Korea becomes Chosen

The road to annexation and the first decade of nationalization

By William Wetherall

First posted 1 January 2007
Last updated 10 September 2023

Opening Korea Sources • 1876 Japan-Chosen treaty • 1882 US-Chosen treaty • 1882 Japan-Chosen treaty • 1883 Britain-Corea treaty
Korea becomes protectorate 1904 defense agreement • 1905 diplomacy agreement • 1907 domestic affairs agreement
Annexation of Korea 1910 Annexation treaty (Seoul) • 1910 Ordinance changing name to Chosen • 1910 Annexation declaration
  * Related pronouncements   Sunjong edict • Sunjong instruction • Meiji rescript
  * Hall of mirrors   Conroy on gappo, gappei, heigo • Kim & Kim on annexation • Duus on heigo • Dudden on Conroy and Duus
  * Extraterritoriality • Dudden on extraterritoriality • Liu on extraterritoriality
Selected reports on Korea Martini 1655 • Hamel 1666 • Allen 1873 on Wodehouse 1872 • Ross 1879 • MacIntyre 1881 • Griffis 1882 • Griffis 1885 • Ross 1887 • Bishop 1898 • McKenzie 1908 • Kiusic Kimm 1919 • McKenzie 1920 • Cynn 1920 • Chung 1921

See Nationalization treaties for how Taiwan and and Karafuto were incorporated into Japan.
See The detritus of empire for examples of how Korea's name changed on various artifacts.
See The continuing annexation for why and how Korea's 1910 union with Japan goes on.

Opening Korea's doors

The country often called "Corea" or "Korea" or "Corée" or related terms in English and other alphabetic scripts did not exist as such at the time it was "opened" in the late 19th century through treaties with Japan and other countries. The name of country had long been 朝鮮 in short, more fully 朝鮮國, and most formally 大朝鮮國 -- which would be romanized Chosŏn, Chosŏn Guk, and Dae Chosŏn Guk according to the McCune-Reischauer scheme that was introduced from 1937.

The most common romanization based on an East Asian reading of 朝鮮 was Chaosien,

The English version of the 1876 treaty Korea concluded with Japan in Japanese and Chinese gives its name as "Chosen" -- reflecting, most likely, a Sino-Japanese romanization of 朝鮮.

The English version of the 1882 treaty Korea concluded with the United States, in English and Chinese, also names the country "Chosen" -- most likely because of the impact of the English version of the 1876 treaty and contemporary English writing that used this term or similar terms.

Korea is 朝鮮.
English romanizations
vary but are usually
Chaosien (Chinese) or
Chosen (Sino-Japanese).
More fully Korea is
朝鮮國 (Chosŏn Guk).
Most formally it is
大朝鮮國 (Dae Chosŏn Guk).

The following romanizations in Sino-Chinese (SC), Sino-Korean (SK), and Sino-Japanese (SJ) represent contemporary spellings, followed by spellings based on Wade-Giles (WG), McCune-Reischauer (MR), and Hepburn reflecting present kana orthography (PH).

SC Chaosien (WG Chaohsien)
SK [unknown] (MR Chosŏn)
SJ Chosen (HP Chōsen)

Contemporary treaties in English and other Euro-American languages represent 朝鮮 in various ways, including "Chosen" but also "Korea" and "Corea" and "Corée". Among these names, "Chosen" -- whatever its linguistic provenance, whether Japanese or English -- ranks with "Chosŏ" and "Chosun" as reasonable alphabetic representations of 朝鮮.

Here "Korea" is an algebraic variable for a territory whose borders and governments have changed a number of times over the centuries but today is divided between the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), north and south of the 38th parallel of latitude, which roughly splits what I will also call the "Korean peninsula".

"Koreans" is similarly an algebraic variable for the people affiliated at any given time with Korea, as subjects or aleges or nationals or citizens of one or another government or other authority that has had control and jurisdiction if not also sovereignty over the territory, in whole or in part.

"Korean" may be a single form of "Koreans" referring to a person, or an adjective for anything connected with "Korea" or "Koreans", or one of the langauges or dialects which "Koreans" have spoken at any particular time or place.

With this in mind, I ask a simple question -- when did "Korea" become "Chosen"? Here, "Chosen" too is a variable, representing a number of different alphabetic transcriptions of 朝鮮, not limited to but including Sino-Japanese "Chōsen" (Hepburn) and "Tyōsen" (Kunrei), which inspire "Chosenese" and "Tyosenese" as translations of 朝鮮人 (Chōsenjin, Tyosenzin). I am not concerned with how these characters may actually have been pronounced in any language including Korean, Chinese, or Japanese, or written in any script whether hangul, kana, or an alphabet. I am mainly interested in debunking the myths that there is something underhanded or disparaging about the use of "Chosen" and "Chosenese" in English representions, whether or not filtered through Japanese.

In point of fact, Sino-Japanese 朝鮮 has been represented a number of ways in romanization -- inlcluding Chosen, Chōsen, Chiyosen, and Tyosen.

Forthcoming.

A lot of fuss has been made about the names for "Korea" in English. What really matters, in terms of understanding the history of "Korea" in East Asia, is how the country styled itself, and how it was styled by its most intimate Asian neighbors -- China and Japan.

Korea styled itself mainly in Chinese terms that would be read in Sino-Korean by Koreans and Sino-Japanese by Japanese. English (and other non-Sinific language) terms for "Korea" are invariably based on one or another Chinese term that has been directly morphed into English, or has come into English through morphings into other languages, European or Asian.

Forthcoming.

Except for the 1884 treaty with Russia, all of the following treaties are found in Chung 1919, in the indicated language, using the indicated name for Korea.

Japan, 26 February 1876, English Chosen
Japan, 24 August 1876, English Korea
United States, 22 May 1882, English Chosen
Great Britain, 26 November 1883, English Korea
Germany, 26 November 1883, English Corea, German Korea
Italy, 26 June 1884, English Corea
Russia, 7 July 1884
France, 4 June 1886, French Corée
Austria-Hungary, 23 June 1892, English Corea
China, 11 September 1899, English Korea
Belgium, 23 March 1901, French Corée
Denmark, 15 July 1902, French Corée
Japan, 23 February 1904, English Korea
Japan, 22 August 1904, English Korea
Japan, 1 April 1905, English Korea
Japan, 13 August 1905, English Korea
Japan, 17 November 1905, English Korea
Japan, 24 July 1907, English Korea
Japan, 22 August 1910, English Korea, Chosen [Note]

Note

Chung 1919 erroneously states in the title of his version of the annexation treaty that it was "signed August 29th, 1910" when in fact it was signed on 22 August and came into effect from 29 August.

More significantly, though, Chung's version shows "Chosen" in Article VI rather than "Korea" -- whereas received versions of the treaty show the graphs 韓國 (SK Hanguk, SJ Kankoku), which correspond to "Korea" as in the name "Empire of Korea". However, Japan did not declare the name change from "Kankoku" to "Chosen" until 29 August when the annexation formally began. For more about this descrepancy, see texts and discussion of Annexation treaty elsewhere on this page.

Top  

Treaty sources

In the following discussions, I will be citing Chinese and Japanese texts of treaties, obtained from various on-line and some printed sources, with English versions found mostly in either Henry Chung (1919) or F. A. McKenzie (1908). Other important secondary sources are also described in this section. See also the "English Reports" section of this page for a sampling of contemporary commentary on treaties.

Chung 1919

The most important source for early Korean treaties with other countries is the following compilation by Henry Chung, now available in print-on-demand editions. A POD edition is partly viewable on Google Books. Unfortuantely, I do not have an original or POD copy.

Henry Chung (Compiler)
[A.M., Fellow in Economics, Northwestern University]
Korean Treaties
New York: H. S. Nichols, 1919
xii, 226 [238] pages, hardcover
Preface dated 25 February 1919 (New York)
[POD, Charleston (SC): BiblioLife, 2009 ]

Some of the treaties as published in Chung 1919 are reproduced in Cynn 1920, which I have reviewed later on this page.

McKenzie 1908

McKenzie 1908, also reviewed later on this page and much more available, contains a number of treaties in its appendicies. Unfortunately, they are not as complete as the versions in Chung 1919, and they are sometimes at variance with the versions in Chung 1919.

