University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Property and subjectivity: Women's property rights in Joseon Korea (1392--1910)

(USC Thesis Other)

Property and subjectivity: Women's property rights in Joseon Korea (1392--1910)

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content PROPERTY AND SUBJECTIVITY:
W OMEN’S PROPERTY RIGHTS IN JOSEON KOREA (1392-1910)
Copyright 2004
by
Hye-June Park
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EAST ASIAN LANGUAGES AND CULTURES)
August 2004
Hye-June Park
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3145262
Copyright 2004 by
Park, Hye-June
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3145262
Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Acknowledgements
When I faced the fact that the tradition I perceived as a tradition was something
constructed in the very recent past, and that the past women’s lives could have been quite
different from what I had simply surmised until then, was while I took a graduate course
in Korea in early nineties. This awakening linked to my study abroad at USC.
I owe a huge debt of gratitude to my adviser Nam-kil Kim. He offered me
incessant help both with funds and with compassion, and made it possible for me to get
through all the predicaments and finally to complete the degree. I earned my initial
inspiration on the dissertation topic from Professor Bettine Birge’s teaching, and she sent
me all o f her precious comments on my draft, even though she was on her sabbatical in
China. Very special thanks should go to Professor George Hayden, who is an expert in
Classical Chinese. He read my manuscript with very careful eyes on it and corrected
many errors I made as a foreigner.
1 am very grateful to Professor David James and Peter Nosco who have always
been generous with their time and instructions to me. And I also want to thank my friend
Sunhee Choi and my cousin family, who provided me with many practical helps during
my stay in the U.S.
1 owe an immeasurable debt to my parents. They sacrificed themselves for me
and readily gave me helping hands in taking care of my two young children, all the while
I struggled with my school works. My husband, Junggon Sung, my daughter, Hyeyoon,
and my son, Jonghyeok, are the very ones who deserve my deepest thanks. They waited
ii
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
for ‘slow’ me with such incredible patience and understanding, and always cheered
up being a bottomless well of pleasure. Only with them, I could go on.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements....................................................................................... ii
A bstract.......................... vi
Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1
A. Analytic Base..............................................................................................................2
B. Setting the Stage: Joseon Dynasty (1392-1910).................................................... 6
C. Previous Literature .......................................................................................14
D. Women’s Property Rights in Joseon........................................................................25
Chapter I: Legal Provisions of Inheritance.......................................................................28
A. Gyeongguk Daejeon, an Immutable State Code....................................................28
B. Legal Capacity during the Joseon Dynasty.............................................................31
C. Stipulation of the Inheritance Law in Gyeongguk Daejeon..................................33
D. Code vs. Practice......................................................................................................... 38
Chapter II: Women’s Property Rights................................................................................41
A. Joseon Wangjo Sillok, Veritable Records of Joseon Dynasty............................. 41
B. Principle of “Equal Inheritance” ...............................................................................42
C. Women in M arriage.....................................................................................................57
D. Separation of Woman’s Property...............................................................................70
E. Rights over Property.................................................................................................... 81
F. Adoption Cases Involving Woman and Woman’s Property..................................89
G. Crime Cases Involving Woman’s Property.............................................................96
H. Women and Wealth....................................................................... 103
I. Mobility..........................................................................................................................114
J. Presenting and Receiving............................................................................................122
Chapter III: Litigation over Woman’s Property...............................................................130
A. Parent vs. Child........................................................................................................... 137
B. Between Siblings.........................................................................................................151
C. Wife vs. Wife..................................................................................... 163
D. Wife vs. Husband........................................................................................................ 165
iv
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
E. Between Relatives ......................................................................................... 165
F. W oman vs. Other......................... 169
G. Woman vs. State....................... 170
H. Princess vs. People ............................. 173
Chapter IV: Women’s Voices ........................ 175
A. Presenting Petitions .................................. 176
B. Beating the Drum.....................................................................................................187
C. Prostrating in front of the King’s Palanquin....................................................... 191
D. Striking the Gong and Wailing..............................................................................194
Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 199
Bibliography........................................................................................................................213
Appendix.............................................................................................................................. 221
V
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Abstract
This study intends to prove the subjectivity of Korean women found in their
historical identity, by illuminating the fact that women had explicit property rights and
were not discriminated by gender ideology during the majority of the Joseon period. For
the purpose, the study examines the legal provisions of “equal inheritance among sons
and daughters,” clearly stipulated in the State Code {Gyeongguk Daejeon), and provides
numerous findings from the “Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty {Joseon Wangjo
Sillok),” which prove concrete inheritance and property rights Joseon women held and
maintained.
The State Code clearly stipulated the legal principle of “equal inheritance
among sons and daughters,” in which no discrimination existed between sexes. The
study emphasizes that there had been no change in the legal regulation of this equal
inheritance rule until the end of the Joseon dynasty. The principle of equal
inheritance among sons and daughters was not merely a legal notion, but a universal
perception firmly rooted in Joseon people’s minds and was a strong standard in the
practice of family property division. By this legal and factual norm of equal
inheritance, Joseon women had secure inheritance rights and exercised various
property rights of their own.
Under the social and legal circumstances that securely supported the
inheritance and property rights for women, many lawsuits were litigated by women
or involved women’s property. Women were quite vocal against the mistreatment
vi
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
they experienced and energetic in preserving their property rights. Seeing women’s
property holding as an attribute of the active subject and by elucidating women’s
property situations, this study is to be a strong claim for the subjectivity of Joseon
women.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Introduction
What is to be the tradition for Korean women? The impression, prevalent in
contemporary Korean society, of traditional Korean women, still entails a
subservient image under a pervasive patriarchal ideology. Many studies on
premodern Korean society, however, reveal the necessity for reconstruction of
tradition within the field of Korean women’s history. Abundant records provide
valuable evidence that the lives of Korean women until the mid-Joseon period,
roughly the eighteenth century, were quite different from those in the later period of
Joseon dynasty. Korean women in earlier times enjoyed considerable freedom and
exercised solid rights compared to women in the late Joseon period. This assures that
the dominant representation of so-called traditional women is not the proper one that
has a history of at most two hundred years or so - a short period o f time in
comparison to the five-thousand-year history of Korea.
The starting point and primary purpose of this study is a refusal of the
current archetype for traditional Korean women. The remedy, which represents a
“feminist revalorization,” to borrow a term from Rita Gross, 1 necessitates the
rectification and reconstruction of the way in which we perceive Korean women’s
traditions. The aim of my thesis is two-folds: to provide a new theoretical framework
1 Rita Gross, Buddhism After Patriarchy. Albany: State University o f N ew York, 1993, 3.
1
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
for Korean women’s history: and to draw upon the historical narratives depicting
women’s property rights in the Joseon dynasty. Diametrically opposed to the
identification of Korean women’s history with dependency and inferiority, this study
attempts to rearticulate women’s tradition in Korea. The research is not confined to
the academic study alone, but intends to invite the actual change in mass perception
regarding the traditional image of Korean women.
A. Analytic Base
Amy Richlin divides the attitudes of feminists in the field of women’s history
into two camps: optimists and pessimists.2 Optimists try to see good things to be
emulated in the past and celebrate women’s culture. The gloomy pessimists, obsessed by
the power of patriarchy, will attack such optimism as romantic. Some historians, in a
more vague manner, would adopt a “combined model,” defined both by the agency and
oppression of women.3 As Richlin explains, these two concepts of “oppression” and
“agency” correspond with pessimistic and optimistic expectations of scholars
respecitvely.
In an attempt to describe the arguments of optimists and pessimists, Richlin
provides a chart categorizing them. Inspired by Richlin’s creative effort, I myself made a
2 Amy Richlin. “The Ethnographer’s Dilemma and the Dream o f a Lost Golden Age.” In Feminist Theoiy
and the Classics. Eds. Nancy Rabinowitz and Amy Richlin. N ew York: Routiedge,1993, 274-276.
3 An example for this stance is that o f Dorothy K o’s in her book, Teachers o f the Inner Chambers.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
new version of the chart, embracing her concepts and terminology, yet revised to be
more simple and useful as an analytic base for my thesis. My revised version is as
follows:
Totalizing View
Optimist — “The past is our model.”
Pessimist — “The past is our curse.”
(Golden Age model — “The remote past is our model, the immediate past our curse.”)
Historicizing View
optimist — “The past breaks gender stereotypes.”
pessimist — “Start from scratch.”
The historians who are categorized as ‘capital-letter Optimists’ -w hom I call
‘Big O s’ - believe that there was once a time when everything was favorable to
women but then there was a decline after which everything turned terrible. To them,
the past is a model they would use as “a means to redeem the present,” and as “a
charter for future social change.”4 Though I do not concur with their totalizing view,
the most powerful reasoning of this group, and that which I value, is the very belief
in the possibility that there can again come a time favorable to women.
The most problematic camp to me is that of the ‘capital-letter Pessimists,’ ‘Big
Ps.’ Their concern strives to identify more origins and universals and thus may be named
a theory of “universal inequality.” They depict gender systems as “essentially
unchanging.” To them, the way “long-lasting” or “slow to change” is read as
4 Amy Richlin, ibid., 279.
3
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
“unchanging.”3 As can be expected, these two groups, the Big Os and the Big Ps, hardly
escape the blame for their “totalizing” tendency as “reductionist” as well as “ahistorical.”
The approaches championed by two groups of separatists among the optimists
and pessimists, identified by their lower-case characters, seem much more contemporary
and persuasive. Their works are described as “historicizing,” because they endeavor to
narrow down the range of their subject matter. The difference between these two groups
is that the lower-case optimists (the small os) look for evidence of women’s agency in a
given context, while the lower-case pessimists (the small ps) do not always interpret the
same source from the same positive point of view. Various optimistic views reveal the
fact that women enjoyed high status or exerted power in the context of certain cultures.
‘Small p’ historians often discourage the anticipation that resulted from these favorable
findings, confining them within the omnipotent structural restriction.
The prevalent perception of traditional Korean women’s status in contemporary
Korean society agrees with that of the ‘Big Ps,’ accepting, for example, the conception of
“woman as victim.” The actual historical findings, however, reveal that Korean women’s
history has a closeness to the so-called “Golden Age model”6 in terms of Amy Richlin’s
classification. My aim is to bring a substantial change into the ill-informed perception of
5 Amy Richlin, ibid., 282.
6 See the explanation for this term in page three; “The remote past is our model, the immediate past our
curse.”
4
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
‘Big P ’ widespread at the societal level in Korea, and for this, I choose to stand on the
position o f ‘small o’ historians.
The “historicizing” propensity o f feminists reflects the influence of
postmodern critique of universal claims, of totalizing theory, and of impartial truth.
At the same time, however, a growing number o f feminists are developing resistance
to what is seen as “postmodern excess”; these feminists are wary o f how postmodern
theoretical positions may undermine feminist projects. I am also conscious of the
danger o f excessive relativism and particularism which postmodern analyses often
seem to fall.
Feminists seem to have contradicting feeling on gathering evidence to stress
women’s greatness. They must be reluctant to give an impression that feminist
representations of women’s history by focusing on women’s greatness conflate
women’s experience, and also worried about the “segregation” of women’s history as
a study apart from the overall history. They warn themselves that feminist
representations of women’s history may “isolate” women’s issue as a separate and
special topic for discussion.7
Nevertheless, many feminists still value that kind of effort as a necessary
“political impulse” of feminism, which differs from a pure academic concern in the
field of history. Feminists are aware of the tension between the academy and
7 Joan Scott, “Gender: A Useful Category o f Historical Analysis.” In Gender and the Politics. Joan Scott.
N ew York: Columbia University Press, 1988.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
activism, and feminist theory demands action through social movement, ultimately
aim at bringing about social change. Feminism is not constrained by, or confined to,
academia, with its specializations and separation of theory from practice. I see the
fundamental inseparability of feminist research from feminist politics.
I personally believe that, in order to break the present unbalance in the gender
system and bring a change to this gender asymmetry, ‘to be unbalanced’ is required. My
stance holds that we need to highlight the positive sides more since the current situation
is still too seriously slanting toward one side. We indeed need to unbalance the present
unbalanced situation to balance it. Then my efforts first will be devoted to a search for
the ‘small os’ in various historical contexts.
B. Setting the Stage: Joseon dynasty (1392-1910)
The Joseon dynasty was founded by Yi Seong-gye in 1392 and lasted for more
than five hundred years, until 1910. In the course of seizing political control, Yi Seong-
gye and his supporters used Neo-Confucian concept of Heavenly Mandate to justify the
dynastic change from previous Goryeo (918-1392) to new Joseon. Thus the ideals of Chu
Hsi’s Neo-Confucianism became the official ideology of the state and all other beliefs
and tradition suffered curtailment. Despite the Neo-Confiicianists’s eagerness, however,
the changes at the broad societal level were brought about only at a snail’s pace requiring
a long time span. Here I will try to draw the basic outlines of Joseon society with
emphasis on those parts that have pertinent bearings on this study.
6
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1. Bureaucratic Structure
The highest deliberative organ of Joseon government was the State Council
(Uijeongbu siffcjff), staffed by three high state councillors.These three officials
discussed important state matters, delivered their consensus to the king, and transmitted
king’s decision to the pertinent government agency. Overall conduct of government
business was entrusted to Six Ministries (Yukjo A H '), those of Personnel, Taxation,
Rites, Military Affairs, Punishments, and Public Works. They had the authority to
memorialize the king directly and carried out execution and administration of state laws
and policies.
The Joseon dynasty also designed a distinctive instrumentality to prevent abuse
of political power which was called Samsa (EEW|): Office of the Inspector-General
(Saheonbu fUlfjff), Office of the Censor-General (Saganwon fU itK ), and Office of
Special Advisers (Hongmungwan EtAAtl). Working together, they checked against
arbitrary exercise of authority by a king and other officials through their criticism and
surveillance. We will often come across these names while dealing with women’s
property disputes and discussion in this study.
2. Social Stratification
The social statuses in the Joseon dynasty are commonly classified into four:
yangbcm (S S f), jung-in (A A ), yang-in (J lA ), cheon-in (H A ). The term “ yangban
(PUffi)” literally means “two orders” of officialdom who served in the bureaucracy as
7
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
civil {munban A ffi) or military (muban A Bf) officials.8 They were also named
“sadaebu ( ± A A )” for the officials whose posts were of the fifth rank and below were
called “sa ( ± ) ” and those of the fourth rank and above “daebu ( A A ).”9 The Joseon
society at times is called a “ yangban society,” for yangban as dominant ruling elites
enjoyed a variety of privileges and exerted authoritative power over the society in general.
They would devote every effort to preserve their benefits. They monopolized the state
examination, which was the main entrance to the yangban class, married among
themselves, and flocked to particular residential locations.1 0 In consequence yangban
status became hereditary.
Jung-in (A A ) were people who served in the technical posts or performed
petty duties that yangban were not willing to engage in. They include translator-
interpreters, accountants, medical officers, petty clerks, and local civil functionaries.
Jung-in too, on their lower level, were the hereditary preserve of the class. Positioned
between yangban and the commoners, this small group was named jung-in whose literal
meaning is the “middle people.”1 1
8 The civil order (munban) was more prestigious than the military order (muban) and restrictions existed in
gaining access to the examinations and civil offices.
9 Han Wu-geun, H an-guk Tongs a [The History o f Korea], Seoul: Eulyu Munhwasa, 1970,255.
1 0 Yangban in Seoul mostly lived in the northern and southern parts o f the city during the Joseon period.
1 1 Locationwise too, they lived in the center area o f Seoul while yangban were residents o f the northern and
southern provinces.
8
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The large majority of Joseon people were commoners (yang-in A A or
sangmin 'sTK), who bore most of the tax burden for the state. They were mostly
peasants, and some were merchants and artisans. The typical peasant was a tenant farmer
on yangban owned-land, yet there also existed a considerable number of independent
farmers as owner-operators who hired helping hands to cultivate their holdings.1 2
The lowborn population classed as cheon-in (H A ) or cheonmin (U K )
predominantly comprised slaves (nobi flXM) with some outcasts (baeJgeong A T ) who
worked at hereditary occupations as butchering, tanning, and wickerwork..lj There were
two kinds of slaves: public slaves (gongcheon A H ) belonging to the government and
private slaves (sacheon A H ) owned by individuals. Among slaves a substantial
majority called “out-resident slaves” (oegeo nobi AK$A$$) tilled their owner’s land or
paid fixed fees instead of providing labor services. They led independent households and
livelihood and therefore did not differ from the peasant tenants.1 4 Further this study will
show some well-to-do slaves and their lavish life.
1 2 Yi, Ki-beak, A N ew History o f Korea, Seoul: Iljogak, 1984, 184.
K ’ Besides these, gisaeng (female entertainer), sacking (traveling entertainer), and mudang (exorcist) were
also classed as lowborn.
1 4 Y i Ki-baek, ibid, 184-188, and Han U-geun, ibid., 262.
9
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. Marriage and Inheritance
In Korea traditionally the wedding ceremony took place in a bride’s house and a
newly-wed couple normally started their married life in the bride’s house. They stayed
there permanently or could come back to the man’s house after years passed. In this
uxorilocal marriage, children were bom and raised in the mother’s house, having close
relationship with maternal relatives, and naturally women possessed advantageous
position in a family.
During the Joseon period also, the uxorilocal custom prevailed and this was an
objectionable form of residence in the eyes of the Confucians. The early statesmen
attempted the reform of the wedding ceremony in accordance with their model, Chu
Hsi’s Family Ritual (Juja garae by which the bridegroom inducted the bride
into his house (chinyeong ISiS). The old custom, however, was so persistent that the
state’s efforts never bore fruit. Many historical records show that the major marital
residence was uxorilocal and the traditional wedding practice continued until late Joseon.
Along with uxorilocal marriage custom, the inheritance norm strictly stipulated in
the State Law and observed by people in real practice was “equal inheritance among sons
and daughters (janyeo gyunbun Since family property was distributed in
exactly equal amounts among all children, the duty of ancestral rites (jesa H fB) after the
parents’ death was also shared by sons and daughters by taking turns. This practice of
taking turns in offering the ancestral rites was called 'yunhang (Stiff),” and under the
circumstances, the performance of jesa by a daughter’s son, which is called “oeson
bongsa (ff was not rare during the Joseon dynasty. Diverse facets of property
10
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
rights o f daughters and wives are dynamically associated with this marriage and
inheritance system and I will examine them in detail in this study.
4. Foreign Invasions
Although bothered by occasional raids of Japanese marauders (waegu IH7 6 !) on
the coasts and of Jurchen (yeojin i t M) on the north border, the Joseon dynasty dwelled
in relative peace during her first two centuries. The situation shattered when Toyotomi
Hideyoshi (1536-1598) seized power in Japan and extended his ambition toward the
wider world. As a launching step on their way to China, Japanese troops landed on the
Korean peninsula in 1592. Until Hideyoshi died in 1598, the Joseon dynasty suffered
Japanese pillage and killing for seven years.1 5
Destructive wars again broke out in 1627 and in 1636 this time by the Manju
people.1 6 Before they conquered the Ming empire and established the Ching dynasty, the
Manju attacked the Joseon in order to secure their southern borderline. Having barely
recovered from the Japanese plunder, the Joseon people were victimized by the Manju
incursion and lost plenty of people and much property.
Through the decades of foreign invasions, almost every area of Korea became a
battlefield and the population distinctly decreased. Famines and epidemics spread all
1 5 The invasions were called Imjin Waeran (iSfSSL, 1592) and Jeongyu Jaeran (TllSiL, 1597)
following the name o f the year.
1 6 These are named Jeongmyo (T fP , 1627) and Byeongja Horan (pT~f SJflL 1636).
11
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
over the country and people fell into direst distress. Destruction of land and census
registers caused chaos to the governmental collection of taxes and enforcement of corvee
levies. These financial difficulties resulted in the government’s selling office titles and
ranks to anyone who could afford the grain contribution (napsok '^ W ). This study
demonstrates that many women of wealth were active participants in this new policy as
buyers of those “Empty Title Tickets (gongmyeongcheop
5. Late Period
The Sillok (MM) records report that the late Joseon frequently faced severe
famines and epidemics and tens of thousands of people died from starvation and diseases.
Nevertheless, the Korean population increased after the wars owing to the advances in
agricultural technology and the growth of farm production. The richer peasants who
succeeded in utilizing new techniques now became agricultural entrepreneurs and
emerged as a new class of commoner landlords.1 8 This brought the phenomenon of
polarization in the peasant class. The petty peasants worked as the hired hands to the
wealthier, and many tenant farmers who lost the land to cultivate became vagrants.
The social status system in general during this late period was undergoing a
dismantling process. While wealthy peasants could purchase the rank title reserved only
1 7 The blank official appointment forms which people purchased by contributing fixed amounts o f grain.
By inscribing their names thereon, people could acquire the right to use a rank title reserved to yangban only
before.
1 8 Yi Ki-baek, ibid., 226-228.
12
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to yangban before, economically incapable yangban who were excluded from office
appointments and central power sank to the low status being called “fallen yangban
(janban 2SSE).” By the nineteenth century the term yangban itself was converted into a
term o f address among merchants in Seoul, and thus the dignity that the yangban class
had maintained before now lost its authority. Whoever was affluent wore yangban
clothes and behaved as such regardless of their status. Some even created a fake
geneology (jokbo M M ) by making their distant ancestor into a famous figure, and others
falsified their career to be a literati (yuhak frfjlp ) in the census register.1 9
The changes in social stratification were broad in the late Joseon society. The
jungin (4 fA ) too were improving their social position by amassing fortunes and
expanding their influence in the society, and slavery was gradually disappearing. The
decrease in the number of slaves was caused partly by the destmction of slave records
and scattering of the slave population during the long period of foreign invasion. Also the
government in financial difficulties freed slaves who contributed grain or demonstrated
military valor.2 0
The clear line drawn between yangban and commoners now became blurred.
Under the circumstances, the crisis consciousness of yangban class became graver and
their congregating action began to be strengthened as seen in the frequent publication of
geneological tables (jokbo M M ) and formations of lineage.
1 9 Han U-geun, ibid., 327.
2 0 Han, U-geun, ibid., 327-330, Y i Ki-baek, ibid., 250-252.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
C. Previous Literature
The Korean traditional custom of equal inheritance among sons and
daughters has been mentioned in earlier studies in Korea primarily as peripheral
treatments accompanying extensive works on the Korean family system. The books
21 22 23
written by Kim Du-heon, Lee Gwang-gyu, and Choe Jae-seok are such works.
Kim Du-heon’s book can be positioned as the first comprehensive study of
the institution of Korean family and must have provided the basic insights to the later
works, though it does not provide focused analysis in the area of inheritance customs.
Lee Gwang-gyu’s and Choe Jae-seok’s works are also wide-ranging, while the
former as an anthropologist adopts more anthropological terms and theory, and the
latter as a sociologist offers more detailed statistical information. Noticeably Choe
Jae-seok includes some meaningful insights for interpreting the later change in the
inheritance institution of the Joseon dynasty and supports the existence o f favorable
surroundings for women’s agency, even though he does not approach the issue from
the feminist perspective.
2 1 Kim Du-heon, Han-guk gajok je d o yeon-gu [Research on the Korean Family System], Seoul: Seoul
National University Press, 1969.
2 2 Lee Gwang-gyu, Han-guk gajok id sajeok yeon-gu [Historical Research on the Korean Family], Seoul:
Iljisa, 1977.
2 3 Choe Jae-seok, Han-guk gajok jedosa yeon-gu [Research on the History o f the Korean Family System],
Seoul: Iljisa, 1983.
14
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
More specific concern was given by Kim Yong-man who has focused on the
inheritance system of the Joseon dynasty. He achieved great success in providing
various historical factors as explanatory bases for the equal inheritance system of
Joseon society. He attributes the factor for the change in inheritance system after the
seventeenth century to the spread of Neo-Confucianism and fragmentation of
property holding.24 Lee Su-geon’s article2 5 in the nineties explores the same issue
with not much novelty, mostly following Kim’s previous suppositions.
In the researches above, probably for the reason that all the writers are male,
women never appear as actors or subjects and the perspectives are far from revising
the understanding of women’s agency. One pioneering article written by a female
scholar named Kim Il-mi in 19692 6 is an earlier attempt at ‘women-centered’
historical interpretation with focused regard to Joseon women’s property rights.
Kim Il-mi in her study not only examines the inheritance practices and
women’s property rights of the early Joseon but also provides a profound analysis of
the historical import and social meaning of women’s property rights. Kim Il-mi
assumes that the main factor for the deteriorating change in women’s inheritance can
24 Kim Yong-man, “Joseon sidae gyunbun sangsokje e kwanhan ilyeon-gu” [A Study on the Equal
Inheritance System o f the Joseon Period], Daegu sahak 23, 1983.
25 Lee Su-geon, “Joseon jeon-gi ui sahoe byeondong gwa sangsokjedo” [Social Change and Inheritance in
the Early Joseon Period], Yeoksa hakbo 129,1991.
26 Kim Il-mi, “Joseon jeon-gi ui namnyeo gyunbun sangsokje e daehayeo” [Concerning Equal Inheritance
between Men and Women in Early Joseon], Idae sawon 8,1969.
1 5
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
be ascribed to the shift of marriage custom from uxorilocal to patrilocal. Skeptical
about the common conception of traditional Korean women as subservient and
oppressed, she suggests that some aspects should be taken into consideration: the
matrilineal characteristic shown in the so-called “rule of following mother’s status
(jongmobeop tfeftb'i),’’ uxorilocal marriage custom, the social role of maternal and
affinal relatives, and women’s inheritance rights.
The significance of Kim Il-mi’s research is twofold; it proposes very early on
most points grappled with by later scholars, and it touched on women’s issues
corresponding precisely with contemporary feminist concerns. It is even surprising
that her work was slow to find successors among the next generation of scholars, in
spite of their manifest feminist voice on this topic, and many implications she
suggested remain unstudied in depth.
During the nineties, important works in English have been produced by
Martina Deuchler27 and Mark Peterson. 28 In observing Korean institutions of
marriage and family, Deuchler covers broader issues and a longer time span, through
the Goryeo and the Joseon dynasties, and Peterson’s study narrows down its concern
to inheritance and adoption focusing on the transitional phase of Joseon.
21 Martina Deuchler, The Confucian Transformation o f Korea: A Study o f Society and Ideology, Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1992.
28 Mark Peterson, Korean Adoption and Inheritance. N ew York: Cornell East Asian Series, 1996.
16
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Deuchler investigates the changes in social structure which took place during
the Joseon dynasty under the influence of Neo-Confucianism. Scrupulously
illuminating the process of social change in accordance with the ritual formula by
Confucian doctrine, she presents two clearly different pictures of Korean society in
its history: before and after the implementation of Neo-Confucian ideology, i.e.,
Goryeo and Joseon.
Mark Peterson’s book, also emphasizing the changing aspects as Deuchler’s
does, concentrates on the narrower arena of inheritance and adoption. While
Deuchler compares the two dynasties, Peterson draws a dividing line around the
seventeenth century, identifying it as a key transitional period. The commonality
Deuchler and Peterson share is that both interpret the changing aspects of women’s
property rights as signs of serious deterioration of women’s status.
Previous researches reveal two tendencies; 1) They touch on women’s
property rights, but do not delve into the issue, as seen in most Korean scholars’
cases. 2) Even when they deal with women’s property rights, they do not optimize
the fact, as shown in Deuchler and Peterson’s works. The present study will examine
various aspects of women’s property rights during the Joseon dynasty by directing a
woman-centered view on the raw material. Thus women will be placed in the center
and become active agents in all narratives. In the course of research, two points will
be taken under conscientious consideration: 1) factors for the change and 2) the
17
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
periodization problem, and these correspond to my contention and support my
conclusion.
Factors fo r the Change
Here I categorize the factors that contributed to the changes in the Joseon
dynasty into four areas: ideological(intellectual), political(personal), economic, and social.
(1) Ideological (intellectual) factor: Neo-Confucianism
A consideration of the ideological factor reflects all the attempts taken to
implement Neo-Confucian principles within Korean society. They include the efforts
to perform the proper ritual, expansion of patrilineal consciousness shown in the
development of primogeniture, lineage organization and the publication of
genealogies. As implied in the title “The Confucian Transformation of Korea,”
Martina Deuchler defines the dynastic changes from Goryeo to Joseon to be an
ideological transformation by a great authoritative factor, Neo-Confucianism. Her
position is well revealed in the following excerpt:
Conspicuous difference must have resulted from a fundamental
transformation that Korean society underwent during the transition
period from late Goryeo to mid Joseon. ... the driving force
that initiated and directed this transformation was not so much
generated by political or economic factors ... than provided
by Neo-Confucianism. ... the salient features o f Korean society,
as they emerged in the course of the seventeenth century and
survived into the twentieth century ... that has become the
standard view o f traditional Korean society.2 9
29 Martina Deuchler, ibid., 6.
18
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Although Mark Peterson suggests that the factors for these changes should be
as multi-faceted, he also seems to concede that Deuchler’s focus on ideological
agents for change is warranted:
Which of all these various factors that were operating during
the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were major factors,
and which were minor? It is my view, that in the end Martina
Deuchler’s emphasis on the ideological and ritual, even though
she does not treat other factors that were also in operation, is
ultimately the most important. ... the most powerful of the
forces was also that which gave it its shape - ideology. It was
both a force and a formative agent.3 0
(2) Political (personal) factor: Interest of the King
William de Bary has insightfully remarked: “Depending upon circumstances
and inclination of the reigning emperor, the institution lapsed or was revived from time to
time.”3 1 The Korean historian Yi Su-geon’s argument provides an example when he
contends that early Joseon kings preferred partible inheritance and later kings preferred
primogeniture in the dynamic context of the power game against aristocracy.3 2
I also consider the King’s own personal commitment to Neo-Confucian
orthodoxy to have played an important role in the expansion of Confucian indoctrination.
,0 Mark Peterson, Korean Adoption and Inheritance. N ew York: Cornell East Asian Series, 1996, 211-212.
Wm. de Bary, Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy and the Learning o f the Mind and Heart. N ew York: Columbia
University Press, 1981.
j2 Yi Su-geon, “Joseon jeon-gi ui sahoe byeondong gwa sangsokjedo” [Social Change and Inheritance in
the Early Joseon Period], Yeoksa hakbo 129: 23-76,1991, 76.
19
looked at
factors as
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
For instance, the Sillok portrays Seongjong (r. 1469-1494) as a faithful Confucianist who
labored arduously to indoctrinate people by publishing a collection of didactic stories
called “Biographies of Exemplary Women (yeol-nyeo-jeon Social changes,
however, can hardly attributed to his efforts, because the established customs persisted
until the late period.
Peterson’s example of King Seonjo (r. 1567-1608) tells a similar story.
Illuminating the Yi Ja family’s adoption case issued by the Ministry of Rites in 1587,
Peterson points out that “King Seonjo had a clearer perception of the impropriety of
heirship by daughters than did any of his predecessors.”3 3 The case reads that Yi Ja’s son,
Yi Bae, had no children and Bae’s wife tried to adopt one of her relative’s daughters as an
heir. The daughter of Yi Ja, Bae’s sister, argued that she ought to be the heir. The Ministry
of Rites agreed with her, but because of King Seonjo’s objection a patrilineal nephew
was adopted in the end.3 4
Here I would point out an interesting disparity that perspective difference may
bring. Peterson makes much of this case, referring to it as a “late sixteenth century
hallmark case,”3 3 and acknowledging that it resulted in the revision of adoption practices.
To the contrary, I see in this case women still voicing their rights openly and aboveboard
in a natural manner, and it is also remarkable that an authoritative state institution such as
" Mark Peterson, ibid., 116.
34 Seonjo Sillok, 20/5/27 (1586)
^ Mark Peterson, ibid.
20
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the Ministry of Rites approved. This case could represent an instance in which a king’s
personal disposition, including misogyny, could have affected the ultimate decision, yet I
do not consider it fair to draw upon this case as a significant indication of change in
practice. Viewed from the feminist perspective, this case presents further evidence of
women’s vivid voice and actions.
Since all the court debates during the Joseon dynasty requested the King’s
opinion and reflected the King’s final decision, the King’s personal preferences or
ideological convictions must be viewed as instrumental in social transformation.
However, I am opposed to adopting this factor as a serious indication of the timing of the
changes or periodization because the trend always swayed between earlier and later kings.
(3) Economic factor: Land fragmentation
Some Korean scholars contend that the traditional cognatic partible inheritance,
which had inevitably brought the fragmentation of land holding, could not remain
parallel with the economic needs in seventeenth-century society. In short, primogeniture
could better serve the preservation of restricted resources. Borrowing Freedman’s
argument for the case of China, Peterson also adds that the economic upturn
accompanying innovations in agricultural technology and irrigation during the
seventeenth century in Joseon played a role in creating large-scale lineage.3 6
3 6 Ibid, 206-207.
21
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(4) Social factor: Impact of war
This factor involves the social devastation caused by the two major wars of the
Joseon period, Japanese and Manjurian invasions. Social chaos during and after the wars
resulted in the escape of many slaves, and the abuse of “Empty Title Tickets igong-
myeong-cheop brought disorder to the system of social status.
On the other side of the same coin, this social circumstance stimulated a crisis
consciousness among the yangban class that expedited the emergence of the deepened
status consideration. Thus the aftermath of the wars became a critical push factor for
changes toward a more patrilineal society. My position is that this factor is the most
critical catalyst for the social change that occurred, and this differentiates my stance from
that of other researchers.
Periodization Problem
Deuchler starts her book with the assumption that the conspicuous difference
between Goryeo and Joseon societies resulted from a fundamental transformation that
Korean society underwent during the first half of Joseon.3 7 She basically sees that “the
transformation o f Korean society into a Confiician society was a unique achievement that
resulted from propitious coincidence - the founding of a new dynasty that could avail
itself of a socially reformist thought system”.3 8 In other words, she regards the early
- ,1 Martina Deuchler, ibid., 6.
3 8 Martina Deuchler, Neo-Confucianism in Action, 27.
22
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
efforts for implementing Confucian ideology in Joseon as of great importance and also
considers the “founding of Joseon as a watershed”. Labeling the changes of Korean
society during the Joseon dynasty “the Neo-Confucian transformation,” Martina
Deuchler argues that there was a massive shifting of Korean society away from the
culture o f Goryeo through the application of Neo-Confucian concepts and values.
However, a closer look at Joseon society indicates that what Deuchler surmised
could be misleading. The transition from Goryeo to early Joseon did not bring about
institutional changes as meaningful as Deuchler seems to suggest. Though the
establishment of a new dynasty was aimed at the renewal of society through the
implementation of Neo-Confucian principles, it is doubtful that Neo-Confucianism
fulfilled its workability. The articulation of any social program, even if of high priority to
the new government, was an extremely intricate task that took decades to accomplish.
There is no denying that Neo-Confucianism as a pragmatic ideological tool did
exert influence, especially within the political sphere during this particular period.
However, it is important to look at the context in which these social changes that
Deuchler is dealing with took place; these changes were initiated in the seventeenth
century and did not subside until the end of the dynasty.
While Deuchler makes much o f the early stage of Joseon dynasty, Peterson
adopts a different periodization. Resisting the wide-ranging periodization of ‘early’
and ‘later’ Joseon, Peterson suggests including “a mid-Joseon period to show the
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
important nature of the transitions that took place at that time,’” 9 which covers
roughly the seventeenth century.4 0 By adopting periodization which labels the
seventeenth century as a “dramatic” transitional period and therefore placing too
much emphasis on it, Peterson gives the impression that all the changes happen
during this period and the society after the seventeenth century is wholly different
from that before the seventeenth century. This has similarity to the one Deuchler has
made by drawing a clear line between Goryeo and Joseon and emphasizing the
founding stage o f Joseon dynasty.
Periodization should be addressed with great care because it may cause
misunderstanding of the whole picture. Giving highlight to the seventeenth century,
Peterson emphasizes “the dramatic nature of the change” and characterizes it as “a
remarkable4 1 transition in inheritance and adoption practice.”4 2 To be precise, however,
the changes in each part of the social structure and each stratum took place at different
times, not during the exact same period. More importantly, even while some changes
began to show their signs in the sixteenth or seventeenth century, mostly they persisted
until the eighteenth or nineteenth century, as I will maintain in this study.
3 9 Mark Peterson, ibid., 6.
40 As a matter o f fact, this way o f periodization, dividing Joseon into three periods, is not as new as he
considers among Korean scholars.
4 1 These italics are mine.
42 Mark Peterson, ibid., 196.
24
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
D. W om en’s Property Rights in Joseon Dynasty
Being conscious of the need for reconstruction of the image of traditional
Korean women, this study deals with women’s property rights in the Joseon period.
Donna Dickenson argues that property can be central to women’s subjectivity.4^ It is
in fact a common assumption that there is a dialectical relationship between women’s
propertylessness and their lesser status as subjects. This must be the reason that
Korean historians associate women’s loss of property rights with the deterioration of
their social position.
In this study, I intend to prove the subjectivity of Korean women found in their
historical identity, by illuminating the fact that women had explicit property rights and
were not discriminated by gender ideology during the majority of the Joseon period. The
task is to take account of the specific powers and capacities that women had developed in
their historical and cultural context. This will make a challenge to traditional
conceptualizations of women.
The fact that Joseon women had secure property rights, both legally and
practically, is not in itself a wholly new discovery in academia, yet the problem to me is
that this meaningful historical fact has not received appropriate attention and adequate
analysis. In this study, I will not only highlight and reinterpret the preexisting facts, but
4j Donna Dickenson, Property, Women and Politics: Subjects or Objects?, N ew Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press, 1997, 3-15.
25
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
also excavate the previously ignored voices and actions made by women from historical
records.
The primary sources of this study are Gyeongguk Daejeon (i® Great
Code o f Administration; State Code) and Joseon Wangjo Sillok ( f i l l iiEfJjltift,
Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty). The first chapter will examine the
provisions stipulated in Gyeongguk Daejeon regarding the property inheritance. The
following ones will analyze numerous findings from the Joseon Wangjo Sillok,
which have evidence on concrete women’s property rights during the Joseon dynasty.
All the records I use in this study were written by men and reflect a male-
centered worldview. I am well aware that they easily lead us to see women, not as
they experienced themselves, but as men depicted them. My approach is to revive the
real women from these traditional male historical sources, which do not recognize
women as full subjects. Interpreting women’s property rights and ownership as an
attribute of the active subject, this study is to be a strong claim for the subjectivity of
Joseon women.
In chapter I, I will introduce and examine legal stipulations of the State Code,
Gyeongguk Daejeon, concerning the principle of “equal inheritance.” Chapter II
demonstrates how those rules were applied to the real world through observing
various aspects of women’s property rights and related practices. Chapter III presents
the degree to which women were able to defend their own property rights, as
evidenced by the numerous litigation cases. And chapter IV illuminates the freedom
26
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of expression enjoyed by women by means of diversity of avenues open to those who
wished to address a grievance.
27
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter I: Legal Provisions of Inheritance
A. Gyeongguk Daejeon, an Immutable State Code
The Joseon government at its early stage was active in promulgating laws to set
up judicial norms for an entire new society it aspired to develop. With the foundation of
the dynasty, declaring that he would govern the country according to the law, King Taejo
(r. 1392-1398), the first king of Joseon, proclaimed in his inaugural speech that he would
adopt the law which had been in force since the end of the Goryeo dynasty (918-1392)
instead of enacting a new law. Thus, the first code, Gyeongje Yukjeon The Six
Codes o f Administration) promulgated and put into effect in the sixth year (1397) of King
Taejo’s reign, was a compilation of the laws and decrees which had been in force from
