Максим Викторович Медоваров – кандидат исторических наук, доцент, ведущий научный сотрудник, доцент кафедры информационных технологий в гуманитарных исследованиях
603950, г. Нижний Новгород, пр. Гагарина, 23
Maksim M. Medovarov – Cand. Sci. (History), Associate Professor, Leading Research Fellow, Department of Information Technologies in the Humanities
23 Gagarin Ave., Nizhny Novgorod, 603950
Статья посвящена реконструкции процесса формирования образа корейского императора Коджона в России сначала при его жизни, а затем – в оценках советской и российской историографии. Ранее исследователи рассматривали роль Коджона в российско-корейских отношениях лишь вскользь и преимущественно на основе непубличных донесений дипломатов. Оценки корейского монарха в общественном мнении России конца XIX – начала XX в., которые выражались в периодической печати и сочинениях путешественников и наблюдателей, анализируются впервые. Установлено, что ранние контакты Коджона с Россией оставались почти неизвестны в русском обществе до бегства монарха в русское посольство в 1896 г., после чего набор сведений о Коджоне и его дворе в отечественной печати неуклонно расширялся вплоть до русско-японской войны, гаагского инцидента и свержения Коджона японцами в 1907 г. Часть либеральной прессы осуждала Коджона как реакционного правителя, однако в целом в российской общественности преобладало сочувствие к трагической судьбе императора и его страны, высокие оценки образованности и личных качеств Коджона, его твёрдого многолетнего курса на союз с Россией для обеспечения независимости Кореи. Деятельность Коджона после 1907 г. по созданию на российском Дальнем Востоке очага партизанского движения корейцев, его планы переехать во Владивосток и сотрудничать с военной и гражданской администрацией России долгое время оставались неизвестными общественности, их размах и значение начали находить оценку только в трудах современных историков. Ввиду прямой связи Коджона с революционным корейским движением и событиями 1 марта 1919 г. советская историография не могла игнорировать его фигуру, но до 1950-х гг. предпочитала преуменьшать значение монархистов и династии Ли в корейском национально-освободительном движении. С 1960-х гг. по настоящее время историки в России раскрывают волевую роль Коджона глубже, хотя иногда критикуют проявления его слабости.
This article reconstructs the formation and transformation of the image of Korean Emperor Gojong in Russia, from his lifetime to Soviet and post-Soviet historiography. While previous studies have addressed Gojong’s role in Russo-Korean relations mainly through unpublished diplomatic reports, this article is the first to examine how the Korean monarch was represented in Russian public opinion in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The source base includes Russian periodicals, travel writings, military and diplomatic observations published at the time, as well as Soviet and Russian historiography. In total, the study draws on more than fifty pre-revolutionary sources and more than fifty Soviet and post-Soviet works. The article demonstrates that Gojong’s early contacts with Russia remained almost unknown to Russian society until his flight to the Russian legation in Seoul in 1896. After this event, the amount and diversity of information about Gojong, his court, and his political orientation steadily increased in the Russian press, especially on the eve of and during the Russo-Japanese War, the Hague Incident, and his forced abdication in 1907. The study shows that Russian public opinion was not uniform: part of the liberal press portrayed Gojong as a reactionary and ineffective ruler. Overall, however, Russian public discourse was dominated by sympathy for the tragic fate of the emperor and Korea, positive assessments of Gojong’s education and personal qualities, and recognition of his long-term orientation toward an alliance with Russia as a means of preserving Korean independence.
The article further establishes that Gojong’s post-1907 activities remained largely outside public discussion for a long time. His attempts to support a Korean anti-Japanese resistance base in the Russian Far East, his plans to move to Vladivostok, and his contacts with Russian military and civil administrators became fully visible only in modern historical research. The study also traces the changing place of Gojong in Soviet historiography. Because of his direct connection with the Korean independence movement and the March First Movement of 1919, Soviet historians could not ignore him; nevertheless, until the 1950s they tended to minimize the role of monarchists and the Yi dynasty in the Korean national liberation movement. From the 1960s onward, Russian historiography increasingly recognized Gojong’s active role in anti-Japanese resistance and in attempts to build a Russo-Korean political alliance. Although some historians continued to criticize his indecision and political weakness, the dominant trend in recent scholarship has been toward a more positive reassessment of Gojong as a symbol of Korean sovereignty and one of the key figures in the history of Russo-Korean relations.
This article reconstructs the formation and transformation of the image of Korean Emperor Gojong in Russia, from his lifetime to Soviet and post-Soviet historiography. While previous studies have addressed Gojong’s role in Russo-Korean relations mainly through unpublished diplomatic reports, this article is the first to examine how the Korean monarch was represented in Russian public opinion in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The source base includes Russian periodicals, travel writings, military and diplomatic observations published at the time, as well as Soviet and Russian historiography. In total, the study draws on more than fifty pre-revolutionary sources and more than fifty Soviet and post-Soviet works. The article demonstrates that Gojong’s early contacts with Russia remained almost unknown to Russian society until his flight to the Russian legation in Seoul in 1896. After this event, the amount and diversity of information about Gojong, his court, and his political orientation steadily increased in the Russian press, especially on the eve of and during the Russo-Japanese War, the Hague Incident, and his forced abdication in 1907. The study shows that Russian public opinion was not uniform: part of the liberal press portrayed Gojong as a reactionary and ineffective ruler. Overall, however, Russian public discourse was dominated by sympathy for the tragic fate of the emperor and Korea, positive assessments of Gojong’s education and personal qualities, and recognition of his long-term orientation toward an alliance with Russia as a means of preserving Korean independence.
The article further establishes that Gojong’s post-1907 activities remained largely outside public discussion for a long time. His attempts to support a Korean anti-Japanese resistance base in the Russian Far East, his plans to move to Vladivostok, and his contacts with Russian military and civil administrators became fully visible only in modern historical research. The study also traces the changing place of Gojong in Soviet historiography. Because of his direct connection with the Korean independence movement and the March First Movement of 1919, Soviet historians could not ignore him; nevertheless, until the 1950s they tended to minimize the role of monarchists and the Yi dynasty in the Korean national liberation movement. From the 1960s onward, Russian historiography increasingly recognized Gojong’s active role in anti-Japanese resistance and in attempts to build a Russo-Korean political alliance. Although some historians continued to criticize his indecision and political weakness, the dominant trend in recent scholarship has been toward a more positive reassessment of Gojong as a symbol of Korean sovereignty and one of the key figures in the history of Russo-Korean relations.
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.