1899 collection of Treaties and Conventions compiled by the Foreign Office of Japan on eve of end of extraterritoriality (Copped and cropped from Nichibun) Foreign Office 1899 The image to the right shows the cover of the following book, published in January 1899, the year a number of new treaties with a several Euro-American states were to come into effect, abolishing their territoriality in Japan and otherwise recognizing Japan as a fully sovereign and equally competent state. Foreign Office [of Japan] (compiler) Treaties and Conventions Between the Empire of Japan and Other Powers Tokio: Z. P. Maruya & Co., Ltd. (Maruzen Kabushiki-kwaisha), January 1899 Text (392 pages), appendices (59 pages), plus front and back matter, among other content The image, and the following information, is adapted from a description of the book in a collection at 国際日本文化研究センター (Kokusai Nihon Bunka Kenkyū Sentaa) [KNBKS] or "Nichibun", aka International Research Center for Japanese Studies [IRCJS]. The book is classified as No. 1006 in the book section of the government publications section of Nichibun's Shinku database. The item is classified under "Japan" and "Department of Foreign Affairs". The posted description of the book says it had been in the Library of the Imperial Japanese Embassy in London. The colophon states that it was printed on 26 January 1899 and published on 29 January 1899, in two volumes, Japanese and Foreign, and was priced at 7.00 yen. The book was compiled and published by 外務省記録課 with the participation of several printers and 丸善株式會書店. The posted table of contents lists all the treaties and conventions that would soon be in force, or would continue to be effective, that year, when extraterritoriality in Japan would end. Note that (1) "Korea" is "Corea" and appears first, (2) treaties with most states bear dates of the treaties that resulted from renegotiations in the mid 1890s, to come into effect during 1899, (3) the efficacy of some older treaties would continue (such as those with Korea, and those with Russia concerning Karafuto and the Kuriles), and (4) the status of "Hawaii" has changed.

Treaties and Conventions Between the Empire of Japan and Other Powers
Compiled and published by the Foreign Office of Japan in 1899

Top  

1876 Kanghwa treaty between Japan and Chosen

The middle of the 19th century saw an increase in friction between Japan and Korea. By 1873, a number of Japanese political leaders had expressed unease about conditions and developments on the peninsula that might be to Japan's disadvantage. Some even advocated the mounting of a military expedition to Korea with the object of controlling the country.

The Kanghwa indcient at Kanghwa island (江華島 J. Kōkato) in Kanghwa bay (江華湾 J. Kōkawan) in September 1875 resulted in Japan and Korea signing two treaties the following year -- the principal treaty on 26 February and a supplementary treaty on 24 August 1876. Regulations concerning the treatment of Japanese persons and trade in Korea were also agreed to on 24 August 1876.

Official Japanese and Chinese versions

The principal treaty provides that Japan will communicate in Japanese but will provide Chinese translations for the first ten years, while Korea would communicate in Chinese. There is no mention of an English version, and apparently the English version was created later as a translation of the Japanese version.

The preliminary text and date and signature texts of the principal treaty use 大日本國 (Dai Nippon koku) and 大朝鮮國 (Dai Chō koku). The preliminary text, and body, also refer to 日本國政府 (Nippon koku seifu) and 朝鮮國政府 (Chō koku seifu) -- i.e., the "governents" of the two countries. The provisions of the treaty generally simplify these to just 朝鮮國 (Chōsen koku) and 日本國 (Nippon koku) or their governments. The people of the two entities are referred to as 朝鮮國人民 (Chōsen-koku jinmin) and 日本國人民 (Nippon-koku jinmin).

Usage in the supplementary treaty is similar, except that the preliminary text refers only to 日本國政府 (Nippon koku seifu) and 朝鮮國政府 (Chōsen koku seifu) or the "governments" of the two countries.

English versions

I am unable to determine when the English versions of the principal and supplementary 1876 treaties between Japan and Korea came into existence. The received versions conform to contemporary treaty styles but would seem to have been translated by different hands. And indirect evidence suggests that the received English version existed no later than 1882 (see citations from Griffis 1882, 1885 below).

Though the Japanese and Chinese versions of both treaties refer to "Chosen", the received English version of the principal treaty uses "Chosen" while the received English version of the supplementary treaty uses "Korea". The English versions of both treaties otherwise similarly render Sino-Korean terms according to Sino-Japanese romanizations.

Both treaties speak of "people" in Japanese and Japanese, while their English versions speak of "subjects". The English morphs of a number of other Japanese and Chinese metaphors are similarly distorted.

1876 Treaty of Kanghwa

The 26 February 1876 treaty attempted to put Japan and Chosen on an equal standing. The Japanese and Chinese texts are adopted from what appear to be the most credible versions I was able to find on the Internet. The English version is from publications in my own library.

Japanese version

The Japanese version was adapted from the text as posted on the website of "The World and Japan" Database Project (データベース「世界と日本」Deetabeesu "Sekai to Nihon"), maintained by the Tanaka Akihiko Research Group at the Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo (東京大学東洋文化研究所、田中明彦研究室 Tōkyō Daigaku Tōyō Bunka Kenkyūjo, Tanaka Akihiko Kenkyūshitsu).

This copy is unpunctuated, as was the original. The structure, however, is clear. Some web versions are punctuated, and punctuated differently. I have added unicode for a few non-JIS-standard characters.

Chinese version

The Chinese version is adapted from a wiki.livedoor.jp copy. As posted, this copy was punctuated with periods. The original was not punctuated. Some web copies are punctuataed with periods and commas. I have added unicode for a few non-JIS-standard characters.

English version

The English version is based on text in appendicies of Cynn 1920 (pages 237-243), which is attributed to Chung 1919 (see Sources above). There is also a version in McKenzie 1908 (page 269-272). The date of English version dates NLT 1882 (see citations from Griffis 1882, 1885 below).

Equality, languages, people

Article I (first clause), Article III (entire), and Article X (entire) read as follows.

The body of treaty speaks first of "The Governments of Japan and Chosen" and once of "neither the Japanese nor Chosen Government". Mostly, though, it speaks of just "Chosen" or "the Government of Chosen". And it speaks of "Japanese subjects" and "subjects of Chosen".

Romanization

Korean place names, and names of Korean government posts, are romanized according to contemporary Sino-Japanese readings of Korean terms. All romanization of Japanese and Korean names reflect the contemporary kana orthography, for example:

Note that the w-glide of "kwan" in the title of In Jishō reflects Japanese contemporary kana orthography クワン -- though the same graph would also romanize "kwan" from hangul 관 (or "gwan" in this case since "k-" precedes a vowel). The received Chinese text omits the first part of his full title of In Jishō as given in the Japanese text.

Colonisation Department

What is being translated in English as the "Colonisation Department" was actually an "opening and cultivation" or "development" office or agency (開拓使 Kaitakushi). The agency existed between 1869 and 1882 for the purpose of facilitating Japan's nationalization of its northernmost non-prefectural exclusive and shared territories -- namely Hokkaidoō, the southern part of Karafuto (Sakhalin), and the southern stretch of the Chishima islands (Kuriles).

A separate Karafuto Development Office was established in 1870 but abolished the following year. In 1875, Japan traded its claim southern Karafuto for the northern Chishimas. The general Development Office, which oversaw the Chishima islands as part of Hokkaido, was abolished in 1882 when Hokkaidō was parsed into Hakodate, Sapporo, and Nemuro prefectures.

In 1886 the three prefectures were merged again as Hokkaidō as prefecture. However, the new prefecture was placed under the direction of a new office called the Hokkaidō Agency. As such it was more centrally controlled, as was Okinawa, than other prefectures.

Kuroda Kiyotaka

Kuroda Kiyotaka (黒田清隆 1840-1900) was the agency's vice-minister from 1870-1871, and its minister from 1871 until all but the last month of its existence in 1882. The last minister, who merely oversaw the agency's closing, was Saigō Tsugumichi (1843-1902), from Satsuma, who had led the 1874 punitive expedition to Taiwan.

Kuroda, also from Satsuma, was one of the more important figures in the civil wars of the late Edo and early Meiji periods. He was instrumental in the early development of Hokkaidō but also in the formation of Japan's Northeast Asia policies concerning Russia, and of Korea in terms of the that Russia's interests in the peninsula.

It was largely through Kuroda's advocacy that Japan traded its claim to Karafuto, which Russia also claimed, for Russia's claim to the northern Kuriles. Japan and Russia agreed to the territorial swap, and to related matters, in the Treaty of St. Petersburg, signed in May 1875. The Kanghwa incident occured in September. Kuroda was sent to Korea to negotiate a settlement, hence his position as Japan's chief negotiator of the Treaty of Kanghwa.