the end of the Goryeo times and were still both effective and reasonable to the Joseon
situation.1
The Gyeongje Yukjeon underwent amendment in its wording and contents,
followed by the Sok Yukjeon (fff/kjfi!: Amended Six Codes) of 1413, which was revised
and amended again in 1426 and 1433. While this work continued until the era of King
Sejong (r. 1418-1450), the entire process of this legislation was that of determining which
existing laws were reasonable and effective, rather than that of creating and adding new
laws. Even if a new statute was enacted in a creative form, its essentials were based on
1 Park Byeong-ho, Han-guk id Jeontong Sahoe w a Beop [Traditional Korean Society and Law], Seoul
Law Journal vol. 15, no. 1: 88-134, 1974, 90.
28
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
social reality, i.e., customary usage. Therefore, its enactment was intrinsically a revision
of existing law.
I am also conscious of the “principle of respect for the royal ancestors’
constitution which every law promulgated in the Joseon dynasty
followed deliberately. This principle played a decisive role in the preservation of
indigenous laws. The legislators thought that it was wrong to repeal or amend the old
laws by enacting new ones, and whenever a new law was to be enacted, much argument
ensued. The phrase “legislation entails evils (^ALTfn!£^)” was a proverb frequently
quoted throughout the dynasty, for it was widely held that a new law should be enacted
only for the purpose of rectifying the irrational and contradictory aspects of old ones.
Since new laws were believed to entail at least as many evils as old ones, and their
implementation was therefore hampered, the continuing execution of old laws was
generally viewed as preferable.2
After the first code, Gyeongje Yukjeon, was put into effect, there existed a need
to update codified law to respond to changing times. In 1415 of King Taejong’s reign
(r. 1400-1418), the solution to these problems was first put forth. Feeling uncomfortable
with the problem of correcting the established law, King Taejong ordered to “cancel all
the corrections to the original code (wonjeon 7CH) and additions into the amended code
2 Park, Byeong-ho, ibid.
29
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(sokjeon Hfft). Inexorable contents are to be put into the original code, but exclusively
in the form of annotation.”3
Since laws formed the great societal bulwark, the strength of which determined
the quality of government, they could not be conceived and enacted in a hurry. “The
principle of respecting the royal ancestors’ constitution,” resulted in the inclusion of
footnotes as a means of respecting the original code while maintaining the provisions of
the original code. New laws or decrees were not permitted, as the text of the Gyeongje
Yukjeon was enacted by King Taejo (r. 1392-1398), the founder of the dynasty. Trusting in
the workability of Mencius’ dictum that nobody ever erred by honoring the laws of the
ancient kings, the legislators under Taejong (r. 1400-1418) thought the “ancient
institutions” guaranteed the durability o f their laws. By Sejong’s time (r. 1418-1450), this
legislation was regarded as a kind of dynastic code or constitution that might be
supplemented, but not changed.4
The legislative policy of perpetuating previously existing laws in the name of
“respecting the ancestors’ constitution” was strictly observed, and in 1485 there finally
came the compilation of the Gyeongguk Daejeon (fe S y k ft, Great Code o f
Administration, State Code), an immutable, comprehensive code. Its compilation began
in King Sejo’s reign (r. 1456-1468), but was not completed until the reign of King
Seongjong (r. 1469-1494). The Gyeongguk Daejeon was again a collection of indigenous
3 Taejong Sillok, 15/08/13 (1414).
4 Park Byeong-ho, ibid.
30
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
laws, compiled by collecting and recording the Gyeongje Yukjeon and its appendix and
the various decrees promulgated previously. Upon the accomplishment of this
comprehensive dynastic code, King Seongjong ordered, “After the establishment of the
Gyeongguk Daejeon, do not correct it frivolously... If anyone requests a correction, he
will be punished by law.”5
This respect and reverence, which was characteristic of that associated with the
Gyeongguk Daejeon, is evidenced throughout Sillok records.6 The Gyeongguk Daejeon
thus came to bear absoluteness as the royal constitution, and “the principle of respecting
the royal ancestors’ constitution” was followed until the implementation of various
subsequent codes such as the Daejeon Tongpyeon (/Azftillfil) of 1785 and Daejeon
Hoetong of 1865.7
B. Legal Capacity during the Joseon Dynasty
Before I go on to look into a detailed stipulation recorded in Gyeongguk
Daejeon (IlH/A/Jftr), it would be meaningful to have information about the legal
capacity of the time as a pre-requisite to the enjoyment of rights. According to Park
Byeong-ho, a Korean legal scholar, the legal capacity to hold rights is comprised of 1) A
5 Seongjong Sillok, 15/04/08 (1483).
6 The records from JungongSillok, 13/02/25 (1518), Yeongjo Sillok, 06/12/19(1729), 12/06/18 (1735),
30/03/05 (1753), Jeongjo Sillok, 09/02/23(1784) reflect discussions about preserving and respecting the
previously established law, especially the Gyeongguk Daejeon.
1 Park Byeong-ho, ibid.
31
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
capacity to hold and exercise various political rights; 2) A capacity to enter a legally
approved and protected family relationship; 3) A capacity to obtain and hold property
rights; and 4) A capacity to request the legal protection of personal identity, freedom, life
o
and body.
Since Joseon society was a class society, the first of these capacities, the
capacity to exercise political rights, was held by yangban (SfJE), the ruling class.
Minimal tolerance in this regard was also afforded to the middle class and lower officials.
However, all the other capacities were legally guaranteed for all classes without any
restriction upon sex or age.
While slaves were themselves the objects of others’ rights and were subject to
sale, mortgage, and inheritance, they also could obtain and own their property, even
including other slaves. Financial transactions could be practiced between different classes,
and all parties were subject to the same law. The capacity to initiate legal proceedings
was also acknowledged by law without any restriction by social class, and therefore
commoners and even members o f the lowest class could bring a lawsuit against upper-
class people. As we shall see in subsequent chapters, all of these stipulations applied
equally to women regardless of class.
Many legal cases put forth in this study demonstrate the egalitarian way in
which legal capacity was applied during the Joseon dynasty, both in theory and in
practice. The capacity to hold property and to exercise pertinent rights was not simply
approved by law but customarily and universally practiced by Joseon people despite the
8 Park Byeong-ho, ibid., 127.
32
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
nature o f a class society. I believe that this is another stimulant to revise the
contemporary view of traditional Korean society.
C. Stipulation of the Inheritance Law in Gyeongguk Daejeon
The inheritance law of the Joseon dynasty was fully developed in the
Gyeongguk Daejeon of 1485. The concept of equal inheritance amongst sons and
daughters, a deeply rooted custom from Goryeo society, was legislated and thereby
preserved until the end of the dynasty without any change in the legal text. The only
innovation in the Confucian Joseon setting was the introduction of primogeniture, the
basis for which is the Confucian agnatic principle (jongbeop t k &). However,
Gyeongguk Daejeon’ s commitment to primogeniture was not complete and it required
hundreds years to be firmly rooted in Korean society.
Together with land, slaves constituted the most valuable part of the inheritable
patrimony during the Joseon dynasty. The Gyeongguk Daejeon stipulation that land be
appraised based on the number of slaves9 indicates the degree to which slaves
represented the true value of a particular piece of property at this time. Thus the most
fundamental legislation regulating the inheritance of private property was conceived in
terms of slaves. In the subsection, “Private Slaves” (sacheonjo within the
“Punishment” (hyeongjeon JfU lSf) section of the Gyeongguk Daejeon, the basic rule of
inheritance is stipulated in a meticulous way. Slaves are the primary item of private
33
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
property, and a footnote explains that the land and house should be bequeathed in
accordance with the inheritance rule for the slaves.
In the matter of inheritance, sons and daughters were first and foremost right
holders. Daughters were joint heirs alongside sons, regardless of whether they were
married. When a son or daughter died prior to inheritance and had children, these
children inherited their rightful share by proxy. If there was no son or daughter or no
grandson or granddaughter who was to be an heir, the surviving spouse inherited the
property in the second order. In the case it is a wife, she had rights to the inheritance until
her death, provided she never remarried and therefore remained a member of her
husband’s family.
When there was not even a surviving spouse, the main kinsmen of the deceased
husband or wife inherited the property. In this case, the range of kinsmen who were
called “ sason was confined to the fourth degree of kinship (sachon IZ3^f'). If no
brother or sister survived as a member of the second degree of kinship (ichon Z lyf), the
third-degree relatives (samchon Hyh), aunts, uncles, nieces or nephews, inherited the
property. And if there was not even the third degree (samchon), the fourth degree
(sachon) who were cousins, grandfathers, grandmothers or grandchildren, received the
inheritance. When there were no kinsmen within this range of the fourth degree, the
property ownership reverted to the State.1 0
1 0 Park Byeong-ho, ibid., 118-119.
34
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In the following, I will address the inheritance amount legislated in the
Gyeongguk Daejeon, focusing specifically on the property of women. With respect to
women’s property rights, I will be conscious of two aspects in particular, the ownership
rights o f mothers, and the inheritance rights of daughters.
1. Inheritance of Parents’ Property
Gyeongguk Daejeon legislated the provision of “equal shares for all children
(janyeo gyunbun of a primary (legitimate) wife, by which both sons and
daughters of equal status, regardless of their sex, were legally guaranteed equal amount
of inheritance. Discrimination concerning the division of parental property depended
upon the legitimacy of a child’s birth, which was dictated by the mother’s familial and
social status. Only the children of a primary wife (cheo H ) could be legitimate, whereas
those of a concubine (cheop §s£) were always considered illegitimate. A concubine’s
social status as commoner (yangcheop or slave (cheoncheop again resulted
in discrimination against her children. The law provided for the children of a commoner
concubine to receive one-seventh as much as a legitimate child, whereas those of a slave
concubine would receive one-tenth that of a legitimate child.1 1
Following are the six categories of children as indicated within the Gyeongguk
Daejeon: 1) Ritual Heir (seungjung ja TkW 1 ^), 2) Legitimate Children (jeok
janyeo jfe-Fit), 3) Children of a Commoner Concubine {yangcheop janyeo
1 1 GyeonggiA Daejeon Hyeongjeon Sacheonjo(U-$Mi{£). 1087, 1090.
35
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4) Stepchildren (ui janyeo IS'iP'&r), 5) Adopted Children {yang janyeo if-p'#:), and 6)
Children of a Slave Concubine {cheoncheop janyeo The legislative ratio of
the inheritance amount of parents’ property is as follows; when each legitimate son
and/or daughter received 1, 1 and 1/5 was awarded to a ritual heir, 1/7 for commoner
concubine’s son and/or daughter, and 1/10 for the son or daughter of a slave concubine.1 2
When an illegitimate son {seoja fK-p) becomes a ritual heir due to the lack of a
legitimate son, and if there was a legitimate daughter, his inheritance amount remained
unchanged, except for entitlement to the ritual inheritance amount. The ratio between a
legitimate daughter and an illegitimate ritual heir would be 6:3, if the mother of the ritual
heir was a commoner, and 9:3, if his mother was a slave. Thus, a legitimate daughter’s
inheritance was not affected by an illegitimate son’s ritual heirship.
2. Inheritance of Mother’s Property
In further support of my thesis regarding the equal terms of women’s property
rights during the Joseon times, property held by the mother’s side {mobyeon # # ) of the
family was always kept separate from, and dealt with independent of, property held by
the father’s side (bubyeon 3£i§) of the family. This conception was not merely manifest
in the law but practiced in daily life as demonstrated in the next chapter. There is a close
relationship between the fact that a married couple’s property was regarded as separate
and the tradition of equal inheritance amongst sons and daughters. Any property a
daughter inherited from her parents remained in her control throughout her life and was
1 2 Gyeongguk Daejeon, ibid., 1087-1094.
36
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
therefore at her disposal during her marriage. The equal inheritance rights women
enjoyed with their male counterparts consequently reflect and evidence woman’s
subjectivity and agency within Korean tradition.
While managing parents’ property by the term of “bumo nobi
Gyeongguk Daejeon stipulates the inheritance of the mother’s property in a separate term
as “ jeokmo nobi ($§#&£&$).” A mother’s property would be inherited only by her own
children. The ratio describing the respective shares inherited by both male and female
offspring is the same as that governing the distribution of parents’ property: each son and
daughter received the same amount, and a ritual heir received an additional 1/5 share.
If a wife had no children, but the husband had fathered the children of a
concubine, those children, who were considered illegitimate, received an inheritance
according to the same ratio mentioned previously. The rest of her property would return
to her natal family, and if none of these family members survived her, the property was
ceded to the State.
If a woman had no male offspring, and her husband’s concubine produced a
ritual heir, the heir received 1/7 of a legitimate daughter’s inheritance amount, provided
the concubine was a commoner. Where the concubine was a slave, this amount was
reduced to a 1/10 share. Yet, illegitimate daughters and sons who were not ritual heirs
would inherit no part of their stepmother’s property, which was naturally supposed to go
back to her natal family. The reason that a concubine’s son received a share was only
because he was the one who would serve a ceremony for her after she died.
37
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In this section I have shown that the basic principle of inheritance found in the
detailed provisions of the Joseon law was “equality between sexes but discrimination
between statuses.”1 3 Legitimate sons and daughters of equal status had equal claim to
property while illegitimate sons and daughters had rights equal to one another, but less
than that o f the legitimate siblings. The property of a husband and wife who died without
a surviving child was divided into the husband’s own property and the wife’s own
property; the former was inherited by the husband4 s kinsmen and the latter by the wife’s
kinsmen, except when there was an adopted child. In principle, unless related by blood,
even a child could not inherit the property. I would argue that all these factors further
illustrate my claim that traditional Korean society was status-obsessed but not sex-
discriminating.
D. Code vs. Practice
The frequently 4 could-be’ raised issue is about the possible gap between the
written code and actual practice. Mark Peterson seems very reluctant to “interpret a
passage from the Code as evidence of the way society actually functioned,” stating that
“the legal interpretation of the Code was ambiguous throughout the dynasty.”1 4
A certain tension existed between the concept of social order and the laws,
which had to be adaptable to the actual social situation. This tension characterized the
1 J Mark Peterson, Korean Adoption and Inheritance. N ew York: Cornell East Asian Series, 1996,24.
1 4 Mark Peterson, ibid., 24.
38
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
legislative process during the initial period of experimentation in the Joseon dynasty. It
may have been partly responsible for the delay in the compilation of the first
comprehensive law code, the Gyeongguk Daejeon (He HI A ft). Gyeongguk Daejeon
reflected an almost century-long attempt to restructure Goryeo tradition on the basis of
“ancient institution,” but its reformatory thrust was weakened in crucial areas of social
life, concerning matters of inheritance, for example.
Here I want to call attention to the fact that the law itself survived without any
change until the very end of the dynasty, faithfully following “the principle of respect for
the royal ancestors’ constitution” as I have demonstrated in this chapter. The Gyeongguk
Daejeon, amended and announced in 1485, was an ‘immutable’ code of the Joseon
dynasty. The legal provisions concerning the inheritance rule stipulated in the Gyeongguk
Daejeon had great significance and ultimate influence on the actual practices in the
society.
The equal inheritance system was a ‘legal’ inheritance institution which was
firmly guaranteed by the provisions of the code. A father or grandfather, for example,
could not dispose of property in any way that conflicted with these provisions, even by
way of a will designed specifically for this purpose. When one of the children, most
likely an eldest son, did not share the inherited property according to the law, the other
siblings could bring a lawsuit to dispute the action at any time. And when such a suit was
filed, the authorities ensured the equal distribution of the property.1 5
1 5 Park Byeong-ho, ibid., 119.
39
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The term “equal inheritance following the law (euibeop pyeongbun
£)•)” is commonly found in the preface of the inheritance documents (bunjaegi m
IB)1 6 written after 1490. These documents show the people’ s will to practice inheritance
in accordance with the laws as best as they could.1 7 People who had complaints about
the division of family property which had not followed the legal provisions could bring a
lawsuit to correct it. The chapters below, on the Joseon Wangjo Sillok, include instances
of litigation stemming from such conflicts and show how the codified laws were
applied to actual cases.
Although the Joseon dynasty aimed to realize Chinese Confucian ideology in all
fields, the indigenous laws, based on traditional social order as opposed to the Confucian
ideology, served to establish a social order specific to Korea. While many new laws were
continually enacted, “the principle of the respect for the royal ancestors’ constitution,” as
well as the belief that “legislation entails evils” always restricted efforts at creative
legislation. Legal stability was a goal to which attention was always paid. The point I
would emphasize here is that thus the legal effectiveness of women’s inheritance and
property rights was never changed until the very end of the dynasty, i.e., while the
Gyeongguk Daejeon, immutable State Code, was in effect surviving until the end of
Joseon times.
1 6 These records o f family property division show how precisely Joseon people divided their family
property strictly observing an inheritance rule.
1 7 Kim Yong-man, “Joseon sidae gyunbun sangsokje e gwanhan ilyeon-gu” [A Study on the Equal
Inheritance System o f the Joseon Period]. D aegu sahak 23: 1-47, 1983, 26-28.
40
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter II: Women’s Property Rights
A. Joseon Wangjo Sillok (fJ lf jlf i i , Veritable Records of Joseon Dynasty)
The court of the Joseon dynasty supported the compilation of a number of
historical works and put phenomenal effort into producing and preserving historical
records. For keeping records of history of each reign, court diarists, called hallim ( f i # ) ,
took note of all the activities around the throne. A court diarist was present at every scene
of official business conducted by the king and recorded the various activities of the court.
After the death of each king, these records were amassed for the purpose of compiling
the annals called Sillok (MMk, Veritable Records).
This tradition began in 1413 with the compilation of the Taejo Sillok (T o H jtii,
Annals of King Taejo) and continued until the end of the dynasty. To ensure the safe
transmission to posterity, copies of these records were placed in four repositories in
widely separated areas of the countryside apart from the central archive in the capital city
of Seoul.
Silloks were also generated in China, but only two remain intact: the Ming
Sillok and the Qing Sillok. These, however, contain only the governmental policies, and
do not include much details about society, culture, economy, military, diplomacy, and
customs as the Joseon Wangjo Sillok did so meticulously. It is no surprise that the Joseon
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Wangjo Sillok, a record of such size and high quality was appointed for inclusion in the
“Memory of the World Register” by UNESCO in 1997.'
This massive record of the rule of every Joseon king, known collectively as
Joseon Wangjo Sillok Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty),
constitutes the main material of my study. Though it is not easy to explore the whole
collection because of its immense size, it certainly warrants considerable review, as it is
so informative and offers vivid pictures of the current life, thoughts, culture, and law,
covering almost every aspect of the social system in Joseon times.
The Joseon Wangjo Sillok is full of primary information about the family unit
and individual persons. Numerous disputes over family matters frequently reached the
king, and the king functioned as a judge of a family court. This chapter shows that the
rule of equal inheritance stipulated in the legal code was upheld not only by law but also
by custom. Above all, I will present aspects and evidence about the voice and actions of
Joseon women from the Sillok.
B. Principle of “Equal Inheritance”
The principle of “equal inheritance among sons and daughters (janyeo gyunbun
as prescribed in the dynastic legislation, was not merely a legal notion but a
universal perception that occupied Joseon people’s minds during the majority of the
1 Yi Seong-mu, Joseon Wangjo Sillok Eotteon Chaek inga [What is the Joseon Wangjo Sillok?]. Seoul:
Dongbang Media, 1999, 26-34.
42
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Joseon period. The reasoning behind the equal inheritance rule is well described in the
following passage in the Sejong Sillok.
There is a law that, if parents did not equally distribute the
family property and slaves to the chi ldren because of their
preference, the office could become involved and divide it
evenly....
If such law does not exist, though they are the same sons from
one father, one suffers hardship, while the other is well off,
and thus a father can not fulfill the role of father, and a son can
not perform the role of son. Only with this law can all the siblings
and parents maintain harmony and live in accordance with the
Heavenly Way (cheolli Tcfi). .. ,2
That is to say, the gulf between the rich and the poor among siblings resulting from the
unequal distribution of family property would shatter the peace and harmony of a family.
This conception seems to have been firmly rooted in Korean people’s minds and became
a strong standard in the practice of family property division.
In practice, Sillok records show that the equal inheritance rule was considered to
have been observed. In 1430 of Sejong’s reign (r. 1418-1450), Seong Bok’s lowborn
daughter, Gwi Saeng, intending to claim the entire inheritance for herself, falsely claimed
that her four younger siblings were not bom from the same mother.3 This incident shows
by counterevidence that the family property was supposed to be divided equally among
“children bom of the same mother (dongbok |WJ!J|).”
2 Sejong Sillok, 12/9/18(1429)
3 Sejong Sill ok, 13/3/1 (1430)
43
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The case of Jo Mu-yeong in 1468 from the Yejong Sillok presents plain
evidence; Jo Mu-yeong did not divide the parents’ slaves equally among his siblings
(dongscm M ) . 4 After Jo died, there were lawsuits among his siblings for years. The
Court ruled that Jo Mu-yeong obtained too much, and that the slaves should be
distributed evenly among his brothers and sisters.5
Yeonsan’s (r. 1494-1506) directive in 1501 is also solid evidence; by his order
given to the Uigeumbu ( # H lff)6, several people who did not divide family property
equally with their siblings, were put in jail: 1) Namcheon-gun Jaeng did not divide slaves
equally with his siblings; 2) Yeolsanjeong Hae and Ka-eun-gun Bin took possession of
all their father’s slaves for twenty years; 3) Jeong Jin gave little to his younger sibling
and took most of the family estate and slaves.7
Since the property was securely private, and property division was therefore a
personal matter, there was friction between individual will and an authoritative
encroachment. The prejudiced division of property according to parental preferences
seems to have been something the government could not infringe upon. Court
discussions in the first year (1450) of Munjong’s reign (r. 1450-1452) delineate the issue
well:
... Park Paeng-nyeon said, “Now many cases appeal to clarify
the relations between wife and concubine, and between father
4 Dongsan (IrMI) and dongbok ([a3II)are the terms for the siblings who were bom from the same mother.
5 Yejong Sillok, 0/12/10 (1468)
6 The Public Procurator’s Office in Joseon.
7 Yeonsan Sillok, 8/3/26 (1501)
44
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and son. The origin of these cases comes from struggling over
property, such as slaves, fields, and houses. This is truly not a
small trouble because a family fights each other and the custom
becomes harsh. Even though there exists the State Code that
stipulates the slave division to the children of legitimate wife
and children of concubine, a father dispenses by his momentary
preference regardless of the law. If one does this and does not
have apparent documents, I ask the Office to take in charge
and distribute property according to the written Code.” ...
The King said, “This is not a matter I would answer frivolously.”
... The King asked the others, “What do you think of the suggestion
of the Office’s taking in charge and dispense the property?”
Yi Gye-jeon answered, “Everything on earth obeys the parents.
Even though the parents’ division was not fair because of momentary
preference, how is it possible for the Office to take in charge
and distribute [family property] against the parents’ order?
It is natural to follow the parents’ order, and the Office only
should distinguish and decide on what is wrong and what is right. ...8
The conflict between the parent’ s will and the Office’s intrusion was a very
subtle issue in a society where property was regarded wholly personal but also was
supposed to be divided equally among all the children. This rose to the surface when it
often happened that a concubine wielded her charm and instigated a man to make a will
to bequeath all the property to her own children and even led the man to deny the relation
with his own son from the legitimate wife.9 In this kind of case, since the problem
involved violation of the “Way of Heaven {cheolli, T :Si)” by denying the father-son
relationship, the intrusion of the Office seemed inevitable. Interestingly enough, the Way
of Heaven is used in another way in the same context. If children complained about
8 Munjong Sillok, 1/8/29(1450)
9 Wang In’s case in Munjong Sillok, 2/4/16 (1451) and Yi Hap’s case in Jungjong Sillok, 5/2/5 (1510)
portray this problem.
45
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
uneven distribution of family property and brought a lawsuit, it was again against the
Way o f Heaven, which required children to comply with their parents’ requests.1 0
In the complex matrix, the legal norm of “Equal Inheritance” sometimes played
a role as a pacifier. When two opinions that advocated either a parent’s will or Way of
Heaven conflicted, only the equal distribution faithfully observing the legal regulation
would not cause any conflict, and people thought that “it was [primarily] the parent’s
fault if property was not divided equally.” 1 1
An incident involving undivided slaves and “an inheritance amount for
sacrificial rites (bongsajo provides explicit evidence of the equal inheritance
principle and a detailed description as to how the rule worked in Joseon people’s minds:
In the tenth year (1478) of Seongjong (r. 1469-1494)’s reign, there was a dispute in the
court about the treatment of Gyeong Yeo’s undivided slaves. Gyeong Yeo gave the house
with the shrine to his second son (chanam MM), not to his oldest son (jangnam MM),
and the oldest grandson (jangson M M ) Gyeong Myeon requested the house for serving
the ancestral rites (jesa 1^/fE). Instead of the house, Gyeong Yeo’s undivided slaves, who
were deemed of equal value, were given to him.
Many officials in the court objected to this practice, reasoning that, because the
oldest son and grandson already had more slaves in the name of “the amount for
sacrificial rites {bongsajo, B fE f® ),” it would be greatly unfair to the other brothers and
sisters if they acquired additional property. The claim goes: “If an oldest son earns slaves
'0 Sin Jong-nyeon case in Seongjong Sillok 10/8/22 (1478) shows this point.
1 1 Jungjong Sillok, 13/2/29 (1518)
46
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
for the sacrificial service, and then receives more for the house, there may be a child who
gets nothing.”1 2 This case shows that the general perception was to try to be as fair as
possible and maintain equality when dividing family property.
The case also reveals that the newly-implemented Confucian factor, i.e., “the
amount for sacrificial rites (bongsajo),” supposedly given to the oldest son, did not work
successfully. Another contest in the same record remarks: “Many people gave the house
not to the oldest son, but to a daughter or younger son. [If this case is approved,]
litigations will arise like a swarm of bees.”1 3 This proves that in practice sons and
daughters were treated equally, and the houses were often given to daughters or younger
sons without a fixed conception that the oldest son should occupy the house with the
shrine.
The story also evidences the explicit property rights of women. According to
the description, the reason that Gyeong Yeo bestowed the house to the second son was
that “Gyeong Yeo did not have his own house and lived at the second wife’s house, and
she disposed o f the house as she wished.”1 4
The newly-imposed terms specifying ‘paternal/maternal’ in the State Code
(Gyeongguk Daejeon) also brought disputes and again shows that the notion o f equality
was deeply rooted in people’s minds for a long time. During Seongong’s reign (r. 1469-
1494), the discussion on the validity of the will left by maternal grandparents arose. The
1 2 Seongjong Sillok, 10/9/14 (1478)
1 3 Seongjong Sillok, 10/9/20 (1478)
1 4 Seongjong Sillok, 10/9/12(1478)
47
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
problem originated from the confusion in the use of terms of ‘paternal grandparents
(jobumo and ‘maternal grandparents (waejobumo In the course of
writing articles in the Code, the terms were used in a confusing manner. Since 1 jobumo'
had long been used as a general term for both paternal and maternal grandparents, when
they put 'waejobumo' separately it caused confusion.1 5 Here I will quote from
discussions where the equal inheritance rule was applied regardless of sex.
“Though it seems that grandparents and maternal grandparents
are not the same, being their offspring is the one [same].
Every time the grandparents distribute their slaves to their
offspring, they all share together without distinguishing
between male andfemale. Now if the will of maternal
grandparents is not to be valid, it would be quite unjust
because female offspring cannot participate.” ...
“It is not righteous that the will of grandparents would be
valid only to the same-sumame grandchildren and not to
the grandchildren bom by daughters.” ...
“Suppose a person has both sons and daughters, and
grandchildren by sons and daughters. If he writes a will,
how would he discriminate between sons and daughters,
and grandchildren by sons and daughters? Seen from the
mind of grandparents and parents, they are all the same
descendants without distinction of children by son or
daughter.”1 6
1. Practice of Equal Inheritance
In this section, I will present the way in which customs realized the legal norm
of equal inheritance in social setting. Three records from the Jungjong Sillok demonstrate
this well. For instance, a record dating from 1524 of the Jungjong Sillok reads: “Mme Yu
1 5 Seongjong Sillok, 20/5/26 (1488)
1 6 Seongjong Sillok, 20/5/26 (1488)
48
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
distributed lands and slaves among her eight sons and daughters.” 1 7 This reveals two
aspects: 1) family property was distributed among both sons and daughters, most likely,
in equal amounts; and 2) a woman played an autonomous role in disposing of family
property as a property holder.
A more intriguing story explicitly illustrating the practice of equal inheritance is
found in the same Sillok, which reads: Yun Seung-se had one daughter and three sons.
He gave a house to each son, and to his daughter he gave a plot right in front of the house
of Yun Jeong, one of her brothers, and provided rice and cloth so that she could build a
new house there. Thus all the brothers and sisters comfortably lived in their own homes,
and the son-in-law Gong Seo-rin and Yun Jeong lived next door for twenty years. The
problem broke out after Yun Seung-se died. Gong Seo-rin, who coveted Jeong’s house,
claimed the right to it using the document Seung-se had left.
The court investigation revealed that the document was made while Yun Seung-
se was involved in a crime. Being afraid of confiscation of all his property, Yun Seung-se
had conferred the ownership of the house to his unmarried daughter. Later when Yun
Seung-se was exempted from the forfeit, he gave the house to Jeong and the land to the
daughter, but forgot to get rid of the document. The son-in-law Gong Seo-rin kept the
document in secret and later claimed the ownership to the house after Yun Seung-se
died.1 8
1 7 Jungjong Sillok, 19/8/23 (1524)
'8 Jungjong Sillok, 27/6/13 (1532)
49
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Gong Seo-rin Case (1532)
Yun Seung-se = wife
Yun Nae Yun Jeong Yun Jae Mme Yun = Gong Seo-rin
The record explains that the court discovered the truth from suspicion that it
was not probable that a father gave two houses to a daughter while the sons were given
one house. This story well delineates the equal inheritance rule of the time in that one
daughter and three sons were expectedly and factually given the same inheritance of one
house each.
An anecdote in 1543 from the same Sillok depicts a very generous man who
even offered his inheritance portion to his sisters: “When they divided the family
property, Hong Han-in let his two sisters choose what they wanted. He even gave his
portion to his sisters if they wanted to have it, after revision o f the original documents1 9
This record implies that a brother and two sisters conducted equal division of family
property and that if the amount was changed, the document should be made to reflect this
fact.
A court debate in 1474 during Seongjong’s reign (r. 1469-1494) suggests another
interesting facet of the principle of equal inheritance among sons and daughters. The
problem stemmed from a legal description: “The slaves that parents did not distribute, yet
are to be distributed, should be divided among children, whether they are alive or
1 9 Jungjong Sillok, 38/12/22 (1543)
50
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
dead.”20 According to the explanation, this article was put into the law code in the
Joseon dynasty because during the previous dynasty [Goryeo] the parents distributed
their property in decreased amount to the children who died earlier than their parents.
They did so since it was considered to be unfilial for a child to die earlier than the
* 21
parents.
The problem arose when a husband claimed the inheritance amount for his dead
wife when her parents divided the family property long after the daughter had died. And
if she died with no child, the situation became much more awkward. Seongjong’s
decision that ended the debate was to allow the amount for sacrificial rites to the heir -
usually a son of the second wife - of the dead daughter.
This article and debate serve as evidence that the legal and practical rule of
equal inheritance was observed so seriously that it even provided equal rights to a dead
child. This proves that the Korean traditional inheritance custom of equal division was so
strongly set up that even a dead daughter had legally guaranteed property rights.
2. Women’s Inheritance Rights
As shown in the above cases, Joseon women had explicit legal rights to the
inheritance of family property. The state regulations in another aspect also reflect this
norm. The transmission rule of ‘merit land (gongsinjeon 5^15 EH )’2 2 within the
20 Seongjong Sillok, 6/6/27 (1474)
2 1 Seongjong Sillok, 6/7/1 (1474)
22 lands granted from the government to those who accomplished patriotic contribution or virtue
51
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Seongjong Sillok reads: “In cases where a legitimate wife has only daughters, the merit
land would be distributed equally to her own daughters and the ‘ritual heir (seungjungja
IPclllfP)’ who is the son of a concubine.”2 3
The restrictive rule for ‘tax-exempt lands (myeonsejeon ifefSEH)’ in 1662
provides another example: “The limitation of exempt lands for legitimate Princes and
Princesses is four hundred gyeol,2 4 and for illegitimate Princes and Princesses two
hundred fifty gyeol.” 2 5 In this regulation, we see no distinction between princes and
princesses and differentiation was made only upon whether they were bom legitimate.
Here we find that the norm working in the State regulations depended more on status
than gender.
Records proving the inheritance rights of daughters are plentiful. A record of
1425 from the Sejong Sillok reads: “Two unmarried daughters of Yi Bang-gan inherited
9 f\
respectively twenty public slaves that formerly belonged to their mother.” Here, two
daughters share the same inheritance amount from their mother’s property. This proves
the equal division rule of inheritance and also the various property rights exercised by
women concerning possession, distribution, and inheritance.
2 3 Seongjong Sillok, 18/4/25 (1486)
24 The width measurement for the agricultural fields
25 Hyeonjong Sillok (rev.), 4/4/13 (1662)
26 Sejong Sillok, 8/6/17 (1425)
52
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Another record of the same year reads: “Mme Park, wife of Gweon Dam,
inherited ninety nine slaves from her father, Seup.”2 7 This shows that a woman’s holding
could be large as seen in ‘ninety nine slaves.’
In the case of Yi Yeom, dating from 1433 of the same Sejong Sillok, male
members of a family even committed forgery in documentation so that female family
members could inherit. They did so to avoid an illegitimate cousin’s inheritance: Yi
Yeom, who had had no son, finally got a son from a concubine named Seonbi and died a
year later. Yi Yeom’s nephews, who were afraid that all his property would go to their
lowborn baby cousin, falsified the will so that Yi Yeom’s wife Mme Gweon and their
sisters [Yi Yeom’s nieces] could inherit it2 8 All direct beneficiaries in this case were
female, and this is thus a tangible example of women’s inheritance rights.
Yi Yeom Case (1433)
(wife) Mme Gweon = Yi Yeom = Seon-bi (concubine)
son
The story of Mme Son (1537) from the Jungjong Sillok presents an interesting
aspect of women’s inheritance: “Widow Mme Son bequeathed many more slaves to the
daughter of her husband’s concubine than to the ‘line heir (gyehuja M H ^f),’ who was a
son of her husband’s uncle. The court criticized that it was not proper that the established
2 7 Sejong Sillok, m /2 2 (1425)
2 8 Sejong Sillok, 16/6/20 (1433)
53
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
heir was given little while a concubine’s daughter received one hundred and fifty
slaves.”29
This case is an attention-grabbing breach of the common prejudice that a
woman with the status of wife usually hates a concubine rival’s children and mistreats
them. Mme Son, a widowed woman, was fond of a concubine’s daughter and chose to
grant a lot to her rather than giving to her husband’s kinsmen. As the story discloses 1) a
woman had authority as a decision maker as well as a property holder in disposing of her
possessions; 2) the size of a woman’s property and the amount of inheritance could be
enormous, even reaching one hundred and fifty slaves.
The following court decision, in 1554 from the Myeongjong Sillok, shows how
carefully a woman’s circumstances were considered and illustrates the fact that women
enjoyed concrete inheritance rights:
“In the case that an eldest son has no son and the younger son
inherits the jesa (Ik IE, ancestral rites), the younger son would
take over the house with shrine. Then the daughter of the eldest
son comes to have no place to return. If the younger son’s house
has been transmitted from the ancestors, give the house where
the younger son had lived before to the daughter of the eldest
son so that she will not lose her place to live. This will
be appropriate to human feeling and righteousness.”3 0
For the case in which the second son came to succeed to the ancestral rites and
subsequently obtain the house with shrine, the worrying concern was paid to the future
residence of eldest son’s daughter and it is even suggested to give the second son’s
29 Jungjong Sillok, 32/12/5 (1537)
J ° Myeongjong Sillok, 10/12/30 (1554)
54
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
former house to her. The record obviously shows that a woman’s inheritance right was
securely guaranteed and carefully protected.
The next entry about the royal family’s practice is not very different from the
others:
At State Council, Yi Gwang-jwa asked the King; “Princess
Jeong-myeong and five Princessses of King Hyojong were
provided with houses and estates even while they were still
in the crib, and this was not good. Fora newborn Princess,
it would be better to wait until she grew up to give her estates
and make her house.” The King answered; “I am
aware of your suggestion, but it was intended fo r the
Princess to take charge o f performing the jesa fo r her
parents because there was no one to do so. Many people
outside say that they [princesses] managed too much
estate, yet, as a matter of fact, they did not monopolize
it to themselves.”3 1
This discussion attests that: 1) princesses were guaranteed sizable property including
homes and land even at a very young age; 2) princesses often took responsibility for
administering jesa for their parents. It is noteworthy that women had inheritance rights
both to the property and rites (jesa), and moreover, this is good evidence that Joseon
women still held those rights in the latter period (1728) of the dynasty.
3. Men’s Attraction to Women’s Inheritance
Some records in the Joseon Wangjo Sillok portray that a woman’s future
inheritance attracted men. In this section I will explore cases showing how women’s
inheritance rights had influence in the social matrix.
3 1 Yeongjo Sillok, 5/1/21 (1728)
55
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
An anecdote from the Sejo Sillok reads: Ban Jeong was very rich and had a
daughter from a concubine. Being attracted by Ban Jeong’s abundent property, Hong
Dal-son arranged a marriage between that daughter and Geomdong, his son from a
concubine. Yet after being engaged and before having a wedding ceremony, Geomdong
died. Hong Dal-son, who was blinded by Ban Jeong’s wealth, tried this time to get her
married to Geomdong’s younger brother Gwidong. Ban Jeong’s family, who was averse
to this arrangement, had her married to Yi Yeong-bu, who wanted to take her as his
concubine. They did it while Hong Dal-son was absent performing his obligation to
escort the king to the east area. Upon returning, Hong Dal-son got furious and sued Ban
Jeong and Yi Yeong-bu.3 2
The narrative describes that Hong Dal-son and Yi Yeong-bu were high officials
taking charge of a court obligation, while Ban Jeong seems to have been a lower-class
person. Yet Ban Jeong was very rich and even had a concubine. From the fact that Ban
Jeong’s prosperity is making his concubine’s daughter targeted by higher-class men we
see that even a concubine’ s daughter could have substantial property by inheritance, and
accordingly, attracted men of high position.
A similar story is found in the same Sejo Sillok dated in 1467: Another high
official, named Park Hyeong, tried to take Mme Choe’s twelve year old daughter as his
concubine and thus forced her to stay at his house. Widowed Mme Choe was a
concubine of the deceased Yi Don, and Park Hyeong devised the scheme because he
3 2 Sejo Sillok 12/4/30. (1466)
56
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
coveted Yi Don’s slaves.3 3 The story confirms for us that an illegitimate daughter had
solid inheritance rights and could hold a substantial amount of property, and that this fact
was alluring to men.
The Joseon Wangjo Sillok contains another type of case showing men’s concern
for and interest in the inheritance of women. A story from the Jungjong Sillok shows a
typical feature: “Choe Suk-saeng lived with his sister for ten years by the reason that she
was retarded. Yet, now it is obvious that he coveted her property in that he did not set up
an heir for her.”3 4 In the case, a brother who coveted his sister’s inheritance tried to live
alongside her until late in life, not marrying her off, specifically with the intention of
keeping her property under his control. For the purpose: 1) a brother lives with his sister
at the same house well into adulthood; 2) he makes a false claim of disease or retardation
in order to rationalize and perpetuate her unmarried status; 3) he does not set up an heir
for her. This kind of case shows that: 1) women’s inheritance right was solidly set up and
protected; 2) men shemed in order to seize the woman’s share.
C. Women in M arriage
In contemporary Korea, a commonly used expression for the meaning of
‘getting married’ is ‘ jangga ganda.'' Jangga0Z^.y means ‘wife’s house’ and ‘ganda ’ in
Korean is a verb whose meaning is ‘to go.’ Thus ‘ jangga ganda' literally means that ‘a
33 Sejo Sillok, 13/2/8.(1467)
34 Jungjong Sillok, 8/2/9 (1513)
57
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
man goes to his wife’ s house.’ As the usage of this term in modem times proves, the
Korean marriage custom has a long tradition of uxorilocal marriage. This custom in the
historical records was termed as ‘groom’s going to bride’s house {nam-gwi-yeo-ga §
or ‘groom’s staying at bride’s home (seo-ryu-bu-ga
Susan Mann, in her book, Precious Records, mentions the “psychological
trauma” that a woman would go through during her life cycle as a result of her marriage
within the Chinese family system. Reflecting the previous works done by anthropologists,
she compares the different effects on sons and daughters, which stemmed from the
different family relationships of two heterogeneous societies such as those of Western
Europeans and the Chinese. While it is sons, in most Western European societies, that
experience traumatic separation from the mother and thus fundamental changes in their
gender identity, in Chinese society, it is daughters who suffered that kind of trauma.3 5
Patricia Ebrey also maintains that different changes occurred between men and
women when they got married in her study on women’s lives and cultures during the
Sung period. She states:
Getting married ... did little to alter a man’s identity
For a woman, in contrast, marriage brought a fundamental
change in identity. From the moment she married, she was
above all daughter-in-law of a certain family and wife of a
certain man.3
35 Susan Mann, Precious Records: Women in China’ s Long Eighteenth Century. Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1997, 11.
36 Patricia Ebrey, The Inner Quarters: Marriage and the Lives o f Chinese Women in the Sung Period.
Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1993,48-49.
58
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Korean tradition of marriage seems quite different from these observations
on the case of the Chinese. The long-persisting and main-line custom of Korean marriage
took a form of ‘groom’s staying at bride’s house (seo-ryu-bu-ga which
reflected the characteristic residence pattern that was uxorilocal. That is, a man started his
married life with his wife’s family in the in-law’s house. The wedding ceremony was
held in a bride’s house. After the ceremony, the bridegroom lived in the bride’s house,
and the children were bom and raised in the mother’s house. This arrangement could be
permanent, or the man could come back to his house with his family some time later.
Documents regarding household registration show that both cases were common.3 7
It has been considered that this custom survived throughout the premodern
Korean society from the ancient Three Kingdoms period (57 B.C.-668 A.D.) via the
Goryeo period (918 -1392) until the Joseon dynasty (1392-1910). With the introduction
and influence of the Chinese “C/zw hsi’ s Family during the Joseon
dynasty, the custom began to undergo changes in the direction of shortening a groom’s
stay at a wife’s house. Frequent and harsh debates on the issue were evoked at the Court,
and after passing a long transition period during the Joseon dynasty, the custom was
finally transformed still with the remnant of the persistent custom.
