Peeping in Joseon Korea: Voyeurism, diplomats and scandals (Part 3)

Percival Lowell’s photograph of the Korean Foreign Affairs office in 1884 / Robert Neff Collection

According to Walter Hillier, the British consul to Korea from 1889 to 1896, Korean's scholar gentry, called yangban, “are invested with certain rights and immunities, and it is an offence against the law for a plebeian even to use rude language towards them, much less assault them. Their pride is proverbial, and they are most jealous of their dignity and rights.”

On June 6, 1889, while out on an errand, Kim Chang-yo, the head servant at the French Legation, committed the heinous crime of voyeurism. According to the secretary of the American Legation, as Kim passed the residence of a yangban, Soh Piang-so, he looked over the wall and “beheld with profane eyes the ladies of the noble household, a crime than which there is none greater in the Corean calendar.”

Kim, “having been discovered in the act of his offending,” was scolded by one of Soh’s house servants. Rather than apologize for his brazen act, Kim cursed at the servant. The nobleman was beyond words and patience; he immediately ordered the voyeur seized and soundly beaten.

When Kim spoke in a rude manner, the nobleman “exercised a recognized right” and called upon his neighbors to come and beat the insolent servant.

Hugh Dinsmore, the American minister to Korea, noted that “Mr. Soh is highly connected, belonging to one of the most influential families in Korea … (and his arrest) caused great indignation and excitement amongst the Korean upper classes.” He did not, however, elaborate on why. Hillier did.

Soh alleged that “he was dragged through the streets with his hands tied behind his back, an indignity unheard of in the case of a man of his rank.” The gentry looked on his treatment with deep resentment, and their anger darkened further when rumors spread that Soh was dying “from the combined effects of ill-treatment and wounded pride.”

A Korean trial in the late 19th century / Robert Neff Collection

However, Soh was not as complacent as we are led to believe. After Victor Collin de Plancy, the French commissaire, was through scolding the nobleman, he ordered him off the legation grounds, but Soh refused. His honor had been sorely wounded and needed to be avenged. The French diplomat was unswayed and simply told the Korean that unless he left on his own volition, he would be physically thrown out by the legation guards.

Hillier acknowledged that “this no doubt aggravated [Soh’s] grievances, but he went away.” It was fortunate that he did: a crowd of sympathizers had gathered “and there was little doubt that they would shortly have proceeded to acts of violence.”

In the weeks that followed the incident, a flurry of heated diplomatic messages was exchanged between Plancy and acting Minister of Foreign Affairs Jo Byeong-sik. The Korean minister demanded that Kim be turned over to the Korean authorities, while the French diplomat refused. Plancy was convinced his servant would be executed for an act he did not even consider a crime — minor or heinous. He may have had a point: 16 years earlier, while serving as the vice minister of justice, Jo was exiled for arbitrarily executing criminals.

Punishment in the late 19th century was often swift and painful. Robert Neff Collection

Neither party was willing to concede. I imagine that 66-year-old Jo was to some degree upset that Plancy, who was three decades younger than him, should be so obstinate and dismissive in attitude. There is no doubt that the animosity between them hardened after Plancy refused to correspond any further and instead wrote to the minister of the interior, who was close to the king, asking for Jo’s removal. Jo submitted his resignation, but the king refused it.

Western diplomats sympathized with Plancy’s efforts to protect his employee but could not openly support his claim that Korean servants enjoyed the same immunity afforded to diplomats, their families and their foreign staff. The diplomats suggested an agreement be made to turn Kim over to Korean authorities for assurances that he would not be executed, but no consensus was reached.

Hillier later wrote:

“The incident has caused great excitement amongst the official classes who are indignant at the insult to which a member of the aristocracy has been subjected, at the instance as they believe, of a foreign official, and are upbraiding the [minister] of the Foreign Office for the partiality he is supposed to be showing to foreigners. The fact of the man Kim being a Catholic has aggravated the situation, and has, I am told, provoked unpleasant feeling towards missionaries in general.”

Fortunately, other officials took a more prominent role and the matter was resolved. Perhaps most prominent was Vice Minister Yi In-eung, who began corresponding with Plancy in an effort to save face for all involved. Jo was promoted to a prestigious position away from the capital, and the following day, Kim was taken to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where Yi severely chastised and then released him.

It was an ideal conclusion. Jo's “wounded pride” was soothed by a promotion; Plancy saved face and became a champion among his Korean staff; and the other Western diplomats were spared political involvement in a matter that did not concern their governments.

Perhaps the best summation of the incident was by Hillier. “The simplicity of the settlement which has now been arrived at seems almost ludicrously disproportionate to the excitement caused by the earlier events in the history of this case…”

He then went on to add that the only person who “obtained no satisfaction” was Soh, “the victim of the indignity perpetrated” by the French Legation guard. However, Soh was “so weary of the attentions of his friends that he was only too glad to be rid of the case on any terms.”