Kuroda went on to become Japan's second prime minister, and was serving in this post when the Meiji Constitution was promulgated.

Inouye Kaoru

Inouye Kaoru (井上馨 1835-1915) became Japan's first Minister of Foreign Affairs under the cabinet system that began in 1885, under its first Prime Minister, Itō Hirobumi (伊藤博文 1841-1909). Itō, also involved in early Japan-Chosen relations, was appointed Japan's first Resident-General of Korea in 1905, a post that officially began the following year, marking the start of Japan's diplomatic protectorship over the Empire of Korea. In 1909 he would be assassinated by a Korean.

"independent state"

Much has been made of the significance of Article 1 of the 1876 Kanghwa treaty. The intent of the article seems to have been to assert that Korea was the master of its soul, as Japan regarded itself. Japan at the time was subject to inequalities in the treaties it had signed with a number of Euro-American states, but was nonetheless a sovereign state. Korea, however, had been a quasi-tributary of China.

Frederick A. McKenzie, writing in 1908, refers to Ariticle 1 and other assurances of Korea's independence with reserved hope that Japan's intentions are sincere. Writing in 1920, a decade after Japan's annexation of Korea as Chosen, he takes, of course, a very different view. (See remarks under McKenzie 1908 and 1920 below.)

1876 supplementary treaty

Both the Japanese and Chinese versions of both the principal and supplementary treaties of 1876 refer to the peninsula state as 朝鮮 (SJ Chōsen). The English version of the principal treaty directly romanizes this as "Chosen".

The English version of the "Supplementary Treaty Between Japan and Korea" (McKenzie 1908, pages 273-275), though, speaks of Korea rather than Chosen -- of the Government of Korea, of the Korean Government, and of Korean subjects. Like the English version of the principal treaty, though, Sino-Korean proper nouns are rendered according to Sino-Japanese readings.

Dates of treaties

The styles of dating the signatures on English versions of the principal and supplementary 1876 treaties are also similar. Both represent the solar Japanese reign dates, and lunar Korean dynasty and segagenary cycle dates, as shown on the official Japanese and Chinese versions -- without translation into equivalent Christian era Gregorian calendar dates.

The Japanese government officially adopted use of the Gregorian calendar from January 1873, hence the distinction of "month" (solar) and "moon" in the English version of the principal treaty. The English version of the supplementary treaty, however, fails to make this distinction -- though clearly the Korean year is lunar -- expressed as the year of the founding of the Chosen dynasty, equated to year of the current sexagenary cycle (丙子, SJ Heishi, 1876).

Neither English version gives a Christian era equivalent. This is understandable only if the English versions indended to faithfully reflect the literal content of the official Japanese and Chinese language versions -- without accommodating the needs of most readers of English, very few of whom would have understand why, say, "the second month of the ninth year of Meiji" (日本暦明治九年二月) and "the first moon of the year Hei-shi [of Chosen]" (朝鮮暦丙子年) were equivalent -- as stipulated in Article V of the principal treaty.

The phrasal fidelity of the English versions of the 1876 US-Chosen treaties strongly suggest that they were translated from an official language version, most likely the Japanese version, after they treaties were concluded. In contrast, the English version of the 1882 US-Chosen treaty (see next), as the most official version, had to have been written primarily to accommodate its American approvers.

Top  

1882 Yin-chuen (Shufeldt) treaty between United States and Chosen (Korea)

The Treaty of Amity and Commerce Between the United States of America and Chosen was signed on 22 May 1882 at Yin-chuen, and ratifications exchanged at Seoul, according to Henry Chung (Chung 21, pages 328-338) F. A. McKenzie, who cited the main body of the treaty, said it was signed at "Gensan", a Japanese romanization of Wonsan (元山), and that ratifications were exhanged at Hanyang (McKenzie 1908, page 276).

"Chosen" is the name stated in the official English version of the treaty, reflecting 朝鮮 (SK Chosŏn, SJ Chōsen).

The treaty stated that it was being singed at "Yin-chuen" (仁川) and provided that ratifications be exchanged within one year at the same place.

"Hanyang" (漢陽), aka Hansŏng (漢城), and later as Keijō (京城 SK Kyŏsŏng), was also referred to as "Seoul" if not "Soul".

"Yin-chuen" is a Chinese-based romanization for 仁川 (SK Inch'ŏn), which at the time was also romanized "In-chiun" if read in Sino-Korean, and "Ninsen" if in Sino-Japanese.

Official languages

Unless otherwise noted, the following English texts are based on the copy in Chung 1921 (pages 328-338). McKenzie includes the treaty in his appendices (McKenzie 1908, pages 276-281).

Article XIII makes the following provisions concerning official languages (page 336).

"People" rendered "citizens" and "subjects"

What the English version variously calls "citizens" of the United States and "subjects" of Chosen are referred to as simply 民人 in the Chinese version. "Nationality" in the English version is reflected as 所屬 (affiliation) in the Chinese version, hence phrases like 所屬之國 (country of affiliation).

Names of countries

The Chinese version is called 朝美修好通商條約. The 朝美 is most fully and formally expanded at the beginning of the treaty as 大朝鮮國 and 大亞美理駕合衆國. The body of treaty generally reduces these longer terms to just 朝鮮 and 美國 -- but also pairs 大朝鮮國 and 大美國.

The English version speaks fully of "the United States of America" and "the Kingdom of Chosen" but then shortens these to just "the United States" and "Chosen". It speaks of "the President of the United States and the King of Chosen and the citizens and subjects of their respective governments".

There is, of course, no foundation in the Chinese version for "Kingdom of Chosen". In this respect, too, the English versions of the 1876 Japan-Chosen treaties are superior as faithful translations of their Japanese and Chinese versions, whereas the English version of the 1882 US-Chosen treaty relies on conventional (stereotypic) English references to what had been widely characterized as "the Hermit Kingdom".

"Chosen"

An equivalent of the term "Korea" appears nowhere in the Chinese -- i.e., Sino-Korean -- version. The treaty is signed by "R. W. Shufeldt, Commodore United States, Navy, Envoy of the United States to Chosen" and Shin Chen, Chin Hong Chi, Members of the Royal Cabinet of Chosen" (page 281).

The preface to the treaty more specifically identifies Schufeldt as "Commodore, U. S. Navy" and "Commissioner Plenipotentiary" of the President of the United States. Shin Chen is called "President of the Royal Cabinet" and Chin Hong-chi is called "Member of the Royal Cabinet", and both men are called "Commissioners Plenipotentiary" of "His Majesty, the King of Chosen". (Chung 1921).

More precisely, the signature section of the received English version reads like this (Chung 337).

   Chosen, May the 22nd, A. D. 1882.

(L. S.) (Signed) R. W. Shufeldt,

             Commodore, U. S. N., Envoy of the
                    U. S. to Chosen.

(L. S.) (Signed) Shin Chen      ┐ 
                                │  (In Chinese)   
(L. S.) (Signed) Chin Hong-Chi  ┘

           Members of the Royal Cabinet of Chosen.

Chinese imperial year

The English version does not represent the manner in which the dates are written in the Chinese version -- which neither states "Chosen" as a place of signature, nor uses the Christian "A.D." metaphor.

The Chinese version (see image below) states "Great Chosen State opening-of-state [founding] 491st-year, namely Chinese [emperor] Kwang Hsu 8th-year, 4th-moon first-6th sun [lunar]" (大朝鮮國開國四百九十一年即中國光緒八年四月初六日) -- and "Great American State 1882th-year 5th-moon 22nd-sun [solar]" (大美國一千八百八十二年五月廿二日). The ranks of the Korean signators are also separately and differently stated in full.

In other words, unlike the 1876 Japan-Chosen treaty, which equated the Chosen founding with the current sexagenary cycle year, the 1882 US-Chosen treaty tied the Chosen founding year to the Chinese imperial year. For all means and purposes, it would appear that the two Chosen signators were acting as agents for the Emperor of China, not yet 11 years old and barely 7 years on the throne.

"Shin Chen" and "Chin Hong Chi [Hong-chi]" may have been intended to represent Sino-Korean romanizations of the names of the Korean officials 申櫶 (1810-1888) and 金弘集 (1842-1896), though they could also be Chinese romanizations. By late 19th century and early 20th century standards of romanization, these names are respectively Sin Hŏn (신헌) and Kim Hong Jip (김홍집) in Sino-Korean (McCune-Reishcauer), Shin Ken and Kin Kōshū in Sino-Japanese (New Hepburn), and Shen Hsien (PY Shen Xian), and Chin Hung Chi in Chinese.