In contemporary times, a wedding ceremony is no longer held in the bride’s
house but commonly takes place in a public wedding hall or church. When they come
back from the honeymoon trip, the newly-wed couple go to the bride’s house to spend
37 Martina Deuchler, The Confiician Transformation o f Korea: A Study ofSociety and ldeolog\>. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1992, 66.
59
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
first few days there. The number of days they stay at the bride’s house is variable from
two or three days to one week. An anthropological field reporfi8 shows how tenaciously
the uxori local marriage custom survived in modern times.
1. Uxorilocal Custom before Joseon
The earliest written record on the marriage custom of ‘seo-ryu-bu-ga’ is traced
to the historical record about Goguryeo, one of the Three Kingdoms (57 B.C.- 668 A.D.)
in ancient Korea.
When they [both families] agree to the marriage, a woman’s
family builds a small room close behind their own house and
call it a son-in-law’s quarter. A groom-to-be arrives at
a woman’ s house and tells his name. Showing respect by
kneeling and bowing outside the gate, he repeatedly asks to
stay at her house. Then the woman’ s parents permit him to stay
in the son-in-law’s quarter. After the children grow up, he returns
to his own house with his wife.3 9
This passage presents a clear picture of uxorilocal custom in the old Korean society. The
following record shows another aspect of the custom. Yi Gyu-bo(l 168-1241), a
’8 Lee Gwang-gyu, Han-guk gajok ui sajeok yeon-gu [Historical Research on the Korean Family]. Seoul:
Iljisa, 1977, 102. In this book, Lee Gwang-gyu, a famous anthropologist in Korea, has reported that there
were different versions o f custom according to the length o f stay, which were called “Haemugi (staying for
years)” and “Dalmugi (staying for months)”. In Haemugi, a newly-wed couple stays at bride’s house for one
to three years, and in Dalmugi, for a few months. The report says that these kinds o f custom were practiced
during the first half o f the twentieth century, especially in rural areas. I believe that these practices are the
very remnant o f the long dragging tradition o f uxorilocal marriage in Korea.
3 9 Samgukji, Wiji, Dong-i-jeon ( Itife S'SIf#) This is often quoted evidence as the earliest record
o f the custom. Requoted from Park Gyeong-hwi, Joseon Minjok Honinsa Yeon-gu [The Study on
the History o f Marriage o f the Joseon People], Daejeon: Han-nam University Press, 1992. The
translation is mine.
60
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
prominent scholar in the Goryeo period (918-1392), wrote an epitaph mourning his
father-in-law:
Nobody had taught me since my parents passed away early;
I received encouragement and instruction on how to be a
human being from his [father-in-law’s] own teaching and
support after I came to him. His help was truly huge.
Oh... so sad... Now when a man takes a wife, he goes
to her house and depends on his in-law’ s family, hence,
the benevolence of the wife’s parents is just the same as
that of his own parents.4 0
This source not merely shows that the ‘seo-ryu-bu-ga' custom was universal in the
Goryeo (918-1392) period, but also reveals the possible intimacy and affection between
the wife’s parents and a married man.
The regulation of household registration during the Goryeo period also
demonstrates the custom. It shows the fact that a son-in-law lived in his wife’s house.
When King Gongyang, the last king of Goryeo, revised the law of household registration
in 1390, he delimited the range of the people to be recorded in the register as follows: “In
one’s household register, his generation and the children, siblings, nephews, and sons-in-
law, who are living together, must be entered.”4 1 The fact that the law prescribed putting
sons-in-law into the record of the household register indicates that a son-in-law normally
lived with his in-law’s family. Many researchers in this area have concluded that, during
A 0 D onggukisanggiikjip © 37, Jf K'lffiPPlf Requoted from
Park, Gyeong-hwi, ibid. 12. The translation is mine.
4 1 Goryeosa (rSiM'dl # 79, f t ® 2, I3 PI). Requoted from Park Gyeong-hwi, ibid., and translation is
mine.
61
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the Goryeo (918-1392) period, household members frequently included the wife’s
parents and the daughter’s husband, who was residing uxorilocally.4 2
Parallel with this marriage custom and residence, the kinship system of the
Goryeo is characterized by its collaterality or bilaterality. The inheritance rule of the
Goryeo also mirrors this customary concept of collaterality. In principle, sons and
daughters all expected the equal allotment of patrimonial property. The division of
property did not happen until the parents’ death and daughters were active right holders
in the matter of family property regardless of their marital status. Martina Deuchler
explicates this structure clearly:
Equal inheritance created a strong bond among the siblings
and prompted them to keep the common household intact
as long as possible. Even marriage does not seem to have
been a major breaking point in a household’s life cycle.
A sister did not receive her share in the form of a dowry,
but delayed her claim until after the parents’ death.
Whether she left the household at marriage or continued to
live there with her husband, she could always count on being
welcomed back or on continuously drawing on its economic
resources. ...a household tried to keep its married women,
with or without uxorilocally residing husbands. This
provided women with a high degree o f economic security,4 3
42 Choe Jae-seok, Han-guk gajok jedosa yeon-gu [Research on the Korean Family System], Seoul: Iljisa,
1983, and Martina Deuchler, The Confucian Transformation o f Korea: A Study o f Society and Ideology,
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992.
4 ,! Martina Deuchler, ibid., 56. Italics are mine.
62
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2. ‘Groom’s Staying at Bride’s House’
The introduction of Chu Hsi’s model at the beginning of the Joseon dynasty
caused a fundamental conflict since the uxorilocal marriage custom prevailing from
previous periods was tenaciously persistent in the new dynasty. The comments about the
uxorilocal customs of the dynasty are frequently found in the historical records, and for
this reason we know the custom continued. An account in 1427 states:
“In our country, since a man lives in his wife’s house, the siblings
of one mother live altogether in a house and they get along very
well. Thus the custom is very beneficial.”4 4
Another from the Seongjong (r. 1469-1494) Sillok also remarks:
In our country, there has been a custom that a man marries
a woman and lives in her house. Thus no differentiation has
been made in the intimate feelings and righteousness between
the different surname [relatives] and the same surname [relatives],
... Since they grow up together, calling one another brother,
nephew, or grandson, their affection and benevolence
[among the different surname relatives] is never different
from the same surname relatives 4 5
And a record dated in 1484 mentions that “Sin Jong-ho has lived at his mother-in-law’s
house for fifteen years.”4 6
Although the State kept trying to operate a new wedding custom following the
Neo-Confucian principle, people did not like the mandatory innovation, and the custom
did not change all of a sudden. In 1574, when the Department of Advisory presented a
4 4 Sejong Sillok, 10%- 4%fl% (1427)
4j Seongjong Sillok, 2%- (1470).
4 6 Seongjong Sillok, 16/10/7(1484)
63
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
petition urging a change from the old custom to the new, King Seonjo replied: “The
marriage ritual follows the custom of the rural areas, and there already exist past
examples. Therefore, do not necessarily devise a new ritual that many people feel
reluctant to practice.”4 7
The Sillok records imply that the economic concern was one impediment for the
implementation of a heterogeneous system. People objected to the change due to their
own economic calculations. Kim Jong-seo, one of the famous high officials in the Joseon
period, remarked:
The custom in which the bridegroom moves into the bride’s
house has already existed for a long time. If now a woman
marries into her husband’s house, a woman might then
feel reluctant because she should manage the slaves,
clothes, and domestic matters. If a man’s family is wealthy,
welcoming the bride is not difficult, but, if he is poor, it is
hard for him to do so. Therefore, even a man’s family
does not like the idea.4 8
An account from the Yejong (r. 1468-1469) Sillok further argues:
“In our country’s custom, when they get married, it is natural
for a groom to go to the bride’s house, but when Hwang Su-sin
married Mme Y i,... he sent his servant to bring her ... so surely
Mme Yi is Hwang’s concubine, not a wife.”4 9
47 Requoted from Lee Neung-hwa, Joseon Yeosokgo [The O bservation on W om en’s Custom in
Joseon]. Kim Sang-eok, tr. Seoul: Dongmunseon, 1990, 123.
1 8 Sejong Sillok, 12/06/01 (1429).
49 Yejong Sillok, 1/10/26(1468)
64
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
What is fascinating in this passage is that the custom of ‘groom’s staying at bride’s
house’ was one criterion to distinguish whether a married woman was a concubine or a
wife. This confirms that the seoryu-buga custom was so common and normal even as to
validate a legitimate marriage.
3. Divorce and Remarriage
Jung Do-jeon, one of the most influential legislators in the very early Joseon,
lamented:
Since the groom moves into the bride’s home, the wife
unknowingly depends on her parents’ love and cannot but
hold her husband in petty regard. Her arrogance thus grows
with every day.5 0
Under the circumstances of this favorable marriage custom and residence for women, a
wife does not appear to have been disheartened in managing the relationship with her
husband.
In the Joseon dynasty the position of a woman as a wife was secure and
sheltered by the State. When a husband maltreated his wife, the government arbitrated or
punished him through impeachment or dismissal from his post.3 1 When a man
j0 Martina Deuchler, ibid., 246, and Lee Neung-hwa, ibid., 120.
5 1 I have found numerous Sillok records which contain the content about this kind o f governmental
protection and advocacy for w ife’s status. Taejong Sillok, 2/6/11 (1401), 11/1/7 (1410), Sejong Sillok, 5/1/24
(1422), 5/3/16 (1422), 7/7/7 (1424), 7/11/16 (1424), 7/12/5 (1424), 8/6/6 (1425), 8/8/23 (1425), 10/10/3
(1427), 12/7/22 (1429), 13/12/20 (1430), 21/4/14 (1438), 21/6/3 (1438), 21/11/10 (1438), 22/1/14 (1439),
25/2/25 (1442), 25/5/2 (1442), 26/12/29 (1443), 27/10/9 (1444), Munjong Sillok, 1/2/4 (1450), 1/7/11 (1450),
Danjong Sillok, 0/6/15 (1452), Sejo Sillok, 3/7/17 (1457), 3/7/23 (1457), 3/8/30 (1457), 4/7/29 (1458),
12/6/14 (1466), Seongjong Sillok, 1/8/3 (1469), 4/5/8 (1472), 4/5/26 (1472), 6/12/28 (1474), 7/5/2 (1475),
65
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
mistreated his wife, her father would not take it calmly. The father-in-law could accuse
his son-in-law or claim divorce for the happiness of his own daughter.5 2
In some cases even a woman herself demanded divorce of her own free will. In
1425, during Sejong’ s reign (r. 1418-1450), Mme Park, who disliked her husband Han
Se-bo, threatened him to write a divorce document.5 3 In 1431, Kim Ga-mul’s wife
forced her husband to write a divorce document and lived with Yi Sil’s son.3 4 In 1456 of
Sejo’s reign (r.1455-1468), a commoner woman named Bun-gyeong, in order to remarry
Yi Yong-su, forced her husband Choe He-ui to sign a divorce document, and finally
remarried Yi.5 5 All three of these cases portray women who insisted upon divorce while
their husbands did not want it, and in the latter two, women had other men whom they
really loved and wanted to remarry.
There is another detailed story about a widowed woman, Mme Song, in 1444:
When the Vice Magistrate of Han-seong, Park Yu-mun died, his wife Mme Song was not
doleful. Her father-in-law, who knew that she would not keep her chastity, suggested to
Mme Song’s natal father, “Unfortunately my son does not have any offspring, so let her
remarry,” but Mme Song’s father would not follow along. Mme Song was then forty and
7/9/5 (1475), 7/10/9 (1475), 8/6/16 (1476), 9/12/17 (1477), 10/2/5 (1478), 11/6/5 (1479), 13/5/17 (1481),
13/9/1 (1481), 21/3/9 (1489), 23/3/2 (1491), Yeoman Sillok, 3/1/2 (1496), 3/1/15 (1496), 6/12/21 (1499),
Jungjong Sillok, 14/2/3 (1519), Myeongjong Sillok, 6/2/4(1550), Seonjo Sillok, 16/2/21 (1582)
5 2 Taejong Sillok, 2/6/11 (1401), Sejong Sillok, 7/11/16 (1424)
5 3 Sejong Sillok, 8/9/11 (1425)
54 Sejong Sillok, 14/10/29 (1431)
5 5 Sejo Sillok, 2/1/11 (1456)
66
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
lived with her own father in Yeosan county One day she visited Seoul and stayed at
Yu-mun’s house. She powdered her face day and night and wished to be remarried to Yi
Myeong-sin. Then she changed her mind after she heard that Myeong-sin was aged.
Again she was engaged with Park Hui-seong and remarried to him when her slave girl
reported that Hui-seong looked like Yu-mun.5 6
It is interesting to see that the father-in-law wanted his daughter-in-law to
remarry while her natal father was not so willing. Also, here again, a woman is selecting
her spouse following her own personal taste.
A funeral inscription of Mme Yi, wife of deceased Nam Eui from the Yejong
Sillok also provides full illustration. It is summarized as follows: Mme Yi had not
fulfilled her wifely duty to her husband, Nam Eui, for the reason that his appearance was
not satisfactory. After she was widowed, she lived a lewd life. She even brought in a
monk and had an affair with him. When the affair was about to be reported to the
officials, she bribed the informant, offering dozens of cotton cloths and a horse. After
years passed, Mme Yi longed to remarry and looked for a new spouse. Being told that Yu
Gyun had a manly disposition, she was attracted but wanted to see him for herself before
she made a decision. For that, she invited him with other men and threw a party. When
she beheld that Yu Gyun was tall and robust, she was pleased and arranged an
engagement. After she remarried Yu Gyun she told others all the time, “My husband is
really a man.” A few years later, Yu Gyun died, and Mme Yi again thought of another
5 6 Sejong Sillok 27/4/21 (1444)
67
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
marriage. She was already having an affair with a monk and did not display any sign of
sorrow even on the day of mourning for Yu Gyun.3 7
In this story we see a woman who abused her husband because of his humble
looks; actively devised her own remarriage; and freely enjoyed immoral affairs out of
marriage. It also provides evidence of a woman’s monetary competence in that Mme Yi
bribed a person using her own property and held frequent parties.
As opposed to the common conception, the Joseon Wangjo Sillok also includes
some cases in which wives mistreated, abused, or even beat their husbands using
physical force.5 8 For instance, see the portrayal of Gwi-deok, who was Park Yun-chang’s
wife: Gwi-deok, whose temper was very violent and rough, treated her husband like a
slave by threatening and oppressing him. At the time they remodeled their house, they
had different opinions regarding the location of the windows. Furious at her husband’s
objection, Gwi-deok broke the bricks with a stick and roared, “What do you know about
this matter? Why should I build this house while you are against my intention?” Then she
destroyed all the rooms and walls.5 9 From the description, we see a wife overwhelm her
husband with a much louder voice and dominate household matters.
A record from the Sejong Sillok also depicts a woman taking action against her
brother-in-law: Jo Yeo-pyeong’s wife Sobi and his younger brother Jo Gil-tong were
5 7 Yejong Sillok, 1/6/22 (1468)
58 Cases are found in many places. Sejong Sillok, 28/5/14 (1445), Seongjong Sillok, 4/8/25 (1472), 5/11/2
(1473), Jungjong Sillok, 12/5/27 (1517), 12/6/3 (1517), 12/7/21 (1517), Seonjo Sillok, 21/7/12 (1587),
Sukjong Sillok, 30/9/24 (1703)
5 9 Sejo Sillok, 3/5/19 (1457)
68
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
fighting over the slaves after Jo Yeo-pyeong’s death. One night during the mourning
period, Sobi and Gil-tong drank together in a room and began to argue again. When both
were drunken, Gil-tong denounced Sobi, stating that her mother was remarried. Sobi
fiercely retorted that her mother was innocent because she remarried without losing
• * v , 60
integrity.
From this illustration, we gather that 1) the range of flexibility of Joseon women
provided for drinking with her brother-in-law late at night in a room; 2) a woman might
not cower before a man and might raise her voice against an unfair allegation; 3) woman
had concrete property rights in that what she was quarreling about concerned slaves. This
certainly contradicts the supposed image of subordinate and passive Joseon women, and
this kind of scene is not so rare in the Joseon Wangjo Sillok.
As revealed in above cases divorce and remarriage were a part of some Joseon
women’s lifecycle. Some women married twice or even three times, and through the
dynasty, the discussion on women’s remarriage, which was not considered correct by
Confucianists, was recurrent, swaying between the parties advocating permission and
prohibition.6 1 The Sillok records show that women’s remarriage kept being issued until
6 0 Sejong Sillok, 14/5/8, 14/5/17(1431)
6 1 The records relevant to the issue I have found are: Taejong Sillok, 4/4/11 (1403), 5/8/23 (1404), 5/11/9
(1404), 9/10/27 (1408), 12/10/26 (1411), 15/11/1 (1415), 16/4/14 (1416), Sejong Sillok, 1/7/15 (1418),
5/1/24 (1422), 14/1/13 (1431), 14/3/3 (1431), 17/2/10 (1434), 18/6/18 (1435), 23/9/12(1440), 29/8/2 (1446),
Danjong Sillok, 2/9/6 (1453), Sejo Sillok, 13/7/30 (1467), 13/8/2 (1467), 13/8/5 (1467), Seongjong Sillok,
3/9/15 (1471), 7/4/26 (1475), 8/7/17 (1476), 12/10/25 (1480), 14/9/11 (1482), 15/2/16 (1483), 17/4/26
(1485), 19/1/5 (1487), 19/1/10 (1487), 20/1/21 (1488), 23/8/3 (1491), 23/10/21 (1491), Yeoman Sillok,
3/12/12 (1496), 6/11/1 (1499), Jungjong Sillok, 23/10/19 (1528), Hyeonjong Sillokjrev.), 8/8/7 (1666),
Yeongjo Sillok, 48/6/1 (1771), Jeongjo Sillok, 0/6/13 (1776)
69
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the late eighteenth century, showing that women continued to remarry in late Joseon in
spite o f the State’s indoctrinating efforts.
In this section, I have illuminated the valiant actions and strong-willed voices of
women in the context of married life. I argue that such phenomena were only possible on
two fundamental grounds: 1) women’s secure property holding and 2) the long-lasting
tradition of Korean marriage custom, the so-called, ‘seoryu-buga (fWfaiSjSk).’
D. Separation of Woman’s Property
As we have seen in the legal code, and in practice also, the property of the father
and mother was treated as if owned separately. In a family, the property of the father’s
side {bubyeon and of the mother’s side(mobyeon ®iH) were distinguished, and
each was perceived and treated separately. In other words, a husband and a wife held
their own property in a household. The terms ‘mother-side (mobyeon © ill)’6 2 or ‘wife-
side (cheobyeon S i l t ) ’6 3 property are found frequently in the Sillok records, which
confirms the fact that the property was kept separate in a marriage.
6 2 Taejong Sillok, 13/5/10 (1412), Sejong Sillok, 7/9/21 (1425), 8/6/17 (1426), 16/8/16 (1433), 17/5/16
(1434), Seonjo Sil/ok, 13/10/16 (1579)
6 3 Taejo Sillok, 1/8/25 (1392), Taejong Sillok, 13/12/13 (1412), Sejong Sillok, 8/6/12(1426), 13/5/20 (1430),
Seongjong Sillok, 10/8/30 (1478), 10/9/12(1478), 10/9/20(1478)
70
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In the following I will present and analyze the records I have found from the
Joseon Wangjo Sillok which show various aspects regarding the separate treatment of a
woman’s property.
1. Treatment of Wife’s Property
I have already examined the stipulation in Gyeongguk Daejeon on
the inheritance of property of a woman who died without her own child. The Sillok
record reiterates the case in detail. A memorial presented by the State Council in 1441
during Sejong’s reign (r. 1418-1450) reads:
Now in custom of the times slaves that belong to a wife who
has died without a child are supposed to be managed by her
husband, and if he takes a second wife, he has to return those
slaves to the natal family of the deceased wife immediately. ...
We request that, from now on, the slaves of a deceased wife
with no child be used by her husband, and that after the husband
dies, an heir bom by his second wife receive one third of those
[deceased wife’s] slaves. If there is no son from a [second] wife
and there is an heir bom by a commoner concubine, one fifth
would go to him, and if there only exists an heir who was bom
by a slave concubine, he would get one seventh. And all
the rest should be returned to the [deceased wife’s] natal family.6 4
The State Council’s (euijeongbu m & M ) request, in other words, was that a
deceased wife’s slaves that used to be used by a husband only until his remarriage should
be allowed to be managed by him in his lifetime rather than for a limited time before
remarriage. The content is seemingly curbing the rights of a woman’s natal family and
64 Sejong Sillok, 24/7/16(1441)
71
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
supporting a husband’s right. In my view, however, there is no critical change in the
essence that a woman’s property is always considered separately, to be returned in the
end to the original owner [her natal family].
The inheritance amount assigned for an heir bom by other woman also should
be understood as for the benefit of a dead woman who left no child because an heir’s
share was intended to be consumed for the sacrificial rites for consoling her soul. To put
it precisely, a husband could have been a manager of a deceased wife’s property, but
never had real ownership of his wife’s property, which had always been recognized to be
‘hers’ even after her death.
2. The Case of a Criminal’s Wife
The separate treatment of a woman’s property is seen in the court conversation
on the disposal of a criminal’s property. During the Joseon dynasty, when a man
committed a crime, the property belonging to him was to be confiscated by the state. The
Sillok records show that the first King Taejo’s (r. 1392-1398) directive in 1392 ordered to
handle a criminal’s ‘wife’ s slaves’ ’ separately and differently, that is, they were not to be
confiscated.6 5
The State Council’s discussion in the thirteenth year (1412) of Taejong’s reign
(r. 1400-1418) also shows the same concern and conclusion regarding the treatment of
slaves belonging to a woman whose husband committed a critical crime and forfeited
his property.
6 5 Taejo Sillok, 1/8/25 (1392)
72
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The State Council discussed and presented: “The article on the
rebellious traitor mentions, ‘[a criminal’s] mother and daughter,
wife and concubine, children, brothers and sisters, and wife and
concubine of his son will be given to the Meritorious Subjects
(gongsin to become their slaves. And [his] property
should be confiscated by the government.’ However,...
we would request the exemption of confiscation of his wife’s
slaves.”6 6
The common practice of punishment for the rebellious criminal was to confiscate his
whole property to the government and make all his family members become slaves. The
speculation by State Council here, however, handles the property of a criminal’s wife
differently as well as separately.
Sometimes even a criminal’s lands were transferred to his wife in the name of
“Keeping Chastity Land (susinjeon tFjS'EB).” In the sixteenth year (1433) of Sejong’s
reign (r. 1418-1450), Yun Dal-seong’s lands were ordered to be transferred to his wife
after his death.67 An article delivered in 1443 is read in the same context. It commands
that “if a princess’ husband commits a crime, all the lands with which he was bestowed
by the state would be given to the princess, and make this a rule.”6 8
The similar favorable treatment of woman’ s property is again found in the
Danjong Sillok. When the government confiscated a rebel Jeong Hyo-jeon’s property, the
66 Taejong Sillok, Taejong 13/12/13 (1413).
6 7 Sejong Sillok, 16/5/8 (1433)
6 8 Sejong Sillok, 26/6/15 (1443)
73
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
King ordered not to do the same to the princess’ [Jeong’s wife] property of land and
slaves.6 9
A record from the Yejong Sillok demonstrates a clear base for this, in 1468
during the Yejong’s reign (r. 1468-1469), Gang Sun’s concubine Geum-saeng petitioned
to reclaim the ownership for the already confiscated house. She insisted that it was she
who bought the house and so the house should not be confiscated because of the crime
committed by her husband, Gang Sun.7 0 The incident shows how actively a concubine
woman claims her property rights over her possession, and clearly evidences that a
woman’s property was definately distinguished from that of her husband.
The practice was exercised until the later Joseon period. A record dated in 1717
from the Sukjong Sillok tells: “The property belonging to the wife of Gang Seok-gi was
confiscated and now is returned to her.”7 1 A 1728 case of Yeongjo time (r. 1724-1776)
reads in the same vein: “When forfeiting the family property of Sim Yu-hyeon, it was
ordered to distinguish possessions given by Queen Dan-ui and clothes and belongings of
his wife, and not to confiscate those.”7 2
Finally a record from the Injo Sillok shows the State’ s confiscation of a criminal
woman’s property and its large size: “[Criminal] Mme Gang’s private valuables, ten
69 Danjong Sillok, Danjong 2/4/26 (1454)
70 Yejong Sillok, 1/3/9(1468)
7 1 Sukjong Sillok, 44/8/26(1717)
72 Yeongjo Sillok, 5/10/26 (1728)
74
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
thousand and six hundred fifty nyang7j of silver, one hundred sixty nyang of gold, and
nineteen Japanese swords, were confiscated by the Ministry of Taxation.”7 4
3. M me Song Case
A case found in the Taejong Sillok provides some interesting aspects in regards of
woman’s separate property holding. The records write about a dispute on the inheritance
of Mme Song’s slaves: Mme Song, wife of Jeon Bo-mun, forfeited her slaves to the
State due to her crime of lewd behavior. Since her family was of noble class, her slaves
were still abundant. Heo Geum, who appealed himself as Mme Song’s adopted son,
took possession of all those leftover slaves. The Song family and Gang family who were
Mme Song’s maternal relatives, were many in the Court at the time. After the disputes
among several sadaebu 5 families who claimed the slaves, the slaves were finally
confiscated by the government.
Then Heo Gi, son of Heo Geum, filed a lawsuit in order to take them back, but
the governmental decision to confiscate on behalf of the State remained unchanged.
Numerous people again presented the claim letters, but some of those people were in the
end exiled by the king.7 6
lj a unit o f old Korean coinage
7 4 Injo Sillok, 24/5/2 (1647)
7 5 elite-class men in Joseon
7 6 Taejong Sillok, 4/1/12 and 4/8/11 (1403)
75
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Mme Song Case (1403)
Jeon Bo-mun = Mme Song ------- Song Family & Gang Family
| (Mme Song’ s maternal rel.)
Heo Geum (adopted son)
I
Heo Gi (Heo Geum’s son)
This case contains many explicit points regarding my argument. First, a
woman’s property could be so large that many relatives and families fought over it for a
long time, even through the next generation. Second, by the fact that no family name of
Jeon is found in the case, we can tell that a woman’s property was treated as thoroughly
separated from her husband or husband’s family. The people who ‘could’ show their
interests toward Mme Song’s property were her natal [Song] and maternal [Kang]
families, or an adopted son who had legal rights to inherit some parts. One more thing I
would point out is that Mme Song, who held substantial property and was sadaebu
woman with chaste standards, was far from being virtuous as evidenced by the fact that
she committed adultery.
4. Mme Kim Case and Others
A woman’s property separated from that of her spouse even caused an
unfortunate incident. During Seongjong’s regime (r. 1469-1494), there was a murder case
in which Mme Kim was killed in a fire and her husband Gwon Wi accused Mme Kim’s
brother of the murder. The Court investigated the case in depth because they thought it
implausible that Mme Kim’s brother, whose son had become an heir of her property,
76
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
committed that crime. It turned out that the murderer was Gwon Wi himself who desired
to obtain his wife’s property from his brother-in-law.7 7
In this case, it is apparent that a woman’s property was completely detached
from her husband’s authority and a husband could not claim rights to it. It is revealed in
that the husband who coveted his wife’s property committed a murder in order to take it
from her.
Mme Kim Case (1479)
Gwon Wi = Mme Kim ------ Mme Kim’ s brother
| (adopted) |
son
This kind of murder case is found in the other place within the Sillok. Another
record from the Seongjong Sillok discloses a case of murder committed by a commoner
and involving a woman’s property: Gang Han-su, a commoner, killed his wife’s sister in
attempt to possess his mother-in-law’s property.7 8
A case from the Jungjong Sillok tells a story about a husband who abused his
wife and coveted her property: Park Jin was censured for the mistreatment of his wife.
He took her lands and slaves, and thus made her depend on her brother until the time of
79
her death.
7 7 Seongjong Sillok, 11/7/14 (1480)
7 8 Seongjong Sillok, 17/3/20 (1486)
79 Jungjong Sillok, 20/5/2 (1525)
77
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5. Separate Salary and Title for Woman
The State’s separate treatment of women’s property is observed from another
aspect. During the early period of the dynasty, granting title and salary (jak-rok ft/fti) to
women was a recurrent issue. While bestowing rank and stipend to the wives of Merit
Subjects (gong-sin 5^15) was customarily practiced, there also was objection to it.
Nam Jae, Great Inspector-General, presented to the King,
“The salary (rok f§0 was given by a wise king in order
to raise a person who was dedicated to the post as sadaebu.
And now your intention was so generous that you allowed
stipend to a mother and a wife of a Merit Subject. But this is
not in accord with righteousness because one family in a
household together receives the state salary....”
The King said, “If the Merit Subjects are already titled and
recorded in the ‘Book of Merit Subjects,’ then, would it be
righteous to bestow only title to their wives and mothers
without granting salary?”8 0
Later on, the same issue is often raised,8 1 but the practice of granting women salary and
title continued despite some objecting voices.8 2 The following are the records regarding
the practice of granting State salary and title to women.
*Twenty gyeol out of Cha Ji-nam’ s rank-land (gwajeon f4EB) was given to his wife, Mme Chu,
by king’ s order. — Sejong Sillok, 9/11/1 (1426)
* King ordered to give a monthly salary for two Captains from a foreign country and their wives.
— Sejong Sillok, 16/3/20 (1433)
* It was suggested and acknowledged that princessess would be given their seasonal salary even
after their husbands died. — Munjong Sillok, 2/2/28 (1451)
8 0 Taejo Sillok, 1/12/13(1392)
8 1 Taejo Sillok, 3/6/1 (1394), 4/5/13 (1395)
8 2 Taejo Sillok, 7/6/5 (1398)
78
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
* The King ordered to provide Princess Kyeong-hye with lands according to the rank-land. —
Sejo Sillok, 13/7/8 (1467)
* It was suggested to provide Princess Kyeong-hye with salary and lands and the King agreed. —
Yejong Sillok, 1/10/2 (1468)
* The King ordered to provide the wife of Prince Bongwon with salary for three years. —
Gwanghae Sillok, 13/1/14(1620)
* The Ministry of Taxation reported, “The monthly salary for the wife of Prince Sinseong is
twelve seok of rice and beans and much surpasses that of Princes. As for her daughter, the wife of
An Hong-ryang, we provide her salary according to Your Highness’ order, but how we will grant
her the same amount that the wife of Prince Sinseong received. We propose to give her an amount
in accordance with her husband’s rank.” — Injo Sillok, 3/6/22 (1625)
* The King ordered not to cease granting rice to the daughter of Gang, who committed a crime,
but only to decrease the amount of rice. — Injo Sillok, 25/5/14 (1647)
* The King ordered to continue to provide the wife of Prince Sung-seon with salary for three
years. —Sukjong Sillok, 18/5/5 (1691)
* The wives of Kim Seok-ik and Kim Seok-yeon received monthly salary. — Yeongjo Sillok,
1/4/23 (1724)
* The wife of Sim Su-hyeon was provided with monthly salary.—Yeongjo Sillok, 19/1/25 (1742)
From the foregoing, we see that the sadaebu women kept being granted State salary and
title as a common practice throughout the dynasty from the beginning until the latter
period of dynasty.
6. Empty Title Tickets for Women
After suffering two destructive invasions, the Imjin War (1592-1598) and the
Byeongja War (1627-1636),8 3 the government began to issue “Empty Title Tickets
(gong-myeong-cheop -S t^ te).’’ The “Empty Title Tickets” were designed to meet the
national expenses for reconstructing the country from the devastation by the war. They
were distributed to all over the country in the hundreds and thousands and sold to the
people who could afford them.
8j I have mentioned about these two wars in the introduction chapter.
79
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A record from Gwanghae Sillok shows there existed “Empty Title Tickets”
issued only for the purpose of clutching women’s money. These tickets were named
“tickets for ladies (buin-cheop A Afe)” and bestowed the title of “Woman of Chastity
(jeong-buin A A A ) ” or “Woman of Virtue (suk-buin '/|5A A ),” 8 4 which were
originally supposed to be given only for the wives of the elite.8 5 The record deplores that
“all the women who are merchants or who possess money call themselves by titled name
[which they earned through the ticket they bought] and act arrogant riding in a palanquin
with cover.”8 6
I would argue that the issuance of “Empty Title Tickets” only fo r women has
some significant bearings; 1) it reflects Joseon reasoning regarding the separate treatment
of a woman’s property; 2) it is obvious evidence of a woman’s property holding and her
independence in terms of the management of her own property; 3) women of wealth
were so numerous that the government issued tickets to sell to women; and 4) it proves
that in the late Joseon period after the wars, women were still holding their own property
and enjoyed the favor it provided them. I believe this fourth fact makes one good
challenge to the assumption that Korean women’s status underwent serious deterioration
after the mid-Joseon time.
84 These were official title names given only to the wives o f highest post yangbcm men.
8 5 Gwanghae Sillok, 12/8/19(1619)
86 ibid.
80
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
E. Rights over Property
From the above observation, we have seen that Joseon women were holding
their own property, which was considerable in amount and treated separately from that of
her spouse. Correspondingly, they wielded substantial power in the practice of their
rights in disposing of or dividing property. Here I will focus on women’s economic
competence of exercising solid ownership rights over their property. The ownership
rights here embraces four parts: 1) management rights, 2) authority for will correction, 3)
rights for documentation and use of seal, and 4) disposal rights.
1. M anaging Property
A record dated in 1429 from the Sejong Sillok reads: Gwon Do’s son Gwon Ji
was adopted by the eunuch Yi Cheon. Upon Yi Cheon’s death his wife Myo-an sold their
house.
Myo-an case (1429)
Gwon Do Yi Cheon = Myo-an
| | (adopted)
Gwon Ji -----------
Gwon Do took the house back, claiming that his son Ji had ownership and Myo-an could
not dispose of it on her own. The Office of the Inspector-General (saheonbu AliS)#)
reported the case to the King; Gwon Do was exiled and Myo-an retrieved her ownership
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of the house.8 7 This case shows that a woman as a household head had apparent
authority preceding an adoptee’s claim in exercising property rights.
The funerary inscription for Ha Gyeong-bok from the same Sejong Sillok
contains an intriguing episode of Gyeong-bok’s wife, Mme Jeong. Mme Jeong
constructed a huge house while her husband was absent for his obligatory stay at Ham-
gil province.8 8 The story explains that Mme Jeong augmented the money her husband
had earned and built a new large house with it. This illustration proves a woman’s
economic competence in being dedicated to family wealth and quite flexible capacity for
decision-making in exercising property rights, as seen from the fact that she constructed a
new house during her husband’s absence.
In the twenty third year (1440) of Sejong’s reign (r. 1418-1450) Kim Jung-eom
was censured that his house was built exceeding the size regulations and thus had to be
demolished. Then the King found that the house was owned not by Jung-eom but by
Mme Kim, who was foster mother of Jung-eom’s wife, and ordered that it not be
destroyed.8 9 The Oflice of Inspector-General informed the King that the house was
originally built by Princess Jeong-gyeong, who was the natal mother of Jung-eom’s wife,
with the intention of giving it to her son-in-law, Jung-eom, and Mme Kim only renovated
it for him. Thus the Office of Inspector-General insisted that, as a beneficiary, Jung-eom
87 Sejong Sillok, 12/6/5(1429)
88 Sejong Sillok, 20/8/17 (1437)
89 Sejong Sillok, 23/10/27 (1440)
82
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
was the owner of the house and so should be punished. The King’s resolution, however,
declares that Mine Kim would be the owner because she stayed and lived there.9 0
This case clearly shows women’s autonomy in exercising property rights: they
constructed a new house in order to prepare it for an incoming son-in-law, and later
enlarged it for him, or to put it more precisely, for their daughter. Their expense scale was
so extravagant it was seriously censured by the court. It is also telling that this is a case in
which a married man stayed at a house provided by his wife’s family and lived with them.
It also presents an example of a woman’s [Mme Kim] adopting a girl [Jung-eom’s wife]
rather than a boy, and providing her with affection and financial care.
2. Will Correction
A woman’ s authority in practicing property rights, especially as a mother, even
extended to the correction of the family property division document after her husband’ s
death. During Danjong’s regime (r.1452-1455), Mme Jeong, wife o f Yi Suk-beon,
appealed to the King about the discordance of family property division. She denounced
her son-in-law, Gang Sun-deok, for his insubordination when she attempted to correct the
inheritance document after the death of her husband and daughter.
Mme Jeong and Yi Suk-beon made a property division document together while
Yi Suk-beon was alive and gave it to Gang Sun-deok, who was the eldest son-in-law.
However, since her daughter died without child, all the property was to go to Gang Hui-
90 ibid.
83
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
maeng, a nephew and adopted son of Gang Sun-deok, who had no blood relation to Mme
Jeong’s family.
Mme Jeong Case (1452)
Yi Suk-beon = Mme Jeong
I
(daughter) Mme Yi = Gang Sun-deok (son-in-law)
l(adopted)
Gang Hui-maeng (Gang Sun-deok’ s nephew)
This case brought about severe controversy in the Court regarding parental
rights concerning the correction of inheritance documents after the death of a spouse.
Court discussion in detail not only shows a woman’s separate property holding in a
household9 1 but also acknowledges her general authority over family property including
her husband’s. The following quotations from the discussion reveal the point:
“... If a document was created only by a husband without
the participation ofhis wife, it would be problematic; yet, if
they did distribute [the property] together as owners, why
is it impossible to correct [the document] later? Husband and
wife are one body and the same owners of property, and
how is there going to be any graveness and lightness in
their authority between father and mother? Please allow
Mme Jeong to dispose [of the property] on her own.” ...
“.. .Mme Jeong made a document consulting with her
husband and put down her slaves in there, too. How could
one consider [the document] as simply Yi Suk-beon’s
and exclude Mme Jeong? ... Even if a mother’s act is
not fair, her child cannot blame her because there is no
such a parent who is bad. If now a father’s document
9 1 One suggestion remarks that “let the lands and slaves belonging to Yi Suk-beon follow the original
document and those belonging to Mme Jeong be disposed by her wish.”
84
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
only is approved, there would be a lot of sons who dispute
the mother’s right and wrong and why is this not fearful?.. ,”9 2
The overall opinion and final judgment, in the end, recognized Mme Jeong’s authority
93
over property as an owner and decision maker.
The implication is interesting since the court’s final decision goes along with an
old woman’s wish that certainly came from a selfish intention. Gang Hui-maeng had
been adopted earlier while Mme Jeong’s daughter was still alive, and Mme Jeong’ s
attempt to correct documents must have been a simple whim that came from her
reluctance to give property to a non-family member.
I interpret the result of the case to show governmental acknowledgement of
critical authority over one’s ‘own’ property. Despite various disputes, one basic principle
every party took for granted was that at least Mme Jeong’ s own property was naturally
under her control under any circumstances.
In Korean society the conception of property was something that wholly
belonged to an individual and so was subject to disposal by him/her. I would argue that
this tradition was maintained not only substantively but emotionally. This substantive and
emotional affirmation toward personal ownership and authority over private property
provided a firm ground for women’s property rights to be sustained solidly.
Another Mme Jeong case found from the Seongjong Sillok interestingly
involves the same issue of a mother’s authority in correcting the inheritance document.9 4
92 Danjong Sillok, 0/11/5 (1452)
9 3 Danjong Sillok, 1/1/20 (1453)
94 Seongjong Sillok, 15/1/4, 15/6/2(1483)
85
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Mme Jeong distributed eight hundred slaves to her sons, Kim Maeng-ryeom and Kim
Jung-ryeom. Kim Jung-ryeom gave those to his daughter and Kim Hyeon, who was the
son o f his concubine.
Mme Jeong Case (1483)
Kim Go = Mme Jeong
Kim Maeng-ryeom Kim Jung-ryeom
I I
daughter Kim Hyeon (concubine’ s son)
Hating to see her property go to the grandson bom by a concubine daughter-in-law, Mme
Jeong corrected the inheritance document after her son Jung-ryeom died. After she died,
Kim Hyeon brought a suit against Mme Jeong insisting the document had been changed
by her. The record shows that the dominant court opinion advocated Mme Jeong’s
authority to make a change in the inheritance document as an owner of the property.
3. Documentation and Use of Seal
As expected from the fact that women exercised independent property rights,
they made documents on their own. When they created a property document they used
their own seals (insin PPfa). From the Seongjong Sillok a court discussion regarding
forgery cases mentions women’s seals. It reads:
“When women make and keep documents, they use an
official seal (PPfH), and there are many cases of forged
seals. Because they carve on the seal their ‘place of origin
and surname (mohyang and mossi 15),’ someone
who has the same surname can use it. I suggest that they
86
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
carve ‘husband’s name and surname (mocheo S i t ) and
mossi S.B))’ on the seal.”9 5
This description informs us that the seals women used were a type of stamp on which
they carved their place of origin and family name. The court suggestion was that because
a person who had the same surname could borrow and use a woman’s seal, it would be
better to carve her husband’ s name instead of her place origin. This proposal was rejected
by those with the opinion that the forgers would copy whatever information was carved
on the seal.
Here lies an interesting implication. The fact that the letters carved on the stamp
were ‘place name/family name,’ rather than ‘husband’s name/ family name,’
demonstrates that they considered ‘from where’ to be more important than ‘whose wife.’
Making much of her place of origin is evidence of the Korean woman’s subjective nature
in her social existence. By referring to a married woman with her place of origin even
after she married,9 6 the awkward feeling that a woman newly belonged to her husband’s
family may have been much diluted.
It is also noteworthy that Korean women throughout history have always kept
their family names for their lifetime, regardless of marriage. This is quite a contrast to the
practices in the U.S. and Japan, where women have to adopt their husbands’ surname
upon marriage. I would regard this as another signifier of Korean women’s characteristic
subjectivity in their historical existence.
9 3 Seongjong Sillok, 21/3/8 (1489)
96 In Korea, a married woman has often been called with her hometown name. For example, “Mme Su
won” if she came from Su-won.
87
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4. Disposal Rights
Some Sillok records show various activities performed by women with secure
disposal rights over their own property. These rights include the sponsorship of a banquet,
Buddhist mass, or shaman performance, and other religious donations mainly made by
women of the elite.
A record from the Sejong Sillok depicts Mme Dong’s pious gift for her belief,
Buddhism: Mme Dong, wife of deceased Yi Hwa-yeong, copied “Beophwa-gyeongjjijkIfl
IS )”97 with melted gold and silver and treated the monks with honey pastries (yumilgwa
With her mother, daughter, and other female relatives, Mme Dong stayed in a
Buddhist hermitage for five days, copying and reading Beophwa-gyeongjjlikip |S ) for the
sake of her deceased husband.9 9
This story illustrates a woman’s strong property rights, as she financed a
Buddhist ceremony, inviting many guests, copying a Sutra in gold and silver, and treating
people to an expensive snack. It also proves women’s broad mobility range in that they
managed their own group activities outside the boundary of the home.
Other similar stories are found in the Sillok. In 1435, Queen Gong-bi visited her
mother Mme An’s house and threw a banquet for her.1 0 0 And Mme Yi, wife o f Yu Jeong-
hyeon, went up to a temple with her mother Sun-jeong and offered a huge Buddhist
97 the Saddharmapundarika Sutra, a famous Buddhist classic
9 8 A sweet snack made o f oil and honey, it was a luxurious snack only for the upper classes because o f the
high cost o f making them.
99 Sejong Sillok, 7/11/8 (1424)
1 0 0 Sejong Sillok, 8/6/4 (1435)
88
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
mass.1 0 1 In 1495, Mme Song gathered many widows and nuns who were of yangban
families and held a huge Buddhist meeting.1 0 2
F. Adoption Cases Involving Women and Women’s Property
There have been previous studies which conducted research on adoption in the
Joseon dynasty. The foci of these studies, however, were mainly concerned with tracing
the patriarchal or Confucian feature reflected in the adoption system. My study views the
same phenomenon from quite a different angle, with a women-centered perspective and a
concern for women’s property rights specifically. Women in the relevant records appear
in two modes: woman as adoptee, i.e., property inheritor, and woman as adopter, i.e.,
property presenter. In either position, women played active and autonomous roles
concerning the process of household property division.
1. As Adoptee
Before we go on, I need to explain that there were two types of adoption in the
Joseon dynasty: suyang (J&M) and siyang A suyang child was a child adopted
before he/she was three years old, i.e., adoptive parent(s) raised her/him from a very early
age. Thus the relationship between child and caregiver must have been more like that
between a birth parent and child. In siyang, adoption usually took place in a later phase of
1 0 1 Sejong Sillok, 8/8/21 (1435)
1 0 2 Yeoman Sillok, 2/4/23 (1495)
89
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the life of foster parent, often to serve the needs of family succession and sacrificial rites
(jesa). Accordingly their relationship, I conjecture, may have been more ‘administrative’
than in the case of suyang. The Mme Yi case below plainly shows the features of these
two.
Mme Yi, wife of Yi Jung-mu, was early adopted (suyang iifrSI) by Yi Ji-ho,
and Yi Ji-ho bequeathed all of his valuables and family property to Mme Yi. Jang Su,
who coveted Yi Ji-ho’s property, later adopted Yi Ji-ho (siyang f # it ) and claimed the
rights to his property. At this time, Mme Yi’s natal father, Yi Hyeon, appealed to the court
on behalf of his daughter.1 0 3
Mme Yi case (1414)
Jang Su
| (adopted: f#it)
Yi Hyeon Yi Ji-ho ------
| | (adopted: i f e i t )
Yi Jung-mu = Mme Yi ---------
This case demonstrates two interesting aspects of adoption practiced in the Joseon
dynasty; 1) A childless man with a fortune sometimes chose a girl instead of a boy and
raised her as an heir; 2) Adoption could be practiced as a means of acquiring the property
of the adoptee, as indicated by the actions of Jang Su, who adopted Yi Ji-ho later by
siyang.
1 0 3 Taejong Sillok, 15/6/19(1414)
90
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2. As Adopter
In the Sillok records we can also find the autonomous selection of an adopted
daughter or son by a woman, as distinct from the adoptions undertaken by her husband.
This is good evidence of women’s secure property rights as from those of her husband. If
a woman had not held her own property and retained no obvious ownership over it, she
could not and needed not to have made such decisions.
Suggestively enough, a childless woman often preferred to adopt and raise a girl
