112 korea
The reunification of China in 589 posed an immediate threat to
Koguryo, since it could be assumed that the Sui would attempt to
restore the borders of the Han empire. In fact, Emperor Wen did not
recognize Kao Yang^2 (P’yong-won Wang) as the king of Koguryo, only
as duke of Liao-tung commandery (Sui shu 2:6b). This title was intended
to reduce him to the dignitary of a Chinese territorial unit.
News of Kao Yang’s death reached the Sui court on Aug.31, 590.
He was succeeded by his son Kao Yüan (Yong-yang Wang). Emperor
Wen sent envoys to appoint him as Supreme Commander Unequalled
in Honour and as duke of Liao-tung commandery and to present him
with garments. Kao Yüan, on his part, congratulated the Sui emperor
on auspicious omens and requested recognition as king. Emperor Wen
complied (Sui shu 2:6b; 81:4a; Wen-hsien t’ung-k’ao 325:49b).
On Feb.17 and June 10 of 591, envoys from Koguryo to the Sui
court offered regional objects (Sui shu 2:7a).
In 597, Emperor Wen, in a letter stamped with the imperial seal,
demanded annual tribute-bearing envoys from Koguryo (Sui shu 81:
2b-3a;Wen-hsien t’ung-k’ao 325:49b).
But relations between Sui and Koguryo did not develop to the
satisfaction of the Sui court. After a violation of the Chinese border,
Sui went to war in 598. The Chinese sources state that on Aug.4
of that year, Emperor Wen stripped Kao Yüan of office and rank,
that the latter became fearful and sent envoys with a “memorial” to
“apologize”,^3 and that Emperor Wen thereupon halted the attack
(Sui shu 2:12b, 13a; 81:4a-4b; Wen-hsien t’ung-k’ao 325:49b). The truth
behind these fine words is that the Chinese assault by land and sea
failed and that the war ended with a status quo.
On Jan.21, 600, Koguryo envoys offered regional objects (Sui shu
2:13b-14a).
After Emperor Yang had ascended the Sui throne on Aug.13, 604,
(^2) The Chinese texts refer to the Korean rulers by their sinicised family and given
names, the latter of which would have been tabooed in China. This discourtesy toward
foreign rulers, which has been noted before, was intended to stress the gulf between
an emperor and his potential subjects, and was observed not only by the Chinese
histories but also by those devoted to e.g. the Northern Wei, Liao, and Chin. The
Korean texts naturally refer to the kings by their posthumous titles. I will follow the
Chinese practice, but at the first mention of the family and given name of a ruler
will give his Korean posthumous title in parenthesis.
(^3) He would not have referred to himself as a “shit”, as claimed by Pei shih 94:
9b.