Kim, sent to Japan as an envoy in 1880, witnessed what he considered the positive effects on Japan of having opened its ports to commerce with Euro-American countries and undertaken governmental reforms along the lines of such countries. He appears to have been more amenable to the idea of Korea following Japan's example in establishing formal ties with such countries, beginning with the United States.

Kim was also one of Korea's plenipoteniaries in the signing of the 1882 Chemulpo treaty with Japan (see below). He was assassinated by pro-Russia (i.e., anti-Japanese) Koreans in 1896.

Copiest variations

In this context, "Chosen" might also have been perceived as a Chinese or Sino-Korean romanization -- possibly influenced by the "Chosen" in the English version of the 1876 Kanghwa Treaty.

The English version of the 1882 US-Korean treaty in the appendices of Cynn 1920 (see below), gives the names of the Korean signers as "Shin Chen" and "Chin Hong-chi" and notes in parentheses "(In Chinese.)" -- meaning that they signed in Chinese graphs rather than in an alphabetic script. Cynn's version, attributed to Henry Chung's collection of treaties, gives Shufeldt's titles as "Commodore, U. S. N., Envoy of the U. S. to Chosen" but does not give the title of the Korean representatives. A version in Chung 1921 (see below), however, shows the title to be "Members of the Royal Cabinet of Chosen" (Chung 1921, page 337).

The differences between the Cynn and Chung versions, and between them and the McKenzie version, seem to represent copiest variations -- i.e., variations introduced in the process of copying the original if not a copy, or a copy of a copy, of the original. Each generation of copy is likely to be more degraded.

The version in Chung 1921 is embedded as a transcript of the treaty in the fuller presidential proclamation or promulgation of the treaty in the United States on 4 June 1883 -- following ratification by the President of the United States on 13 February 1883, as advised by the United States Senate on 9 January 1883, after signing at Yin-Chuen on 22 May 1882.

The version in Chung 1921 states that the treaty was signed at "Yin-Chuen". The signatures on the treaty are prefaced by a statement that the treaty is being signed at "Yin-chuen" and that ratifications will be exchanged at "Yin-chuen" within a year.

The first paragraph of the proclamation refers to the treaty more fully like this (Chung 1921, page 328, underscoring mine).

The proclamation then cites the preface, articles, and signatures of the "Treaty of Amity and Commerce". Their texts are essentially the same as those in Cynn 1920. The articles are essentially the same as those in McKenzie 1908, which does not show the preface. These texts refer only to "Chosen" and never to "Korea".

Following the citation of the treaty, the presidential proclamation goes on to make the following two references to the entity with which the United States has concluded the treaty (Chung 1920, pages 337-338, underscoring mine).

In other words, in its public proclamation in 1883 of the ratified 1882 Treaty of Amity and Commerce, it appears that the United States -- under the signatures of "Chester A. Arthur" (1829-1886), then its president (1881-1885), and his Secretary of State "Frdk. T. Frelinghuysen" (1817-1885, in office 1881-1885) -- is formally referring to to the entity with which it concluded the treaty as "Chosen" in the official English version of the treaty -- while clarifying, in the proclamation, that "Chosen" refers to "Korea".

Chinese version of 1882 US-Chosen treaty showing R. W. Shufeldt's signature and title as Commodore U. S. Navy / Envoy of U. S. to Chosen (Copped and cropped from Livedoor site) "Chosen" in Shufeldt's own hand Not having access images much less original copies of the treaty, the Image to the right will have to suffice for the present. The image shows the last two pages of the Chinese version of the 1882 US-Chosen treaty. It is shown here as posted on Livedoor in part of a rather elaborate Chosen-Nippon historical website called "Kimama ni reikishi" (きままに歴史), developed by Sawada Baku (澤田獏), about whom I know nothing more. This is, at this point, the possible confirmation I have seen that "Chosen" was in fact the term for "Korea" in the minds of those who formulated the English version of the treaty and signed it in English -- particular in the mind of Robert Wilson Shufeldt (1822-1895), who appears to have written "Chosen" in his own hand. The Americans were probably inspired to use "Chosen" out of belief that it was the Korea's name -- which, in fact, it was. At least it appears to have written "Chosen" on the English version of the 1876 Japan-Chosen treaty -- which had to have been made NLT 1882, for Griffis refers to the English version of the treaty as referred to today even by Korean scholars who are critical of the early treaties, and particular of those with Japan. Griffis himself, through his very popular and often reprinted 1882 book, contributed to the understanding of "Chosen" as a suitable name for Korea in the English world -- long before it was given that name as a territory of Japan.

C-h-o-s-e-n

The spelling "C-h-o-s-e-n" would appear to reflect the manner in which 朝鮮 would be have been transliterated from Japanese in the Hepburn system of romanization which had been introduced from the late 1860s and early 1870s.

However, it is also possible that this orthography was regarded by writers in English as a sort of generic reading of 朝鮮 -- which, graphically, was clearly the name of the country regardless of how it would have been read in one or another Chinese, Sino-Korean, or Sino-Japanese dialect.

Chao-sien

McKenzie (1908, pages 19-22) cites what appears to be the English text of an early 1882 proclamation issued by "the King of Chao-sien" on the eve of his signing of a series of treaties with America, England, and Germany in 1882. The king "commands the rulers and people" of Korea to cooperate with the court's decision to open Korean ports to Euro-American countries, which until then had been turned away because of the perception that accommodating their commercial interests would invite wholesale alienation in the form of Christianization and other unwelcome changes.

In the proclamation, the king refers to the treaty signed with Japan in 1876, which had opened three ports. The last line of the main body of the proclamation, states that "We have now become friendly with Western nations, and the stone tablet outside the city gate forbidding the approach of foreigners must be removed" (ibid., 22).

"Chao-sien" is a romanization of the Chinese reading of 朝鮮. "Chaou-seen" is also found in some contemporary English writing (see, e.g., the 1881 article listed in Griffis 1882, below).

"Chao-hsien" is a Wade-Giles romanization. "Tsiosen" is yet another contemporary romanization.

Ma Chien-chung

As to why the apparently contemporary English statement should include a romanization of 朝鮮 based on either a Chinese or Sino-Japanese reading of the graphs is partly explained by the role played by Ma Kie-Tchong (馬建忠 WG Ma Chien-chung, PY Ma Jianzhong (1845-1900). After graduating from a French Catholic school in Shanghai, Ma studied international law in France from 1876-1879.

Armed with a French degree in law, Ma returned to China, where he was employed by Li Hung-chang (李鴻章 PY Li Hongzhang, 1823-1901), arguably the most important plenipotentiary of China's imperial court in the last 19th century. Li not only assumed the leadership of Chinese forces during the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895, over Korea -- but, faced with defeat, he had to negotiate the Treaty of Shimonoseki of 1895 in which China ceded Taiwan to Japan as part of the terms of settlement.

Korea, though a quasi-tributary of China, was at the same time an independent country. As such it was accustomed to accepting guidance from China. And in fact it received advice from China, if not at times pressure, regarding the question of whether and how it should accommodate demands from Euro-American countries and Japan to open its ports to commerce and otherwise permit the subjects of such states access to and freedom of movement on the peninsula.

Ma, representing Li, became deeply involved in Korea's international affairs in the early 1880s. In 1881, he is supposed to have conveyed advice from Li, to the Korean court, to the effect that Korea should conclude treaties of friendship and commerce with Great Britain, the United States, and Germany, as it had with Japan in 1876, in order to gain a measure of protection against Japan, but also from Russia.

Ma, who was also fluent in English, appears to have had a hand in the English versions of Korean proclamations and treaties. Some Korean critics today blame him for the Sinifications of Korean personal and place names in such documents.

This may explain the Sinifications in the 1882 US-Chosen treaty, which Ma negotiationed and signed for China. It does not, however, explain the Sino-Japanizations in 1876 Japan-Chosen treaty.

It does seem, however, that the English versions of later treaties usually represented Korean names proper nouns in Sino-Korean romanizations.

"Teusen" and "Chousen"

The contemporary Japanese kana reading of 朝鮮 was either "Teusen" (てうせん) or "Chousen" (ちょうせん). The former reflects an older orthography that continued to be used for several decades by some writers. Both expressions would have been pronounced "Chōsen" by Tokyo readers.

For examples of such variations on late-19th-century woodblock prints, see The empire of woodblock prints: Taiwan, Chosen, and the wars with China and Russia in "The Detritus of Empire" feature of this website.