rather than a boy, and bequeathed her property to the adopted daughter. In 1411, Mme
Gang, wife of Yi II, adopted a daughter of Jo Seo. When Mme Gang died, Yi II did not
appear, attributing his absence to illness. Jo Seo, natal father of adoptee Mme Jo,
arbitrarily divided Mme Gang’s slaves and property during Yi II’s absence. The Office of
the Inspector-General requested the judgement concerning the case, but the King ordered
that the matter not be discussed.1 0 4 Here, we see that a woman [Mme Gang] adopted a
girl [Mme Jo] as an heir for her own property and that her spouse [Yi II], who seemed not
to have had a good relationship with her, did not have rights to his wife’s property.
Mme Gang case (1412)
Yi II = Mme Gang Jo Seo
(adopted) | |
Another Mme Gang case in 1421 reads: Childless Mme Gang adopted Seo Mi-
seong’s daughter as suyang. Kim Myeon, Mme Gang’s cousin, and Min An-su, Mme
1 0 4 Taejong Sillok, 12/6/18(1412)
9 1
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Gang’s sister’s husband, coveted her property. They exhumed Mme Gang’s body and
moved it. The Inspector-General investigated the case and punished Kim and Min.1 0 5
Mme Gang case (1421)
Mme Gang vs. Kim Myeon (cousin) & Min An-su (sister’s husband)
(adopted) |
suyang Mme Seo
From this case, we again notice that: 1) A woman adopted a girl to bequeath her property;
2) The size of a woman’s property was often very substantial, and sometimes even so
large it tempted others to commit social crimes.
The next case happened in the same year and shows a more complicated aspect;
Jeong Hyo-on’s wife was an adopted daughter of Yi Myeon, and Yi Myeon gave her his
slaves. When Yi Myeon died later, Yi Myeon’s wife, Mme Jeong, adopted Yun Gang as
an heir and tried to give him Myeon’s slaves. Hyo-on brought a suit against Mme Jeong
and fought with Yun Gang in court.1 0 6
Mme Jeong case (1421)
Yi Myeon = Mme Jeong
Jeong Hyo-on = Hyo-on’s wife Yun Gang
(adopted daughter to Yi Myeon) (adopted son to Mme Jeong)
This case is interesting in that a married couple set up an adoptee for each: the husband
adopted a girl as suyang and the wife adopted a boy as siyang. This is further evidence of
1 0 5 Sejong Sillok, 4/4/11 (1421)
1 0 6 Sejong Sillok, 4/9/1 (1421)
92
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
separate property holdings between husband and wife, and it also indicates the extent of a
woman’s decision-making rights concerning the family matters, such as adoption and
management of family property.
A murder case in 1440 is also related to the adoption arranged by a woman,
which resulted in a miserable ending; Mme Ban adopted Mme Hong but did not
bequeath her property to her because their relationship had been cut (uijeol Jt& fe). Mme
Ban’s slave girl named Guseuri murdered Mme Hong. The verdict explains that Guseuri
would be exempt from being punished for killing her mistress’ relative, because the
relationship between Mme Ban and Hong had been terminated and thus Mme Hong
could not claim any of Mme Ban’s slaves.1 0 7
Mme Ban Case (1440)
Mme Ban --------------------------
| (adopted) |
Hwang Bo-sin = Mme Hong Guseuri (slave girl)
The Heo Mojiri case during Munjong’s reign (r. 1450-1452) is another example;
Chung-gae was a concubine of Mme Yi’ s husband. Mme Yi insisted that Heo Mojiri, son
of Chung-gae, was not her husband’s son but the son of Chung-gae’s other husband, Kim
Seung-jae. 1 0 8 This case resulted from a woman’s wish to bequeath family property to
her adopted daughter, Mme Gwon, rather than to Heo Mojiri, who was a concubine’s son.
1 0 7 Sejong Sillok, 23/7/4 (1440)
1 0 8 MungjongSillok, 1/11/19(1451)
93
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Heo Mojiri Case (1451)
(slave concubine) Chung-gae — Heo An-seok = Mme Yi (wife)
| | (adopted)
Heo Mojiri Mme Gwon
During Seongjong’s reign (r. 1469-1494) in 1488, there was a request for
distinction as to whether Gwon Gam’ s ex-wife adopted Mme Choe by suyang.1 0 9 This
also shows that a woman adopted a girl most plausibly for the purpose of bequeathing
her own property to the adopted girl.
The court discussion in the thirteenth year (1518) of Jungjong’s reign (r.1506-
1544) reflects a woman’s authority and rights in the arrangement of an heir and disposal
of her property:
Mme Song, wife of Prince Nosan, petitioned the King that
she would like to bequeath her property and house to the
wife of Jeong Mi-su. The Court had objected to her request,
explaining that “Mme Song earlier adopted Jeong Mi-su
as siyang, and Jeong Mi-su died without descendent. If
Jeong Mi-su’s wife died, there would be no heir to perform
the sacrificial rites for Prince Nosan and the rites for him
would be miserably terminated. Why don’t you allow the
subjects to discuss setting up a new heir?”
The King deigned to instruct that “since Mme Song’s wish
lay within Jeong Mi-su’s wife, it is not appropriate to
discuss setting up a new heir.”1 1 0
The discussion describes that widowed Mme Song wanted to bequeath her property to
her adopted son’s wife, though the adopted son, Jeong Mi-su, had already died. Court
1 0 9 Seongjong Sillok, 20/10/27(1488)
1 1 0 Jimgjong Sillok, 13/7/5 (1518)
94
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
officials objected to it and tried to set up a new heir, but the King consented to Mme
Song’s proposal.
Mme Song Case (1518)
Prince Nosan = Mme Song
| (adopted)
Jeong Mi-su = wife
Here, property is transmitted from a woman to a woman, regardless of the
perpetuation of the patriarchal line by men. This story not only shows a woman’s strong
authority and rights over the appointment of an heir to inherit her property, but also
confirms that still in the sixteenth century, the descent-line concept was not firmly seated
in the minds of Joseon people.
A record dated in 1586 from the Seonjo Sillok contains another adoption case:
Yi Bae was the son of Yi Ja and died without descendent. Mme Han, wife of Yi Bae,
adopted her relative’s daughter as siyang and thus Ja’s tablet was about to be handed over
to the daughter of the Han family. Upon this, Mme Yi, who was Yi Ja’s daughter and Yi
Bae’s sister, volunteered to offer the jesa for her own father.1 1 1
Mme Han Case (1586)
Yi Ja = wife
I _______
Mme Han = Y i Bae Mme Yi = Bong Seong-su
| (adopted)
Ms. Han
1 1 1 Seonjo Sillok, 20/5/27 (1586)
95
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In the story Mme Han appointed an adoptee woman among her natal family and
tried to bequeath all the rights to her, and Mme Yi as a daughter rose up to take charge of
her father’ s jesa. Here we see that the social atmosphere even in the late sixteenth century
was still quite lenient and women still made their voices heard in both property and
family matters.
G Crime Cases Involving Woman’s Property
A woman’s substantial property attracted men’s attention and became a target of
social crimes. On the other hand, women themselves committed such crimes as bribery
using their economic ability. This section will present a variety of those cases.
1. Calculated Marriage
In the previous chapter we have already seen some cases in which a man
112
devised a marriage to a woman with his eyes on her family’s wealth. For that purpose,
men sometimes swindled and even sometimes resorted to adultery or rape. These
criminal cases provide good evidence of the women’s property power.
A record from Danjong Sillok indicates an incident involving a woman’s vast
property: A merchant man named Jo Heung-gwi married old Mandeok “upon hearing
that she had a lot of property.” When Mandeok died, Yi Jing-seok, who was a high
official, claiming that Mandeok was his adoptee, accused Heung-gwi of being an
1 1 2 See the section on ‘M en’s Attraction to Women’s Inheritance’ (p. 49).
96
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
adulterer and grabbed all the documents of her property.1 1 3 In this story appeared two
men who were blinded by a woman’s bountiful property: a merchant who devised a
calculated marriage and an official who swindled.
A case from the Seongjong Sillok describes a man who tried adultery with a
widow having an eye upon her property: Sim Eung was punished for threatening a newly
widowed Sobi to have illicit intercourse with him while coveting her property.1 1 4
From the same Sillok a record dated in 1479 tells that Hwang Je, who coveted
Sin Yeon’s property, deceived blind Sin Yeon with a false marriage document and took
Sin Yeon’s daughter as his concubine.1 1 5 The episode informs us that Hwang Je was
Princess Kyeongsin’s son. It shows that: 1) even a high-positioned man craved other’s
[woman’s] property and made use of tricks to take it; and 2) daughters certainly had
inheritance rights, as seen by the way in which a man devised a devious plan to marry for
property.
Other cases from the same Seongjong Sillok are as follows. In 1485 Eo Se-gong
remarried the abandoned wife of Sim Jeong-won because her property was abundant.1 1 6
And in 1489 Eom Gwi-son raped Sim Bang, who was a concubine of the late Han
Gye-sun, upon hearing that she had bountiful wealth.1 1 7 The latter rape case shows that
1 1 3 Danjong Sillok, 0/6/19 (1452)
1 1 4 Seongjong Sillok, 6/11/9(1474)
1 1 5 Seongjong Sillok, 11/10/14(1479)
1 1 6 Seongjong Sillok, 17/7/15 (1485)
1 1 7 Seongjong Sillok, 21/5/1 (1489)
97
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
even a concubine had plentiful property and a man committed rape on purpose with his
eyes on her property.
In the Myeongjong Sillok another contrived marriage case is found: Kim Ja-
yeong, an adopted son of Park Se-beon, was censured because he married his foster sister,
whom Park Se-beon adopted and to whom bequeathed land and slaves.1 1 8 In this case, a
man married a woman who was his foster father’s other foster child in a desire to have
control over the property she inherited.
2. In Family Relations
That women held property separately is evidenced by the fact that they left their
property to an heir with the wish that he would perform a sacrificial service for them after
her death. Under these circumstances, the property of women sometimes became the
objective of a swindle.
A case argued in the Court in 1441 during Sejong’s (r. 1418-1450) reign reveals
this feature; Seong Hyo-won was censured for the shortening of the mourning period for
his stepmother, Mme Choe. Hyo-won’ s father Seong Bu explained that Hyo-won was not
responsible for the mourning because Mme Choe was a concubine, not a wife, and the
reason Hyo-won mourned for her was because he had received slaves from her.1 1 9
The case illustrates that, while Mme Choe was alive, Hyo-won served her as his
mother with purpose to earn the property she had held, and after she died, he neglected
1 1 8 Myeongjong Sillok, 17/8/6 (1561)
1 1 9 Sejong Sillok, 24/2/28 (1441)
98
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
his obligation. The court decision goes that the slaves Hyo-won received from Mme
Choe should be returned to her natal family, because “the reason Mme Choe gave slaves
to Hyo-won was for him to perform the rites (jesa) for her. But since Seong Bu did not
consider her as his wife, the tie between Hyo-won and Mme Choe was severed. Then it is
not sensible for Hyo-won to keep her slaves.”1 2 0 This case shows that a woman’s
separately-held property played a role in her security during and even after her life, and it
was strongly supported by governmental protection.
A lamentable critique seen in the Jungjong Sillok reveals a social phenomenon
of the time:
“Many of those who are not eligible for the mourning
period are trying to ‘wear it’ by calling a woman stepmother
or foster mother. This is a way of coveting the property
those women possess and should be proscribed.”1 2 1
This kind of family relations case concerning a woman’s property is found in many
places of the Joseon Wangjo Sillok. In 1470 Jo Yuk-sam, who had his own mother,
referred to his aunt as his mother for the purpose of acquiring her slaves.1 2 2 And in 1545,
Park Se-geo concealed his stepmother Mme Song’s death and did not perform the
mourning rites in order to keep her rank and receive her salary.1 2 3
1 2 0 ibid.
1 2 1 Jungjong Sillok, 17/5/19 (1522)
1 2 2 Seongjong Sillok, 2/6/12 (1470)
l2j Myeongjong Sillok, 1/5/1 (1545)
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
More supportive of my argument are the murder cases in which a female
relative’s property is targeted, as found in much later Silloks. In the Yeongjo Sillok an
article dated in 1770 describes that the wife of YI Myeong-suk’s nephew was widowed
young and very rich. After driving her to death by slandering her, Yi Myeong-suk
withdrew her heir and set up his son as a new heir to control her property. The ten-year
old boy, named Yi Gyeong-ryong, who was the original heir, came up to Seoul and beat
the drum to appeal his misfortune.1 2 4
Another murder case dated in 1785 from the Jeongjo Sillok tells that Mme Yi,
who was widowed young without child, adopted the son of Park Ho-jae, who was her
distant relative. Another relative, Park Cheon-geun, who coveted her property, killed
Mme Yi and set up his own son Park Gi-dong for a new heir.1 2 5
The above two cases explicitly show that women still had considerable property
and rights over it even at the end of eighteenth century. They fully support my argument
opposed to Peterson and other scholars’ assumption that detrimental changes in woman’s
rights and status had occurred “dramatically” in the seventeenth century.
3. Bribery
A woman who was financially capable sometimes manipulated her economic
power to solve a problem or to have influence in the matter. Mme Byeon, who tried to
1 2 4 Yeongjo Sillok 47/12/25 (1770)
1 2 5 Jeongjo Sillok 10/7/1 (1785)
100
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
present twenty slaves in order to escape punishment,1 2 6 is a good example. A similar
bribery case is found in the Seongjong Sillok: Heo Seon was brought to the investigation
127
being accused of receiving slaves from Mme An, wife of Seon Mu.
Mme Seon case is more telling regarding a woman’s economic ability: Mme
Seon petitioned the officials and paid a sizable estate to Suwon county in order
to receive a region of Jin-seong (HC'ij) instead.1 2 8 The description reveals a woman’s
economic capability and action she took for her own profit. The record shows that Mme
Seon’s economic capacity extended to redeeming an indebted land for a county (bu if f ) ,
and she earned a seong (%')-scale of area in return. That she achieved her goal “by asking
the officials” implies her monetary influence was involved in solving the problem.
The Yejong Sillok also has an article about a bribery case involving a woman:
Kim Gyeong-dal, who had been charged with abusing his wife and was under
investigation by the Office of Inspector-General, was now suspected of bribing Kim Su-
ryeong with ten slaves in order to be released. Kim Su-ryeong’s vindication derived from
the fact that his slaves were given to his daughter, not to him, by Dam- jeong, who was
his daughter’ s foster mother. In other words, it was not that he received slaves from
Gyeong-dal, but that Dam- jeong presented slaves for her adopted daughter. Dam- jeong
was mother of Gyeong-dal’s concubine, i.e., Gyeong-dal’s mother-in-law.1 2 9
1 2 6 Sejong Sillok, 16/6/30 (1433)
1 2 7 Seongjong Sillok, 6/5/28 (1474)
,2S Sejong Sillok, 13/1/24 (1430)
1 2 9 Yejong Sillok, 1/8/29(1468)
101
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Kim Gyeong-dal Case (1468)
Dam-jeong <--------
I I
Kim Gyeong-dal = concubine | Kim Su-ryeong
I I
-----------daughter (adopted to Dam-jeong)
Then the truth was that Dam-jeong, whose daughter was Gyeong-dal’s
concubine, bribed Kim Su-ryeong to save her son-in-law from a quandary. Besides
showing a woman in action who committed bribery, the story provides an interesting
aspect of adoption made by a woman; a woman who already had her own daughter
adopted a girl again -maybe for pleasure in her old age -, and she gave her property to
her as she wished.
4. Casting Coins
After two devastating wars and amid social turmoil, illegal money casting by
people was a serious social problem and became an issue in the Court during Sukjong’s
reign (r. 1674-1720).1 3 0 The Sillok records reveal that women also were active agents in
this fraud. In 1695, a widow, Mme Park, was accused of her casting coins privately. She
was a wife of deceased Minister Yi Gyeong-jung’s grandson.1 3 1 In 1697, Mme Park, the
wife of the deceased Yi Hui-jung, gathered bandits and cast coins furtively.Ij2 It is
1 3 0 Sukjong Sillok, 22/3/10,22/3/11 (1695)
1 3 1 Sukjong Sillok, 22/3/12(1695)
1 3 2 Sukjong Sillok, 24/6/21 (1697)
102
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
interesting to see that women who cast coins were of high-class status. These records
show us that women could be main players of such social crime and also they were still
active participants in the financial field in the late seventeenth century.
H. Women and Wealth
An interesting remark is read from King Seongjong’s (r. 1469-1494) instruction
conveyed to the State Council in 1471:
“ ... China has deep waters and thick earth but the food
consumption is extremely frugal. The Japanese custom is
even more sparing and stingy. Also they have the farsight
to set up a monthly and yearly plan for farming. Only in
our country, people waste and eat without control and admire
extravagance. They seek to immediate pleasure in food
and drinks even having to borrow others’. .. ,”1 3 3
The comment to this states:
“The custom and practice of extravagance originates
from valuing and pursuing delicacy in clothes and food.
It is lamentable that there is no restraint in copying others
presumptuously.”1 3 4
In this discussion, the King’s critique provides an informative comparison between two
neighboring countries, China and Japan, and interestingly, it suggests a meaningful
insight which also makes sense to the societies nowadays. As grasped from these five
hundred year old statements, Korean people’s propensity seems to have been
1 3 - 1 Seongjong Sillok, 3/8/23 (1471)
1 3 4 ibid.
103
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
traditionally to pursue lavishness and to be sensitive toward public opinions and
standards.
The inclination to admire luxury and to follow the fashion-flow was a universal
trend found in the life of Korean people, regardless of the class to which they belonged.
The Joseon Wangjo Sillok holds abundant records lamenting this social problem. Some
criticize elite class and royal family members’ extravagance,1 3 5 and others deplore the
social tide of commoners’ copying the upper classes.1 3 6 A record from the Sejo Sillok
complained: “A rich slave is unrestrainedly sumptuous and overrides sadaebu status.”1 3 7
The fashion trends that people were eagerly trying to measure up to are found in
every part of their daily life: what they ate, what they wore, and where and how they
lived. They thus encompass foodstuffs, garments and ornaments, palanquin use, house
construction, and the scale of weddings and funerals. People’s propensity to brag and
copy one another was so serious that the State enforced the regulations designed to put
limits on them. These restrictive regulations were applied to the size of residence,
1 3 5 The relevant records I have found are abundant as I list them here. Sejong Sillok 14/8/2 (1431),
22/7/27(1439), 28/3/7 (1445), Seongjong Sillok, 2/12/13 (1470), 13/5/3 (1481), 13/6/9 (1481), 22/2/22
(1490), 23/8/1 (1491), 23/8/6 (1491), 24/3/28 (1492), 24/10/23 (1492), 24/11/1 (1492), Yeonsan Sillok,
9/2/18 (1502), Jungjong Sillok, 7/5/13 (1512), 7/5/26 (1512), 8/10/19 (1513), 9/2/28 (1514), 10/4/27 (1515),
12/11/4 (1517), 13/6/7 (1518), 17/4/12 (1522), 19/12/20 (1524), 20/4/23 (1525), 20/4/24 (1525), 21/1/8
(1526), 30/6/7 (1535), 34/9/4 (1539), 36/7/29 (1540)
1 3 6 Sejong Sillok, 23/11/18 (1440), 24/9/5 (1441), Sejo Sillok, 11/2/6 (1465), Seongjong Sillok, 2/12/8
(1470), 3/1/22 (1471), 5/1/15 (1473), 9/4/24 (1477), 10/5/12 (1478), 13/2/12 (1481), 20/5/9 (1488), Yeonsan
Sillok, 3/1/8 (1496), 6/5/20 (1499), 8/6/8 (1501), 9/2/8 (1502), Jungjong Sillok, 3/1/21 (1508), 3/2/1 (1508),
10/2/24 (1515), 10/4/7 (1515), 11/10/20 (1516), 11/10/24 (1516), 20/12/12 (1525), 23/2/14 (1528), 23/8/18
(1528), 24/11/14 (1529), 25/2/24 (1530), 35/6/9 (1540)
1 3 7 Sejo Sillok, 11/2/6(1465)
104
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
clothing, palanquin use, and the scale of wedding and funerals.1 3 8 Nevertheless, from the
fact that these regulations were repeatedly imposed, we can see that the governmental
efforts must not have been very effective.
Even while undergoing the social chaos after the Imjin war (1592-1598) and
suffering from miserable epidemics spreading through the whole country during the late
Joseon period, people kept up this lavish tendency. The Sillok articles concerning the
extravagant habits of the society are plentiful with no particular difference in their
contents.1 3 9 This implies two things: 1) the tendency to lavishness was a chronic
propensity of Koreans; and 2) the social trend and custom could have been more
persistent than otherwise supposed. Thus (2) supports my argument about periodization
in the sense that the ‘timing of change’ regarding Joseon women’s property rights could
be extended to later.
1 3 8 Sejong Sillok, 30/12/14 (1447), Seongjong Sillok, 2/12/5 (1470), 3/1/22 (1471), 3/7/5 (1471), 3/9/23
(1471), 3/9/30 (1471), 6/5/26 (1474), 6/7/17 (1474), 9/8/22 (1477), 23/4/21 (1491), 23/7/30 (1491),
Jungjong Sillok, 3/11/9 (1508), 7/2/17 (1512), 11/10/28 (1516), 11/10/29 (1516), 11/11/5 (1516), 11/11/8
(1516), 11/11/18 (1516), 17/8/12 (1522), 23/8/18 (1528), 25/3/11 (1530), 33/7/29 (1538), 34/12/28 (1539),
35/6/1 (1540), 36/12/29 (1541), Myeongjong Sillok, 1/6/7 (1545), 4/3/13 (1548), 4/3/18 (1548), 6/9/17
(1550), 8/8/29 (1552), 8/10/18 (1552)
1 3 9 M y findings are as below. Seonjo Sillok, 36/5/25 (1602), 36/8/13 (1602), 38/4/16 (1604), 40/3/18 (1606),
Gwanghae Sillok, 2/3/2 (1609), 4/4/21 (1611), 4/4/24 (1611), 7/7/17 (1614), Jnjo Sillok, 2/6/17 (1624),
2/11/2 (1624), 7/4/12 (1629), 8/4/3 (1630), 9/4/4 (1631), 13/10/11 (1635), 13/10/28 (1635), 13/12/2 (1635),
21/12/24 (1643), 25/3/4 (1647), Hyojong Sillok, M ill (1649), 2/7/12 (1650), 2/8/14 (1650), Hyeonjong
Sillok (rev,), 7/3/7 (1665), 7/8/9 (1665), 9/11/16 (1667), Sukjong Sillok, 17/5/22 (1690), 19/2/25 (1692),
22/1/5 (1695), 30/5/28 (1703), 35/5/6 (1708), 39/5/19 (1712), 41/9/6 (1714), Yeongjo Sillok, 3/3/17 (1726),
3/5/17 (1726), 4/8/15 (1727), 9/3/22 (1732), 9/12/10(1732), 9/12/22 (1732), 10/2/5 (1733), 20/10/14(1743),
22/4/13 (1745), 25/9/23 (1748), 26/2/10 (1749), 33/12/16 (1756), 40/1/24 (1763), 44/8/7 (1767), Jeongjo
Sillok, 3/2/25 (1778), 6/1/5 (1781), 10/1/22 (1785), 14/2/19 (1789), 23/6/26 (1798), Sunjo Sillok, 4/1/26
(1803), 14/6/5 (1813), 27/4/17 (1826), 28/8/3 (1827), 34/2/30 (1833), Heonjong Sillok, 6/3/20 (1839),
7/3/10 (1840)
105
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Most of the laments on this social problem mention women as major players. In
this study I interpret this phenomenon as one solid evidence of Joseon women’s
autonomous property exercise and their economic capacity. This chapter will examine
the trend toward lavishness in housing and clothing mentioned in the Joseon Wangjo
Sillok in relation to women’s conduct.
1. Housing
A frequently discussed issue in the Court regarding people’s sumptuousness is
about the size and scale of housing. Sejong (r. 1418-1450) deplored that “commoners’
housing is being compared with that of high officials, and high officials’ houses are like
palaces,”1 4 0 and he ordered a law to limit the size of housing according to the social
statuses.
With regard to women’s property rights, Sejong ordered to prescribe the
housing of a prince and princess not to exceed fifty rooms.1 4 1 The fact that he mentioned
the case of a prince and princess respectively and applied the same restriction to each
shows that his mind discerned a daughter’s property separately and also treated it equally
with a son’s.
The gigantic scale of construction of the royal family’s or high officials’
residence was a problem in Joseon society. In order to build a huge house, dozens of
commoners’ houses often needed to be destroyed to make room. The same occurred in
1 4 0 Sejong Sillok, 13/1/12(1430)
1 4 1 Ibid.
106
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the construction of princess’ residence also. The records from Munjong Sillok show that
the construction of Princess Gyeong-hye’s new house caused a social problem in that
forty houses of commoners were demolished for the purpose.1 4 2
The Kings’ responses to those issues, however, were mostly generous and do
not seem to have been a help to correct the situation. An article from the Jungjong Sillok
mentions the construction of Princess Hye-jeong’s house,1 4 5 and the Office of the
Inspector-General (saheonbu tTjifjff) complains that too much lumber is needed for
remodeling the house of Princess Ui-hye, denouncing its lavishness.1 4 4 During the same
Jungjong’s reign, the Office of Censor-General (saganwon reported that Mme
An, a lady-in-waiting, was constructing her house excessively beyond the restrictions.
But the King responded, “Mme An’s house is not a matter I would mind because she is
building it by herself.,MS The King’s remark that he would not interfere with the matter
because it was she who had a right over it has significant bearing in regard to a woman’s
autonomous exercise of her property rights.
Furthermore, sometimes kings were even cooperative. During Injo’s reign
(r. 1623-1649), the King ordered to provide Princess Jeong-myeong with construction
materials that she needed for a two-hundred-compartment house.1 4 6 The Offices of the
1 4 2 Munjong Sillok, 1/4/1, 1/4/3(1450)
1 4 3 Jungjong Sillok, 18/4/25(1523)
1 4 4 Jungjong Sillok, 24/5/6 (1529)
1 4 5 Jungjong Sillok, 22/5/16 (1527)
1 4 6 Injo Sillok, 2/6/6 (1624)
107
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Inspector-General and Censor-General repeatedly criticized its size as too excessive and
proposed to withdraw the order.1 4 7 The King, however, carried through his resolve, only
commanding to diminish the size of the house from two-hundred to one hundred seventy
compartments.1 4 8 The details regarding the house scale tell how huge a Princess’ house
could be.1 4 9
The same problem continued to occur. During Hyojong’s reign (r. 1649-1659),
the extravagant construction of Princess Sukmyeong’s house was repeatedly censured by
the Office of Inspector-General.1 5 0 In Hyeonjong’s reign (r. 1659-1674) the complaint
reached its peak. Five Princess’ houses were the issue. Starting from criticizing the lavish
construction of Princess Suk-gyeong’s house,1 5 1 the problem continuously appears in the
Sillok. The requests to cease the construction or to restrict the size of Princess’ houses
were repeated, but the King’s refusal of them was also a recurrence.1 3 2
The funeral inscription of Jeong Yu-seong from the Hyeonjong Sillok in 1663
characterizes the case: Jeong Yu-seong’s grandson Jeong Je-hyeon was married to
1 4 7 Injo Sillok, 2/6/7,2/6/9 (1624), 3/2/27 (1625)
1 4 8 Injo Sillok, 2/6/24 (1624), 3/2/18 (1625)
1 4 9 It says that the previous case was in even three hundred compartment size and the king considers two
hundred compartment size for a princess is still narrow and small.
1 5 0 Hyojong Sillok, 4/8/19 (1652), 10/3/13 (1658), 10/3/18(1658)
1 5 1 Hyeonjong Sillok, 5/6/24 (1663)
1 5 2 Hyeonjong Sillok, 10/5/26 (1668), 10/8/17 (1668), 10/8/18 (1668), 10/8/19 (1668), 10/9/19 (1668),
11/8/21 (1669), Hyeonjong Sillok (amd), 5/6/24 (1663), 6/8/5 (1664), 10/2/25 (1668), 10/2/26 (1668),
10/5/13 (1668), 10/5/23 (1668), 10/5/25 (1668), 10/5/26 (1668), 10/6/11 (1668), 10/8/6 (1668), 10/8/17
(1668), 10/8/18(1668), 10/9/17(1668), 10/9/20 (1668),11/4/9 (1669),11/8/3 (1669), 11/8/19(1669), 14/5/13
(1672)
108
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Princess Suk-hwi. Hyeonjong built a house for them, and the scale was vast and
extremely luxurious like the other princess’ houses. At this time, Yu-seong said to the
King, “My grandson was raised in a trivial family and it would be enough for his
residence if he lay himself inside. Please limit the size to fifteen compartments.” But the
King did not listen to him. Later every time he saw the Princess, Yu-seong cautioned her
not to be too grand and extravagant. The Princess finally made a demand to the court and
reduced the size of her house to seventy compartments.1 5 3
The same situation continued in the Sukjong’s reign (r. 1674-1720): The new
house for Princess Myeong-an reached one thousand eight hundred and twenty six
compartments. Many subjects repeatedly made a request to the King to diminish the
number of compartments of Princess Myeong-an’s house, but the King would not listen
to them. Finally the King ordered to decrease its size to one hundred eighty
compartments.1 5 4 In 1681 of the same reign, there was another request to cease the
construction of the Princess’ house, but the King did not allow it.1 5 5
In 1721, Gyeongjong (r. 1720-1724) ordered to enlarge the house of the royal
concubine Mme Kim [Yeong bin], ignoring a subject’s objection,1 5 6 and during
Yeongjo’s reign (r. 1724-1776) in 1734, the construction of Princess Hwa-pyeong’ house
was again criticized.1 5 7
,5j H yeonjong Sillok, 5/11/19 (1663)
1 5 4 Sukjong Sillok, 6/6/20, 6/7/1, 6/7/23, 6/7/28, 6/8/8 (1679)
1 5 5 Sukjong Sillok, 8/8/12, 8/9/1 (1681)
1 5 6 Gyeongjong Sillok, 0/11/8 (1720), 1/1/29(1721)
1 5 7 Yeongjo Sillok, 11/4/4 (1734)
109
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AH of the above records contain continuous complaints of princess’ extremely
luxurious residences and kings’ repeated refusals to them. I believe that the kings’
ignorance of the issue sheds two important implications: 1) the kings’ acknowledgement
of women’s property rights and 2) the kings’ affection for their own daughters. This
correspondingly supports my argument in this study that women had concrete property
rights and their property size could be large according to father’s fondness.
On the other hand, the excessively luxurious houses were often ordered to be
demolished, and the Sillok reveals that among these many were owned by women. For
instance, Mme Kim’ s house was ordered to be razed because it was built in too colossal
scale and exceeded the limitation.1 5 8
2. Garments and Ornaments
Since a woman possessed private property absolutely for her own use and
preserved sovereign rights over it, she might well have desired the things that it could
provide. Apart from presenting or donating some valuables at her disposal, some Joseon
women were never stingy in spending on themselves.
It is not rare to come across women of luxury in the Sillok. Women’s lavishness
was not something strictly bound to their social status. Even a slave’s wife prettied
herself up luxuriously if she was financially capable. See the portrayal o f Jon-ja’ s wife in
a homicide incident which happened in the sixth year (1423) of Sejong’s reign (r. 1418-
1450):
1 5 8 Jungjong Sillok, 12/12/21 (1517)
110
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A slave named Song Jon-ja was condemned to death. At first,
Jon-ja had illicit intercourse with Wu Hwa-hyang, a gisaeng1 ^
in Suwon. Jon-ja’s wife, Hyo-do, stayed in Seoul and her
outfits and embellishment were quite luxurious. Jon-ja
wanted to snatch them for his lover, Wu Hwa-hyang, but he
had no way to do so. Therefore, he sent a slave and horse to
his wife and lied, “You should come over to the master’s house
since they are going to have a gut.1 6 0 ” Believing this, his wife
luxuriously dressed herself up and left for her husband’ s house.
Jon-ja waited on the road and stole her clothes and adornments.
He strangled her and threw her in a pit, but she revived later.
Brought to justice, Jon-ja was condemned to death.1 6 1
The description provides valuable information on the life of slaves in the Joseon dynasty:
1) a slave could be well-off; 2) a slave could own slaves; 3) a slave could have a
concubine. It also presents several aspects regarding women’s property: 1) even a slave
woman could not only hold her own property, but could also be well-off; 2) a woman’s
ownership rights over her property were so rigid that a husband was not able to make any
claim without her consent, and thus a husband who wanted to grab some of his wife’s
property was led to conspire a murder; 3) when a woman of wealth went out, she would
adorn herself as much as her economic ability allowed.
The State Council’s proposal in 1440 shows that the lavishness tendency in
women’s attire was not bound to the social status. It reads:
“... Even prostitutes and low-born women audaciously
compete with palace style using fine cotton and rich fabrics.
The custom of extravagance and splendor has become grave
after days and months, and it is now so serious that there
1 3 9 A woman for entertainment, courtesan
1 6 0 Exorcising performance by a shaman
1 6 1 Sejong Sillok, 6/8/18 (1423)
111
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
is no difference between the higher and lower and the custom
is very coarse. ...”1 6 2
In such a way, the lower status people’s, especially women’s, sumptuousness in their
clothes, footwear, and ornaments is frequently criticized and lamented in the Court.1 6 3
Many proposals submitted during the reign of Jungjong (r. 1506-1544) reveal
that the custom of extravagance still continued. And in the middle of the issue were
women as main players. A memorial of 1516 states:
“ ... Merchants ’ wives and working women in the market
put on queen’s clothes, and people and peasants dare to
wear prime minister’s attire. There is no differentiation
between the noble and humble.”1 6 4
Another report in 1525 also says:
“ ... Merchants’ clothes go against the law and there is no
woman who is not wearing a furry bonnet (mo-gwan
and shoes in style (dong-hwa m. lit) .. .”1 6 5
A report in 1528 describes a commoner woman’s extravagant excursion riding a
palanquin with many servants:
“... When women go out far, humble status women
all ride palanquins (gyoja S b i1)1 6 6 and sometimes the
number of palanquin bearers reaches one hundred. ...”1 6 7
Sejong Sillok, 23/11/18(1440)
Sejong Sillok, 24/9/25 (1441), Seongjong Sillok, 2/12/8 (1470)
Jungjong Sillok, 11/10/20 (1516)
Jungjong Sillok, 20/12/12 (1525)
a sedan chair
Jungjong Sillok, 23/2/14 (1528)
112
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
162
163
164
165
166
167
A report in 1530 reads:
The lowborn in the community wear the golden-
threaded shoes (geum-seon-hyae All women
wear them insisting that ‘royal families wear these too.’
Even slaves put on these shoes.”1 6 8
All these reports inform us that the lowborn people, as well as commoners, eagerly
adopted the fashion of the high class. What the higher-ups wore and what they used
became objects to imitate, and the main actors of the play were women who were very
receptive to riding the current tide. This social phenomenon proves women’s economic
capacity to manipulate freely what they owned. And more importantly it implies that the
border of social statuses in the Joseon dynasty, well known as a strict class society, could
have been diluted by people’s economic ability.
In late Joseon during the Yeongjo’s (r. 1724-1776) and Jeongjo’s (r. 1776-1800)
reigns, the Sillok shows that idarf was in fashion. ‘D an ’ was a woman’s decorating wig
made of human hair and with jewels. The price of a dari was very expensive, reaching
hundreds of gold and even led people to bankruptcy.1 6 9 Nevertheless, the dari was
extremely popular among all women, and its extravagance came to be recurrently
condemned at the Court.1 7 0 This great vogue for dari among women during the late
period of Joseon is another evidence of continuing women’s property holding. I interpret
this as one more reason to extend the ‘timing of change’ and to reconsider women’s
situation and status in the late period of Joseon.
1 6 8 Jungjong Sillok, 25/2/24 (1530)
1 6 9 Yeongjo Sillok, 25/9/23 (1748)
1 7 0 Yeongjo Sillok, 33/12/16(1756), Jeongjo Sillok, 3/2/25 (1778), 14/2/19 (1789)
113
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I. Mobility
One aspect I would include in my thesis regarding women’s property rights is
the range of mobility Joseon women enjoyed in their everyday life. The common
impression of Joseon women’s life has imprisoned women in the inner quarter. Yet the
factual scenes from the Joseon Wangjo Sillok betray this image of static women.
By the term of ‘mobility’ 1 mainly mean the range of woman’s movement in her
life: visiting a government office or Buddhist temples, going out and visiting, traveling,
and staying out for nights, etc. This aspect offers proof of women’s action and also their
property ability, which made such mobility possible.
1. Visiting Offices
A notable evidence of Joseon woman’s mobility is her frequent visit to
government offices. This is proof of women’s property rights, since the reason for the
visit to the office was mostly involved with property matters. A record in 1411 from the
Taejong Sillok is summarized: Mme Son, daughter of Son Heung-jong, went herself to
the ‘ office fo r management o f cloth and cash (Jeyonggam ’ fo r the matter o f
receiving family property back. The vice official, Mun Jo, who saw her and liked her,
proposed to her, and Mme Son accepted him. Though Mme Son was abandoned by her
husband, Kim Cheok, her behavior did not accord with wifely virtue since Kim had not
171
remarried yet.
1 7 1 Taejong Sillok, 12/6/1 (1411)
114
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
From the description we notice that 1) a woman went to the office herself to
resolve the problems she faced; 2) she had explicit property rights and was eager to
defend them; 3) there always had been a possibility of free love and the Joseon period
was not an exception. The case shows even a woman not divorced yet fell in love with a
man she met in a public place. In fact, it is never hard to find this kind of incident
involving the so-called ‘corruption of public morals (punggi mullan or ‘the
loss o f demeanor (silhaeng in the Joseon Wangjo Sillok.
Women’s visits to the government offices were not unusual in the Joseon
dynasty. In another record from the same Taejong Sillok, an old woman protested at the
office against the governmental implementation of the new “rule of equal share
(jungbunbeop ^ y a iS )” in the division of family property.1 7 2 Here we see an old woman
go to the office herself and aggressively speak up for her rights over the property. As a
matter of fact, under the circumstances that abundant legal disputes over property were
ongoing during the Joseon period and many of those involved were women, women’s
visiting the offices was not uncommon.
A record of 1668 tells of Mme Won, Yun Seon-eon’s wife, who went to an
office and filed a petition regarding the matter of adoption.17j Since adoption was
directly correlated to the division of family property, this case can be read as evidence
showing women’s active reaction to preserve her property right.
1 7 2 Taejong Sillok, 14/5/21 (1413)
1 7 3 Hyeonjong Sillok, 10/12/14 (1668)
115
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Other than these, numerous records in Joseon Wangjo Sillok depict many
women’s visiting an office themselves in order to appeal for their own benefits : In 1410,
Jeong Hyo-bok’s two wives, one from the city and the other from the country, arrived at
an office and fought each other.1 7 4 In 1761, a woman who was raped by three men ran to
the office of the Ministry of Punishment (hyeongjo T F ll W) and accused them.1 7 5
2. Visiting Temples
Another common case showing women’s mobility was their visiting Buddhist
temples. Even though the Joseon dynasty espoused Confucianism as state policy,
Buddhism as deeply-rooted national belief was still important in many Korean people’s
religious psyche and life. The same was the case of royal figures including kings.1 7 6
Consequently, people continued to visit the Buddhist temples in the mountains, and many
of them were women.
Women’s visiting the temple kept being raised as an issue at the Court since it
violated newly-implemented national policy, and also women’s staying for nights at the
temple was regarded as ‘the corruption of public morals (punggi mullein a i B U E ) ’ and
often caused ‘the loss of demeanor (silhaeng, % f ) . ’ A funerary inscription for Yi Ji
from the Sejong Sillok provides a case: Yi Ji was orphaned at the age of eight and raised
at his uncle’s house. Yi Ji used to visit a temple and served a Buddhist mass for his
1 7 4 Taejong Sillok, 11/5/26(1410)
1 7 5 Yeongjo Sillok 38/5/4 (1761)
1 7 6 Many o f Joseon king personally held religious belief in Buddhism.
116
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
deceased parents at the end of each year. At this time again he went up to the Hyang-rim
temple and met a sudden death at the age of seventy nine. People said that “while Yi Ji
stayed at the temple for a few days with his second wife, Mme Kim, she had intercourse
with a monk at night. As Yi Ji scolded and beat her at the sight of adultery, Mme Kim
pulled his penis and he died.” However, since the slaves who accompanied them at that
time were all Mme Kim’s slaves, they hid the fact.1 7 7
This anecdote reveals various facets of the time: 1) Buddhist ceremonies for the
dead continuously held by the elite class; 2)an elite woman’s moral and sexual looseness
at the temple; 3)a wife’s physical strength and action to bring about her husband’ s death;
4)a woman’s property rights to own her private slaves.
The Joseon Wangjo Sillok contains many articles criticizing women’s frequent
visits to the temples and proposing to prohibit the practice. Danjong (r. 1450-1452) and
178
Sejo (r. 1455-1468) once ordered to prohibit the practice, but the continued proposals
insisting on a ban in later times prove that those prohibitions failed to work. During the
Seongjong’s reign (r. 1469-1494), women’s sponsoring Buddhist ceremonies and staying
for nights in the temple far in the mountains repeatedly brought up an issue of the
‘corruption of public morals (punggi mullan).’ ’
The fact that the proposals were recurrently made in different reigns
counterevidences that the practice persisted. Moreover, most kings turned down the
1 7 7 Sejong Sillok, 9/1/3 (1426)
1 7 8 Danjong Sillok, 1/4/27 (1452), Sejo Sillok, 3/3/23 (1457), 6/5/9 (1460), 6/6/1 (1460)
117
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
proposals and allowed women to visit temples.1 7 9 Kings’ generous responses to the issue
must have originated from their own personal belief in Buddhism and because many
180
goers were women of royal status who were the kings’ direct family.
Financially-capable and pious women, especially of high class, often sponsored
the events and rites held in the temple. For the occasion, many women went to the
mountains in order to participate in the temple events and even stayed for nights. A
record from the Sejong Sillok shows this was a natural and allowed practice.
Every spring and fall elite class (sadaebu) ladies
themselves go up to the temples in the mountains
and perform sacrificial rites with abundant drink and
food. After they enjoy a whole night with jolly music,
they boast of it on the way back home. Their husbands
181
do all this with them and never avert.
Another persistent faith of the Joseon dynasty was traditional shamanism, and the
shaman performance (gut) was also frequently held and financed by women.
Sadaedu women bring in or visit shamans (mudang) and
pay them with their slaves.1 8 2
All this shows Joseon women’s quite unbound mobility, which was only possible with
their substantial hold over property.
1 7 9 Sejong Sillok 14/8/1 (1431), 16/5/1 (1433), 16/5/8 (1433), 16/7/7 (1433), 24/1/7 (1441), 27/4/22 (1444),
Munjong Sillok 0/10/30 (1450), 1/4/12 (1451), 1/9/13 (1451), Yeonsan Sillok, 5/5/7 (1498), Seonjo Sillok,
7/5/11 (1573)
1 8 0 In many cases women criticized were kings’ mothers.
1 8 1 Sejong Sillok 13/6/25 (1430)
1 8 2 Sejong Sillok, 13/7/13,13/7/17 (1430)
118
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. Sightseeing
The Joseon Wangjo Sillok contains another controversial issue related to
women’s mobility: women’s going out and seeing the sights occurring on the street. A
lamenting report in the Sejong’s reign (r. 1418-1450) pictures the scene:
Every time there occur big spectacles like chaebung
( I S I ®)1 8 3 and narye ( f f f l l ),1 8 4 women hurriedly gather in
the street. They set up huge tents or lean on the banisters of
and never feel shy
With this apprehension, it was suggested to keep women from going out and watching,
but the King did not follow. The reasoning in the King’s reply was that custom had
allowed women free sightseeing throughout history, and the King recognized it would
Instead, King Sejong even provided food on his outing. According to a record in
1434, when the King was out hunting in the field of Cheolwon, village women gathered
1 87
to see the sight. The King granted them drinks and side dishes.
The requests to restrict women’s watching spectacles on the street had been
repeatedly proposed throughout the Joseon dynasty, and this again provides
counterevidence that the custom endured for a long time. The King’s response seems to
1 8 3 vivid decoration o f colorful paper strips in the street
1 8 4 a traditional ritual to exorcise evil and death performed at the end o f the year
1 8 5 Sejong Sillok, 13/7/21 (1430)
1 8 6 Sejong Sillok, 13/7/22 (1430)
1 8 7 Sejong Sillok, 17/2/19 (1434)
about exposing themselves.1 8 3
never be easily eradicated.1 8 6
119
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
have depended on his personal propensity. King Sejong (r. 1418-1450) and Seongjong
(r. 1469-1494) thought the freedom of seeing the sights was not something that could be
forbidden and turned down the subjects’ requests for a ban.1 8 8 In Seongjong’s reign a
proposal asked to prohibit women’s travel for sightseeing and staying out nights, but the
King dismissed it.1 8 9 King Jungjong (r. 1506-1544) and Seonjo (r.1567- 1608) ordered to
ban women’s seeing the sights outside,1 9 0 yet Gwanghaegun (r. 1608-1623) again
allowed it.1 9 1 While the decision was a bit swayed by the degree of the king’s rigidity, it
is a sure fact that Joseon women kept going out and enjoying spectacles mostly without
constraint.
4. Gathering
Besides enjoying spectacles on the street, Joseon women never lived a
suffocating life. They went out, visited friends’ houses, drank with friends and family,
and thus delighted in their daily lives.
A record from the Seongjong (r. 1469-1494) Sillok reads:
Commoner women gathered at a shaman’s house and
had a drinking party.1 9 2
1 8 8 Sejong Sillok, 32/1/29 (1449), Seongjong Sillok, 11/4/22 (1479), 12/5/8 (1480), 19/1/20 (1487), 19/1/21
(1487), 23/6/22 (1491), 24/2/25 (1492), 24/2/29 (1492), 24/3/5 (1492)
1 8 9 Seongjong Sillok, 19/1/28, 19/3/9(1487)
1 9 0 Jungjong Sillok, 11/9/16 (1516), Seonjo Sillok, 39/4/8 (1605), 39/6/1 (1605)
1 9 1 Gwanghae Sillok, 8/8/7 (1615)
1 9 2 Seongjong Sillok, 13/9/21 (1481)
120
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This case was reported because it happened during the period of ‘a ban on drinking
(geum-ju-ryeong U S t J ) ’.1 9 3 In the course of the Joseon dynasty women’s gathering
and drinking was not unusual, and the record shows that King Seongjong did not take the
case seriously.
In another article of Seongjong’s reign, the record contains a comment about
Gwak In’s daughter who was titled with yangwon (iU ii)1 9 4 . Some parts of the comment
mentioning Gwak In’s mother offer a clue to the Joseon woman’s picture. It reads:
Gwak In’s mother, who became a widow earlier,... went
to her neighboring friend’s everyday. Hand in hand, got
dead-drunk, sang songs in turns, and slept together. ...
One day she walked out Jang-ui Gate with some village
women and hadfun drinking in the mountain. When the rain
started and they returned late, the Gate was already closed
and they slept out}9 5
Through the depiction we glimpse yangban women’s unbridled and self-indulgent lives
as seen in their gathering, drinking, and singing together. It also illustrates elite women’s
mobility: they freely visited neighbor’s houses, went on picnics in groups to the
mountains, and slept out. The record confirms that a Joseon woman’s radius of conduct
in her everyday life was much wider than generally assumed. Even though the intention
of this comment was to criticize yangban women’s dissipation, we can grasp a very
natural aspect of Joseon women’s life.
1 9 3 When they suffered serious natural disasters such as draught or deluge, the government prohibited
people from drinking and promoted temperance, in attempt to save grain for food and seeds.
1 9 4 a title given to a court lady who belonged to the Prince’s palace
1 9 5 Seongjong Sillok, 22/11/4 (1490)
121
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Below are more records which I have found showing Joseon women’s quite
lenient range of mobility and spontaneity:
* Gentlemen and ladies loiter in groups impudently. — Sejong Sillok, 18/6/18 (1435)
* Kim Ul-san’s mother went to neighbor’ s gathering and drank all day long with a merchant from
Seoul. — Seongjong Sillok, 6/4/24 (1474)
* “... many women ... dressed up in the street and carrying wine and dishes, busily went
sightseeing. ...” — MunjongSillok, 0/7/26 (1450)
* “Mme Yu, wife of Sin Yun-o, dallied and enjoyed the outdoors. She often hiked to Mt. Nam and
visited neighboring towns....” — Sejo Sillok, 7/11/6 (1461)
* Men and women have parties outside and get drunk. They go along and dally with each other in
the street. — Seongjong Sillok, 3/1/22 (1471)
*Women went out for seeing or sending off their family and they enjoyed picnics in the valleys
and creeks. — Yeonsan Sillok, 9/4/1 (1502)
J. Presenting and Receiving
We have seen that Joseon women held solid property rights and the size of their
property was often huge. These women who possessed their own valuables sometimes
tried to share some with the King or the royal family. The valuables women presented
were various in kind including lands, gold, silver, and horses. This practice of women’s
presentation of a special gift to the King (jinsang ( H i) not only confirms women’s solid
property rights and ownership but also is good evidence for women’ s autonomous
exercise of their rights.
On the other side of the coin, women were also bestowed a variety of rewards
by the King (hasa FIJI) according to their accomplishment or virtue. I will sort out the
relevant records together here in the belief that they also constitute one good indication of
Joseon women’s stable property rights accredited by the State.
122
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1. Presenting by Women
