The Backdrop of a Costly War

The late 16th century witnessed one of East Asia’s most consequential conflicts: the Imjin War (1592–1598), where Toyotomi Hideyoshi’s Japan invaded Joseon Korea, prompting Ming China’s military intervention. By early 1593, the war had reached a stalemate. Japanese forces, though initially successful, faced logistical strains and Ming counteroffensives. Seeking an exit, Hideyoshi entertained negotiations—but with delusions of grandeur that would doom diplomacy from the start.

This critical juncture saw Ming strategist Song Yingchang dispatch two low-ranking officials, Xie Yongzi and Xu Yiguan, accompanied by the controversial mediator Shen Weijing, to engage with Japanese commanders. Unbeknownst to Hideyoshi, these “imperial envoys” were mere functionaries, a fact that would later unravel negotiations. Their journey to Japan’s military headquarters at Nagoya (present-day Karatsu) set the stage for a farcical yet revealing diplomatic encounter.

The Theater of Power in Nagoya

Hideyoshi, misled by his advisor Konishi Yukinaga into believing the Ming sought peace from weakness, prepared an extravagant display. Gold-leafed spears, as recorded in the Miwa Family Documents, adorned his troops—a calculated show of force for the supposed “imperial envoys.” On May 23, 1593, Hideyoshi received Xie and Xu at his golden tea room, gifting them silver, swords, and robes. Yet beneath the pageantry lay stark demands.

Through the monk Keitetsu Genso, Hideyoshi’s terms were presented via written exchanges (bidan), a common workaround for language barriers. The proposals revealed his hubris:

1. A Ming Princess for the Japanese Emperor – Framed as “harmonizing relations,” this demand ignored Ming diplomatic norms.
2. Resumption of Tributary Trade – Reviving the defunct tally trade system severed since 1556.
3. Partition of Joseon – Japan would retain four of Korea’s eight provinces.
4. Hostage Royal Princes – Uncaptured Joseon princes were to be sent to Japan.

Xie and Xu, realizing the term “harmonizing relations” meant royal marriage—not mere diplomacy—feigned compliance while privately rejecting the terms. Their evasive replies, praising Hideyoshi’s “sincerity” but deferring decisions to the Wanli Emperor, exposed the talks’ fragility.

Cultural Collisions and Misread Histories

The negotiations became a comedy of errors. When the monk Genpo Reisan invoked China’s Han Dynasty policy of heqin (marriage alliances), he misappropriated the story of Wang Zhaojun, wrongly casting the disgraced painter Mao Yanshou as a hero. Xie and Xu corrected him, but their own understanding was colored by Yuan drama The Sorrow of Han, showcasing how historical myths muddied diplomacy.

Hideyoshi’s demands also reflected a skewed worldview. His claim that Japan had “pacified barbarians” for Ming China’s benefit—even offering to fight the Mongols—ignored the Ming’s tributary hierarchy. The envoys’ retort that the Ming had “no border threats” (a 1593 fiction) would prove tragically ironic when, decades later, Southern Ming loyalists begged Tokugawa Japan for troops against the Qing.

The Unraveling and Legacy

By late June, Hideyoshi’s “Seven Conditions” were formalized, blending megalomania and pragmatism. The envoys, outmaneuvered, insisted terms be reworded for Ming approval—a stalling tactic. Their return to Korea without agreements merely postponed war’s resumption in 1597.

The Nagoya talks’ failure underscored deeper truths:
– Diplomatic Asymmetry: Hideyoshi’s bluster clashed with Ming bureaucratic caution.
– The Cost of Deception: Fake envoys and distorted histories poisoned negotiations.
– Korea’s Anguish: Joseon, treated as a bargaining chip, suffered prolonged devastation.

Historians like Mary Elizabeth Berry note Hideyoshi’s diplomacy was less about peace than face-saving—a pattern echoing in modern East Asian tensions. The 1593 talks, though futile, remain a masterclass in how cultural arrogance and miscommunication can derail even the most pragmatic ceasefires. Their legacy lingers in regional disputes where historical narratives still shape diplomacy’s limits.