Top  

1882 Chemulpo treaty between Japan and Chosen

In late July 1882, two months after Korea and the United States had signed the treaty at Yin-chuen, the Korean palace and the Japanese legation at Hansŏng (漢城), or Seoul, were attacked by mobs the Korean government regarded as rebels. The Japanese delegation escaped to Chemulpo, near Inch'on (Yin-Chuen), where they were rescued by a British ship.

A month later, Hanabusa Yoshimoto, the head of the rescued Japanese legation, was back in Korea, demanding reparations for destroyed property, and indemnities and compensation for the injured and for the families of those who were killed, the right to garrison Japanese troops to protect the legation in facilities to be built by Korea, and formal apologies. Japanese army and naval forces were poised to press Korea should it refuse to accept Hanabusa's demands.

Korea balked, but not for long. On 30 August 1882, the two countries signed an agreement, consisting of only six short articles, at Chemulpo, hence the so-called "Chemulpo treaty" (濟物浦條約 SJ Saimoppo jōyaku, SK Chemulp'o choyak).

Both the Chinese and Japanese versions show Japan as 日本國 (Nippon koku) or 大日本國 (Dai Nippon koku)" and Korea as 朝鮮國 (Chōsen koku) or 大朝鮮國 (Dai Chō koku). I have not yet been able to examine an English version, referred to in the 1899 Foreign Office compilation as "The Additional Convention" to the "Treaty of Peace and Friendship" of 1876 (see above).

The treaty was signed by 花房義質 (Hanabusa Yoshimoto, 1842-1917) representing Japan, and by 李裕元 (Yi Yu Won, 1814-1888) and 金宏集 (Kim Hong Jip, 1842-1896) representing Korea.

Hanabusa, who had headed Japan's legation in Korea at the time, later served in Russia.

Kim Hong Jip (Sino-Korean) had negotiated and signed the 22 May 1882 US-Chosen treaty, at Inch'on or "Yin-chuen", the English version of which Sinifies his name as "Chin Hong Chi" (see above).

"Chemulpo" was the most common romanization of the Sino-Korean reading of 済物浦 (제물포 Chemulp'o) or "Saimoppo" in Sino-Japanese. It was the more familiar name for the port on the west coast of the Korean peninsula that by then was also associated with Inch'on (仁川 SK Inch'ŏn) or "Ninsen" in Sino-Japanese.

There appears, though, to have been a formal distinction between the two names at the time. Chemulpo became the more common name for the port town, where a number of foreign settlements were established.

Top  

1883 Hanyang treaty between Britain and Corea

On the same day the following year, 26 November 1883, Korea signed treaties with Germany and Great Britian.

The copy of this treaty in McKenzie 1908 speaks of "Korea" and "Korean subjects". The copy in Chung 1919 says "Corea" and Corean" subjects. I suspect Chung's version is more authentic.

Korea's Treaty of Friendship and Commerce with Great Britain was signed in Hanyang on 26 November 1883. Ratifcations were exchanged, also in Hanyang, on 28 April the following year.

Languages

Article XII make the following stipulation regarding languages (Chung 1919; [bracketed] terms reflect McKenzie 1908, page 289;)

Unlike the 1882 US-Chosen treaty, romanizations of Korean proper nouns in the 1883 UK-Corea treaty reflect Sino-Korean pronunciations. Dating at the end includes "Corean era" and "Chinese reign" dates.

Names of countries and nationals

The preface of the English version of the 1883 UK-Corea treaty speaks fully of "Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India, and His Majesty the King of Corea".

The body of the treaty refers to "Corea" -- and to things "Corean" and "British", including "Corean subjects" and "British subjects". There is also a reference to "Subjects of either nationality" (Article IX).

The English version of the "British-Korean Treaty" in the appendices of McKenzie 1908 (pages 282-295) states that ratifications would be exchanged in "Hanyang (Seoul)". McKenzie's version also refers to "The ports of Chemulpho (Jeuchuan), Wönsan (Gensan), and Pusan (Fusan)" and "the city of Hanyang and of the town of Yanghwa Chin" (page 284, Art. IV).

The English version of Korea's 1892 "Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation" with Austria-Hungary, as shown in Chung 1919 (page 4), similar refers to "The ports of Chemulpho (Jeuchuan), Wönsan (Gensan) and Pusan (Fusan)" and also to "The cities of Hangyan (Seoul) and Janghwachin" (Article IV).

Top  

Korea as a protectorate of Japan

Numerous protocols and agreements were exchanged between Japan and Korea during the last three decades of the 19th century and the first decade of the 20th century, which progressively and collectively culminated in the 1910 annexation treaty in which Korea became a part of Japan called Chosen. The most important of these agreements were those made in 1904 and 1905, which resulted in Korea becoming a protectorate of Japan, and a 1907 agreement which placed the Korean government under Japan's Resident-General for a number of purposes related to internal administration.

Top  

1904 defense agreement

In 1904, during the Russo-Japanese War, Korea became a quasi-protectorate of Japan. Pursuant to a protocol signed by Korea and Japan on 22 August 1904, Korea agreed to "adopt the advice" (忠告をe黷?) of Japan regarding "improvements in administration" (施政の改善), while Japan agreed to ensure "the safety and repose of the Imperial House of Korea" (韓国の皇室を安全康寧ならしめる) and guarantee "the independence and territorial integrity" (独立及び領土保全) of Korea.

Top  

1905 diplomacy agreement

In 1905, after the Russo-Japanese War, Korea became a full protectorate of Japan. In an agreement signed on 17 November 1905, Japan agreed to represent Korea in its relations with other countries and to protect "the subjects and interests of Korea" (韓国の臣民及利益) in other countries. As Korea's proxy in foreign affairs, Japan would mediate all existing and future treaties between Korea and other countries.

The 1905 agreement, called the Ulsa (Eulsa) treaty, also gave Japan the right to establish a Resident-General (統監) in Korea for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the treaty. Japanese consuls in ports and elsewhere in Korea would be replaced by Residents (理事官) to facilitate the Resident-General's functions as Korea's proxy in international affairs, which included foreign trade. Japanese consulates in other countries would represent Korea and Koreans in those countries.

First Resident-General of Korea

Japan's first Resident-General (統監) in Korea was Itō Hirobumi (伊藤博文 1841-1909), who had served four terms as Japan's Prime Minister between 1885 and 1901. Itō was appointed to the Resident-General post on 21 December 1905 and the post officially began from 3 March 1906. He was forced to resign the post in June 1909 on account of his opposition to plans to annex Korea, and four months later was assassinated by a Korean nationalist.

2005 ROK and DPRK joint statement

2005 marked the centennial of the Ulsa (Eulsa) treaty, which is widely regarded in the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) as to be the true beginning of the annexation that formally started in 1910.

On 24 June 2005, concluding a four-day conference held in Seoul, ROK and DPRK issued a 12-point joint statement to enhance their ties. The 5th point, concerning Japan, began with a confirmation that the 1905 five-point protectorate treaty was illegal and invalid, on the grounds that it was coerced. By this they meant that, under international law, the treaty should be regarded as null-and-void from the moment it was signed.

However, under Japanese law, agreements with the Empire of Korea became null from the effectuation of the San Francisco Peace Treaty on 28 April 1952. This was implied by the 1965 normalization treaty between Japan and ROK. As of this writing (November 2009), Japan has not yet concluded such a treaty with DPRK.

Top  

1907 domestic affairs agreement

On 24 July 1907, the Korea and Japan also signed an agreement which gave the Resident-General of Korea, Japan's protectorate government on the peninsula, the authority to oversee some of Korea's domestic administrative affairs and reforms.

The scope of the 1907 agreement gave Japan the authority to approve laws, ordinances, and administrative measures, recommend Japanese for appointments to posts within the Korean government, and approve retainments of foreigners, among other powers that amounted to significant control of Korea's domestic affairs. Among the important measures to be established under Japan's guidance were the 1909 People's Register Law and its enforcement regulations.

1909 People's Register Law

Under the direction of the Resident-General, the Empire of Korea promulgated and enforced a population registration law and issued enforcement regulations. The purpose of these measures was to improving the quality of demographic information for the purpose of collecting taxes and administering other laws and policies concerning individuals and families.

The law was promulgated on 4 March and enforced from 1 April 1909. Its enforcement regulations were issued on 22 March. Police, as part of Korea's Interior Affairs Department, were responsible for overseeing population registers. This was not inconsistent with police duties, which were involved in civilian administration as well as law enforcement.

