Sharing it with the people’ (與民同之). I think this is the biggest reason why Zhu Xi, a master of neo-Confucianism during the Song Dynasty of China, chose Mencius as one of the “Four Books” along with the Analects, the Mean and the Great-Learning.

Even in East Asian society, where new Confucianism was popular, the attitude of accepting Mencius was different in Joseon Korea, Ming China, Japan, and Vietnam. In Japan, only some intellectuals read Mencius, but Mencius’s ideas do not appear to have had a political or economic impact. King Taejo of the Ming Dynasty of China deleted all the chapters in which the ideas of ‘Sharing it with the people’ appeared.

In Joseon society, the attitude of accepting Mencius was very different. It was read widely and without reserve. During the Joseon Dynasty, the common land was called ‘Forest and River 山林川澤’. The commons was the stage and background of public action. There was no community without commons and sharing. This was because, as long as it was a community resource, they had to decide who can access, who can use it, how to share it, how to maintain it, and how to enable reproduction. A certain system worked to decide that.

When the commons was invaded by the king or influencer, people prepared and resisted through the ideas of ‘Sharing it with the people’. Sarim (士林) criticized the act of the monarch competing for interests with the people with the logic that ‘the king has no private savings.’ Until the late Joseon Dynasty, the national administration and power only reached the door of Myeon-ri (面里 village) reading the people and land.

But the modern government is different from them of past. The modern Korean government has a clear look at Oh Hang-nyeong’s salary envelope. Modern governments have superior intelligence and administrative power over governments of any past era. If such a government takes the lead in neo-liberal privatization, the shared intellectual nature of water, medical care, railways, ports, airports, and educational services is threatened. Britain under Thatcher and the United States under Reagan have already shown examples. What kind of struggle will take place on the commons of mankind in the future?

The Clash of the Falcons: Animals, Hunting, and Falconry in Premodern Korea

Prof George Kallander (Syracuse University)
9 December

This talk focuses on the transitional period of Northeast Asia from the late Koryŏ to the early Chosŏn dynasties (1270s–1500). During this era, as peninsular leaders expanded their governing influence over people and the environment through taxation, conscription, and resource extraction, human-animal relations became increasingly significant to politics, national security, and elite identities. Some of the best examples of human-animal interaction included the royal and elite hunts. Two forms of elite hunting practices emerged around this time. The first and grandest, led by the king, were large-scale annual events encompassing sometimes thousands of soldiers with formal set of rules for engaging animals. The second was the smaller and more intimate, personal hunting event, when the king or other elites hunted with a small entourage. Both forms of the chase were integral components to state building as the government extended its dominance over the land and beasts of the wild.

This talk first considers the private, personal hunts by the kings and his supporters during the fifteenth century. The second half extends this discussion to the moral economy of falconry. Falconry, another form of the private hunt, was woven into the cultural and political landscape of early Korea and Northeast Asia. A body of knowledge on falconry, some inspired from Chinese texts, and more from native Korean practices – shaped by political, geographical, and cultural beliefs – helped inform those involved in the sport and circulated even to the Japanese islands. Discussions over falconry at the court, one of the most extravagant forms of the personal, private hunt, shed light on important aspects of national and international politics and identity of the kingship and dynasty vis-à-vis contact with other empires, such as the Yuan and Ming, and people around the peninsula. For early Chosŏn kings, falconry was an extension of royal authority that conflicted more and more with the changing bureaucratic, economic, and moral needs of the new dynasty.