* Sin-nyeong gungju, Mme Sin, presented Buddhist Classics written in gold in the wish to invoke
a blessing upon Taejong. — Sejong Sillok, 5/9/21 (1422)
* As Yi Bin’ s wife presented green flower porcelain, the king bestowed thirty sacks of rice on her.
— Sejong Sillok, 11/7/15 (1428)
* Jeong Hui-gye’s wife Mme Sin presented thirty slaves to Princess Yeonchang-gun in rewarding
the benevolence she had received from the Princess while she was living in her neighborhood. —
Sejong Sillok, 15/6/8(1432)
* Im Seo-gyun’s wife Mme Bae presented six slaves to the king. — Sejong Sillok, 17/2/28 (1434)
* Dong Cheong-ju’s mother presented one nyang of gold and pearls, and king ordered to pay for
them. — Sejo Sillok, 11/3/7 (1465)
* Mme Park presented pearls. — Seongjong Sillok, 23/7/23 (1491)
* Mme Song presented a farm. — Seongjong Sillok, 24/9/14 (1492)
* Mme Kim presented fifty lots of lands and twenty-five arable plots. — Myeongjong Sillok,
11/12/1 (1555)
* The Queen dowager bestowed three thousand seven hundred nyang of silver for government
use. — Gyeongjong Sillok (amd.), 0/6/15 (1720)
* The Queen dowager bestowed one thousand pieces of silver for government expenses. —
Jeongjo Sillok, 0/3/12 (1776)
* Mme Kim, wife of Park Seon-yeop, donated one thousand five hundred coins and was
bestowed the title of “lady in virtue” — Jeongjo Sillok, 6/5/10 (1781)
2. Bestowal by the King
Numerous records from the Joseon Wangjo Sillok contain the king’s bestowals
on royal or elite ladies as in the following:
* Queen Hyeon-in granted one hundred pieces of white silver to Princess Jeong-ui. — Taejong
Sillok, 9/10/21 (1408)
* Mme Gwon was granted with three slaves [by the king]. — Taejong Sillok, 14/6/1 (1413)
* Yi Bang-gan’ s unmarried daughters and concubine’ s children, and Maeng-jong’s wife were
given land they could live on [by the king], — Sejong Sillok, 5/7/25 (1422)
* The King bestowed Park Bo’ s house on Princess Ui-hwa. — Sejong Sillok, 10/1/23 (1427)
* The King bestowed six slaves on Hong In-bu’ s wife Yu O. — Sejong Sillok, 16/2/26 (1433)
* The State Council suggested to buy a house with six hundred rolls of cotton cloth for Princess
Jeong-an who was going to marry. — Danjong Sillok, 0/12/4 (1452)
* The King presented Yi Yong’ s house to Mme Choe, wife of Gwon Jeon. — Danjong Sillok,
1/12/10(1453)
* The King presented several houses to women in the palace. —Danjong Sillok, 1/12/14 (1453)
* The King presented Yi Yong’s lands and ship to the wife of Geumreung-gun. — Danjong Sillok,
2/2/12(1454)
123
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
* The King presented six slaves to Mme Yi. — Danjong Sillok, 2/4/17 (1455)
* The King presented one hundred slaves to Hye-bin, twenty slaves separately to Sin-bin, Suk-bin
and Princess Suk-ui and Jeong-ui, five slaves to Princess Gyeonghye, thirty slaves to Princess
Gyeongsuk. —Danjong Sillok, 3/1/24 (1456)
* The King bought Choe Jeong’s house and gave it to Princess Gyeonghye. — Danjong Sillok,
3/4/8(1456)
* The King presented Kim Jong-seo’ s house to Nae-euni, who was a lady-in-waiting. — Danjong
Sillok 3/4/27 (1456)
* The King ordered to give curing houses in a Jasu-gung [palace for royal concubines] to Yi Sa-
cheoPs wife. — Sejo Sillok, 3/2/8 (1457)
* Princess Jeong-ui received one hundred sacks of rice from the king. — Sejo Sillok, 6/9/29
(1460)
* The King ordered to present fifty slaves to Princess Gyeong-hye. — Sejo Sillok 8/5/4 (1462)
* The King ordered to give a house to Princess Gyeong-hye. — Sejo Sillok, 9/3/25 (1463)
* The King allotted six thousand nyang of gold to buy lands and a house for a new royal
concubine, Mme Yu. — Sukjong Sillok, 24/8/2 (1697)
As seen from above records, women were bestowed with various kinds of
reward such as house, land, slave, grains, and jewelery. Below, I categorize them by the
conferred items.
1) House
Sejo Sillok, 11/7/2(1465)
Seongjong Sillok, 1/1/30 (1469)
Seongjong Sillok, 1 11126 (1469)
Seongjong Sillok, 2/7724 (1470)
Yeonsan Sillok, 4/8/3 (1497) to Yun Gu’s mother
Yeonsan Sillok, 10/7/23 (1503) to Mme Sin
Jungjong Sillok, 3/10/15 (1508) to Gu Mun-gyeong’ s wife
Jungjong Sillok 16/11/15 (1521) to Mme Sin
Seonjo Sillok, 13/8/2 (1579) The King built a new house for Princess Jeong-sun, whose house had
burned down.
Injo Sillok 2/6/1 (1624) Princess Jeongsin received two houses.
2) Land
Yejong Sillok, 1/1/26 (1468) The rebel Nam Ps land was given to Mme Kim.
YejongSillok, 1/3/14 (1468) Land was given to Mme Kim and wife of Pyeongwon daegun (7v?4).
Seongjong Sillok, 1/1/9 (1469) Im-yeong Daegun’ s wife received land by the king’s order.
Seongjong Sillok, 12/5/2 (1480) King gave Mme Song land and meadows.
Yeonsan Sillok, 7/6/2 (1500) The King ordered to give Princess Hwj-sun the dam at Hap-deok
instead he received land from her.
124
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Yeonsan Sillok, 10/9/3 (1503) Mme Sin received twelve gyeol of land
Jungjong Sillok, 16/10/4 (1521) Princess Kong-Sin was bestowed with Sammok Island.
Jungjong Sillok, 17/2/30 (1522) Princess Ho-hye was bestowed with a farm.
Injo Sillok, 6/3/26 (1628) Princess Jeongsuk received one gyeol of land
Sukjong Sillok, 12/4/28 (1685) A royal harem managed a plantation at Mountain Jinha.
Yeongjo Sillok, 18/4/20 (1741) On the Princess two hundred gyeol of land was bestowed.
Sunjo Sillok, 3/11/30 (1802) On the Princess six hundred gyeol of land was bestowed.
3) Slaves
Seongjong Sillok, 7/11/2 (1475) The King ordered to give Mme Song three slaves.
Seongjong Sillok, 20/2/8 (1488) The King presented thirty-two slaves to So-ui Kim.
Yeonsan Sillok, 2/2/6 (1495) Mme Choe received seven slaves.
Yeonsan Sillok, 11/8/14 (1504) Princess Hye-Sin received fifteen slaves.
Yeonsan Sillok, 12/2/14 (1505) Grand Queen Ja-sun received one hundred slaves, the Queen
eighty slaves, and Mme Park fifty slaves.
Jungjong Sillok, 30/12/22 (1535) The Daughter of Yeon-seong-wi was bestowed ten slaves.
Hyojong Sillok, 1/6/16 (1649) The King ordered to give Princess Hyomyeong, Prince Sungseon,
and Prince Nakseon one hundred fifty slaves respectively.1 9 6
Sukjong Sillok, 12/3/28 (1685) Mme Kim was given one hundred fifty slaves.
Sukjong Sillok, 12/12/14 (1685) Aroyal harem was given one hundred slaves.
4) Grain
Yejong Sillok, 0/9/22 (1468) Sixty sacks of rice to Su-bin, fifty to So-hun, ten to Suk-ui, five to a
lady-in-waiting, were presented by the King.
Sukjong Sillok, 33/9/22 (1706) Princess Myeong-seon and Myeong-hye received twenty gok of
rice and one hundred pil of cotton.
Yeongjo Sillok, 10/8/20 (1733) Princess Hwa-sun was given cotton and one hundred twenty sok of
rice.
5) Complex: House, Land, and Slaves
Sejo Sillok 14/3/20 (1468) Su-bin received arable lands with two farming houses and one
thousand sacks of grain.
Seongjong Sillok, 21/8/6 (1489) Princess Hye-suk received seventy slaves and ten gyeol of land.
Jungjong Sillok, 13/1/17 (1518) Yeong-su and Ham-geum were given fifteen slaves, one house,
fifteen gyeol of land.
1 9 6 Notice that there is no discrimination in the amount to be given for Princess and Prince.
125
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Sukjong Sillok, 31/5/2 (1704) Suk-won, Mme Kim, was given four thousand pieces of silver and
one hundred sok of beans.
6) Other
a. Horses
Yejong Sillok, 1/3/26 (1468) A horse was presented to Mme Kim.
Injo Sillok, 25/4/24 (1647) Ahorse was presented to Princess Jeong-Sin
b. Jewels/ Metal
Yejong Sillok, 1/4/10 (1468) Princess Gyeonghye received two jeong1 9 1 of gold and six jeong of
white gold back, which had belonged to her before.
Seongjong Sillok, 20/8/4 (1488) The wife of Prince Wolsan was presented by the king two
thousand four hundred geun1 9 8 of copper iron and six hundred geun of lead iron.
c. Other
Seongjong Sillok, 3/12/21 (1471) Princess Gyeong-hye was given silk.
Sukjong Sillok, 8/5/22 (1681) Princess Myeongseon managed a dam at Chinju.
3. Presenting and Bestowal
Here I present some records which hold both presenting and receiving.
* Hong Yak’ s mother, over ninety, whose sons were placed at high offices, presented slaves to the
queen, and the king gave her garments and five bottles of wine. — Sejong Sillok, 24/3/4 (1441)
* Sim Jun’ s wife Mme Min presented tenth-grade gold, and the king bestowed live hundred and
fifty three sacks of rice in return. — Munjong Sillok, 1/4/3 (1450)
* Mme Park, wife of Prince Yi Jeong, presented a horse and the king paid her back with one
hundred and fifty rolls of cotton cloth. — Seongjong Sillok, 20/3/29 (1488)
* Mme Park presented three geun of gold, and the king paid her back with four thousand and
forty seven geun of copper iron. — Seongjong Sillok, 2111123 (1491)
* Mme Song presented ‘flower silver’ and received one thousand one hundred rolls of cotton
cloth, and Princess Hyeon-suk presented silver and received seven hundred and fifty rolls of
cotton cloth. — Yeonsan Sillok, HI HA (1500)
19' tablet unit for gold and silver
1 9 8 0.6 kilogram, a pound
126
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
* An old woman presented “true mushroom” to the king on the road, and received four rolls of
cloth. — Jungjong Sillok, 23/10/17 (1528)
* A woman presented western fruits to the king on the road, and received two rolls of cloths. —
Jungjong Sillok 23110111 (1528)
* Mme Yun presented a house and received cotton cloth in return. — Jungjong Sillok, 35/12/16
(1540)
* Mme Choe presented a thirty-nine-compartment tiled house with attached ground and received
ninety-five rolls of cloth in return. — Jungjong Sillok, 39/3/13 (1544)
4. Giving and Receiving
In the above, I have demonstrated the royal cases of presenting and bestowal.
Here in this last section I shall deal with some cases of ‘giving and receiving’ done by
women on an individual level.
In 1424 during Sejong’s reign (r. 1418-1450), Yun Bong gave five sacks of rice
and a feast table to Yi Bin’s wife, and Bin’s wife presented ramie fabrics in return.1 9 9 In
1426 of the same king’s reign, Miss Han, who was picked to be sent to the Chinese
palace, distributed all her property she had amassed to the relatives in her sadness.20 0 An
article from the Yejong Sillok tells a story in which widowed Mme Jeong, who was the
wife ofYi Ji, loved a monk named Seol-jun and gave him thirty slaves.2 0 1
During Seongjong’s reign (r. 1469-1494) in 1470, a big-scale donation made by
an elite woman caused a controversy in the Court. Mme Sin, wife of Gwang-pyeong
Daegun, donated seven hundred and thirty slaves and seventy gyeol of land to a Buddhist
temple. This act was denounced by the Inspector-General for the reason that she had
1 9 9 Sejong Sillok, 7/3/5 (1424)
200 Sejong Sillok, 9/5/1 (1426)
2 0 1 Yejong Sillok, 1/5/18 (1468)
127
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
made too large a donation while she had her own children to bequeath her land and
slaves.202
It should be pointed out that the reason that the case was discussed was because
of the State policy of anti-Buddhism, not because of the State’s objection to a woman’s
exercise o f her property rights. The case was repeatedly criticized in the Court because of
the mammoth scale of donation. The investigation board revealed that the number of
slaves donated to the temple was over one thousand.2 0 3 However, the King’s last
resolution declares: “This is a family matter, so the government should not necessarily
prohibit it.”2 0 4
This case further demonstrates: 1) hugeness of a woman’s property; 2) a
woman’s independence in disposing of her property on her own; and 3) the governmental
sanction in the Joseon dynasty concerning the autonomous management of personal
property.
The account of the gisaeng2 0 5 Man-deok from the Jeongjo Sillok is also telling:
A gisaeng named Man-deok at Jeju Island distributed her possessions and saved many
people who were suffering from hunger. She refused to be rewarded by the government
and instead requested to travel to the mountain Geum-gang.2 0 6
202 Seongjong Sillok. 2/8/14 (1470)
2 0 3 Seongjong Sillok, 2/8/16, 2/9/14 (1470)
204 Seongjong Sillok, 2/8/17 (1470)
2 < b Gisaeng is Korean woman entertainer whose status was very low.
206 Jeongjo Sillok, 20/11/25 (1795)
128
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In this story, though she was a low-class woman, Man-deok had deep concerns
about social problems like public poverty, and tried to address them. The story shows that
even a gisaeng could amass her private property and dedicate it to the cause of public
relief. Furthermore, this record proves that even in the late Joseon dynasty [in 1795],
women were still holding and accumulating their personal property and disposing of it on
their own.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter III: Litigation over Women’s Property
The Joseon Wangjo Sillok holds many records relevant to property disputes.
Some records describe the cases in detail, which sometimes took a long time to be solved
through several kings’ reigns; and others are talking about social problems which those
property dispute litigations brought about. This chapter will provide a variety of lawsuit
cases in which women played a major role or which involved in women’s property
holding.
Many Sillok articles report that too many property litigations were ongoing and
caused a serious social problem. This was a significant challenge which each Joseon king
confronted. From the very beginning of the dynasty in Taejo’s reign (r. 1392-1398) the
numerous property (slaves) litigations handed over from the previous dynasty were a task
the king had to resolve.1 To carry out this task the first King Taejo established an “Office
for Settlement of Slaves (nobi-byeon-jeong dogam, and ordered that all
the old slave documents were to be burned and replaced with new ones.
The problem was not rectified, however, and the third king, King Taejong
(r. 1400-1418), took more radical action. In the thirteenth year (1412) of Taejong’s reign,
the King promulgated a new law named the “Law of Equal Division of Slaves (nobi-
1 Taejo Sillok, 1/12/17(1392)
2 Taejo Sillok, 4/11/28 (1395)
130
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
jungbun beop ^ M + lz H i) .”3 According to this new law, the slaves people fought over
would be divided equally among the contestants. The justification behind this seemingly-
unreasonable legislation was that, although the amount each contestant would ultimately
receive was not as much as expected, it was deemed better than one of the parties
receiving nothing at all. Put another way, “If two persons share one bowl of rice, they
might not be full, but it is still better than only one person feeling full.”4
Despite the governmental efforts at resolving the situation, little progress was
made, and in 1413 of Taejong’s reign (r.1400- 1418) the number of litigations involving
slave divisions that appealed to the Office was estimated at twelve thousand seven
hundred and ninety-seven.5 The problems that this phenomenon caused the government
is well explicated in the following memorial presented by the Inspector-General.
.. .Those who are involved in the litigation come and go
from the capital and countryside being blinded by avarice.
People who have their own grievance are incessantly on the
road with loaded ox and horse. Though this would not
necessarily make the reason for the drought, if this
accumulated and lasted long, it should damage the
“harmonious air (hwa-gi TP®,).” Now facing the time of
drought, I am truly apprehensive about doing nothing but
litigation. I humbly suggest that it should not be too late to
cease the litigation in and out of the capital during June and
July, and to resume it after August. ...6
3 Taejong Sillok, 13/9/1 (1412)
4 Taejong Sillok, 15/1/6 (1414)
5 Taejong Sillok, 14/6/16 (1413)
6 Taejong Sillok, 14/6/6(1413)
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Other similar memorials were repeatedly presented to the King because the
litigation process usually took time and people, who feared losing their rights because of
the expiration of the legal term, often failed to tend to their farming, thus impacting
national economy. Interestingly, another superstitious concern the premodern
government cared about was that people’s complaints could bring about natural disasters
such as droughts or floods.
The lengthy litigation procedures continued to slow farming efforts, and in 1474
King Seongjong (r. 1469-1494) decreed that proceedings could be temporarily postponed
to avoid summertime, the busiest season for farmers.7 Nonetheless, many lawsuits
involving slave division continued, and in 1480 Seongjong even launched a new institute
named “Office for Ceasing Litigation (dansong dogam SfrifiiHlE).”8 All this shows that
property litigations were nationwide practices among commoners and State decisions
were influenced by them.
Since private property was securely protected by the State law during the
Joseon dynasty, the records regarding property litigations are abundant in the Joseon
Wangjo Sillok. They include various cases of forgery, fraud, and bribery. The
fundamental principle for the judgement of each case was always to follow the
established constitution, i.e., the “principle of respect for the royal ancestors’ constitution
7 Seongjong Sillok, 6/4/29 (1474)
8 Seongjong Sillok, 12/1/4(1480)
132
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(ffi^ jS lllS S trE .(l),”9 particularly from the time of Seongjong’s reign (r. 1469-1494),
when the Gyeongguk Daejeon was published. From this time, they always
cite and refer to the regulations written in the ‘Great Code i.e., the Gyeongguk
Daejeon, as an essential and fundamental code to be observed concerning every case.
The later Sillok records continually show people’s active engagement in
litigation - visiting the pertinent offices and sometimes even neglecting farming. - 1 0
From these we notice the masses were never silent or indolent during the Joseon dynasty;
rather they were very eager to insist upon their rights to property and tried to take every
advantage they could. Exactly the same can be said for women’s involvement in property
litigations, as I will demonstrate in the following sections of this chapter.
About Slaves
Property dispute litigation mostly concerned the family division of slaves and
was very frequent during the first half o f the Joseon period. During the Joseon dynasty,
particularly in the early period, slaves constituted the majority of private property and the
number o f slaves an individual owned determined affluence. Unlike land, slaves were
movable and conveniently used as bribes and gifts, and also constituted the most valuable
part of the inheritance patrimony.
9 Refer to the discussion in Chapter 1 from pages 25 to 28.
1 0 Sejong Sillok, 6/1/11 (1423) 7/4/4 (1424)
133
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Slaves in the Joseon dynasty display contradictory nature; they were
subordinated to somebody as slaves, and they were often slave owners themselves.
Slaves’ holding property including slaves11 is further evidence for a strong system of
private property in the Joseon dynasty. The property that slaves maintained personally
was not always small, and as a result, there were cases of litigation in which masters or
members of the elite class coveted the property of slaves.
The master’s involvement in his slave’s property is often brought up when a
slave died without offspring. A report in the tenth year of Sejong’s reign (r. 1418-1450)
states that “private slaves who have no children of their own bequeathed their family
property to others; and their masters are fighting over the property the slaves left
behind.”1 2
A concrete case of this kind is shown in a record of the same year. Jeong Deuk-
hwon coveted the property of his female slave, Yeon-deok, who had died, and tried to
take it by falsely reporting that Yeon-deok had no children. Yeon-deok’s daughter, Mu-
hae, appealed to the queen, whom she was serving, and Deuk-hwon was investigated by
the Uigeumbu This case proves that: 1) female slaves were able to hold
property; 2) some slave owners committed fraud in an attempt to acquire the property of
a slave; 3) even a slave girl was capable of acting to protect her property rights.
1 1 In the previous chapter I have included some cases showing slaves’ property holding and their affluence.
1 2 Sejong Sillok, 10/11/14(1427)
1 3 Sejong Sillok, 10/5/25(1427)
1 3 4
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In 1436 of the same reign, Seo-gai, who was Mme Yi’s slave, became a
concubine of Mme Yi’s husband, Park Gu. Seo-gai bore three daughters to Park Gu, and
Park freed them all upon his death. After Park Gu died, Mme Yi and her three daughters
killed Seo-gai in the course o f recoverin g the slave document from her. Seo-gai’s mother,
Bu-gai, accused Mme Yi to the office.1 4
Seo-gai Case (1436)
(concubine) Seo-gai = Park Gu = Mme Yi (wife)
I I
three daughters three daughters
This case reveals that: 1) slaves could be freed by their owners; 2) a slave woman could
accuse a person of higher status person of a crime.
Other records delineate litigations occurring between a man of high position
and a slave. A record in 1438 of the Sejong Sillok deals with a case between Byeon Hyo-
mun and a private slave, Jang-su.1 5 A case filed in 1478, during Seongjong’s reign
(r. 1469-1494), shows that Prime Minister Yi Geuk-jung fought with private slave Jung-
geun over the ownership of the house.1 6
A more detailed case is from the Munjong Sillok. a woman of slave status
named Go-on manipulated her lord, Yi Seung-son, to file a lawsuit against Yi Eo, who
1 4 Sejong Sillok, 19/11/4(1436)
1 5 Sejong Sillok, 21/4/16 (1438)
1 5 Seongjong Sillok, 10/4/22 (1478)
135
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
was a member of the royal family. Go-on’s husband, Geon-jik, was a rich merchant in the
Gaeseong area and wanted to become an adoptee to Yi Eo while he was alive. When
1 7
Geon-jik died, Yi Eo forcibly took his property, and Go-on’s action was against this.
This case shows us that a low-status merchant had contact with a person of power most
probably using his economic ability, and that a woman of slave status took action in order
to protect her husband’s property.
Lawsuit Cases Involving Women and Women’s Property
Under the social and legal circumstances that securely supported the inheritance
and property rights for women, many lawsuits were litigated by women or involved
women’s property. The Joseon Wangjo Sillok contained numerous litigation cases filed
by women themselves. Women in both higher and lower classes were all active in filing
lawsuits or presenting petitions.
A debate in the Jungjong Sillok shows the State’s detailed and diverse
1 Q
prescriptions regarding women’s presence and substitute presence in the law court.
Because it was considered “inconvenient (^11?)” for an elite woman to proceed to the
court yard, elite women could send their slaves as substitutes, but a woman of concubine
status was expected to show up herself. The debate concerned permission for the
1 7 Munjong Sillok, 0/11/14 (1450)
1 8 Jungjong Sillok, 4/11/15 (1509)
136
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
concubine of a man of high position to send a slave on her behalf rather than attending
herself. But the final decision clung to the previous rule that all women except those of
the elite class should be present at the court when they brought a suit. This is further
evidence showing the range of Joseon women’s social mobility.
The litigation cases resulting from property disputes mostly occurred among
family members: between parents and children, brothers and sisters, husband and wife, or
uncle/aunt and nephew/niece. I have categorized them in the following pages.
A. Parent vs. Child
1. Legitimate Mother vs. Illegitimate Son, or Illegitimate Mother vs. Legitimate Son
($ 1 # vs. fftiS or i s # vs. $§-p)
The case below, which f call Heo Mojiri case, depicts a legitimate wife’s
struggle against her illegitimate son (seoja J s i 1) in her refusal to transmit family
property to him. For this purpose, she uses every possible means - bribery, forgery, and
fraud - to keep property under her control. And underscoring my argument, the
beneficiary of the property is a woman, the one whom she adopted. In other words, a
woman preferred her foster daughter to a secondary son as inheritor of the family
property.
In 1450 of Munjong’s reign (r. 1450-1452), a ten-year lawsuit was being tried
again in the court. The court investigation focused on clarifying the real father of Heo
Mojiri, who was a son of the female slave Jung-gae. Jung-gae was married to Kim
Seung-jae but had been favored by Heo An-seok, who was the husband o f Mme Yi,
137
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Jung-gae’s mistress. Heo Mojiri brought a lawsuit claiming rights to serve the sacrificial
rites for Heo An-seok. Heo An-seok’s wife, Mme Yi, claimed that Heo Mojiri had no
right over the property Heo An-seok had left because he was Kim Seung-jae’s son, not
Heo An-seok’s.
Heo Mojiri Case (1450)
(wife) Mme Yi = Heo An-seok — (slave concubine) Jung-gae = Kim Seung-jae
(adopted) | |
Mme Gwon Heo Mojiri
The investigation revealed that Mme Yi, who did not want to hand over property to her
slave’s son, had bribed a high official to forge pertinent documents and many others to
testify falsely, so that she could confer all the property to her foster daughter, Mme
Gwon.1 9
During the Joseon period, women of concubine status were often bequeathed
substantial property by their patron husbands. This was common because a man who
could maintain a concubine was usually a member of the upper class and had amassed
considerable wealth. Especially if she was in great favor, her share could become sizable.
In the cases where the patron husband died without any wife to survive him, and if a
concubine was the only person left in the position of parent, her situation in the family
seems to have been more complex. Usually, as in the case of a lower-status woman
holding substantial property, a concubine mother was vulnerable to being targeted by the
1 9 Munjong Sillok, 1/9/7,1/11/17, 1/11/19(1450)
138
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
children of the legitimate wife. Nonetheless, her position as a parent earned her some
security by a professed policy of the Joseon government, i.e., to be at the vanguard of
filial piety, which was the foremost ethic of the dynasty.
The Yejong Sillok contains a pertinent incident: Yun Yeon-nyeon’s sons, Yun
Wi and Yun Jip, were charged with their maltreatment of their father’s concubine. Not
long after their father Yun Yeon-nyeon died, the Yun brothers broke into the room of
Mme Hong, their father’s concubine, and took her property while preventing her from
leaving.20 This explicitly shows a conflict between an illegitimate mother and legitimate
children.
In 1478 during Seongjong’s reign (r. 1469-1494) a lawsuit between a concubine
mother and legitimate son occurred. Kim Gyeon-su’s concubine mother (seomo JS;#)
Guji gave five slaves to Kim Gyeon-su and later brought a litigation to take them back.
The court suspected that Kim Gyeon-su had snatched her slaves by threat and for this
2 1
reason filed a lawsuit to try to get them back.
A record of 1696 tells a similar story: Mme Yu, concubine of Jang Jun-il,
accused Jang-wi, who was a legitimate son of her husband, after fighting over property.2 2
20 Yejong Sillok, 1/9/15 (1468)
2 1 Seongjong Sillok, 10/12/12,10/12/15,10/12/18(1478)
22 Sukjong Sillok, 23/7/12 (1696)
139
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Mme Yu Case (1696)
wife = Jang Jun-il = Mme Yu (concubine)
Jang Wi
2. Stepmother vs. Stepchild ($ 8 # vs. ifriliYSx)
In the first year (1400) of Taejong’s reign (r. 1400-1418), a lawsuit was brought
between a stepmother and stepson. When Seol Jang-su died, Seol Nae, who was a son by
Jang-su’s former wife, tried to inherit Jang-su’s land by asserting that his mother was a
legitimate wife. Seol Jang-su’s present wife, Mme Choe, sued Seol Nae, claiming her
rights to the husband’s property.2 4
Mme Choe Case (1400)
former wife = Seol Jang-su = Mme Choe
Seol Nae
A similar lawsuit between a stepmother and a former wife’s son occurred in 1411,
between Mme Gwak and Park Jeo-saeng.2 4
In 1446 of Sejong’s reign (r.l 418-1450), An Suk was punished because he took
his stepmother Mme Mun’s belongings such as cows, horses, and grain, and even
schemed to accuse her with a falsified document.2 5 Earlier than that, in 1430, Jeong
2 3 Taejong Sillok, 1/9/26 (1401)
24 Taejong Sillok, 12/12/11 (1411)
25 Sejong Sillok, 29/4/4 (1446)
140
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Gyun brought a suit against his stepmother claiming the entire inheritance to his father’s
property. Jeong Gyun’s claim was backed by a document his father had left. The
document said that Jeong Gyun’s stepbrother was not his father’s son and was born of
the stepmother’s illicit intercourse with the father’s cousin, and that Jeong Gyun’s father
wanted to bequeath the whole property to Jeong Gyun without granting anything to
Gyun’s stepbrother.2 6 Jeong Gyun’s stepmother was not indolent in defending her rights
to the property, and thus the case was brought to the Court.
The third wife o f Gi Hong-gyeong, Mme Kim, was also active in preserving her
property right. She bore Gi Hong-gyeong three sons and inherited his lands and slaves
upon Gi Hong-gyeong’s death. Gi Sang-ryeom, son of the first wife of Gi Hong-gyeong,
coveted Mme Kim’s property and tried to take the inheritance document from her. Mme
Kim sued him.2 7
Mme Kim Case (1430)
1s t wife = Gi Hong-gyeong = Mme Kim (3r d wife)
(son) Gi Sang-ryeom three sons
During Jungjong’s reign (r. 1506-1544) in 1512, Ananbi petitioned after losing a
lawsuit against her stepson Ji Gwang-suk. Ananbi insisted that she lost the case because
Ji Gwang-suk bribed Yu Sun-jeong with a house and land. Yu Sun-jeong explained that
26 Sejong Sillok, 13/12/10(1430)
27 Sejong Sillok, 12/1/14(1430)
141
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
he did not receive the house and land for free and his concubine bought them.2 8 This
case is an example of a suit between stepmother/son, in which a woman actively petitions
even after losing a previous suit. It also hints at the fact that there was frequent bribery
involving property lawsuits.2 9
Ananbi Case (1512)
Ji Sun-won = Ananbi Yu Sun-jeong
| | (bribed)
Ji Gwang-suk (stepson) ----------
A 1541 case also reveals that the house Mme Yun presented to the King
belonged to the daughter of her husband’s ex-wife. Ignoring the document her husband
left, Mme Yun took the house from her stepdaughter after her husband died and donated
it to the State.3 0
3. Foster Mother vs. Foster Child (J&Hfrf vs. tBtSifr1 )
From the ninth (1427) to fourteenth (1431) year of Sejong’s reign (r.1418-1450)
a time-consuming lawsuit was repeatedly recorded in the Sillok?1 The dispute broke out
2 8 Jungjong Sillok, 7/3/27 (1512)
29 Added comment strongly suspects Yu Sun-jeong’s corruption and also implies that that kind o f bribery
was not rare.
3 0 Jungjong Sillok, 36/1/11 (1541)
3 1 Sejong Sillok, 9/11/11 (1426), 10/2/15 (1427), 10/2/30 (1427), 10/3/22 (1427), 14/2/7 (1431)
142
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
between Mme Heo and the Wang family. Mme Heo’s son, An Maeng-dam, was adopted
by Wang Geo’s family. The case describes that Mme Heo already received a lot from
Wang, including one thousand slaves, a house, belongings, land, and rice. But she filed a
lawsuit in order to obtain three sacks of rice which Wang Geo’s wife had left behind
before she died. Since the An family was in in-law relation with the King and the Wang
family also was a family of prestige, the officials who were in charge of the case delayed
the verdict to avoid becoming entangled in a feud between families of power.
Wang Family case (1427-1431)
Mme Wang = Park In Wang Hui = wife Wang Jin = wife Wang Geo= wife
(adopted) |
An Mang-ji = Mme Heo j
I I
An Maeng-dam-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is noteworthy that the main figures of the case are all female; both the
plaintiff who brought the suit and the defendants who petitioned were all women.
Though the case was a family matter, no man seems to have actively interfered; only
women’s names appear in the records -referred to as Wang Hui’s wife or Wang Jin’s
wife, etc. Men appear only as passive officials who finally were punished. Another
notable thing is the extensiveness of a woman’s property. The case reveals the huge
amount a woman held on her own and vigorous action taken by women to keep their
property.
In one case from the Seongjong Sillok, Mme Yi, Hyo-jeon’s wife, had received
slaves and land from her foster aunt Mme Yi, wife of Yi Won-hyo. Mme Hong was the
143
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
wife o f Yi Myeong-sung, who was an appointed heir of Yi Won-hyo. After Won-hyo’s
wife died, Mme Hong accused Mme Yi [Hyo-jeon’s wife], insisting that Mme Yi was
not an adopted niece of Won-hyo’s wife and the previous slave and land documents were
forged. Thus Mme Yi was deprived of her property and also petitioned against Mme
Hong.3 2 This case shows a fight over property between adoptee- status family members,
and the front-line warriors were all women.
4. Mother-in-law vs. Son-in-law vs. ± 1 1 )
A property dispute occasionally occurred between mother-in-law and son-in-
law, who were normally expected to be in good relations. When Mme Gwon, Yun Bang-
chang’s wife, was about to distribute property among her children, her son-in-law, Jo
Sang, who wanted to receive more, denounced her as the abandoned wife of his father-
in-law. In consequence they were in litigation, but Jo Sang finally abandoned his suit
because he lacked scheme.3J This case supports the mother’s authority as a property-
3 2 Seongjong Sillok, 20/9/13 (1488)
3 3 Sejong Sillok, 16/5/2(1433)
Mme Yi Case (1488)
Mme Yi = Yi Won-hyo
Hyo-jeon = Mme Y i------
(adopted niece)
— Yi Myeong-sung = Mme Hong
(arranged heir)
144
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
distributor in the division of family property and also implies that equal inheritance was
being practiced.
In 1487, Mme Jeong was a second wife of Yu Ja-Gwang’s father-in-law and
appealed to the King with the matter of a land document. According to her, Yu Ja-
Gwang made her marry his father-in-law and let her inherit his property. Three days after
his father-in-law died, Yu Ja-Gwang expelled Mme Jeong and forcibly took the land and
property that she had inherited, degrading her to concubine/4
In 1529 record from the Jungjong Sillok, Jun-i was Park Bong’s concubine, and
they had a daughter named Seong-geum. Jun-i had another daughter from her ex-
husband, and Yi Nam-son was a son-in-law. Yi Nam-son was hostile toward Park Bong,
because Park Bong had given Jun-i’s land to his daughter Seong-geum and nothing to
Nam-son’s wife. This case comprises concrete evidence of Joseon women’s inheritance
rights, in that a son-in-law expected to share the property of his mother-in-law.3 5
Yi Nam-son Case (1529)
Park Bong = Jun-i (concubine) = Jun-i’s ex-husband
I I
Seong-geum(daughter) daughter = Yi Nam-son
Another record from the same Sillok also tells of a conflict between mother-in-law and
son-in-law: Nam Gyeong-chun fought with his mother-in-law over property/6
34 Seongjong Sillok, 19/10/12(1487)
35 Jungjong Sillok, 24/8/13(1529)
36 Jungjong Sillok, 39/1/7 (1544)
145
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5. Mother-in-law vs. Daughter-in-law vs. W)
A case between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law is found in the Sejong
Sillok: Kim Ok-jin’s mother accused her daughter-in-law, Sa-jae, reporting that Sa-jae
had handed property, which she had inherited from her deceased husband Ok-jin, to a
monk named Ga-ro, her adulterer. The Court, however, judged that Ok-jin’s property
should go to the government because Ok-jin had illegally amassed it. The case shows not
only disharmony between mother- and daughter-in-law, but also that a woman had an
extramarital affair.
6. Mother vs. Son ( # vs. T1)
A lawsuit resulting from a feud over family property even arose between natal
mother and son. The Sejong Sillok presents an interesting incident: a mother accused her
own son of being unfilial to her and withdrew her accusation later when her son was
sentenced to death. The case description shows that the accusation originally stemmed
from a serious dispute over the mother’s property: Yang Maeng-gyu stole the documents
of his mother’s slaves and fields and manipulated them on his own. The furious mother,
Mme Jang, who failed to get the documents back, finally accused him of being unfilial/7
Though Mme Jang eventually withdrew her accusation facing her son’s death, here we
- ’7 Sejong Sillok, 24/12/22 (1441), 25/2/14 (1442)
146
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
see a woman’s active response in protecting her private property, even bringing a deadly
lawsuit against her own son.
Another case found in the Seongjong Sillok portrays a conflict between mother
and son. A son named Jang Sa-ja was dissatisfied with his mother’s division of slaves. In
order to take slaves from her, Jang falsely accused his own mother of losing chastity
through an anonymous letter.3 8 A 1484 case from the same Sillok also mentions a
litigation between Yi Gan and his own mother/9
7. M other vs. Daughter ( # vs. ~k)
There was a legal dispute even between mother and daughter during Sejo’s
reign (r. 1455-1468). Princess Suk-seon accused her daughter, Princess Gyeong-sin, of
being unfilial and bringing a lawsuit against her mother related to a division of property.
The case was closed with the imprisonment of Gyeong-sin’s sons for their connivance,
and all the lands and property inherited by Gyeong-sin were returned to her mother, Suk-
40
seon.
However, the inside story revealed by the commentary indicates that the
incident was instigated by Gyeong-sin’s older sister, Mme Park, who sought to intercept
Princess Gyeong-sin’s inheritance. Princess Gyeong-sin was in fact a filial daughter to
3 8 Seongjong Sillok, 15/4/25 (1483)
39 Seongjong SilloL 16/6/3(1484)
40 Sejo Sillok, 14/5/16. 14/6/14(1468)
147
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
her mother Suk-seon. While Gyeong-sin was briefly not in attendance because of an
illness, her sister Mme Park took charge of caring for their sick mother and manipulated
her, slandering Gyeong-sin. Thus the property originally inherited by Gyeong-sin was
returned and redistributed to Mme Park and grandsons Hwang Ho and Hwang Hwi 4 1
Princess Suk-seon Case (1468)
Princess Suk-seon
Princess Gyeong-sin Mme Park another daughter
Yi Sin-jung, Yi Ye-jung Hwang Ho, Hwang Hwi
The behind-the-scenes story was reported to the office later by Hwang Ho and Hwang
Hwi. This case stemmed from a sister’s conspiracy, and the innocent Princess Gyeong-
sin was granted her salary by the next king, King Yejong 4 2
A record from the Myeongjong Sillok illustrates a similar property dispute
between mother and daughter, this time of slave status: A private slave named Silbi
presented a petition to the Office of the Inspector-General (saheonbu s] HJH), accusing
her own daughter Geum-hwa of selling the house and valuables.4 3 This case shows that
slaves held sizeable property that even caused a dispute among family members, and also
proves a slave woman’s action to file a petition to the central office.
4 1 Sejo Sillok, 14/6/14(1468)
42 Yejong Sillok, 0/10/6 (1468)
4 3 Myeongjong Sillok, 1/11/18 (1545)
148
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8. Father vs. D aughter (3C vs.
During Seonjo’s reign (r. 1567-1608), a murder case involved a father and
daughter. Yun Baek-won’s wife was the daughter of a princess. After his wife died,
Baek-won took all his wife’s property and lived with a concubine. Mme Yun, Baek-
won’s daughter from a deceased wife, also wanted to have her mother’s property and
thus father and daughter were in bad relationship. The money matter even prompted
them to resort to legal means to address the dispute.
One day, when Yun Baek-won had a visitor at his house, his daughter sent soup
and his concubine sent meat. While eating these, Baek-won died from poison and the
visitor suffered severe vomiting. Baek-won’s stepbrother, Yun Jo-won, was on bad terms
with Mme Yun, and made Yun Deok-gyeong, Baek-won’s concubine’s son, accuse
Mme Yun of murdering her father. A big lawsuit arose between Yun Deok-gyeong and
Mme Yun; the former accused his stepsister, Mme Yun, and the latter charged Baek-
won’s concubine. In the end both Mme Yun and Baek-won’s concubine were beaten to
death during the investigation.4 4
Yun Baek-won Case (1601)
concubine = Yun Baek-won = wife Yun Jo-won (stepbrother)
I I
Yun Deok-gyeong Mme Yun
Yi Sun
44 Seonjo Sillok 35/11/13 (1601)
149
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ten years later, this case was raised again by Mme Yun’s son, Yi Sun, who wanted to
retrieve his mother’s honor, and it turned out that Yun Jo-won and Deok-gyeong had
schemed to harm Mme Yun.4 5
9. Father vs. Son [over women’s property] (3£ vs. -jp)
In 1488, during Seongjong’s reign (r. 1469-1494), a son sued his own father
over the property his father’s foster mother had left. Yi Ju’s father, Yi Jin, was earlier
adopted by Mme Kim. When Mme Kim bequeathed her land and house to her foster son,
Yi Jin, she also spelled out in the document that the property should go to Yi Ju upon Yi
Jin’s death.
The problem erupted when Yi Jin later distributed the property among his
children, not giving it solely to Yi Ju. The case was complex because it involved the
fundamental ethic for the parent/child relationship: Yi Jin violated the will of his
deceased foster mother and Yi Ju went against his own father’s arrangement and even
sued him.
The court discussion was diverse. One advocated Yi Ju’s rights, standing for
Mme Kim’s natural rights as a property owner. Some thought that since forty years had
passed, Yi Jin could dispose of the property as he saw fit. Others proposed confiscation
of the property by the government, or redistribution to the close relatives of Mme Kim.
45 Seonjo Sillok, 35/11/17, 35/11/18 (1601)
150
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In the end, Yi Jin was found in the right because the prescribed time period had already
lapsed, and Yi Ju was chastised for accusing his own father.4 6
Yi Ju Case (1488)
Mme Kim (Princess Sun-kyong)
| (adopted)
Yi Jin-------------
Yi Ju
10. Father-in-law vs. Son-in-law [over women’s property] 0 Z A vs. i§)
In a murder case in the Sukjong Sillok, Jeon Gye-sin was killed by his son-in-
law after fighting over property 4 7 The fact that a son-in-law fought with his father-in-
law over property implies that daughters in a family still held property rights even at the
end of the seventeenth century.
B. Between Siblings
1. Sister vs. Brother
While equal inheritance was universally practiced, property disputes among
sisters and brothers were very frequent, and relevant records are abundant in the Joseon
Wangjo Sillok. A record in 1404 of the Taejong Sillok mentions a multi-year lawsuit
among sisters and brothers in the Jeon family. In this case, Mme Jeon with her sister’s
46 Seongjong Sillok, 20/12/13 (1488)
47 Sukjong Sillok, 2177/22 (1694)
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
husband, Gwak Sik, together slandered her brother Jeon Ui-bo with a false charge in
order to acquire his slaves.4 8
Jeon family case (1404)
Jeon Ui-bo(bro.) Mme Jeon(sis.) Mme Jeon(sis.) = Gwak Sik
Jeon Sa-ri
In the first year of Sejong’s reign (r.1418-1450), Mme Yi and her husband
Jeong Tak accused Yi Jwa, Mme Yi’s younger brother, of impiety to their mother. The
court investigation, however, discovered that Mme Yi had slandered her brother after
fighting over property with him 4 9
Mme Yi case (1418)
Jeong Tak = Mme Yi(sister) Yi Jwa (brother)
In 1440, a violenct incident happened in the An family. After her older brother
An Gu-gyeong died, Mme An went to the house of Mme Hong [Gu-gyeong’s wife], and
tried to divide the father’s [An Su-san] property. At this time, however, Mme An was
beaten and laid down naked on the ground, and many people were drawn to the scene.
Mme An was also accused of beating An Ho-mun, who was Mme Hong’s son [her
48 Taejong Sillok, 5/11/21 (1404)
49 Sejong Sillok, 1/3/2(1418)
152
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
nephew].5 0 The case description implies that severe violence was done in a very close
family in the course of property division.
Mme An Case (1440)
An Su-san (father)
I I
Yi Hyo-keun = Mme An(sister) An Gu-gyeong (brother) = Mme Hong
An Ho-mun (nephew)
In 1456 during Sejo’s reign (r. 1455-1468), Jo Mu-yeong petitioned to the King
accusing his brother-in-law, Kim Jung-ryeom, of taking all the property and income from
the lands which had not yet been divided after his mother’s death. Since Kim Jung-
ryeom was his sister’s husband, this case also came from the conflict between brother
and sister and informs us that family property was supposed to be distributed to sons and
daughters evenly.
In 1462, a lawsuit filed by Yi Sa-won’s children provides another example.
Many sons-in-law and daughters-in-law of Yi Sa-won together accused Yi Gye-chang,
one of the sons of Yi Sa-won, of forging his father’s slave document, but the court found
out that they had charged him falsely.5 1 This case reveals disharmony among brothers
and sisters over property, and here women in daughter-in-law position were named in the
record as active agents.
5 0 Sejong Sillok 23/4/23 (1440)
5 1 Sejo Sillok, 8/2/30 (1462)
153
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A more noticeable case is from the same Sejo Sillok. Jo Gyeong-yeong, son of
Dae-rim’s concubine, was accused of ill-treating his own sister, Jo Su-myeong. After his
father Dae-rim died, Gyeng-yeong became a head of household and lived with Su-
myeong, who was his coparcenor. To put all the family property under his control,
Gyeong-yeong intentionally left Su-myeong celibate till she became forty years old.
Making a fake excuse that Su-myeong was ill, he even set up his own son as an adoptee
to her.5 2 This anecdote portrays how schemeful a man could be not to share property
with his sister, and simultaneously it shows by counterevidence that improper occupation
of property was not socially and legally acceptable.
In 1476, Jo Sik, with his brother-in-law [Song Ho], accused Kim Ju of raping
his widowed sister, Mme Jo. However, the court discovered that Jo Sik and Song Ho had
taken Mme Jo’s slaves while she lived alone as a widow and had falsely accused Kim Ju,
whom Mme Jo had remarried.5 J The incident fundamentally involved a property feud
among Jo siblings.
Jo Family Case (1476)
Mme Jo (widowed)<~Kim Ju Jo Sik Song Ho = Mme Jo
The dispute between brothers and sisters often relayed to their next generation.
Women’s strong rights of inheritance and property in a family naturally flowed to their
5 2 Sejo Sillok, 12/6/20(1466)
3 3 Seongjong Sillok, 8/7/8 (1476)
154
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
children. Parallel with the uxorilocal marriage custom, during the Joseon dynasty
‘grandson by one’s daughter (waeson at times played a major role in a family in
terms o f succession of the property and the line as well. Thus the ‘sacrificial rites
performed by a daughter’s son (waeson bongsa were not rare in Joseon
society.
A lawsuit filed by Kim Seung-seo in 1480 is a distinctive case for this. Kim So
had two daughters and one son [Kim Seung-seo]. While he was alive, Kim So left a
testament saying that, in case Kim Seung-seo had no legitimate son, his [Kim So’s]
concubine’s son should not possess the property and instead the sons of the two
daughters would have it. Reluctant to see his property handed over to somebody who had
weak or impure blood relation to him, Kim So preferred his daughters’ sons.
After his father died, Kim Seung-seo claimed the inheritance right of his foster
son, Yi Yeong-beon, who had been adopted before he was three years old. The King’s
decision, however, finalized the case by distributing Kim So’s property to his grandsons
by the two daughters as he originally wished.5 4
Kim Seung-seo Case (1480)
Kim So
I I
Kim Seung-seo two daughters
(adopted) | |
Yi Yeong-beon ------ grandsons
54 Seongjong Sillok, 12/2/20(1480)
155
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This case reveals that 1) the father’s will had primary authority as an owner of the
property; 2) in choosing an inheritor to his/her property, a property holder preferred a
direct blood relative rather than a distant relative or adoptee. It is needless to emphasize
that the inheritanceship daughters’ children succeeded comprises another convincing
evidence for women’s secure inheritance and property rights.
In 1484 during the Seongjong’s reign (r. 1469-1494), a severe dispute was raised
by Yi Ho against his two sisters. First, Yi Ho accused his sister’s husband Sin Jong-ho of
stealing his mother’s belongings and not following his mother’s dying wish for a
Buddhist funeral. Sin Jong-ho’s defense was that his wife [Yi Ho’s sister] was a
posthumous daughter5 5 to his mother-in-law [Yi Ho’s mother] and was deeply loved by
her. Thus Yi Ho’s mother had lived with Sin Jong-ho and Mme Yi for a long period of
time,5 6 and upon her death, she gave them various valuables she possessed. At the end,
Yi Ho conceded that he would cease the dispute and divide the property evenly with his
sisters.5 7 Yet, still discontent, Yi Ho beat Sin Jong-ho, and Sin Jong-ho always avoided
him.5 8
5 5 a child who was bom after father died
56 Sin Jong-ho says that he had lived for fifteen years with his mother-in-law, confirming the practice o f
Seoryu-buga.
5 7 Seongjong Sillok, 16/10/3, 16/10/7, 16/10/20(1484)
58 Seongjong Sillok, 23/7/10(1491)
156
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Yi Ho Case (1484)
Yi Ho Mme Yi = Sin Jong-ho Mme Yi = Sin Wu-jeong
This is a case in which a mother’s slanted affection for her youngest daughter caused
dissonance between a son and a son-in-law. The story shows that 1) there could have
existed discrimination in division of family property according to a parent’s bias toward
of a certain child for any reason (in this case, being a posthumous child); 2) as a result of
1) a daughter could become a main beneficiary of most property; 3) the Buddhist funeral
was still practiced even after one hundred years of effort to eliminate it by the Confiician
dynasty59; and 4) the equal division among siblings (both daughters and sons) was a
general rule for inheritance.
A 1489 record is also telling: Yi Se-jeong petitioned against his older brother Yi
Maeng-jeong. The case depicts that Yi Se-jeong had three brothers and two sisters, and
they all fell into a dispute over the property that their mother left behind. The story details