See Affiliation and status in Korea: 1909 People's Register Law and enforcement regulations for the texts of and commentary on both measures.

This law, initiated and shaped by the Resident-General of Korea, which was overseeing many of Korea's affairs, sought to increase the precision of demographic information for the purpose of collecting taxes and introducing other administrative reforms of the kind Japan had implemented during the early years of Meiji Period.

All annual reports published by the Resident-General of Korea during its tenure, and all early reports of the Government-General of Chosen that replaced it when Japan annexed Korea in 1910, go into great detail about the failure of customary registration practices on the Korean peninsula, especially their susceptibility to abuse and corruption. Put most simply, some of the customary practices served the vested interests of fusty clans and powerful classes, rather than a state that needed to mobilize its people to develop and protect the nation.

Top  

The annexation of Korea

In the larger history of global territorialism, Japan's brief nationalization of Korea from 1910-1945 is a minor incident. That Korea was then divided, sufferred a horrible civil war aided and abetted by alien ideologies on both sides, and continues to be two entities at odds with each other across the 38th parallel -- is also a fairly minor devepment in the larger scheme of territorial invasion and theft.

Japan followed American precedents

Indeed, the most contemporary precedents for Japan's actions in Korea in 1910 -- including the logic of annexation and its legal deceitfulness -- can be found in the causes of the Spanish American War of 1898, and in the manner and reasons in and for which the United States annexed Hawaii in 1898.

Japan was merely following a handbook written by John W. Foster, the former US Secretary of State who in 1895 had participated in the drafting of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, which legitimatized Japan's foothold in Korea. It was Foster who then argued most cogenty, in a widely circulated address before the National Geographic Society, in 1897, that the United States should annex Hawaii -- not make it protectorate -- in order to prevent it from falling into the hands of a rival and potential enemy -- namely Japan.

Foster's arguments were precisely those Japan had in mind when, a decade or so later, it decided that Korea should be an integral part of Japan, and not just a protectorate. See John W. Foster's 1897 address on annexation of Hawaii below for excerpts of relevant passages.

Websters beware

Books and dissertations on Korea-Japan relations, focusing on everything Japan is supposed to have done for or to Japan, good and bad, would fill several rooms. In English alone, there are two or three shelves of doctoral dissertations, written by Koreans or Korean Americans for degrees in history or political science at graduate schools in the United States, which examine Japan's colonial rule of Korea.

The wild woolly web is alive with "information" about the annexation and other aspects of Japan's incorporation and integration of Korea into its empire between 1910 and 1945.

Or from 1905 when Korea became a protectorate of Japan. Or from 1897 when Japan engineered the founding of the Empire of Korea and the "restoration" of the Korean royal family. Or from 1894 when Japan compelled Korea to begin to reorganize its government along Japanese lines. Or as early as 1876 when Japan "opened" Korea to foreign commerce with the first of several "unequal" treaties that Korea subsequently signed with other foreign states. Or . . . all the way back to the dawn of cross-straits migration and intercourse.

Many Wikipedia-style articles are patently anti-Japanese. They contain some facts, but they also perpetuate errors -- made credible by a cloak of objectivity that includes attribution to biased or faulty academic sources.

Four representative books

Of the dozens of university press publications in English that focus on Japan-Korea relations during the years leading up to annexation, four are representative of their generation of authorship in terms of how they approach the meaning of "annexation".

These four books -- Conroy 1960 (1974), Kim & Kim 1967, Duus 1995, and Dudden 2005 -- are examined in "Hall of mirrors" section at the end.

The continuing "annexation"

The annexation continues in the sense that, for Japan as well as for the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, "Chosen" still exists. Though both ROK and DPRK are member states of the United Nations, Japan has not normalized its relations with DPRK as a state entity. And ROK and DPRK have not resolved their mutual claims to the entirety of "Chosen".

Japan agreed to lose its sovereignty over Korea (Chosen) when it signed the general Instrument of Surrender in 1945, and lost its effective control of and jurisdiction over Korea (Chosen) when it formally surrendered the peninsula in parts to American and Soviet commanders representing the Allied Powers. It formally abandoned its sovereignty over Korea (Chosen) when the provisions of the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect. However, there are several thousands people in Japan who are still legally still "Chosenjin" -- meaning that they are affiliates of an entity that no longer exists -- except as a legacy of an annexation that, for them, is not quite over.

Top  

Annexation treaty

22 August 1910

22 August and 29 August 1910 are dates that historically conscious Koreans are likely to recall. The former was the day on which the Emperor of Korea is supposed to have ceded his sovereignty over Korea to the Emperor of Japan. The latter was the day this event was announced to the world at large and became legally effective.

Null and void

Virtually all high-profile web articles on the annexation note that its legality is disputed. The vast majority observe that the normalization treaty signed by Japan and ROK in 1965 agreed that the annexation treaty and other early treaties between Japan and Korea were "null and void".

Many articles create the impression that "null and void" means the treaties were illegal. Some even create the impression that because they were illegal, their effects can be disregarded when talking about "Korea" and "Koreans" under Japanese rule -- to wit, Korea remained an independent country, and Koreans never became Japanese.

Treaty boilerplate

However, declaring earlier agreements "null and void" -- or "without efficacy" as the Chinese, Sino-Japanese, and Sino-Korean term 無効 (無效) literally signifies -- is standard practice in treaties intended to re-establish new benchmarks for future relationships. The 1897 Hawaii Annexation Treaty and the 1898 Hawaii Annexation Resolution included the following fairly common phrasing concerning past treaties with foreign states.

The existing treaties of the Hawaiian Islands with foreign nations shall forthwith cease and determine, being replaced by such treaties as may exist, or as may be hereafter concluded, between the United States and such foreign nations.

Such phrasing, in some form or another, almost invariably finds its way into cession and normalization treaties. In fact, it would have been an incredible oversight if the 1965 Japan-ROK treaty had not declared the early treaties no longer in force -- which is all they did. They certainly did not judge them to be illegal at the time of their inception.

Top  

Imperial ordinance changing name of Korea

29 August 1910

Imperial Ordinance No. 318 of 1910, effective from its promulgation on 29 August 1910, changed the name of the entity the Empire of Korea had ceded the Empire of Japan in the annexation treaty of 22 August (see treaty above), to the name of the entity that formally became part of Japan from 29 August (see declaration below.

This ordinance lost its effect on 28 April 1952 when the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into force. Japan and ROK, however, did not normalize their relations until 1965. Hence the Japanese text of the treaty the two states signed that year stated that ROK was recognized as the sole government in 朝鮮 (Chōsen) (see 1965 Japan-ROK normalization treaty for the texts of this treaty).

Top  

Declaration concerning annexation of Korea

29 August 1910

This declaration consistently differentiates between "Kankoku" as an entity up to the point of its annexation, and "Chosen" as the entity after it becomes part of Japan.

To be continued.

Top  

Emperor Sunjong's imperial edict on annexation

22 August 1910

Though his reign as emperor and head of state of Korea ended on 29 August 1910, Emperor Sunjong kept the title of emperor until his death on 24 April 1926.

Top  

Emperor Sunjong's imperial instruction on annexation

29 August 1910

Forthcoming.

Top  

Emperor Meiji's imperial rescript on annexation

29 August 1910

This imperial rescript shifts from "Kankoku" to "Chosen" only at the end, at which point it creates the office of the "Government General of Chosen". Until this point, the rescript is speaking of the entity of "Kankoku", which had been a protectorate of Japan at the time.

When Korea (Kankoku) became a protectorate of Japan, Japan created the office of "Resident General of Korea". When the scope of Japan's "protection" of Korea extended to its diplomatic affairs, the Resident General of Korea became in effect Korea's (Kankoku's) Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

This office was in effect "Korea's"

Forthcoming.

Top  

Hilary Conroy on gappo, gappei, and heigo

This book came out shortly after I graduated from high school. I did not first encounter it until about a decade later, by which time I was literate enough to read it.

Hilary Conroy
The Japanese Seizure of Korea, 1868-1910
(A Study of Realism and Idealism in International Relations)
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974 (1960)
5, 532 pages, softcover (hardcover)
Preface dated September 1959
Introduction dated June 1974

In Chapter VIII, Reverse Idealism, Conroy gives several pages to an examination of Nikkan gappō hishi (日韓合邦秘史) or "The secret history of merger of Japan and Korea", published by the Kokuryūkai (黒龍会) or "Black Dragon [Heilongjiang, Amur River] Society". The two volumes of this work were compiled by Kuzū Yoshihisa (葛生能久 1874-1958) from unpublished letters and memoirs of Uchida Ryōhei (1874-1937).

Uchida founded the Black Dragon Society in 1901 as a movement to keep Russia out of Asia. The society was active mostly in Manchuria, but by the 1930s it had evolved into a more general ultranationalist, pan-Asianist group. It was never very large but cultivated close ties with Japan's business, political, and military leaders. It was disbanded by GHQ/SCAP in 1946. Kuzū Yoshihisa, also a rightist, was designated a Class A War Criminal but never indicted.

Uchida formed an alliance with Yi Yong Gu (Yi Yong-koo, 1868-1912) to promote the merger of Japan and Korea in what they called 日韓合邦 (Nikkan gappō) or "Japan-Korea united-countries". In 1904, during the Russo-Japanese War, Yi had co-founded the pro-Japanese Ilchinhoe (一進会 J. Isshinkai), and Uchida became its adviser about 1905.

Conroy is particularly interested in the activities of Uchida and Yi in the Ilchinhoe. He liberally uses the term "gappō" -- with the macron, but without italics and otherwise unmarked -- in most of his discussion of annexation -- including the following excerpt (pages 415-417, all italics, and bracketed annotations, in original).

Hilary Conroy on gappo, gappei, and heigo (1960)

Kenkyusha definitions of gappei, heidon, and heigo

Conroy's discussion of keywords in terms of whether they are found in Kenkyusha's dictionary -- by which I gather he means the Third Edition (1954) of the large Japanese-English dictionary, rather than the Second Edition (1931) or First Edition (1918) -- seems a bit quaint today, when linguistically savvy American Japanologists would balk at using such a dictionary to illuminate the meaning of Japanese term.

Conroy has a point, though, If political fashions dictate the content of any dictionary, they can dictate the content of bilingual dictionaries.

As an example of heigō (併合) the prewar Second Edition (1931) of Kenkyusha gives "韓國併合 the annexation of Corea". However, this example was dropped from the postwar Third Edition (1954) which apparently Conroy consulted.

In prewar and postwar editions of Kenkyusha, gappei (合併) as a noun is defined as "combination, union, amalgamation, merger, coalition [as of political parties etc.], [併合] annexation [of territories etc.], affiliation [of small companies etc.], incorporation (編入)". As a verb with "suru" it is said to mean "combine, unite, amalgamate, merge, annex, [併合する] annex, affiliate."

heidon (併呑) as "annexation, absorption (of a small country into a larger one), merger" as a noun, and as a verb with "suru" it is is "annex, absorb (into), merge (in), devour, swallow up" -- the later two reflecting 呑 which means "drink" or "swallow".

heigō (併合) is "annexation, amalgamation, absorption (併呑)" as a noun, and as a verb with "suru" can mean "annex, amalgamate, absorb, unite, merge" among other things.

Kojien definitions of gappō and Kankoku heigo

The changes in the entries for 合邦 (gappō) in 広辞苑 (Kōjien), Japan's premier desktop dictionary, are interesting. In the following translations, I have arbitrarily represented 併合 as "amalgamation" and 合併 as "merging" -- though essentially they are synonymous.

Top  

C.L Eugene Kim and Han-Kyo Kim on annexation

The year I began my studies in the Department of Oriental Languages at Berkeley, the University of California Press brought out the following book.

C.I. Eugene Kim and Han-Kyo Kim
Korea and the Politics of Imperialism, 1876-1910
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967
x, 260 pages, hardcover
[The Center for Japanese and Korean Studies]

This book was written barely twenty years after World War II and fifteen years after the Korean War. It was also written by scholars who had migrated to the United States and found themselves caught up in the thriving academic industry of trying to explain what had gone wrong in Korea that allowed it be annexed by Japan.

Kim and Kim do not mince their words. Their preface begins with a paragraph that fairly summarizes the entire book (page v).

Decades after China and Japan had been opened by the West, Korea remained closed to outsiders. The peninsular nation lived a tradition-bound life unaware that drastic reforms were essential to cope with the gathering storm of international power politics. While the Japanese were willing to endure two major wars and decades of diplomatic struggle to gain the annexation of Korea, Koreans lacked the unity of purpose and power to frustrate their more aggressive neighbors.

While many scholars today will quibble about its sweeping if not "biased" generalizations and its lack of "critical" sophistication, this single paragraph really says all that needs to be understood about Korea's failure to escape the jaws of its predators -- China, Russia, and Japan -- if not also the United States and a number of European countries.

Kim & Kim show no interest in the Japanese words used to describe what Japan did in Korea. They know that, whatever one calls the act of incorporating a sovereign (or semi-sovereign) Empire of Korea into Japan as an insovereign territory of Japan called Chosen, the result is the loss of sovereignty.

Annexation by whatever name would still be merger.

Top  

Peter Duus on heigo

Three decades after Kim & Kim 1967, and two decades after Conroy 1960 was recycled as Conroy 1974 with a new introduction, UC Press published the thickest book in English on Japan's nationalization of Korea.

Peter Duus
The Abacus and the Sword
(The Japanese Penetration of Korea, 1895-1910)
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998 (1995)
xiv, 480 pages, softcover (hardcover)
[Twentieth-Century Japan: The Emergence of a World Power]

Duus benefited from developments in historiography and better access to materials after the 1960s. Though exposed to the ideological fashions of "critical" scholarship that emerged from the 1970s, he remained largely immune to its obsession with postmodernism.

In the introduction, Duus says he organized his book into two narratives, "one focused on the Japanese metropolitan leadership and their policies toward the Korean state, and the other on the Japanese expatriate community and their activities in the Korean market" (page 24). His premise is that industrialization is a necessary but not sufficient condition for Japanese expansion, and his aim is "to peel apart the various layers of motivation that brought the Japanese to Korea and induced them to stay there" (page 24).

In closing the introduction, Duus qualifies his point of view as one which is more "Japanese" than "Korean" (page 25).

This book will more often reflect the perspective of the traveler [to Seoul] from Tokyo than the visitor from Ŭiju. In short, both narratives will deal with Japanese history rather than Korean history, or even Japanese-Korean history, if one can imagine such a thing.

Peter Duus on "annexation"

The most interesting (and controversial) chapter in Peter Duus's The Abacus and the Sword is "Defining the Koreans" (Chapter 11, pages 397-423). See The semantics of "race": The porous boundaries of biological metaphors for a look at how Duus deals with the terminology of "race" and "nation". Here I wish only to comment on his remarks about the term "annexation".

The last paragraph of Chapter 11 arrives at this conclusion (Duus 1995, op. cit., page 423).

Peter Duus on heigo (1995)

"amalgamation" versus "annexation"

Duus is right but for the wrong reason. The meaning of heigō should not be based on the motives of those who applied the term to what Japan did to Korea. Nor should it be based on what became of Chosen as a Japanese entity. The meaning should derive from the term itself and its linguistic context -- i.e., its own metaphorical structures in relationship to the phrasing in which it is used.

Duus is right in that, on its surface, "annexation" means the addition of one thing to another. This is why it doesn't work -- structurally -- as a translation of 併合 or 合併.

If one can say 韓国併合 and 日韓併合 and 韓日併合 -- and if 合併 can be swapped for 併合 in all three expressions -- then "annexation" does not work. The usage of any English terms assigned to reflect these two Sino-Japanese terms would have to be compatible. And structurally, "annexation" cannot be used the same as "amalgamation" and "merger".

Saying that one entity annexes another entity does not place any restrictions on the outcome of "annexation". Hence to say that Japan "annexed" Korea does not mean that Japan and Korea were not amalgamated or merged -- whether one into the other, or both into each other.

Adding one entity to another can produce any number of effects -- from "incorporation" with continued differentiation of the two entities to "amalgamation" and "merger" into an undifferentiated entity.

Such analysis is independent of what might be done in English to satisfy the expectations of how the sort of action Japan took in Korea should be described by the conventions of international law. In such contexts, "annexation" is fine -- because "annexation" works structurally in the English versions of the treaty and related documents.

As a conventional treaty term, "annexation" describes only the action of adding one entity to another. It is entirely non-committal regarding the consequences of such action. Japan did not decide the conventions of treaty English. It is interested in such conventions only as a means of satisfying expectations of states that prefer to see treaties in English.