that they had a hard time living with the widowed mother. The problem originated from
the fact that the mother favored the second son, Yi Se-jeong, who had satisfied her with
being good at his studies. When she divided the property she bequeathed the house with
shrine to the oldest son Maeng-jeong, while the best one went to Se-jeong. Although the
other two brothers and two sisters also received one house respectively, they grumbled
and sued because Se-jeong had a better house than theirs.6 0
59 I do not deeply delve into the issue o f Buddhism and Confucianism, but many Sil lok records show that
the Buddhist ceremony was still preferred and observed as a favored form o f funeral and ancestral rite.
6 0 Seongjong Sillok, 21/4/21 (1489)
1 57
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This case provides concrete evidence of equal inheritance practices in the fact
that the siblings filed a lawsuit against one brother who they thought had more. Also the
fact that even a wretched widow’s property holding was still so huge that she gave one
house to each of six children provides a clue to the size of rich elite woman’s property.
Another property feud among siblings of the Jeong family was in 1489. Mme
Yun, wife of Jeong Jin, petitioned to the King that Jeong Su and Jeong Hoe [Jin’s
brothers], and Mme Jeong [Jin’s sister] had slandered Jeong Jin. However, the court
revealed the fact that Jeong Jin had counterfeited their deceased mother Mme Yi’s
document for the purpose of obtaining over one thousand rolls of cotton cloth and he had
brought a litigation when Jeong Su and Jeong Hoe demanded to share.6 1 As clearly seen
from the case, in division of family property everything was expected to be divided into
equal amounts, and if one would take more, he had to use illegal means such as forging a
document.
Jeong Family Case (1489)
Jeong Ja-je = Mme Yi
Mme Yun = Jeong Jin Jeong Su Jeong Hoe Mme Jeong = Yi Hyeon
6 1 Seongjong Sillok, 21/8/16 (1489), 21/11/13 (1489), 22/10/7 (1490) This case is containing another
interesting aspect. According to the detailed description, Jeong brothers’ sister Mme Jeong wrote an
accusation letter in Korean (eonmim ItSY) first and asked Jeong Ui-son, Jeong Hwae’s slave’s husband, to
translate it into Classical Chinese (jinseo M S ). This is an important indicator for literacy rate in this period.
The Joseon Wcmgjo Sillok proves that many women were using newly invented Korean letters, and this
record shows that even a slave status man was literate in Chinese letters.
158
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In the Jungjong Sillok is a murder case. In 1508, a slave murdered his own sister,
coveting her property.6 2 We see from the case that 1) the slave class also could maintain
their property in considerable amount; 2) the equal inheritance norm was working in a
slave status family also in that a brother killed his sister in order to take her property.
A 1509 record of the same Sillok tells of a brother and sister who were fighting
over eloped slaves.6 3 And in 1510 Yun Su-cheon filed a suit against Prince Wol-san, who
was an adopted son of Mme Yun. Mme Yun was Su-cheon’s sister and Su-cheon brought
a lawsuit fifteen years after Mme Yun died in order to take his sister’s slaves.6 4
Mme Yun Case (1510)
Mme Yun Yun Su-cheon (brother)
| (adopted)
--------------- Prince Wol-san
The Jungjong Sillok also contains a severe lawsuit of the Jeong family: two
brothers [Jeong On and Jeong Yang] and two sisters. All involved in the case and
mentioned in the record are female: Mme Yang [Jeong On’s wife] and Mme Yi [Jeong
Yang’s wife] fought over the property with their sisters-in-law, even beating each other.6 5
6 2 Jungjong Sillok, 3 /1/30(1508)
6 3 Jungjong Sillok, 4/2/24 (1509)
6 4 Jungjong Sillok, 5/6/19(1510)
6 5 Jungjong Sillok, 29/9/5 (1534)
159
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Similarly in 1524, Mme Choe [Yi Jang’s wife], Mme No [Yi Yeong’s wife],
and Mme Jeong [Yi Jang’s another wife] were in litigation over land and slaves.6 5 Here
all the agents are women in in-law relationship. In other words, the conflict was among
brothers, and the front-line fighters were women.
Property disputes among siblings did not cease in the later period of the dynasty.
In 1558 o f Myeongjong’s reign (r. 1545-1567), Jeong Se-ho gave his deceased sister’s
slave to his daughter who was wife of Prince Deok-heung. The sister’s stepson accused
Se-ho and Se-ho failed. Then Jeong Se-ho had his daughter present a petition and file a
suit. 6 7 This case resulted from a brother’s avarice and desire to own his sister’s property,
and provides evidence that a daughter was a regular recipient of property from her parent.
Jeong Se-ho Case (1558)
Jeong Se-ho Mme Jeong(sister)
I I
Prince Deok-heung = Mme Jeong(daughter) stepson
Much later in 1669 during the Hyeonjong’s reign (r. 1659-1674), Yi Sin-gu
accused his sister-in-law Yeong-seon [wife of his older brother Yi Yeong-gu], saying
that she had had illicit intercourse with Yu Hwi. But it turned out that Yeong-seon and
Yu Hwi had only exchanged letters each other and Sin-Gu with other sisters and slaves
conspired and slandered Yeong-seon for the purpose of seizing all the property.6 8
66 Jungjong Sillok, 19/8/23 (1524)
67 Myeongjong Sillok, 14/4/2 (1558)
68 Hyeonjong Sillok,! 1/31 \3, 11/4/4(1669)
160
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In the Yeongjo Sillok, a commoner case is found dated in 1732. While fighting
over property with his brother, a man killed his mother and sister.6 9 Another case in
1752 tells that Mme Yun suspected and accused her brother Yun Seong-dong of stealing
her property.7 0 These later records make explicit evidence for women’s property holding
and their active reaction which continued in the late eighteenth century.
2. Sister vs. Sister
Property litigation at times occurred among women themselves. Seong Bok,
without any son, had a daughter named Gwi-saeng from a commoner concubine and four
daughters from a slave concubine. When he died, leaving the property division unsettled,
daughters from the slave concubine sued Gwi-saeng, who had attempted to take all the
property. Gwi-saeng, who petitioned falsely stating that the four stepsisters were not her
father’s children, was punished.7 1 This anecdote portrays conflict between stepsisters of
different status and also is evidence of the fact that daughters overtly claimed and
defended their rights, regardless of the existence of a son.
Gwi-saeng Case (1430)
(commoner) concubine = Seong Bok = concubine (slave)
I I
(daughter) Gwi-saeng four daughters
69 Yeongjo Sillok, 9/7/12 (1732)
7 0 Yeongjo Sillok, 29/7/5 (1752)
7 1 Sejong Sillok, 12/12/25(1430)
161
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A case in Seongjong’s reign (r. 1469-1494) is another tragic story of sisters in
conflict. In 1476, a case was recorded in which an unmarried woman, Miss Gwon,
shaved her head to become a Buddhist nun. Miss Gwon first lived with her older sister,
Mme Gwon, wife of Yi U, after their mother died. Then Mme Gwon moved Miss Gwon
to their brother Gwon I’s house because she was going to have a son-in-law to live in her
house. Investigation exposed that Mme Gwon had taken the house and all the lands their
parents had left. The unmarried sister, Miss Gwon, was having a hard time and finally
became a nun.7 2
A 1509 record from the Jungjong Sillok states that Mme Yi [Yun Tang-ro’s wife]
fought over eloped slaves against the Queen, who was Tang-ro’s sister.7 3 This is a
lawsuit filed by the royal family as a result of confrontation of sister and sister-in-law.
3. Brother vs. Sister-in-law
I have found two later-period records depicting a property feud between brother
and sister-in-law. A 1667 record from the Hyeonjong Sillok reads: O Jeong-sang fought
over property with his younger brother Jeong-ju’s wife.7 4 In 1702 during the Sukjong’s
reign (r. 1674-1720), Mme Yi, wife of Park Dong-geon, presented a petition saying that
her husband’s younger brother, Park Dong-pil, died and his wife Mme Gang, who was
72 Seongjong Sillok, m /2 9 (1476)
7 3 Jungjong Sillok, 4/2/24 (1509)
74 Hyeonjong Sillok (rev,), 9/7/21 (1667)
162
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
young and childless, committed adultery. Mme Gang, however, defended herself,
insisting that Park Dong-geon schemed a scene to take her property.7 5 These late records
show that women in a family were still holding their property and involved in property
disputes at the end of the seventeenth and into the eighteenth century.
4. Brother vs. Brother [over women’s property]
During Seongjong’s reign (r. 1469-1494), a lawsuit between the Min brothers
was over their grandmother’s huge property. Min Ye-dal was envious about his older
brother Jung-dal’s monopolizing of lands and slaves that had belonged to Mme Choe
76
[their grandmother] and brought a lawsuit against his own brother by slandering him.
C. First Wife vs. Second Wife ( l u l l vs. tilil) / Wife vs. Concubine (US vs.
In 1438 of Sejong’s reign (r.1418-1450), an inheritance argument was provoked
between Gwon Dam’s first and second wife. Mme Park, Gwon Dam’s first wife, was
divorced because of her father’s crime against the government. Yet, violating State law,
Gwon Dam kept up their relation and had a daughter from her. Furthermore, before he
died, Gwon Dam left a will bequeathing his slaves to the daughter from Mme Park. The
furious father-in-law, Jeong Yeon, whose daughter was Gwon Dam’s second wife, filed
7 5 Sukjong Sillok, 29/7/26 (1702)
76 Seongjong Sillok, 5/12/3 (1473), 5/12/6 (1473)
163
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
a lawsuit against Gwon Chong and Gwon Je, who were brother and uncle of Gwon Dam
and were witnesses for Gwon Dam’s will.7 7
Gwon Dam Case (1438)
Jeong Yeon (father-in-law)
Gwon Dam = Mme Park (divorced wife) = Mme Jeong (second wife)
Gwon Yeong-geum (daughter)
The illustration informs us that, though a daughter of a state criminal, Mme Park still
possessed considerable property and exercised influence on male family members
[Gwon Je and Gwon Chong] to participate in signing the will as witnesses. This case
provides an example of confrontation of two wives over property and also shows a
father’s favor to a daughter from a divorced wife.
In 1446 Mme No, wife of Kim Jeon, accused Kim Jeon’s slave concubine of
beating and insulting her. A detailed description of the case reveals humanitarian features
of the government’s response to the incident. Not hastily standing for Mme No, who was
a woman of high class, the State Council carefully considered every possible situation.
And they did not inquire of the concubine’s slaves, although they were witnesses to the
scene. The reasoning is that if a concubine were punished because of their testimony,
they might feel guilty for their owner. The government suspected Mme No also, for she
78
accused the concubine after the property feud broke out, not earlier.
7 7 Sejong Sillok, 21/10/14, 21/10/20, 21/11/22 (1438)
7 8 Sejong Sillok, 29/6/12 (1446)
164
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This case shows that even a slave concubine could have considerable property
according to a master’s affection, and thus a slave status woman owned slaves for
herself; and that the Joseon government was quite humanitarian in their judgement trying
not to be biased by status.
D. Wife vs. Husband
The following account (1406) from the Taejong Sillok contains a wife’s
litigation against her husband.
...A man abandoned his wife after inheriting the fields from
his wife’s parents and the wife brought a lawsuit, saying that
‘it is unreasonable for my ex-husband who deserted me to live
on my parents’ field, so let me have i t ...’
.. .The government said; “It is truly awkward for a man,
who abandoned his wife, to live on the estate [of in-law] the
same as before, so [let her] collect it back.”7 9
Here we see an active woman, although abandoned by her husband, fight openly for her
rights and finally retrieve her parents’ property.
E. Between Relatives
Beginning at the end of Sejong’s reign (r. 1418-1450) and continuing until
Munjong’s (r. 1450-1452) first year, a serious dispute over a woman’s property was
7 9 Taejong Sillok, 7/12/12 (1406)
165
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
addressed at the Court. Yi Jin’s abandoned wife Mme Kim’s property was so enormous
that many men competitively claimed their inheritance rights to it. The problem was that
those who claimed rights were not qualified: Kim Sang-an and Hong Yang were Mme
Kim’s maternal and paternal relatives. They had never taken care of Mme Kim before,
but now tried to live with her for the purpose of inheriting her property. Mme Kim was
old, sick, and near death. Another candidate, Yi Bae-in, was Yi Jin’s concubine’s son,
and insisted that he was entitled to the inheritance as an adoptee to her, but Mme Kim
refused.8 0
The Court discussion varied: Some suggested that Mme Kim’s property should
be returned to her natal family. Others, following patrilineal thought, said that Mme Kim
should admit Yi Bae-in’s claim and subordinate herself to her husband’s family. The
King’s final decision coincides with my thesis: Acknowledging Mme Kim’s whole
subjectivity as a person, the King pronounced Mme Kim’s solid authority to dispose of
her property and also to place herself as she wished.8 1 Here I would remind that the
problem got complicated because Mme Kim was abandoned by her husband and thus
80 Sejong Sillok, 31/4/14 (1448), Munjong Sillok, m i l (1450)
s 1 Munjong Sillok, ibid.
Mme Kim Case (1448)
Mme Choe = Yi Jin = Mme Kim
(concubine) |
Yi Bae-in (concubine’s son)
Kim Sang-an Hong Yang
(uncle’s son) (cousin’s son)
166
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
had a weak tie to her in-law family. Therefore, the king’s conclusion is significant in that
he respected a woman’s personage before patriarchal logic.
During Seongjong’s reign (r. 1469-1494), a property dispute in Yi Yun’s family
provoked the Court’s discussion. Since Yi Yun died without offspring and relatives
participated in the division of property, Yun’s concubine, a gisaeng named Dong-jil-
geum accused Yi Jang-Sin of taking Yi Yun’s property. The incident began with a fight
between Dong-jil-geum [concubine] and Yi Jang-sin [male relative], and then many
others were involved: another concubine, a slave named Myeong-I, and her son,
Myeong-dong; another male relative, Kim Seung-kyeong, who sided with Dong-jil-geum,
and Mme Yi [Yi Jang-Sin’s mother-in-law]. The case drew more attention because Yi
Jang-Sin, Kim Seung-kyeong, and Mme Yi were all high-class figures, either of high
op
office or of the royal family.
Since Yi Jang-Sin had been a trustee of the King for a long time, the King
hastily closed the case by advocating Yi Jang-Sin’s appeal. However, the dissatisfied
Court complaint said further that if there was a concubine’s son, he would have priority
over relatives. According to one opinion, “If it is not righteous, one cannot take even one
bit of straw from other. ... Moreover, because Yi Yun has a few sons from his
concubines, it cannot be said that there is no one to whom to transmit Yi Yun’s property.
How about giving property to those sons?” The King did not answer.8 3
8 2 Seongjong Sillok, 20/2/11,20/2/14, 20/2/15,20/2/25,20/2/29,20/2/30, 20/3/1,20/3/5 (1488)
8 3 Seongjong Sillok, 20/3/5 (1488)
167
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Yi Yun’s Property (1488)
Dong-jil-geutn =
(gisaeng concubine)
Yi Yun = Myeong-I Yi Jang-Sin Kim Seung-kyeong
| (slave concubine) (cousin’s husband) (relative)
Myeong-dong(concubine’s son)
The case shows that even though she was of concubine status, a woman as a
spouse o f the deceased could play an active role in division of property and claim her
rights against other relatives of the husband’s family.
The Yi Yun-han case from the Myeongjong Sillok is another instance: When Yi
Yun-han participated in the division of the property of his deceased uncle Yi Pil, he took
too much, despite the presence of Yi Pil’s second wife. The government confiscated Yi
Yun-han’s share.8 4 This case suggests the important fact that the government could
easily intervene in a relative’s share of inheritance and even confiscate it. This mirrors
the weak stance of a nephew or close relative in a property division of one family.
Two later-period records support this aspect as follows: In 1645, Mme An, wife
of Hwang Hyo-jeon, proceeded to the office and brought a litigation accusing her
nephew An Si-hyeon of not dividing the property equally.8 5 A 1680 record is more
telling: Song Eung-gyeong had no son and set up his nephew Song Seung-jo as a line
heir. Song Eung-gyeong’s wife loved her granddaughter, wife of So Ha-jin, and
bequeathed all the property she had inherited from the former generation to her. Then, So
8 4 Myeongjong Sillok, 1/1/8(1545)
8 5 Injo Sillok, 23/8/10 (1645)
168
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ha-jin’s wife, who had no child of her own, adopted her stepbrother’s son, Yi Gyeong-
yeong, as siyang. Meanwhile, Song Seung-jo’s descendents became poor and came to
abolish the sacrificial rites for ancestors (jesa), lacking financial capability. They brought
litigation to gain some property.8 6
Song Eung-gyeong Case (1680)
Song Eung-gyeong = wife Song Seung-jo (nephew - heir)
I
Mme Song = Yi Jeong-hyeong = second wife
I I
Mme Yi = So Ha-jin Yi ?
I
Yi Gyeong-yeong
In the description, regardless of the existence of a line heir, women have been
transmitting the property to a favorite successor for generations. All this indicates that
one’s property basically was very ‘private’ in nature, and it is also noteworthy that the
position of relatives was still secondary in the division of family property.
F. Woman vs. Other
Naturally, lawsuits occurred between women and others. Thus records show
women’s fights over property with others: Mme Yi, wife of Yang Kyeong, was engaged
87
in a multi-year dispute over a slave matter with her ex-slave, named Jang Myeong.
After failing twice in litigation against Jang Myeong, Mme Yi presented a petition to the
8 6 Sukjong Sillok, 7/8/10 (1680)
87 Sejong Sillok, 29/5/8 (1446)
169
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
King.8 8 It is interesting to see that Mme Yi, who was a very high class woman as mother
of Queen Hye-bin, fought over slaves for years with a man whose status was a slave.
Besides the Mme Yi case, in 1410, Mme An fought over slaves with Kim Nam-
jae.8 9 In 1457 of the Sejo’s reign (r. 1455-1468), Choe Im-son was in litigation over land
for three years with No Sik’s wife.9 0 In 1464, Mme Park, a concubine in Jasu Palace,
was involved a litigation with a person over slaves. By the King’s order slaves were
given to Mme Park.9 1 In 1515, Yi Mai brought litigation against a previous queen, Mme
Sin, regarding right to a house.9 2 And in 1669, Mme Sin had a lawsuit regarding her
ownership of a mountain.9 3
G. Woman vs. State
Women’s actions even brought lawsuits over governmental authority. When
Park Ji, as an official in charge, distributed land in Gangeum-hyeon, the land allotted to
Mme Yi was barren and that for Choe Son was fertile. Park Ji, bribed by Choe,
exchanged land vouchers to make this possible. The Ministry of Taxation followed Park
88 Danjong Sillok, 2/6/17 (1453), 3/6/6 (1454)
89 Taejong Sillok, 11/5/7 (1410)
90 Sejo Sillok, 3/8/8 (1457)
9 1 Sejo Sillok, 10/8/13(1464)
92 Jungjong Sillok, 10/6/5 (1515)
9 3 Hyeonjong Sillok (rev.), 11/6/17 (1669)
170
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ji’s arrangement, and Mme Yi filed a suit against the Ministry of Taxation. After her first
failure in the litigation, Mme Yi beat the ‘Drum for Inquiry (sinmungo ^ KIM)’9 4 to
appeal to the King, and the Office of the Inspector-General finally revealed the
previously hidden corruption. All the accomplices who were former or present officials
were under arrest, and Mme Yi received her land back in the end.9 5
In 1517 of Jungjong’s reign (r. 1506-1544), a lawsuit was filed by a woman
named Mme Heo against the government and the King. Mme Heo was a daughter of Heo
Ban, who had been an adoptee of Noble Gwon. After Noble Gwon died, Heo Ban
committed a crime. The government confiscated all their slaves and made them belong to
the Palace claiming that King Seongjong (r. 1469-1494) was another adoptee to Noble
Gwon and had the right over the property. Upon this, Mme Heo brought a lawsuit against
the naesusa (l^ lf s ] ) ,9 6 insisting on her ownership rights to the slaves that previously
possessed by her father.9 7
This case caused serious debates in the court because it involved the King’s
standing. The overall opinion sided with Mme Heo because it was thought that the
position of the King of a dynasty could not entail status as a person’s adoptee. On the
contrary, King Jungjong tried to keep the slaves at the governmental disposal, saying that
94 Refer to the pages from 204 to 208 in Chapter IV.
95 Taejong Sillok, 9/3/29 (1408)
96 Office responsible for the management o f private property belonging to the royal palace.
9 7 Jungjong Sillok, 12/6/5 (1517)
171
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Noble Gwon had served [nurtured] King Seongjong while he was young and it was
natural that he had ownership to her property.9 8
Mme Heo Case (1517)
Noble Gwon
(adopted) | (adopted)
Heo Ban-------------Seongjong
Mme Heo
The case was repeatedly raised at the Court9 9 and brought about a verbal battle
between officials and the King. It appeared as confrontation between a person and the
State, i.e., a woman and a king. As one official remarked, “At first the one who fought
with Mme Heo was naesusa (F9S!s3), and that means, in other words, Your Majesty
fought with her.”1 0 0 Until the end, the King never changed his mind, and this case is
interesting not only in that a woman stood against the State but also in that even a king
displayed tenacity in keeping the property.
In 1522 of Jungjong’s (r. 1506-1544) reign again, a commoner woman named
Han-bi was in litigation with the Office of the Censor-General (saganwon WIMK)
concerning a slave matter. This case caused controversy in the Court because of the
disparity of status, i.e., a commoner vs. a governmental office.1 0 1 This constitutes
9 8 Jungjong Sillok, 12/6/8(1517)
99 Jungjong Sillok, 12/6/5,12/6/8, 12/6/13,12/6/14,12/6/17,12/6/18, 12/6/21 (1517)
1 0 0 Jungjong Sillok, 12/6/21 (1517)
1 0 1 Jungjong Sillok, 17/7/27 (1522)
172
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
remarkable evidence of both a woman’s property rights and her eagerness in preserving
them.
In 1530, Mme Yun filed a lawsuit insisting that her slave named Bok-un had
betrayed her and identified him as belonging to the naesusa. Originally Bok-un was a
slave of Mme Yun’s mother-in-law, Mme Choe, and he was one of the slaves Mme Choe
presented to the Queen earlier. According to Mme Yun, Bok-un’s wife and children were
given to Mme Yun’s huband.
The court investigation found that Mme Choe’s document with her own seal
confirmed that Bok-un had been presented to the Queen and belonged to the naesusa,m
Although Mme Yun did not win the suit, we see here another example of a woman’s
litigation confronting the State and her active claim of rights over the property.
H. Princess vs. People
During the latter half of the Joseon period, numerous Sillok records report the
royal family’s pillage of commoners’ lands or houses, and many of them involved
princess’ family. This phenomenon reflects the deteriorating finances of the government
and also shows that women’s property rights or activities continued untill the late Joseon.
Most of the incidents happened during the Hyeonjong’s reign (r. 1659-1674). In
1659, commoners living in Chungju filed a petition against a princess’ pillage of their
lands. The princess had founded her plantation by plundering commoners’ lands and
1 0 2 Jungjong Sillok, 25/9/20 (1530)
173
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
forcibly collected tax from them.1 (b In 1660, people filed a lawsuit against Princess
family who had founded a plantation at Yong-in for a new baby princess.1 0 4 In 1661,
Princess Suk-jeong and Princess Suk-an illegally possessed commoners’ land in Sin-
cheon, Jae-ryeong, and Pyeong-san.1 0 5 In 1663 Princess Suk-myeong’s land in Keum-
san1 0 6 caused a conflict.
During Sukjong’s reign (r. 1674-1720), the land belonging to Princess Myeong-
seon and Myeong-hye became a problem.1 0 7 The previous king, Hyeonjong, had given a
lot of slaves and land to those two princesses, who died early after being married. The
land was extensive, and people brought suits.
Since most conflicts between princesses and people are found in the Hyeonjong
Sillok, it may indicate King Hyeonjong’s distinctive affection toward daughters.
Simultaneously, this informs us that daughters still enjoyed vast property holdings and
exercised their rights in the late seventeenth century.
1 0 3 Hyeonjong Sillok, 1/10/7(1659)
1 0 4 Hyeonjong Sillok, 2/10/25 (1660)
1 0 5 Hyeonjong Sillok, 3/7/13 (1661)
1 0 6 Hyeonjong Sillok, 5/2/26(1663)
107
Sukjong Sillok, 7/1/12,7/12/13 (1680), 8/5/15, 8/5/22 (1681)
174
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter IV: Women’s Voices
I have shown how the legal code of the Joseon dynasty ensured daughters’
inheritance and how Joseon women enjoyed their property rights in various aspects. Then
in the previous chapter, through an examination of property right litigation practices, I
have demonstrated that the women of Joseon times were surprisingly active and
aggressive in the defense of their legal rights to property. With regard to Joseon women’s
property rights, one more fact I would include in this study is that women were quite
vocal against the mistreatment they experienced.
In contrast to the bias toward a traditional society, the Joseon dynasty was quite
open to people’s voices. The primary way in which Joseon people communicated their
desires to the King was by way of petitions, which were called 'sang-so ( _ titi) ’ or 'sang-
eon ( ± '),’ The beating of the so-called “Inquiry Drum (sinmungo was also
practiced. The pertinent institutions run by the government were not merely symbolic but
were relied upon by the people of the dynasty in a practical way.
Women’s voices are commonplace throughout the Joseon Wangjo Sillok, and
equally important is the fact that their social status does not seem to have been a
determining factor. Women’s voices took various forms during this time, including 1)
“written testimonials or petitions {sangso)”, 2) the beating of the “Inquiry Drum
{sinmungo),” 3) prostration in front of the King’s palanquin on the road, and 4) “striking
a gong” or “wailing” around the palace.
175
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A. Presenting Petitions
As a means to reach the King, people often chose to write a petition regardless
of social status. An account from the Seongjong Sillok reads:
... from the court officials above to the petty officials
and the low-born at the bottom, they do not differentiate the
significance of the matter and commonly present petitions
to the King regarding the litigation on slaves and land. ...1
Women also made frequent appeals or petitions to the King. During the Joseon
dynasty the petitions submitted by women were numerous and various in their contents.
More intriguingly, women’s petitions were more easily accepted and more often achieved
the intended results than men’s. Therefore, at times, a husband even made use of his wife
or mother to obtain his goal, as seen in the following records:
* Yi Won-san’s wife submitted a petition accusing her husband’ s superior, and Yi Won-san was
suspected of having incited her to do so. — Sejo Sillok, 3/4/4 (1457)
* Yi Suk-gam had his wife Mme Kim make an appeal to the King on behalf of him. — Sejo Sillok,
6/11/19(1460)
* Jo Deuk-rim had his mother Mme Park write a memorial to the King to slander his wife Mme
Yun and to remarry. — Seongjong Sillok, 11/10/11 (1479)
* Bae Yong-gil presented a petition in the name ofhis mother. — Seonjo Sillok, 36/5/2 (1602)
A clue to the possible reason for greater generosity toward women is found in a
statement from the Sejong Sillok.
“This old lady believes she would not be implicated because
9
of her age..'~~
1 Seongjong Sillok, 19/1/25 (1487)
2 Sejong Sillok, 17/1/14(1434)
176
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
King Seongjong’s remark in 1488 is understood in the same vein:
The King said: the Censor-General criticized that
‘Women interfere in political affairs,’ but so-called
‘interfering in politics’ is different from that. How could
it be called “interference” that a mother presents a memorial
(sang-eon) in order for her son to attain an office? .. .”J
These accounts underscore an atmosphere of tolerance toward older women, and mothers
in particular. Various other cases, which I will introduce below, demonstrate that this
special treatment was not reserved purely for older women, but for women in general.
The voice of women in Joseon society seems to have been more tolerable than that of
men, and, most of all, it is significant to notice that Joseon women held rights in making
their voices heard without discrimination as to sex.
1. Women’s Petitions with Various Intentions
The Joseon Wangjo Sillok is full of women’s voices appealing to the State for a
variety of purposes. Though they are abundant in number, I will introduce them primarily
with the intention of presenting the lively nature and character of these women’s voices.
1) Woman as Mother
Many petitions were made by older ladies who wished to live with a son and
asked for special consideration to grant a pardon or a particular position:
* Mme Jeong pleaded for the release of her husband. — Taejong Sillok, 12/1/17 (1411)
* Mme Yi pleaded for her son to live with her. — Taejong Sillok, 12/4/3 (1411)
3 Seongjong Sillok, 20/4/12 (1488)
177
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
* Hyeon Sa-ui’s wife pleaded for her son to live with her. — Taejong Sillok, 12/11/28 (1411)
* Mme Kim, wife of Yi Gu-jik pleaded for her son to live with her. — Sejong Sillok, 7/1/9 (1424)
* Galju’s mother pleaded for the pardon of her son. — Sejong Sillok, 17/1/14 (1434)
* Kim Ji 1-dong’s mother pleaded for the pardon of her son. — Sejong Sillok, 18/7/28 (1435)
* Mme Seo pleaded for the pardon of her son. — Sejo Sillok, 2/4/24 (1456)
* Mme Yi, Yi Jo’s wife, pleaded for absolution from moving to the border area. — Sejo Sillok,
14/1/8(1468)
* Yi Yeong-son’s wife pleaded for the return of office and title for her deceased son-in-law, Seo
Gang. — Seongjong Sillok, 1/5/9 (1469)
* Yi Eo’s wife Mme Gwon petitioned for the release of her son Yi Jung-saeng. — Seongjong
Sillok, 13/7/28 (1481)
* Mme Sin, Sin Jeong’s mother-in-law, pleaded for an office for Jeong’s son. — Seongjong Sillok,
16/5/30 (1484)
* Mme Sin pleaded for her son-in-law Sin Jeong to get his title back. — Seongjong Sillok,
25/3/14(1493)
* Mme Seol, Hong Seong-gang’s wife, pleaded for his son’s promotion. — Yeoman Sillok,
3/1/17(1496)
* Mme Park, Yi Seok-hyeong’s wife, pleaded for the release of her son-in-law Song Yeo-hae. —
Yeonsan Sillok, 6/2/16 (1499)
* Mme Seo, Sim Eung’s wife, pleaded for the appointment of her son. — Yeoman Sillok, 9/4/5
(1502)
* Mme Gwon, Yi Eu-beon’s wife, pleaded for relocation of Yi Ham. — Jungjong Sillok, 4/1/14
(1509)
* Mme Guem, Yi Gong’s wife, pleaded for the release of her low-born stepson Yi Hyeong-su. —
Jungjong Sillok, 8/1/14 (1513)
* Mme Gwon, Yi Chik’s wife, appealed to see her son who was exiled. — Jungjong Sillok,
11/2/28(1516)
* Han Guep’s mother wrote a petition to appeal her son’s innocence. — Jungjong Sillok, 11/4/12
(1516)
* Yi Su-yeong’s mother petitioned for her son. — Jungjong Sillok, 15/2/11 (1520)
* Yi Jul’s mother pleaded for the release of her son. — Jungjong Sillok, 15/2/13 (1520)
* O Bo’s wife pleaded for the release of her son O Yun-pil. — Jungjong Sillok, 19/7/5 (1524)
* Mme Go, Yi Jong-gak’s mother, pleaded for the release of her son. — Jungjong Sillok, 20/1/26
(1525)
* Kim Heon-yun’s mother submitted a petition. — Jungjong Sillok, 33/3/11 (1538)
* Mme Yu, Park Yeo’s mother, submitted a petition — Jungjong Sillok, 391912 (1544)
* Mme Baek pleaded for her son-in-law. — Myeongjong Sillok, 1/1/16 (1545)
* Mme Yi pleaded for her son Song Maeng-kyeong’s reappointment. — Myeongjong Sillok,
2/8/21 (1546)
* Yun In-seo’s mother pleaded for the release of her son. — Myeongjong Sillok, 6/4/9 (1550)
* Mme Kang, Kim An-su’s wife, submitted a petition regarding her daughter’s death. —
Myeongjong Sillok, 12/9/8 (1556)
* Mme Kim, Yu Jeon’s wife, submitted an appeal for her son. — Seonjo Sillok, 37/1/23 (1603)
178
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
* Mme Kim, Yu Jeon’s wife, submitted a petition for her grandson. — Seonjo Sillok, 37/2/12
(1603)
* O Si-su’s mother submitted a petition for her son. — Sukjong Sillok, 6/9/6 (1679)
* Mme Kim, Yi Yi-myeong’s wife, submitted a memorial to express her gratefulness regarding
her son’s promotion. — Yeongjo Sillok, 1/5/9 (1724)
* Mme Kim, Jo Deuk-yeong’s mother, went to the office and submitted a petition. — Sunjo Sillok,
8/10/22 (1807)
2) Woman as Wife
As wives, these women submitted petitions out of distress or to ask for the
pardon o f a husband’s misdeed:
* Mme Gang submitted a petition for the release her husband. — Sejong Sillok, 11/5/28 (1428)
* Hwang Il-ryu’s wife pleaded for the pardon of her husband. — Sejong Sillok, 19/4/4 (1436)
* Sim Seon’s wife made a petition for her husband’s accusation. — Sejong Sillok, 25/8/18 (1442)
* Mme Hong, Kim Geuk’s wife, pleaded for the arrest of criminals who were enemies to her dead
husband and the return of her husband’s belongings. — Seongjong Sillok, 2/1/24 (1470)
* Mme Yi, Im Sa-hong’s wife, presented a long memorial to clear a false charge imposed upon
her husband. — Seongjong Sillok, 9/5/6 (1477)
* Mme Gang, Song Yun-jong’s wife, pleaded for generous handling of her husband’s case. —
Seongjong Sillok, 13/5/22 (1481)
* Yi Jang-gil’s wife appealed for her husband’s innocence. — JungjongSillok, 5/11/15 (1510)
* Mme Byeon pleaded for her husband’s promotion. — Jungjong Sillok, 29/2/9 (1534)
* Yi Hong-ro’s wife submitted a petition written in Hanguel to the office.4 — Gwanghae Sillok,
2/5/5 (1609)
* Mme Kim, Park Hyeon-gyu’s wife, presented a petition to the office for her dead husband’s
revenge. — Hyeonjong Sillok, 12/8/10 (1670)
* Sin Deuk-yeon’s wife pleaded for the return of Deuk-yeon’s title. — Sukjong Sillok, 1/9/25
(1674)
* A widow, Mme Baek, filed a petition to the headquarter regarding her husband’s death. —
Sukjong Sillok, 9/1/18 (1682)
* Wife of Yi Don presented a testimonial defending her husband. — Sukjong Sillok, 41/10/6
(1714)
* Yi sosa appealed for her husband’s innocence. — Sunjo Sillok, 9/9/21 (1808)
4 This is the first case o f petition written in Korean alphabet, hangeul. This signifies that previous petitions
were written in classical Chinese characters. Rather than considering a possibility o f ghost-writing, I assume
that an elite woman o f the time must have been literate enough to write a petition letter herself using
Chinese characters.
179
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
* Kim sosa, Park Jong-yun’s wife, submitted a petition to the office for her husband’s innocence.
— Heonjong Sillok, 13/9/24(1846)
3)Others
Women prepared petitions for various purposes and with diverse intentions. The
breadth of circumstances in which petitions were submitted reveals Joseon women’s
participation in the preservation of their rights as individuals.
* Mme Yu, Sin Yun-o’s wife, presented a petition to the office that her cousin Yu Ja-mi beat her.
— Sejo Sillok, 7/11/6 (1461)
* Mme Park, Song Ps wife, accused her son, Song In-rye, of impiety toward his mother. — Sejo
Sillok, 12/5/22 (1466)
* Mme Jang, Park Jong-u’s wife, pleaded for the acknowledgement of her status as a legitimate
wife so that her children could attain office posts.5 — Seongjong Sillok, 5/2/1 (1473)
* Suk-in Yi, Song Bok-san’s wife, petitioned regarding the marriage matter in her family. —
Seongjong Sillok, 9/7/19 (1477)
* Mme Yu, No Geo’s mother, submitted a petition to urge the investigation of the murder case
regarding her son’s death. — Seongjong Sillok, 16/9/20 (1484)
* Mme Han pleaded for her father, Han Myeong-hoe, to be presented with a reward. —
Seongjong Sillok, 23/4/3 (1491)
* Mme Choe appealed for her father Choe Myeong-ji. — Yeonsan Sillok, 5/2/18 (1498)
* Mme Song appealed for the reappointment of Yi Won. — Yeonsan Sillok, 9/2/11 (1502)
* Park Yeong-beon’s wife petitioned regarding her daughter’s marriage. — Jungjong Sillok, 7/3/5
(1512)
* Mme Sin requested to move Yeonsan-gun’s tomb to Hae-chon. — Jungjong Sillok, 7/12/12
(1512)
* Mme Yi, Seong Su-jae’s wife, petitioned regarding her husband’s funeral. — Jungjong Sillok,
10/4/23 (1515)
* Mme Yi, Yi Gwang-sik’s wife, pleaded for her father-in-law. — Jungjong Sillok, 25/3/13
(1530)
* Mme Park, Park Jong-jeong’s daughter, pleaded for her father. — Jungjong Sillok, 3913122
(1544)
* Mme Han, Yi Bok-nam’s wife, submitted an appeal asking for economic relief. — Seonjo Sillok,
30/11/28(1596)
* Mme Yi, An Yun-ji’s wife, filed a petition regarding the delay of her litigation. — Seonjo Sillok,
34/2/9 (1600)
3 This petition was accepted, and her status was elevated to that o f legitimacy.
180
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
* Choe Won-bok’s wife, Mme Bae, and his concubine Cheon-guem filed a suit regarding their
husband’s death. — Seonjo Sillok, 35/6/3 (1601)
* Mme Yun, Hong An-se’s wife, submitted a petition regarding a murder case. — Injo Sillok,
3/7/14(1625)
* Mme Yun, Jeong Nwae-gyeong’s wife, submitted a petition. — Injo Sillok, 17/2/7 (1639)
* Yi Su-cheol’s wife pleaded for a change of her social status, which was low. — Sukjong Sillok,
31/9/28(1704)
* A widow presented a petition. — Yeongjo Sillok, 16/12/29 (1739)
* A widow, Mme Kim, submitted a petition. — Jeongjo Sillok, 11/4/4 (1786)
Women who were desperate and had no means of livelihood petitioned for
governmental aid. A record from 1512 shows that a nun named Hye-myeong submitted a
petition to the King regarding the hardships she faced concerning her livelihood.6
Women with similar circumstances sometimes made group requests for actions on their
collective behalf. In 1415, six old women who were widowed and without children
pleaded for food and received rice.7
The collective action of women is also evidenced in the following citations:
* Low officials’ wives petitioned in a group with various concerns. — Danjong Sillok, 1/7/25
(1452)
* Thirteen widows came to Hanyang to appeal their husbands’ deaths. — Yeongjo Sillok, 4/6/16
(1727)
* About ten men and women presented a petition to the King. — Sejo Sillok, 10/8/20(1464)
2. Women’s Petitions over Property
Now I will deal with women’s petitions that concern property matters
specifically. In property-related petitions, class distinction does not appear to have been
6 Jungjong Sillok, 7/9/17 (1512)
7 Taejong Sillok, 16/7/11 (1415)
181
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
an obstacle. This indicates that women of all class held their own property and actively
voiced their rights.
1) Elite Women
As easily assumed, a literate woman of a high social status, and with vested
rights, was more apt to raise her voice in defiance when her rights were questioned.
During the reign of Sejong (r. 1418-1450), Princess Seong-hye and Sin-hye petitioned to
continue the salaries that had been earned until the time of their father’s death. Receiving
this request, Sejong ordered that the dispensation be resumed and allowed them to share
the remnant slaves of their deceased father.8 Mme Yi, wife of Jin Yi, made a request to
King Sejong for permission to bequeath the slaves that she herself received from the
government to her offspring, and her petition was approved.9 As seen in the following
records, many elite women submitted petitions for various reasons related to their own
economic benefits.
* Mme No submitted a petition and received her husband’s confiscated slaves back. — Taejong
Sillok, 16/7/11 (1415)
* Mme Jo petitioned to the King to get her deceased husband’s estate. — Sejong Sillok, 10/1/4
(1427)
* Mme Sin presented a petition regarding her loaned rice to be repaid. — Sejong Sillok, 12/11/22
(1429)
* Mme Choe, wife of Yi Jin, petitioned to get her title back. — Munjong Sillok, 1/5/6 (1450)
* Mme Gwon petitioned to the King to get her slaves back. — Yejong Sillok, 1/1/30 (1468)
8 Sejong Sillok, 3/6/17(1420) and 4/2/12 (1422)
9 Sejong Sillok, 0/9/2 (1418)
182
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
* Mme Yi, Yi Bo’s wife, petitioned regarding the matter of serving the jesa. — Seongjong Sillok,
6/1/17(1474)
* Yi Sosa and Mme Hong petitioned to the King to receive confiscated slaves, and the King
ordered to give twenty slaves to Yi Sosa and eighty to Mme Hong. — Seongjong Sillok, 16/8/4
(1484)
* Mme Yi petitioned that a house confiscated by the state did not belong to Yi Gwa and thus
wanted to get it back. — Jungjong Sillok, 7/7/22 (1512)
* Mme Yun and Mme Heo insisted on the ownership right over slaves. — Jungjong Sillok,
7/11/21 (1512)
* Mme Han. Heo Jong’s wife, petitioned regarding the tax on the land. — Jungjong Sillok,
11/2/12(1516)
* Park Won-jong’s wife, Mme Yun, petitioned in an effort to retain ownership of a fishery and
continue to fish.1 0 — Jungjong Sillok, 11/6/4 (1516)
* Mme Heo presented a memorial in order to acquire the newly cultivated land at Deoksan, and
the King granted the request. — Jungong Sillok, 24/5/12 (1529)
* Mme Jeong presented memorial regarding her litigation. — Myeongjong Sillok, 12/4/23 (1556)
* Mme Yi petitioned asking to be exempt from taxation. — Injo Sillok, 8/2/4 (1630)
* Mme Yi, Shim Jeong-bo’s wife, petitioned to appeal the matter of appointment of inheritor. —
Yeongjo Sillok, 3/11/24 (1726)
* Min Baek-sang’s wife petitioned to ask for reappointment of inheritor. — Jeongjo Sillok, 3/8/15
(1778)
* Mme Kim, Yi Jang-ok’s wife, petitioned regarding the cost of jesa. — Jeongjo Sillok, 16/9/25
(1791)
2) Concubines
From the Joseon Wangjo Sillok, it is not hard to hear concubines’ voices also.
Frequently as a mistress of a powerful man and probably backed by his prestige, they
were energetic in crying out.
During Sejong’s reign (r. 1418-1450), Mme Jeong, Yi Yang-sil’s concubine,
petitioned the King on behalf of her daughter, who tried to serve the rite (jesa) for her
deceased father Yang-sil and was driven out of the house by the legitimate wife and her
1 0 This is evidence o f the breadth o f women’s economic roles and capacities in that a fishery was possessed
by two women, M me Yun and Prince Wolsan’s wife, who managed it and earned profit from it.
183
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
sons.1 1 This episode is characteristic of the way in which even a concubine was able to
appeal to the King because of alleged mistreatment. Furthermore, the fact that a
concubine’s daughter was going to serve her father’s jesa indicates the practice of a
woman’s serving/era was never uncommon.
In the year 1432 of the same reign, a slave concubine (cheon-cheop U S ) of late
Han Dong petitioned to claim her rights to her deceased husband’s land. The land had
been provided to the husband by the government and subsequently returned to state
control upon his death. King Sejong inquired as to whether a slave concubine could
claim the inheritance right to the land, and An Sun, Minister of the Revenue Board,
answered that she could not. The King, however, ordered that the land be returned to the
concubine for two reasons, 1) the concubine who did not remarry following the death of
her master was also a wife, and 2) Han Dong was known to have treated the concubine as
though she was a primary wife.1 2
Here we see a slave-status concubine who petitioned and ultimately preserved
her property. This record also shows the flexibility with which the laws could be applied.
The law stipulated that a slave concubine had no right to the land, but the King approved
her petition, declaring that she was closer to a primary wife than a concubine in status.
In 1435 of the same reign, Yi Chon’s concubine presented a petition to the Office
of the Inspector-General, saying that Yi Chon’s son, Yi Ja-on, gave one of her slaves to
1 1 Sejong Sillok, 14/12/9 (1431)
1 2 Sejong Sillok, 14/10/29(1432)
184
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Jo Jong-saeng, who was the husband of Yi Chon’s niece.H ere again, we see a
concubine who was struggling not to lose any of her property, even if it was only one
slave o f hers.
A record from the Yejong Sillok includes the case of another concubine: Hwang
Su-sin’s concubine, Mme Yi, presented a petition to the King to validate her status as
second wife and also to claim her property rights.1 4 Concubine’s petitions continued in
later times. For example, a 1699 record from the Sukjong Sillok also mentions that the
concubine of Yu Gwi-ryeong filed a petition with the Office of the Inspector-General.1 5
3) Slave Women
A story from the Yejong Sillok narrates:
A public slave woman (gwanbi, named Daebi submitted
a petition to the Office of the Inspector-General. She came from
Pyeongyang and the King ordered to provide her with rice and
hemp cloth to compensate for her stay in Seoul.1 6
From the illustration, in order to address her victimization, a slave woman left her
hometown, and the King was generous enough to provide her with supplies for her
1 3 Sejong Sillok, 18/1/12(1435)
1 4 Yejong Sillok, 1/10/26 (1468)
1 5 Sukjong Sillok, 26/12/30 (1699)
1 6 Yejong Sillok, 1/7/17(1468)
185
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
sojourn. This explicitly shows that the Joseon dynasty was capable of operating a
humanitarian system and was open to public opinion.
Petitions submitted by slave-status women are often found in the Sillok. During
Seongjong’s reign (r. 1469-1494), public slave Kim Cheo-ji’s wife, Sosa petitioned
regarding the matter of her social status.1 7 In 1480 during the same regime, Junggeum, a
slave woman, accused Sin Jeong of battering her due to the dispute over family property.
Although Sin Jeong was of elite class (sadaebu) status and implored that he was innocent,
the commentary on the case in the Sillok is not slanted toward him and represents an
impartial attitude. The commentary remarks: “Sin Jeong’s personality is originally
greedy. He has been sued many times before because he has attained a lot of property,
including slaves, and he has taken possession of other people’s property while serving as
1 8
an official.” From the description, we get a glimpse of a social atmosphere in which a
slave girl has the opportunity to appeal to the government when mistreated.
In the year 1511 of Jungjong’s reign (r. 1506-1544), Ju-geo-i was a slave of
naesusa (l^3fl§ Al),1 9 and his mother petitioned for him to be released to serve her.2 0 In
1522 of the same reign, a slave woman presented a petition regarding her husband
Cheol-dong’s death. It said that An Ham and An Jun, who were in litigation against Mme
1 7 Seongjong Sillok, 7/1/24(1475)
1 8 Seongjong Sillok, 12/1/5 (1480)
1 9 Office responsible for the management o f the royal court’s private property
20 Jungjong Sillok, 6/10/1 (1511)
186
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
An, kidnapped and killed her husband Cheol-dong because Cheol-dong had assisted his
mistress, Mme An, in the course of the litigation.2 1 This case involved a lawsuit between
the An brothers and their sister, and shows a slave woman’s ability and willingness to
appeal to the court for her husband’s victimized death. In the end, the murderers, all of
high social status, were punished for their crimes.
The Joseon Wangjo Sillok reflects that petitions continued to be made by
members of low status through the seventeenth and into the eighteenth century. A record
in 1659 mentions that a female slave from a temple, who later became a nun, submitted a
petition to the King asking that she be exempt from labor 2 2 In 1709, a private slave
woman (sabi %LW) named Saeng-chun traveled to Hanyang and appealed regarding her
son’s death.2 3
B. Beating the Drum
The “Inquiry Drum (sinmungo ^ Wh£)” was introduced by King Taejong, the
third Joseon king, in the year 1400, the first year of his reign (r. 1400-1418). The relevant
record reads:
It is ordered that people who have no place to appeal their bitter
and victimized feelings advance and beat the “Inquiry Drum
ideungmungo The State Council presented:
2 1 Jungjong Sillok, 17/3/10(1522)
2 2 Hyeonjong Sillok, 1/12/19 (1659)
2 3 Sukjong Sillok, 36/5/25 (1709)
187
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
“People living in the capital and country who reported to the
office at their location about their grievances but were
mistreated by the local office and still feel victimized are allowed
to beat the “Inquiry Drum.” The Office of Inspector-General should
investigate and bring to light the query so that the bitter feelings
be rectified. ...”
[The King] concurred and renamed it from “deungmungo
(II MM)” to “sinmungo ( ^ MM).”2 4
Another Sillok record in the same year states that the institution of the “Inquiry
Drum” was originally from the Sung dynasty (960-1279) in China2 5 and that the Joseon
adopted the system. The name of the drum underwent a change from “deungmungo” to
“sinmungo” as the above record indicates. It was suggested in the sixteenth year (1433)
of King Sejong’s reign (r. 1418-1450) that the name be changed again, this time from
“sinmungo” to “seungmungo (3f MM),”2 6 although this suggestion failed to be adopted.
The institution o f “sinmungo” was halted for a period and later revived under its original
title, “deungmungo” during Seongjong’s reign (r.1469-1494).2 7 The name was used until
the reign of Jungjong (r. 1506-1544).2 8 Yet, it seems that ‘sinmungo' was the most
prevalent name until later.
24 Taejong Sillok, 1/8/1 (1400)
2 5 Taejong Sillok, 1/11/16 (1400)
26 Sejong Sillok, 16/1/24(1433)
27 Seongjong Sillok, 1/6/24 (1469), 2/12/15 (1470), 21/6/22 (1489), 21/7/23 (1489).
2 8 Jungjong Sillok, 8/2/10 (1513)
188
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Continuing records in the Taejong Sillolt29 reveal how much the King was
concerned about this new institution and made efforts to hear the people’s voices. This
petition system, open to everyone of every status, sometimes caused a social problem in
that too many cases were forwarded to the Court, causing complication in the executive
procedures.3 0 The institution was therefore temporarily halted in the reign of Sejo
(r.1455-1468), but then revived in the reign of Seongjong (r. 1469-1494).3 1 This
egalitarian tradition continued through later generations and survived until the end of the
dynasty.