If "annexation" is deceptive, it is because it has always been deceptive -- no matter which state has used it. Readers of English who feel misled by "annexation" in Japan's English descriptions its treaty with Korea are simply political innocents. Anyone who could read and puzzle out the metaphors of 併合 -- or of 合併 or even 合邦 -- could not have been too surprised by what Japan proceeded to do with Chosen.

Top  

Alexis Dudden on Conroy and Duus

Duus didn't have the last word for long. A decade after his book came out, University of Hawai'i Press brought out the following volume -- the shortest and most original of the four I have selected for comment.

Alexis Dudden
Japan's Colonization of Korea
(Discourse and Power)
Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2005
x, 215 pages, hardcover
[A Study of the Weatherhead East Asian Institute, Columbia University]

The subtitle of this much shorter work -- only 215 plus pages to the 480 odd pages of Duus's tome -- suggests Dudden's ideological orientations. Dudden describes her book as an examination of the "discursive aspects of Japan's annexation of Korea, with particular attention to the international legality of that moment" (page 2). The last paragraph of her introduction reveals more about her intentions (page 5).

Although it is tempting to declare colonial conquest illegal at any time, doing so will not calm the memories of colonial oppression or eradicate the existence of related and ongoing forms of domination. To these ends, we continue to need a more sophisticated understanding of how power works. The pages that follow explore how imperialism's apologists described the legality of their enterprise, attempting to weigh the implications of their actions in the international arena of the early twentieth century and beyond.

Though Dudden would probably shudder at the thought of being mistaken for an "apologist" herself, her own "sophistication" adds considerably to the legitimacy of what Japan did in Korea before and after annexation.

Dudden on "annexation"

Alas, as is the way in the academic world (witness what I am doing now), Dudden takes Duus (more than Conroy) to task in her chapter on "The Vocabulary of Power" (Dudden 2005, op. cit., pages 65-66)

Alexis Dudden on Conroy and Duus (2005)

Dudden plunges into a seven page examination of evidence supporting her contention that "Japan's foreign policy read fluently in terms of a larger, global praxis" (Ibid., page 72). She underscores this point in the paragraph concluding the Vocabulary of Power chapter (Ibid., page 73).

The text of Japanese-Korean relations between 1904 and 1910 became legal precedent through the terms "admitted in the practice of civilized States," a practice which did not necessitate that Japan act in a morally justifiable manner or in any way different from the actions of other, so-called civilized states. That the imperialist nations justified their actions as legitimate in these terms is precisely what calls the terms themselves into question, along with the legacies of their practice in the postcolonial world of the present. . . .

"Annexation" by any other name

Dudden's contention that the terms of colonialism need to be called into question is not an adequate response to Duus's contention that "heigō" (併合) was something more than "annexation". She documents how thoroughly Japanese legalists studied and debated the meaning of "protectorate" in international law. But she does not show how the terms Duus called into question were used at the time, in legal parlance or otherwise.

What, for example, was the "voluntary" annexation of Hawaii in 1898 called in Japanese, and how was it understood? Or how was the "voluntary" annexation of the Republic of Texas in 1844 characterized and understood in Japanese -- when finally news and knowledge of this event and its impact reached Japan?

Just as an "annexation" -- by any other name -- would smell like "amalgamation" or "merger" or "integration" -- is there any good reason to doubt that, for all practical purposes, 併合 (heigō) and 合併 (gappei) have essentially the same meaning?

Dudden is right, of course, to take Duus to task for thinking that the "annexation" of a treaty-ceded territory could mean anything other than legal incorporation -- followed by some form and degree of merger and integration.

Dudden on importance of law

Dudden's most important contribution is actually the importance she attaches to the way in which Japan took to international law as a means of getting ahead in the world as it found it. The first paragraph of her Introduction says it all, albeit in the diction of "discourse" theory (ibid., page 1).

Translating international law into Japanese and using its terms in practice were among the most transformative aspects of Japan's Meiji era (1868-1912). Doing so gave Japanese rulers a new method of intercourse with the United States and Europe and enabled them to reorder the vocabulary of power within Asia. Moreover, this discourse inscribed the legitimacy of Japan's empire from the time of its creation.

Top  

Extraterritoriality after annexation

There is a failure -- or perhaps an unwillingness -- on the part of many scholars today to recognize how Japan actually went about ending extraterritoriality in Korea after it became Chosen in 1910. Here I will contrast the recent views of Alexis Dudden, writing in 2005, with those of Shi Shun Liu, writing in 1925.

See Abolition of foreign settlements for details on how Japan went about integrating so-called foreign settlements, Chinese settlements, and Japanese municipalities into Chosen administrative polities in 1913 and 1914.

Top  

Alexis Dudden on extraterritoriality

Dudden makes this statement concerning the effects of Japan's annexation of Korea (op. cit., page 119, italics in original).

In 1910, without official exception, the international arena applauded Japan for taking up what it perceived -- and with all the racist implications intended for how it was perceived -- as the "yellow man's burden," in a whitish sort of way. Along with renaming the country (Kankoku became Chōsen in the kanji world but usefully remained "Korea" in other international documents), the Japanese renamed their presence there to the elevated stature of Governor General (Sōtokufu).

Dudden continues to write in this mix of fact and fiction. What she says makes perfect sense as victimhood history, in which inconvenient facts are altered or ignored.

China and Russia did not welcome Japan's takeover of Korea as Chōsen. And there is no evidence of collective "intent" on the part of Dudden's imaginary "international arena" to perceive Japan's actions as those of country bearing the "yellow man's burden". Dudden has a cynical propensity to racialize things which are not about race.

Japan treated Chōsen as it had Taiwan and Karafuto in terms of governing the new territory as part of its sovereign dominion. Hence the office of the "Resident-General of Korea", which participated in the governing of the Empire of Korea as a protectorate state, became the "Government-General of Chosen", which governed Chōsen as a territory of the Empire of Japan. It was not an "elevated stature" but a fundamentally different status.

Japan treated Korea as it had Taiwan and Karafuto in terms of governing the new territory as part of its sovereign dominion. Hence the "Resident-General of Korea", who had overseen the Empire of Korea as a protectorate state, became the "Government-General of Chosen", who oversaw Chosen as a territory of the Empire of Japan.

"usefully remained "Korea"

This is a very curious statement. Dudden seems to regard the continued use of "Korea" in some quarters as "useful". Why would she think so? Has she considered the implications of continuing to call Chōsen by the name of a country that ceased to exist in 1910, and was never reincarnated?

Has she thought about why some writers of English continued to use "Korea" rather than shift to Chōsen -- at the time? And has she contemplated what is lost -- today -- to the "English world" that continues to find it "useful" to confuse "Korea" with "Chōsen"?

Has Dudden wondered why the "kanji world" cannot conflate "Kankoku" and "Chōsen"? Has she considered why the Democratic Republic of Korea (read "Chosŏn") came to be referred to in English by a name that, in kanji, refers to its Republic of Korea rival south of the 38th parallel? And why Japan calls the DPRK (DPRC) "Kita Chōsen" -- rather than "Kita Kankoku"?

The rest of the world may have gone about referring to Chōsen as "Korea" -- and in the beginning, there was little official discouragement of the continued use of "Korea" or "Corea" in other languages. But Government-General of Chosen publications in English called the territory "Chosen" and eventually "Tyosen". Yearbooks in English, published in Japan, also got around to referring to to the territory as "Chosen", and to subjects and nationals with Chōsen registers as "Chosenese" (later "Tyosenese") -- to reflect the fact that the peninsular was no longer "Korea" and people in its household registers were no longer "Koreans".

American consuls in Keijō called Japan's peninsular territory "Chosen" on visas issued to Chosen subjects. Moreover, they recognized that Chosen subjects were nationals of Japan, and as such they were classified as "Japan" by "Nationality" and "Korean" by "Race or people" on passenger manifests of aliens arriving at American ports.

The Bank of Korea became the Bank of Chosen. And postal franks on outbound internationa mail generally preferred "Chosen" to "Corea".

For examples of "Chosen" and "Chosenese" usage see the following pages in "The Empires of Japan" section.
Korea, Chosen, and Tyosen reports under "The Empire in English".
Bank of Korea or Chosen? on the "Where are the historians?" page under "Legacy" issues under "The Sovereign Empire".
Chosen franks on the "The empire of postal services" page under "The Detritus of Empire".
Circa 1937 Japanese passport for Chosen Japanese and family and 1937 US Immigrant Identification Card for Japanese man from Chosen on "The empire of passports and IDs" page under "The Detritus of Empire".