In the Joseon Wangjo Sillok we find many women who beat the drum in order
to reach the highest authority and to correct injustices. See the following records:
* The wife of Choe Geum-gang beat the Inquiry Drum to appeal her husband’s innocence. —
Taejong Sillok, 9/2/17 (1408)
* The wife of Kim Jung-jeol beat the Inquiiy Drum for her husband. — Taejong Sillok, 10/2/7
(1409)
* O Yong-gweon’s wife beat the Inquiiy Drum for her husband. — Sejong Sillok, 15/6/28 (1432)
* A commoner woman named Kim beat the drum to appeal for her father Kim Yi-ho. — Jeongjo
Sillok, 3/2/16 (1778)
The ability of all women to take action is well demonstrated by the fact that
slave women beat the sinmungo to draw attention to their concerns and appeal to the
King. A case in 1418 from Sejong’s reign (r. 1418-1450) reads:
29 Taejong Sillok, 2/1/26 (1401), 2/3/15 (1401), 6/11/8 (1405), 15/7/8 (1414), 16/7/12 (1415)
30 Various records in the Sejong Sillok [4/1/21 (1421), 13/10/28 (1430), 17/1/14 (1434)] show the first sign
o f this kind o f problem.
3 1 Seongjong Sillok, 2/12/15 (1470)
189
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Kim Jeom, Sin Sang, and Yi An-gyeong were put into jail.
Initially, Mme Yu, wife of Yi Gwi-san, reported Bo-jeon and
Nae-yak to the Ministry of Punishment, insisting that they
were eloped slaves. Bo-jeon and Nae-yak were Nae-eun-i’s
daughters and owned by no one. When Jeong Seung-seo,
as an official for the Ministry of Punishment, was about to clarify
the case, he was driven by Kim Jeom and beat Bo-jeon terribly
while interrogating her. Nae-eun-i sued for maltreatment
to the Office of the Inspector-General, but Sin Sang dismissed
her petition and did not make an inquiry. Upon learning of this,
Nae-eun-i prepared her case and appealed again by beating
the “Inquiry Drum.” The King ordered the Secretariat to bring
the case and to determine the truth. Nae-eun-i’s claim was deemed
accurate, and the King jailed Seung-seo.
As a result of the fact that Seung-seo insisted, “I was coerced into
making this wrong decision by Jeom,” Jeom, Sang, and An-
gyeong were all jailed.
This record shows explicitly that Joseon women’s actions and voices were heard and
acknowledged in the public sphere: 1) A sadaebu woman, Mme Yu, filed a lawsuit with
the Ministry of Punishment insisting that her property rights to the slaves be respected; 2)
A slave woman named Nae-eun-i also brought a suit in the high office; and further, 3)
Nae-eun-i beat the Drum and appealed to the King in order to clarify her case and protect
her daughters. More significantly, the King paid careful attention to a slave woman’s
voice, and did not favor the sadaebu, and the guilty high officials were punished.
In the Sejong Sillok, more stories are found that show slave girls’ exercise of
their rights to free speech. In 1427, a slave girl, Dong-baek, beat the drum and pleaded
the property dispute of her lord’s family.3j In 1428 a private slave girl (sabi
3 2 Sejong Sillok, 1/6/27(1418)
3 3 Sejong Sillok, 9/6/23 (1427)
190
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
named Ja-jae tolled a bell at the Gwang-hwa Gate to protest the fact that she was not
allowed access to the sinmungo. The officials who kept her from beating the sinmungo
were fired from their posts.3 4
The Sejong Sillok also contains a record about women’s collective action of
beating the sinmungo in order to address their financial concern: Twenty-nine blind
women who lived alone beat the sinmungo and requested that they be allowed to repay
their debt with hemp cloth.3 5 This record not only provides evidence of women’s
economic ability, but also testifies to their willingness to form a group and make their
demands collectively.
C. Prostrating in front of the King’s Palanquin
Another expeditious way to draw the direct attention from the King was
“prostrating (bubok # { £ ) in front of the King’s palanquin.” People who were unable to
rid themselves of their feelings of victimization through many methods, including
beating the “Inquiry Drum,” waited for the chance of the King’s honored outing to state
their grievance face-to-face with the King. This action was chosen by many people of
34 Sejong Sillok, 10/5/24(1428)
3 5 Sejong Sillok, 4/11/28 (1421)
191
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
various status who were desperate, and appeared in Court discussions because of its
excessive use.3 6
Governmental policy regarding the freedom of speech during the Joseon
dynasty was basically very openhanded, but the dilemma lay in that generosity. Too
many people appealed to the highest decision, causing congestion at the executive level
in almost every reign of the Joseon kings. The dynasty wanted to open the road wide for
people to speak up, but then too many cases were received, which inevitably included
disguised ones with malicious intent. Consequently, the kings’ responses were swayed
between prohibition and permission. King Jungjong’s remark well reveals this dilemma:
The King said, “ ... Those who want to appeal
because they feel victimized fill the streets. If I prohibit
them from appealing, it would not be the Royal Way
that is supposed to resolve people’s resentments;
And if I let them initiate lawsuits, it would
not be easy to prevent abuse of this freedom. .. .”3 7
Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the prevailing order was always not to block
the way in which common people expressed their resentment. While the Court decided to
punish the blatant people who prostrated and appealed in front of the King’s palanquin,
the King Sejong (r. 1418-1450) still listened to an old man’s petition who appealed in
36 For example, a record o f the tenth year o f Sejo’s reign describes that thousands o f cases were requested
in front of the king’s palanquin [Sejo Sillok, 10/3/23 (1464)]. In the Jungjong Sillok, the problem o f too
many people’s attempts to advance toward the king’s palanquin and consequent corruption and accidents
were continuously issued at the court. [Jungjong Sillok, 4/9/8 (1509), 5/3/23 (1510), 5/8/28 (1510), 8/2/10
(1513), 13/3/4 (1518), 23/3/11 (1528), 27/3/17(1532), 29/11/3 (1534), 33/5/3 (1538)]
3 7 Jungjong Sillok, 8/2/10(1513)
192
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
front of his palanquin, and ordered that the case be investigated/8 King Jungjong’s
(r. 1506-1544 ) response was similar. When the Court officials sought punishment for the
people who dauntlessly advanced to the King’s palanquin, the King just ordered to teach
the people to kneel when they made an appeal, instead of leaping into the way.3 9 Thus
this practice continued until the late Joseon and was preferred as one of the fastest ways
to earn the highest concern.
Women took action in this way for two purposes: one was to present a precious
possession of theirs for the King from grateful or patriotic feeling40; the other was to
petition against mistreatment. This section deals with the latter, and below are examples:
* Kim Gyeong’ s wife cried loudly and banged against the King’s palanquin, insisting that the
governmental decision regarding her slaves was wrong.4 1 — Taejong Sillok, 16/7/28 (1415)
* An old woman appealed in front of the King’ s palanquin, and the King ordered that the case be
investigated. — Sejong Sillok, 26/5/3 (1443)
* When the King threw a banquet at the gate of the palace, a slave woman with three sons
proceeded to the King and pleaded for the exemption from public labor heavily imposed on their
family. The King allowed her to be exempt.4 2 — Sejo Sillok, 14/5/5 (1468)
* When the King proceeded to the field and saw the farming, Mme Min asked the King for the
transference of her son Hong Hyeong, who was a magistrate of a border district. — Yeonsan
Sillok, 3/8/21 (1496)
* Hong Chi-sang’ s wife prostrated in front of the King’s palanquin. — Yeongjo Sillok, 6/3/5
(1729)
3 8 Sejong Sillok, 21/2/1 (1438)
3 9 Jungjong Sillok, 27/3/17 (1532)
40 I have included the cases o f this purpose in a separate chapter on “presenting and receiving.” See pages
128,134, and 135.
4 1 This case shows a woman trying to defend her property rights.
4 2 This shows a slave woman’s activeness.
193
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
D. Striking the Gong and Wailing
Besides writing a petition, beating the Drum, or advancing to the King’s
procession, there existed other minor ways Joseon people used to reach the highest
authority. One of them was so-called “striking a gong (gyeok-jaeng I p i f ).” An article in
the Hyojong Sillok explains:
An official told the King, “In ancient times, they hung an
‘Inquiry Drum ( i t HI IK)’ in the palace, instituted an office and
appointed officers so that the mistreated people could report
unfairness. The law of ‘striking a gong ((S#^)’ in our country
is in the same sense. ...It surely is abominable that some
people are over-excited in their speech with trivial matters;
however, when a child sees unfair treatment done to his parent
or a peasant is pillaged by the powerful where would they appeal
without this way [striking a gong, Ipt?]? If you strictly prohibit it
because you hate the false accusation, that would not really be the
way to sympathize with the lower stratum and to govern victimized
people.4 3
The Seongjong Sillok has first records about this practice: people “struck the
gong loudly around the walls of the palace in order to draw the King’s attention.”4 4
The same happened during Jungjong’s reign (r. 1506-1544) 4 5 The King’s responses to
these actions, however, do not seem harsh. In Gwanghaegun’s (r. 1608-1623) order
regarding the matter, we can ascertain the King’s munificent mind toward his people.
4 3 Hyojong Sillok, 9/8/26 (1657)
44 Seongjong Sillok, 10/12/8 (1478), 11/12/14(1479)
4 5 Jungjong Sillok, 1/10/25(1506), 1/11/2 (1506), 2/3/22 (1507)
194
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The King ordered that at the time of his outing, people
who struck a gong loudly in attempt to appeal should do
so at a distance from the horses so that the horses were
not startled4 6
Under this permissive atmosphere, many women also used this way of gyeok-
jaeng when they wanted to appeal to the highest authority, as seen in the records below:
* Mme Yun walked out the Sinmu Gate and struck the gong. — Jungjong Sillok, 30/3/17 (1535)
* Mme An struck the gong and presented a petition. — Sukjong Sillok, 25/9/13 (1698)
* A low status woman struck the gong. — Jeongjo Sillok, 9/10/10 (1784)
* Mme Heo, Kwak Si-bok’ s wife, struck the gong. — Jeongjo Sillok, 14/12/10 (1789)
* Yi Hyeon-seop’s woman slave, Sang-guem struck the gong for her master. — Jeongjo Sillok,
15/1/24(1790)
* Jeong Jun’ s wife struck the gong and submitted a petition. — Jeongjo Sillok, 19/6/11 (1794)
A similar way to gyeok-jaeng which people often chose to acquire attention was
by ‘wailing,’ i.e., weeping loudly near the palace. This means of appeal seems to have
originated with a man named Yun Deok-nyeong. The Sejo Sillok precisely illustrates the
episode as it happened in 1468:
Yun Deok-nyeong who wailed outside the palace was brought
to the King and resolved his resentment.4 7
After Yun Deok-nyeong wailed and appealed his victimization,
many people near and far who had slight complaints in their
minds wailed around the palace. Because the King ordered to
give them immediate decisions, there were wails every night
and this practice was not easily banned by a preventive
directive.4 8
46 Gwcmghae Sillok, 2/9/15 (1609)
47 Sejo Sillok, 14/2/22(1468)
48 Sejo Sillok, 14/3/7(1468)
195
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This record shows that the effectiveness of wailing outside the palace prompted its use by
others who desired to be heard.
A record from the Seongjong Sillok depicts two elite women who used both
methods of “striking a gong” and “wailing”: Jeong Yeon-su’s wife climbed up high and
struck the gong to draw the King’s attention, and An Reung-su’s wife wailed when the
K in g returned to the palace. They were wives of royal relatives and appealed the matter
o f slaves. The King ordered that the case should be resolved.4 9
This record provides two points: 1) even high class women who were members
of the royal family used the ways of gyeok-jaeng and wailing; 2) the reason for their
action was a slave matter, which is evidence of women’s explicit property rights.
The later period records show that women used the method of wailing until the
late Joseon period in order to achieve their purpose: In 1748, Mme Kang, Yu Tae-o’s
wife, wailed near the Palace for ten days for her husband. Finally people beat the Inquiry
Drum for her and submitted the case.5 0 In 1793, Mme Song, Gwon Jin-seong’s wife,
wailed and appealed for her dead husband.5 1
The fairly permissive system of free speech in the Joseon dynasty seems to have
stiffened during the Yeongjo’s reign (r. 1724-1776). In the nineth year of his reign (1732),
King Yeongjo ordered that people not plead with the government for support unless a
49 Seongjong Sillok, 23/4/28 (1491)
50 Yeongjo Sillok, 25/5/16 (1748)
5 1 Jeongjo Sillok, 18/8/26 (1793)
196
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
child was defending his or her parents.5 2 At this time, some objections were raised by
Censorate officials, yet the King went through with his resolution.5 3
in the forty-seventh year (1771) of his reign, though Yeongjo reinstituted the
“Inquiry Drum {sinmungo),” its use was quite restricted in that only the cases involving
‘four incidents (IZSff^)’ were allowed to be appealed, and he banned an act of “striking
a gong” in the street.5 4 In the same year Yeongjo abolished the “Inquiry Drum” and then
reestablished it.5 5
Compared with Yeongjo, the next king, King Jeongjo (r.l776-1800), was
generous enough to allow the commoners to submit petition letters to the King. The
number of petition documents presented to the King ranged from about forty to more
than one hundred at a time.5 6 Jeongjo’s remark reveals that the issue of free speech has
two sides: “This matter [the institutions for free speech, such as the “Inquiry Drum” and
“striking a gong”]does not simply follow one side. If strictly banned, it is impossible to
57
know the circumstances of the people; and if too loosen, it will be badly abused.”
5 2 Yeongjo Sillok, 9/11/14 (1732)
5 3 Yeongjo Sillok, 35/6/27 (1758)
5 4 Yeongjo Sillok, 47/11/23 (1770)
5 5 Yeongjo Sillok, 47/12/25 (1770)
5 6 Jeongjo Sillok, 14/10/3 (1789), 15/2/26 (1790), 18/1/15 (1793), 21/2/3 (1796), 24/3/22 (1799)
3 7 Jeongjo Sillok, 7/1/18(1782)
197
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
As shown in the Yeongjo case, not every king in the Joseon dynasty was
generous to open free speech rights for his people. Nevertheless it is obvious that
throughout their history, Joseon people had access to the highest authority, and women
were agile agents of this beneficial system.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Conclusion
Gyeongguk Daejeon mirrored the traditional practices then prevalent within
the society. The observation of the regulations of Gyeongguk Daejeon provides two
important points regarding women’s property rights: First, women’s property rights
were clearly represented within the written laws and were thus legally protected.
Second, the basic principle of inheritance verifies that there was impartiality between
the sexes with regard to the division of property, whereas there was obvious
discrimination among stratified statuses. With the only exception of the ritual heir,
legitimate sons and daughters each claimed the same share, and so did illegitimate
sons and daughters, though their share was less than that of legitimate siblings.
Various records from the Joseon Wangjo Sillok evidence not only the
existence of women’s property rights, but also the active participation of women in
enjoying and protecting their rights during the Joseon period. This study has
endeavored to illustrate the actual practice of women’s property rights in the real
world of Joseon society. In this last chapter of conclusion, I shall ponder the
propositions I have kept in mind since the start, and include the comparison with
cases of China and Japan.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Timing o f Changes: Periodization
Gyeongguk Daejeon, the most influential and fundamental body of law
during the Joseon dynasty, was effective as Canon throughout the entire Joseon era.
It should be remembered that the principle of equal inheritance among sons and
daughters survived as a stipulated legal regulation until the end of the Joseon dynasty.
Although later records reveal the changing aspects o f inheritance practice in which
the allotment to women was diminished, I believe this should not be exaggeratedly
interpreted as a sign o f serious deterioration of women’s status, despite what most
scholars maintain. The changes happened not only to women, but also to many men
who were not the eldest son and who were illegitimate.
Choe Jae-seok’s analysis of the seventeenth and eighteenth century property
division records (bunjaegi indicates that the system of equal succession to
property by all sons and daughters functioned until the middle of the eighteenth century.
These inheritance documents clearly divided all property including slaves, lands, and
even utensils, and thus prove that all sons and daughters received exactly the same
shares. This finding implies the possibility that the customary practice could have
survived longer than commonly considered. I would not exclude the feasibility that the
legacy of customs lasted longer and the tradition still worked favorably to women in
parents’ practices for their own daughters. After all, both the custom and code were
still in action in the very late period of Joseon.
It was in the late Joseon (after the eighteenth century) that women’s
property rights began to be reduced. The focus on lineal continuity during the Joseon
200
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
dynasty had exposed women’s ritual insignificance. Ritual recognition of the eldest
son gradually destroyed the customary equal division of the patrimony, yet I would
emphasize that it caused disadvantages in the inheritance right of younger sons as
well as daughters.
The class issue also deserves to be taken into consideration. Although it was
a demanding model for a perfect social order for all of the Joseon society, not all
status groups adhered to Confucian practices to the same degree. Only a
comparatively small upper class could afford to approximate ideological purity in
daily life. It is a matter of fact that all others, although guided by Confucian
principles, were economically unable to confine their women to the inner room.
Living on the periphery of Confucian consciousness, the lower classes, only mildly
indoctrinated, may have preserved older social patterns. Confucianism, then, may not
have managed to put its roots as deeply into Korean soil as scholars have heretofore
assumed.
Factors for the Change: Pull or Push?
In the introductory chapter I have presented four factors for the social
changes in the Joseon dynasty. I categorize each of them as a “pull” or a “push”
factor. The ideological (intellectual) factor and political (personal) factor are
“pulling” factors in that they involve implementing efforts reflecting the interests of
the ruling class. The other two, economic and social factors, can be called “pushing”
201
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
factors because they represent the diverse and dynamic forces from the much broader
understratum of society.
My query at the outset was this: “Which factors were more effective, ‘puli’
or ‘push’?” And through this study, I have come to the conclusion that the “push”
factors were more responsible for change. Far from the efforts by kings and
statesmen in the beginning period of dynasty, the real change occurred after more
than two hundred years. Here exists the need to look for the connection with
socioeconomic environment in the late Joseon setting. Rather than the influence of
Neo-Confucianism, more direct and powerful factors must have worked: social
instability resulting from the wars, and changes in economic circumstances. All this
brought subsequent crisis in the consciousness of the ruling yangban class, and they
made attempts to consolidate their class prestige as a means o f self-rescue. In this
sense, the “push” factors played a critical role as the catalyst for the change.
I would argue that because they arose from the society itself, the “push”
factors were more effective for the change than the “pull” factors, which were
imposed upon the society by the upper class. The answer becomes more apparent
when one considers all the changes finally beginning to take place in the late Joseon
period, the time when the social circumstances were in turmoil.
Japanese Colonial Impact
With regard to the societal changes in Korean family and inheritance
systems, one query most scholars do not raise and to which I want to call attention
202
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
concerns the influence o f Japanese colonial rule. The Japanese rule in Korea lasted
thirty-six years, covering the end of the nineteenth and the first half o f the twentieth
century.
During the Japanese colonial period, the Korean traditional family system
went through readjustment in accordance with the Japanese imperialists’ institutions
and ideology. The indigenous Korean law was gradually rendered ineffective by
government-made customs and legal precedents. Japanese primogeniture was, in
particular, responsible for collapsing the system o f equal inheritance among sons and
daughters.
Through the introduction of a Japanese-style household-head system, and by
imposing the eldest son’s monopolistic inheritance, Japanese imperialists intended to
manipulate the assimilation of law and culture between two different countries. As
Park Byeong-ho points out, “This family system, under the Japanese imperialist
domination, which was based on a patriarchal family system envisaging a powerful
and wide-range right of the head of the household, had never existed in the history of
Korea.”1 He further succinctly asserts,
Thus, under the coercion of governmental power throughout
the period of Japanese imperialist domination, we came
unconsciously to support it and went so far as to believe
that it was an indigenous system of ours laid down from
the Joseon dynasty period. How unhistorical it was to do so!
1 Park, Byeong-ho, Hanguk ui Jeontong Sahoe w a Be op [Traditional Korean Society and Law], Seoul
Law Journal vol. 15, no. 1: 88-134, 1974,98-99.
2 Park, Byeong-ho, ibid., 123.
203
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Park’s contention, though he is a legal scholar, offers inspiring insight to our
question concerning the factors and periodization in this study. In support of my
argument: 1) The exaggerated focus on the role of Confucianism in societal changes
needs to be diffused; 2) The timing of actual social transformation can be regarded as
happening later, as I am continuously insisting.
Comparison with China and Japan
In Korea:
“Sons and daughters receive equal portions. ” (janyeo gyunbun -F& #!-&)
In China:
“Older and younger brothers receive equal portions. ” (xiongdi junfen
An analysis of the differences between China and Korea regarding the form
and content of women’s property rights reveals suggestive contrasts. In the former,
women’s property rights were held through the institution of the dowry. In the latter,
female inheritance was practiced as an equal allotment between male and female
siblings.
In no period o f traditional China did daughters inherit like sons, though they
could be residual heirs when they had no brothers. It is also important to heed the
fact that China’s preferred form of postmarital residence was patrilocal. In patrilocal
residence situations, parents must depend upon their sons for support, not their
daughters. This means that Chinese women did not experience the residential,
emotional, or economic continuity enjoyed by their brothers and husbands.
204
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
On the contrary, in Korea, the most characteristic pattern of marital
residence throughout history was uxrorilocal. The Korean uxorilocal custom is
different from its Chinese and Japanese counterparts in that it was universally
practiced, and therefore not considered a minor marriage form. The Korean wedding
ceremony was always held in the bride’s house, where the bridegroom normally
moved in. The children were born and raised in the mother’s house. Thus the
traditional Korean kinship concept was flexible and inclusive, displaying a
matrilateral slant.3
With bilateral propensity, all members, male and female, of the same
generation enjoyed equal rights and duties in Korea. All brothers and sisters as co
heirs could expect a share of the patrimonial land, and the equal allotment of such
property was practiced. A daughter did not receive her share in the form of a dowry,
but her claim was delayed until after the death o f her parents. Whether she left the
household at marriage or continued to live there with her husband, she could
continuously draw on its economic resources. This provided women with a high
degree of economic security. By this custom of equal inheritance and uxorilocal
residence, marriage was not a major breaking point in a Korean woman’s life cycle.
Equal inheritance among sons and daughters, a deeply rooted custom from
Goryeo (918-1392), was incorporated into the legislation of the Joseon (1392-1910)
3 Martina Deuchler, The Confucian Transformation o f Korea: A Study o f Society and Ideology. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1992.
205
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
dynasty. Gyeongguk Daejeon stipulated the provision of equal shares for all children
of a prim ary [legitimate] wife, by which both sons and daughters of equal status,
regardless o f their sex, were legally guaranteed an equal amount of inheritance. Not
only do the legal codes indicate that daughters should inherit property equally with
sons, but the actual wills and other inheritance documents also reflect this practice.
Deuchler suggests some similarities between Goryeo (918-1392) tradition
and the marriage custom of Heian Japan (tenth to twelfth century). She maintains
that both Japan and Korea had a “pre-Confucian” past before society moved to its
strictly patrilineal stage. According to McCullough, the principal types of marriage
residence among aristocrats in the Heian period was duolocal, uxorilocal, and
neolocal with an almost total absence of the virilocal form. Kagero Nikki, a diary
written late in the tenth century by one o f the wives o f Fujiwara Kaneie, provides a
detailed account of duolocal marriage by which the husband visits his wife’s house
by night and departs the following morning. Uxorilocal residence was also arranged;
the marriage rites took place at the bride’s house and were followed by a period of
residence there. The succession to marital residences was often matrilineal by
preference to a daughter. Women were able to inherit and own all types of property
including land. The property of Heian women remained in their possession after
marriage.
In the last half of the twelfth century marital residence in Japan began to
shift toward the virilocal rule and succession from matri lineal to patrilineal line.
With the establishment o f a warrior government, the Kamakura Bakufu (1190-1333),
206
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
patriarchal authority was strengthened. The warrior family unit was based on the
soryo system in which the soryo or family head exercised general leadership over the
extended family. Women’s property rights, firmly established in the ancient past,
acquired new political and military dimensions as they became tied to Kamakura’s
vassalage system. Though equal division of property among male and female heirs
was initially permitted under this system, marriage gradually became virilocal,
negatively affecting the status of women.4 By about the late fourteenth century
women completely lost the right not only to inherit but also to amass property.
Descent began to be traced only through males, obliterating women as the carriers of
the family line.5
Although Korea and Japan underwent similar changes in terms of
strengthening patriarchy and decreasing the status o f women, differences also exist.
Japanese changes are not to be defined as Confucianization as in the Korean case,
because they were caused by the shift of the social and political institutions to a
warrior society rather than to a Confucian society. Another difference lies in the fact
that the actual changes in Korean custom took place much later, - around the
eighteenth century. Since Korean practices of equal inheritance and uxorilocal
residence have a much longer history in terms of time span, 1 would argue that they
4 Wakita Haruko, “Marriage and Property in Prem odem Japan from the Perspective o f W omen’s
History,” Journal o f Japanese Studies, 10:1, 1984, and Jeffrey Mass, Lordship and Inheritance in Early
Medieval Japan. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1989.
” Wakita Haruko, ibid.
207
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
better deserve the position of indicators of true tradition in history. It is also true,
however, that, ironically enough, the degree and extent of the social changes exerted
by Confucianism in Korea was much more extreme and extensive compared to other
two neighboring countries.
As Bettine Birge shows well, the Chinese marriage custom and practice of
property right underwent changes through the confrontation with the Mongolian
culture.6 The Mongol society had a system of brideprice in which property passed
from the groom’s family to the bride’s. While a married woman in China could
continue strong ties with her natal family, the Mongol woman was economically
dependent upon her husband’s clan. In Mongol society, the levirate was practiced as
a means of protecting the economic and social integrity of a family.7 The Chinese
adoption of levirate resulted in the rise of widow chastity and finally in the loss of
women’s property rights. It is noteworthy that the institutionalization of patrilineality
in China represented a change that was set by the legal and social precedents created
under Mongol-Yuan rule, rather than representing the logical evolution of
Confucianism.8
6 Bettine Birge, Women, Property, and Confucian Reaction in Sung and Yuan China (960-1368).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
7 Jennifer Holmgren,“Observations on Marriage and Inheritance Practices in Early Mongol and Yiian
Society, with Particular Reference to the Levirate.” Journal o f Asian History 20.2: 127-192 (1986).
8 Bettine Birge, ibid.
208
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Although a Confucian ideal existed all the time, rather, the Chinese
practiced a flexible system from which patricorporations might literally “profit.” As
Birge points out, traditional Chinese practices often reflect a disregard for patrilineal
principles in favor of immediate material concerns. To Koreans, however, “pedigree”
through mothers was considered the best gauge of family standing. In Korea the
discrimination in division of parents’ property depended on the legitimacy of
children’s birth, which totally corresponded to their mother’s familial and social
status. The children of a primary wife only could be legitimate, and those o f a
concubine were always illegitimate. The concubine’s children were discriminated
again by their mother’s social status, whether commoner or slave. In the less status
conscious Chinese society, the concubine’s sons did not suffer formal loss of status
or inheritance, and were even eligible to be a descent-line heirs. Similarly, however,
in both Chinese and Korean society, the development of lineages and patriline
thinking resulted in the loss of women’s rights and authority over property.
In assessing the role of Confucianism in the social and institutional changes
taking place in the three East Asian countries, it seems that the Confucian influence
was most direct and evident in the Korean case. In China, the changes conformed
well with Confucian ideals of patrilineality, but they were in a sense incidental,
accompanied by the Mongolian catalytic effect. In Japan, the social changes seem to
display more indigenous character in accordance with the rules of a warrior society
rather than Confucian demands. While the three countries surely share the common
209
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
background of Confucian tradition, it can be said that the Confucian transformation
in Korean society was most effective and orthodox.
Im portance o f Perspective
As I stated within the literature review section, most Korean research is
either too comprehensive or does not fully focus on women per se. Although the
works done in English by foreign scholars exhibit more concrete concerns and hold
bearings on the rights and status o f women, the problem does not seem to have been
ameliorated. In dealing with the changes in the social institutions such as inheritance,
adoption, and ancestor worship. Deuchler9 and Peterson1 0 show the same tendency,
which is to emphasize the diminution of women’s status and rights.
My question is why should it be the women who conjure images of
negativity? The implication and importance of social transformation that took place
during the Joseon period should be applied to the male members o f the society who
suffered discrimination as much as women did. Eventually, the changes that occurred
to women’s status took place at a slower pace than that of the secondary
(illegitimate) sons (seoja j£ ; -p ), whose mother’s status was not accredited. It should
be remembered that it was not only women who were afflicted by the changes, but
9 Martina Deuchler, The Confucian Transformation o f Korea: A Study o f Society and Ideology. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1992.
1 0 Mark Peterson, ibid., 1996.
210
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
also the male members such as secondary sons or younger sons who were not the
legitimate first-born. In Korea, the discrimination against the secondary sons was
always much more serious than the discrimination against daughters. This strongly
supports my claim that Koreans had traditionally been status-conscious rather than
sex-discriminating.
Tending toward the exaggeration of disadvantages suffered by women,
many researchers easily overlook women’s agency and subjectivity that exist
throughout recorded history. In that way their analyses contribute to conceptualizing
Korean women’s history and tradition as deteriorating and retrogressive. In an
attempt to shed new light on the issue of women’s property rights, my study has
intentionally taken the feminist perspective.
My stance is that the “women-centered” reinterpretation is inevitable given
the current condition of over-representation of the male experience. Although
previous research does not recognize women as full subjects, I have placed women at
the center o f my inquiry to visualize their lives. I believe that the fact that Korean
women exercised explicit property rights and were not discriminated by gender
ideology during the majority o f the Joseon period proves the subjectivity that Korean
women have developed in their historical identity. Seeing women’s property holding
as an attribute of the active subject and by elucidating women’s property situations, 1
have attempted to trace and reformulate Korean women’s subjectivity. And needless
to say, all this was possible only as viewed from the particular perspective.
211
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
What is the relation between historical practices which have been embodied
in our institutions and feminist theorizations? And what is the implication for further
progress? Virginia Held calls for “transformation” at the level o f culture, i.e.
consciousness,1 1 and I expect my study to be a transformer. Since men’s and
women’s lives are inextricably intertwined, there is also a need to present a full
account of women thoroughly integrated into the account of men. The future goal, as
a consequence, will be the construction of new models that weave together the male
and female experiences.
Virginia Held, Feminist Morality, Chicago: University o f Chicago Press, 1993.
212
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Gyeongguk Daejeon [The Canon of Joseon Dynasty]
Joseon Wangjo Sillok [The Veritable Chronicle o f Joseon Dynasty]
Secondary Sources
Birge, Bettine. “Chu Hsi and Women’s Education.” In Neo-Confucian Education:
The Formative Stage. Ed. Wm. Theodore deBary and John Chaffee.
Berkeley University of California Press, 1989.
Women and Property in Sung Dynasty China (960-1279): Neo-
Confucianism and Social Change in Chien-chu, Fukien. Ph.D. dissertation,
Columbia University, 1992.
Levirate Marriage and the Rise o f Widow Chastity in Yuan China. 1996.
---------- Women, Property, and Confucian Reaction in Sung and Yuan China
(960-1368). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Bol, Peter. This Culture o f Ours: Intellectual Transition in T ’ ang and Sung China.
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992.
Bray, Francesca. Technology and Gender: Fabrics o f Power in Late Imperial China.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
Card, Claudia. Feminist Ethics. Lawrence: University of Kansas, 1991.
Choe, Jae-seok. Han-gukgajokjedosayeon-gu [Research on the Korean Family
System], Seoul: Iljisa, 1983.
Choe, Seung-hi. Han-guk Gomunseo Yeongu [Study on the Korean Old Documents]
Seoul: Jisik Sanupsa, 1989.
Choe, Suk-gyeong, ed. Han-guk Yeoseongsa vol. 1,2. [The History of Korean
Women] Seoul: Ewha Womans University Press, 1972.
213
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Comaroff, John. “Introduction”, in John Comaroff, ed. The Meaning o f
Marrage Payments. New York: Academic Press, 1980.
Connell, R. W. Gender and Power. Stanford: Stanford University Press,
1987.
Chung, Hyun-Kyung. Struggle to be the Sim Again. New York: Orbis Books, 1997.
Chung, Edward. The Korean Neo-Confucianism ofYi T ’ oegye and Yi Yulgok.
Albany: State University o f New York Press, 1995.
Dallet, Charles. Histoire de V Englise de Coree.[The History of Korean
Church] Jeong Gi-su, tr. Joseon Gyohwaesa Seoron, Seoul:
Tamgudang, 1966.
deBary, Wm. Theodore, ed. Sources o f Chinese Tradition. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1960.
---------- - Neo-Confucian Orthodoxy and the Learning o f the Mind and Heart.
New York: Columbia University Press, 1981.
---------- , and Jahyun Kim Haboush, eds. The Rise o f Neo-Confucianism in
Korea. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985.
Dennerline, Jerry. “Marriage, Adoption, and Charity in the Development of
Lineages in Wu-his from Sung to Ching,” in Kinship Organization in Late
Imperial China, 1000-1940, ed. by Patricia Ebrey and James Watson,
University of California Press, 1986.
Deuchler, Martina. ‘"Neo-Confucianism: The impulse for Social Action in Early Yi
Korea.” Journal o f Korean Studies 2: 71-111,1980.
“Heaven does not Discriminate.” Journal o f Korean Studies 6: 121-
163,1988-89.
----------- The Confucian Transformation o f Korea: A Study o f Society and
Ideology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992.
Dickenson, Donna. Property, Women and Politics: Subjects or Objects?. New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1997.
Duncan, John. “The Social Background to the Founding of the Joseon Dynasty:
Change or Continuity?” Journal o f Korean Studies 6, 1988-89.
21
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ebrey, Patricia. “Women in the Kinship of the Southern Song Upper Class.” In
Women in China: Current Directions in Historical Scholarship. Eds.
Richard Guisso and Stanley Johannesen. New York: Philo Press, 1981.
---------- “Conceptions of the Family in the Sung Dynasty.” Journal o f Asian
Studies 43.2: 219-246 (1984).
— --------, trans. Family and Property in Sung China: Yuan Ts ’ a i’ s Precepts for
Social Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.
---------- - “Concubines in Sung China.” Journal o f Family History 11: 1 -24 (1986).
---------- - “Women, Marriage, and the Family in Chinese History,” In Heritage o f
China: Contemporary Perspectives on Chinese Civilization. Ed. Paul Ropp.
Berkeley ^University of California Press, 1990.
---------- , trans. Chu H si’ s “ Family Rituals ”: A Twelfth-Century Manual fo r the
Performance o f Cappings, Weddings, Funerals, and Ancestral Rites.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.
----------- “Introduction” in Rubie Watson and Patricia Ebrey, eds.
Marriage and Inequality in Chinese Society. Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 1991.
. 27ie Inner Quarters: Marriage and the Lives o f Chinese Women in the
Sung Period. Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1993.
Eckert, Carter. Korea Old and New History. Seoul: IlJogak, 1990.
Erickson, Victoria. Where Silence Speaks. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.
Ewha Womans University Han-guk Yeoseong Yeon-guso, ed. Han-guk
Yeoseong Gwan-gae Jaryojip. [Sources regarding Korean Women] Seoul:
Ewha Womans University Press, 1977.
Gang, Man-gil, ed. Han-guk ui Yeoksa Insik [Historical Consciousness of
Korea]. Seoul: Changjak gwa Bipyeongsa, 1976.
Gardiner, Judith, ed. Provoking Agents. Urbana and Chicago: University of
Illinois Press, 1995.
Gatens, Moira. Imaginary Bodies. London and New York: Routledge, 1996.
215
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Gates, Hill. “The Commoditization of Chinese Women.” Signs 14.4: 799-832
1989.
Goody, Jack. The Oriental the Ancient and the Primitive. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1990.
-----------and Tambiah S. J. Bridewealth and Dowry in Africa and Eurasia,
New York: Cambridge University Press, 1973.
Gross, Rita. Buddhism After Patriarchy. Albany: State University of New York,
1993.
Guisso, Richard. “Thunder over the Lake: The Five Classics and the Perception of
Woman in Early China.” In Women in China. Eds. Richard Guisso and
Stanley Johannesen. Youngstown, N.Y.: Philo Press, 1981.
Han, U-geun. Han-guk Tongsa [The History of Korea]. Seoul: Eulyu-
munhwasa, 1970.
Han-guk Minjungsa Yeon-guhwae ed. Han-guk Minjungsa [Korean People’s
History] Seoul: Pulbit, 1986.
Han-guk Yeoseong Yeon-guhwae, ed. Yeoseonghak Gang-ui [Lecture on
Women’s Study]. Seoul: Dong-nyeok, 1993.
Harrell, Steven, and Sara Dickey. “Dowry Systems in Complex Societies.”
Ethnology 24: 105-120(1985).
Harrison, Beverly. Making the Connections. Boston: Beacon Press, 1985.
Hastrup, Kirsten. "The Semantics of Biology: Virginity." in Shirley Ardener,
ed. Defining Females: The Nature o f Women in Society. New York:
Halsted Press, 1978.
Held, Virginia. Feminist Morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
Herrmann, Anne, ed. Theorizing Feminism. Boulder: Westview Press, 1994.
Holmgren, Jennifer. “Economic Foundations of Virtue: Widow Remarriage in Early
and Modem China.” Australian Journal o f Chinese Affairs 13: 1-27 (1985).
----------- “Observations on Marriage and Inheritance Practices in Early Mongol
and Yuan Society, with Particular Reference to the Levirate.” Journal o f
Asian Histoiy 20.2: 127-192(1986).
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Hymes, Robert and Conrad Schirokauer. “Introduction.” In Ordering the World:
Approaches to State and Society in Sung Dynasty China. Ed. Robert Hymes and
Conrad Schirokauer. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.
Janelli, Roger and Dawnhee. Ancestor Worship and Korean Society. Palo Alto:
Stanford University Press, 1982.
Jang, Byeong-in. Joseon Jeon-gi Honinje wa Seong Chabyeol [The Marriage
Institution and Sexual Discrimination of Early Joseon], Seoul: Iljisa,
1997.
Jeong, Seok-jong. Joseon Hugi Sahwae Byeondongsa [The History of Social
Change in Late Joseon]. Seoul: Iljogak, 1983.
Jo, Hye-jeong. Han-guk ui Yeoseong gwa Namseong [Korean Women and
Men]. Seoul: Munhak gwa Jiseongsa, 1989.
Kellher, Theresa. ‘Confucianism.’ In Women in World Religions ed. byArvind
Sharma. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987.
Kendall, Laurel. Getting Married in Korea: o f Gender, Morality, and
Modernity. Los Angeles: University o f California Press, 1996.
----------- , and Mark Peterson, eds. Korean Women: View from the Inner
Room. New Haven, Connecticut: East Rock Press, 1983.
Kim, Il-mi. “Joseon jeon-gi ui namnyeo gyunbun sangsokje e daehayeo”
[Concerning Equal Inheritance between Men and Women in Early Joseon].
Idae sawon 8: 31 -67, 1969.
Kim, Ok-yeol, ed. Yijo Yeoseong Yeon-gu [The Study on Joseon Women].
Seoul: Sukmyeong Women’s University Press, 1976
Kim, Du-heon. Han-guk gajok jedo yeon-gu [Research on the Korean Family
System] Seoul: Seoul National University Press, 1969.
Kim, Yong-man. “Joseon sidae gyunbun sangsokje e gwanhan ilyeon-gu” [A
Study on the Equal Inheritance System of the Joseon Period], Daegu sahak
23:1-47, 1983.
Kim, Yong-suk. Han-guk Yeosoksa [The History of Korean Women’s Custom].
Seoul: Mineumsa, 1989.
217
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Kim, Yeong-jung, ed. and trans. Women o f Korea: a History from Ancient
Times to 1945. Seoul: Ewha Womans University Press, 1976.
Ko, Dorothy. Teachers o f the Inner Chambers: Women and Culture in Seventeenth-
Century China. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994.
Lee, Gibaek. A New History o f Korea, tr. Edward Wagner. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1984.
---------- ed. Han-guksa Simin Gangjwa [Public Forum for Korean History]
vol. 15. Seoul: Iljogak, 1994.
Lee, Gwang-gyu. Han-guk gajok ui sajeok yeon-gu [Historical Research on the
Korean Family]. Seoul: Iljisa, 1977.
----------- Han-guk gajok ui gujobunseok [A Structural Analysis of the Korean
Family]. Seoul: Iljisa, 1975.
Lee, Neung-hwa. Joseon Yeosok-go [The Observation on Women’s Custom
Joseon].Kim Sang-eok, tr. Seoul: Dongmunseon, 1990.
Lee, Peter, ed. Sourcebook o f Korean Civilization vol. 2, New York: Colombia
University Press, 1996.
ed. Anthology o f Korean Literature: From Early Times to the
Nineteenth Century. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1981.
---------- and WM. DeBary, eds. Sources o f Korean Tradition vol. 1, New York:
Colombia University Press, 1997.
Lee, Seong-mu, Joseon Wangjo Sillok Eotteon Chaek inga [What is Joseon Wangjo
Sillok?]. Seoul: Dongbang Media, 1999.
Lee, Su-geon. “Joseon jeon-gi ui sahoe byeondong gwa sangsokjedo” [Social
Change and Inheritance in the Early Joseon Period], Yeoksa hakbo 129:
23-76, 1991.
Maas, Jeffrey. Lordship cm d Inheritance in Early Medieval Japan. Palo Alto:
Stanford University Press, 1989.
Mann, Susan. Precious Records: Women in China’ s Long Eighteenth Century.
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Mattielli, Sandra, ed. Virtues in Conflict: Tradition and the Korean Woman
Today. Seoul: Samwha Publishing, 1977.
McCreery, John. “Women’s Property Rights in China and South Asia.” Ethnology
15: 163-174(1976).
McMullen, 1 . J. “Non-Agnatic Adoption: A Confucian Controversy in Seventeenth-
and Eighteenth- Century Japan.” Harvard Journal o f Asiatic Studies 35,
1975.
Palais, James. “Confucianism and the Aristocratic/ Bureaucratic Balance in Korea”.
Harvard Journal o f Asiatic Studies 44:2, 1984.
Park, Byeong-ho. Hanguk ui Jeontong Sahoe wa Beop [Traditional Korean
Society and Law]. Seoul Law Journal vol. 15, no. T. 88-134, 1974.
Park, Gyeong-hwi. Joseon Minjok Honinsa Yeon-gu [The Study on the
History of Marriage o f the Joseon People], Daejeon: Han-nam
University Press, 1992.
Park, Ju. Joseon Sidae ui Jeong-pyo Jeong Chaek [Jeong-pyo Policy of the
Joseon Period], Seoul: Iljogak, 1990.
Park, Yeong-gyu. Han-gweon euro Ikneun Joseon Wangjo Sillok [Joseon Wangjo
Sillok in a Grasp]. Seoul: Deul-nyeok, 1996.
Peterson, Mark. Korean Adoption and Inheritance. New York: Cornell East
Asian Series, 1996.
Richlin, Amy. “The Ethnographer’s Dilemma and the Dream of a Lost Golden
Age” In Feminist Theory and the Classics. Eds. Nancy Rabinowitz and
Amy Richlin.New York: Routledge,1993.
Rutt, Richard and Kim Jong-un, trans. Virtuous Women: Three Classic Korean
Novels. Seoul: Gwang Myeong Printing Co., 1974.
Scott, Joan. “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis.” In Gender and
the Politics. Joan Scott. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988.
Shiga, Shuzo. “Family Property and the Law of Inheritance in Traditional China.”
In Chinese Family Law and Social Change. Ed. David Buxbaum. Seattle:
University of Washington Press, 1978.
219
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Son, Jik-ju. Joseon Sidae Yeoseong Gyoyuk Yeon-gu [The Study on the
Education for Women in Joseon]. Seoul: Seong-gyun-gwan University
Press, 1982.
Sydie, R. A. Natural Women, Cultured Men. New York: New York University
Press, 1987.
Tae, Hye-suk. Tal Sikmin Ju-ui Feminism [Post Colonial Feminism].
Seoul :Yeoyiyeon, 2001.
Tillman, Hoyt. Confucian Discourse and Chu H si’ s Ascendancy. Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press, 1992.
Wakita, Haruko. Marriage and Property in Premodern Japan from the Perspective of
Women’s History, Journal o f Japanese Studies, 10:1, 1984.
Waltner, Ann. “Widows and Remarriage in Ming and Early Qing China.” In Women
in China. Eds. Guisso and Johannesen. Youngstown, NY: Philo Press, 1981.
Walton, Linda. “Kinship, Marriage and Status in Sung China: A Study of the Lou
Lineage ofNingbo 1050-1250.” Journal o f Asian Studies 18.1 (1984).
Watson, Ruby, and Patricia Ebrey, eds. Marriage and Inequality in Chinese Society.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991.
Yeoseong H an-guk Sahoe Yeon-guhoe, ed. Yeoseong gw a H an-guk Sahoe
[Women and Korean Society], Seoul: Sahoe Munhwa Yeon-guso
Press, 1993.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix
King Taejo r. 1392-] 398
King Jeongjong r. 1398-1400
King Taejong r. 1400-1418
King Sejong r.1418-1450
King Munjong r. 1450-1452
King Danjong r. 1452-1455
King Sejo r.1455-1468
King Yejong r. 1468-1469
King Seongjong r. 1469-1494
Yeonsan-gun r. 1494-1506
King Jungjong r. 1506-1544
King Injong r. 1544-1545
King Myeongjong r. 1545-1567
King Seonjo r. 1567-1608
Gwanghae-gun r. 1608-1623
King Injo r. 1623-1649
King Hyojong r. 1649-1659
King Hyeonjong r. 1659-1674
King Sukjong r. 1674-1720
King Gyeongjong r. 1720-1724
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
King Yeongjo
King Jeongjo
King Sunjo
King Heonjong
King Cheoljong
King Gojong
r.1724-1776
r.1776-1800
r. 1800-1834
r. 1834-1849
r. 1849-1863
r. 1863-1907
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Ito Noe: Living in freedom. A critique of personal growth in Japanese society

PDF

Representations of the mother as origin and force of life in Japanese literature and history

PDF

Maternal devotion: the symbiotic relationship between mothers and sons in Yi Jian Zhi

PDF

A commercial and optimistic worldview of the afterlife of the Song people: Based on stories from the "Yijian Zhi"

PDF

Gazing subjects, gazing objects. Reconfiguring the gaze in Kawabata Yasunari's novels, 1939--1962

PDF

National character studies in America and Japan: Toward a new understanding of nihonjinron

PDF

China's periphery in perspective: A comparative look at the Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture and Shenzhen Special Economic Zone

PDF

Re -imagining the site of the feminine: A rediscovery of Zhang Ailing's fictional works

PDF

The evolving vocabulary of otherness in pre-imperial China: From 'belligerent others' to 'cultural others'

PDF

Urban landscape and cultural imagination: Literature, film, and visuality in semi-colonial Shanghai, 1927-1937

PDF

The impact of ethnic mobilization in postwar Japan: A reflection of Japan's two Korea policy

PDF

If you build it...: A "different story" of the re-emergence of baseball in China, the people who play it, and why

PDF

China's telecommunications race: An attempt by the CCP to achieve technical legitimacy and hold onto power

PDF

Symbols, myth and TV in Hawai'i: "Hawaiian Eye", "Five-O" and "Magnum P.I.". The first cycle

PDF

Japan's modernization and troubled identity: Grappling with the West and other foreigners

PDF

Disparity of power: The United States engagement with Korea

PDF

Intersubjectivity and the mother-daughter dyad in Korean American women literature

PDF

The collapse of Japan's bubble economy and its consequences

PDF

Off the farm: rural Chinese women's experiences of labor mobility and modernity in post-Mao China (1984-2002)

PDF

How China's economic reform changed domestic circumstances for exports during the 1980s

Asset Metadata

Creator Park, Hye-June (author)

Core Title Property and subjectivity: Women's property rights in Joseon Korea (1392--1910)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program East Asian Languages and Cultures

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag history, Asia, Australia and Oceania,literature, Asian,OAI-PMH Harvest,women's studies

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-416220

Unique identifier UC11335775

Identifier 3145262.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-416220 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3145262.pdf

Dmrecord 416220

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Park, Hye-June

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA