Yuan China’s Influence on Goryeo Korea:
A Comparative Analysis of 13th Century Law

by Caroline Shatzer, Comparative Literature

This paper is a comparative analysis of 13th-century Yuan Chinese and Goryeo Korean marriage, family, and inheritance laws. This analysis addresses the question of whether the Yuan legal system had any influence on Goryeo while it was a substate of Yuan China. While Mongolian cultural and political influence on Goryeo has been studied more extensively, there is a lack of research on the interactions between the Yuan and Goryeo legal systems. This is an area of interest since Goryeo and Yuan had a unique political relationship that may have affected Yuan’s legal authority over Goryeo. This paper considers Yuan’s political control and cultural influence in Goryeo as the basis for why Yuan may have held influence in Goryeo’s legal realm. Through comparative analysis, this paper examines the text and historical context of individual Yuan and Goryeo laws and court cases to conclude that the influence of Yuan law on Goryeo law was minimal during the period of Goryeo subjugation to Mongol rule. Although Yuan law may have held some influence during the Joseon period of Korea, it is evident that Goryeo maintained a separate and distinct legal system from the Yuan. This separation can be attributed to the belief that Goryeo’s legal codes were a part of their cultural identity that could not be superseded by the Yuan.

Goryeo Korea, Yuan China, law, comparative analysis, East Asian history


The Goryeo1 Dynasty was established on the Korean Peninsula in 935 CE by Taejo of Goryeo.2 Lasting nearly 500 years, Goryeo is considered the foundation of the modern-day Korean identity and is also the origin of the name “Korea.”3 Goryeo enjoyed flourishing commerce and art but faced continuous conflict with other nations, frequently warring with the Jurchens, the Khitans, and the Mongols.

The Mongol invasions of Korea began around 1231 CE. Goryeo resisted invasion for over thirty years before signing a peace treaty that made them a vassal state of the Mongol-Yuan empire (J. Kim 282). This situation was unique compared to other peoples conquered by the Mongols. Goryeo “was able to preserve its social customs and political institutions and have its own ruler, ministers, [and] people” (Wong 21). However, Goryeo was still subjected to oppressive Yuan governance. Thus, Goryeo sovereignty and the relationship between Goryeo and Yuan was not rigidly defined, but rather “ambiguous and fluid” (Wong 3).

Many academics have studied Yuan’s authority over the politics and institutions of Goryeo and the social and cultural diffusion between the two dynasties. However, there are few studies on the interactions between the Yuan and Goryeo legal systems. This paper aims to determine to what degree Yuan legal codes influenced Goryeo through a contrastive analysis of Yuan and Goryeo marriage, family, and inheritance law. I focus on these aspects of law because the Yuan government created many laws in these areas that departed from Chinese legal tradition, which played a part in establishing Yuan authority. Thus, the Yuan may have also tried to exert authority over Goryeo with laws in these areas. Through this analysis, I show that Yuan law had minimal influence in Goryeo while Goryeo was under Yuan rule.

Goryeo Under Yuan Rule: Politics and Culture

Since Goryeo resisted Mongol invasion for so long, Khubilai Khan, the Yuan emperor, recognized Goryeo as a powerful nation (J. Kim 281). As a stipulation of the treaty between the dynasties, Goryeo was “not…forced to change its traditional customs” and “was allowed to retain its statehood and royal family” (J. Kim 282). The retention of the royal family is particularly significant because they maintained leadership positions in the government. An example of this is the Branch Secretariat for the Eastern Campaign,4 established by the Mongols in Goryeo in the 1280s. It was created to facilitate the Yuan invasions of Japan but later became a political institution that served as a symbol of Mongol sovereignty over Goryeo (Wong 4). However, the Chief Councilor of the Branch Secretariat was not a Mongolian official. Rather, Goryeo kings held “the office of the Chief Councilor and the Kingship of Goryeo simultaneously” (Wong 9). This was not a symbolic title, but a position with real responsibilities and authority (Wong 9). Thus, the Mongols did not have complete political dominance over Goryeo.

Despite these allowances, the Yuan still exercised firm control over Goryeo. Goryeo was required to pay tribute to Yuan with items like “gold, silver, ginseng, textiles, grains, [and]…celadons” (Y. Kim 71). They also sent human tributes to China. Many Goryeo people living in Yuan, mostly eunuchs, prisoners of war, and women called gongnyeos,5 were “forced to move there against their will” (J. Kim 283). A marriage commissioner’s office was established to “round up girls or widows” to send to Yuan (Y. Kim 71), but this was a fate “deemed worse than death,” so many families hid or married off their daughters as young as twelve years old (Y. Kim 73). This practice was problematic for Goryeo, but the king was powerless to stop it due to political pressure from Yuan.

Goryeo immigrants in China faced many hardships, but they also facilitated cultural exchange by maintaining “the Goryeo lifestyle in terms of dress, food, and customs” (J. Kim 282). This popularized Goryeo culture in Yuan, which spread to the aristocracy through gongnyeos that became concubines for high-class individuals. One gongnyeo even married into the imperial family: Empress Gi.6 In Goryeo, there was a “diffusion of…upper class [Mongolian] culture” (J. Kim 282) spread through the intermarriage of Yuan and Goryeo royalty. Seven Yuan royal women married Goryeo kings and brought their traditions with them, resulting in the popularity of Mongolian customs, food, fashion, and language amongst Goryeo aristocrats. Goryeo kings and officials used Mongolian-style names. Soju, considered a liquor native to Korea, was actually “imported…through Mongolia” during this time (J. Kim 289). However, Goryeo was also pressured to adopt some of these cultural aspects. The Yuan court ordered Goryeo kings to adopt Mongol fashion and compelled Goryeo peoples “to wear Mongol dress and…hair” (Y. Kim 71).

These examples of Yuan’s political and cultural control over Goryeo establish the reasonable inference that the Yuan court may have exercised control over the Goryeo legal system as well. Thus, we will now conduct a comparative analysis of Yuan and Goryeo laws.

Marriage Law 

Marriage laws in both dynasties focused on prohibiting marriage in certain situations. Goryeo law prohibited marriage between blood relations, persons with the same family name, and between different social classes. For example, descendants of incestuous marriages were forbidden to take the Korean government service examination, the gwageo (Y. Kim 49-50). Another legal ramification was that offspring of couples from different social classes were classified as the lowest social class with no exceptions (Lee 250-251). The Yuan initially had a more forgiving policy compared to Goryeo, allowing children born to a slave and a free woman to be of free status alongside the mother (Birge 264). However, this later changed so that the child of a slave and a free person would be a slave. This was to prevent slaves from creating free-class families and to maintain the hierarchy between social classes.

Through these similarities in laws governing intermarriage between social classes, we can observe the shared social attitudes of Goryeo and Yuan. However, there is no evidence that Goryeo or Yuan directly influenced one another’s laws regarding cross-class marriage. Rather, it appears that both dynasties faced the same issue and created the same policy separately, evidenced by the dates of implementation of these laws. In Goryeo, slave status was made hereditary between 1034 and 1046, nearly 100 years before the Mongols first invaded Goryeo (Y. Kim 56).

Another aspect of marriage regulated similarly by Goryeo and Yuan was polygamy. Polygamy was an integral aspect of Mongolian culture, which influenced Han Chinese men in northern China to start taking multiple wives. The Han Chinese, or simply the Chinese, is the name of the ethnic group native to China. In 1271, Khubilai Khan declared that polygamy was not allowed amongst the Han Chinese, but Mongols could still marry multiple women (Birge 254). Later, the Yuan government reversed their position, stating that Chinese men could have multiple wives if the new wife was a “secondary wife,” not a “principal wife” (Birge 256). In Goryeo, it was customary for the king and aristocrats to have multiple wives. But legally, a “clear distinction between the primary spouse and the secondary wife or concubine” was necessary, similarly to Yuan law (Y. Kim 50). However, Goryeo law already regulated polygamy before they came under Yuan rule, thus there is no evidence that Yuan polygamy law influenced Goryeo.

Lastly, let us examine divorce law. In Goryeo, divorce law was extremely discriminatory towards women. Women “were not entitled to initiate divorce under any circumstances” while men could initiate divorce with parental consent (Y. Kim 52). A man could rightfully expel his wife from the house if she “failed in her filial duty toward the mother-in-law” or violated other important womanly virtues. For example, if the wife failed to produce a son, she could be expelled from the home (Y. Kim 52-53). Circumstances for women were similar in Yuan China. While “divorce…was legal in all periods of Chinese history,” only the husband could initiate a divorce (Birge 192). Husbands could expel their wives from the home but were required to “draw up a letter of divorce” for local authorities to approve (Birge 192). Additionally, a court decision from 1275 declared that the marriage contract between two parties could not have any measures allowing for divorce (Keliher 118). In Yuan culture, the relationship between husband and wife was the basis of morality; thus, marriage was an enduring union and divorce could not be justified (Keliher 118). The law shows that both Goryeo and Yuan women could not divorce their husbands even under extreme circumstances. However, this precedent was established in Yuan after the adoption of the same policy in Goryeo, thus Yuan law did not influence Goryeo law in this area either.

Family and Criminal Law

Many royal edicts and penal codes in the Goryeo-sa,7 the official compilation of Goryeo history, relate to family law. Violations of family law, such as being unfilial, resulted in criminal punishment. Yuan family law was similar, hence the consideration of family and criminal law together. Additionally, family law offers insights into the criminal punishments used during the periods of Goryeo and Yuan rule.

In Goryeo, adultery was severely punished by beatings, hangings, or beheadings. An exemplary case from 1369 in the Goryeo-sa8 says that a man, No-suk, who committed adultery was “hit…800 times with a club” and died.9 In another example, an edict from the Goryeo-sa said that slaves who commit adultery with the slave owner or the slave owner’s relative should be punished by hanging or beheading.10 In another case from 1352, entitled “condemn the woman and mistress who committed incest,” the wife of a soldier, Jeon Bo-mun, committed adultery and incest with Jeon’s nephew. The wife and nephew were imprisoned and sentenced to death.11

In Confucian ideology, female chastity and faithfulness to one’s husband were important virtues; thus, adultery was punishable under Yuan law. Although there are cases where adultery was punished leniently, consequences were still doled out in the form of beatings and marriage annulments (Birge 198). In a court case from 1272, it was ruled that a groom’s family could get back their betrothal gifts because his fiancée committed adultery (Birge 196). Another case from 1286 declared that all adulterous marriages had to be annulled (Birge 128). The cases from Goryeo that dealt with adultery may have had harsher punishments because the adultery occurred between more “shameful” parties, such as blood relatives. Regardless, there is no strong evidence of Yuan influence on Goryeo since both dynasties already punished adultery, albeit to different degrees, before Yuan rule was established in Goryeo.

In Goryeo law, the dae-aks, or “great evils,”12 were acts that received very harsh punishment. Many of these crimes related to family law, including injuring, murdering, or cursing at family members. For example, conspiring to kill your relative’s child carried a two-and-a-half-year punishment, while injuring the child carried a three-year punishment. If you killed the child, you were banished 3,000 li.1314 There were also punishments for beating or cursing at your parents or grandparents. If you hit them, you were beheaded. If you cursed at them, you were hanged. There are also penal codes stating that if you injure your older male or female relatives, you will be punished in the same manner regardless of the gender of that relative. The titles of these laws specifically state that one will be punished for “beating up an older brother and sister” or “beating up an older male cousin and older female cousin.”15 The punishments do not differ based on gender, indicating that men and women had equal status under the law as victims of violent crimes.

In Yuan, committing wrongful acts towards elders was also looked down upon. In dramatic works like Celebrated Cases of Judge Dee by Robert van Gulik, the murder of one’s husband was punished by death. Additionally, traditional Chinese law observed the “Ten Abominations,” crimes considered the most abhorrent. Three of the ten offenses relate to family law. These are patricide,16 harming or murdering one’s parents or grandparents; a lack of filial piety,17 which consisted of maltreating parents or grandparents; and discord,18 which was to harm or sue one’s husband or elder relatives. These crimes were harshly punished, thus both Yuan and Goryeo considered harming one’s family to be an extremely evil act.

Through this examination of family law, we can conclude that, like most aspects of Yuan and Goryeo marriage law, the legal codes of the two dynasties were already similar before Goryeo was brought under Yuan control. Thus, there was not much influence from Yuan on Goryeo law in this area.

Property and Inheritance Law

The property and inheritance laws of Goryeo are surprising considering the socially inferior position of women under Confucian ideology. Women in Goryeo “had almost equal rights with men regardless of their marital status” regarding property inheritance (Y. Kim 47). The eldest legitimate son in the family had priority over land inheritance, but for every other property, “sons and daughters had equal claim,” including highly valued property like slaves (Y. Kim 48). Widowed women without sons or grandsons were also entitled to a land grant from the government to help them support themselves (Y. Kim 48-49). Thus, it was not unusual for Goryeo women to own land and support themselves financially.

In the dynasty that preceded Yuan, the Song, woman enjoyed considerable property rights. However, there was a strong push from the Yuan against these Song-era policies. “The Yuan favored a social system that upheld the male patriline,” thus they were eager to undermine the property and inheritance rights women had gained during the Song period (Keliher 4). In Yuan, women’s access to property and inheritance was hindered by institutionalized widow chastity, the severance of “the bond between the woman and her dowry,” and the “transferred control of a woman’s personhood to her husband” (Keliher 5). Overall, Yuan and Goryeo inheritance policies were very different, thus there is certainly no Yuan influence over Goryeo in this area.

Conclusion

Based on this comparative analysis of marriage, family, and property law from Yuan and Goryeo, we can conclude that the influence of Yuan law on Goryeo law was extremely limited, if not nonexistent. While their legal codes shared many similarities, most of these policies existed in Goryeo before Mongol rule, indicating that the Mongols did not have a hand in shaping Goryeo’s laws. These three areas provide a window for understanding cultural diffusion through the lens of gender relations and Confucian ethics, topics of great sociocultural significance. The lack of similarities between these laws shows that the Yuan did not overpower Goryeo tradition and culture.

The lack of legal influence from Yuan in Goryeo offers a clearer picture of how much sovereignty Goryeo retained under Yuan rule and emphasizes the uniqueness of their political relationship. While the Chinese and other peoples were subjected to Yuan’s new laws, Goryeo was not. This is likely because Goryeo’s legal codes were part of their long-held cultural traditions, which the Mongols promised Goryeo would not have to change under their rule. Both Yuan and Goryeo acknowledged the distinction between their laws. One Yuan official commented, “Yuan legal authority was not…recognized or observed in situations that required legal actions based on the penal code” (Lee 252). A prominent Goryeo scholar, Yi Gok,19 summarizes Yuan’s lack of control over Goryeo laws with his statement, “Goryeo situations demand Goryeo codes…be applied” (Lee 252).

Most likely, Yuan’s biggest influence on Goryeo was sociocultural rather than legal, especially considering the prominence of Mongolian fashion and culture in Goryeo during Yuan rule. Although Mongolian culture was diffused in some areas, Goryeo’s demand that they be allowed to maintain traditional cultural practices effectively kept their legal system separate from the Yuan. Another contributing factor to the lack of Yuan legal authority in Goryeo could be the declining power of the Yuan empire. Their manpower may have been spread too thin to worry about Goryeo’s laws since they ruled such vast territory. It is also possible that language differences between the two empires blocked Yuan’s potential for influence, but since the Yuan were able to exert legal authority over the Han Chinese despite a language barrier, this is not seen as a major contributing factor.

It is notable that during the 1380s and 1390s, long after the end of Yuan rule, the “Goryeo government issued an order instructing local officials to ‘consult Yuan codes in penal hearings and rulings’” (Lee 253). This shows that Yuan legal practices “did leave a lasting impression on the minds of the Goryeo people” (Lee 253). But while Yuan law may have influenced Korean law after the Goryeo dynasty, this influence was not present while Goryeo was actively a substate of the Mongol-Yuan empire.


Works Cited

Birge, Bettine. Marriage and the Law in the Age of Khubilai Khan: Cases from the Yuan Dianzhang. Harvard UP, 2017. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvnwc0ch. Accessed 29 Mar. 2024.

“Goryeo Dynasty.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 22 Mar. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Koryo-dynasty. Accessed 31 March 2024.

Jeong, In Ji, et al. 1451. “Goryeo-sa.” Database of Korean History: Goryeo Era, 1451, https://db.history.go.kr/goryeo/. Accessed 5 Apr. 2024.

Keliher, Macabe, and Bettine Birge. “Law in the Mongol and Post-Mongol World: The Case of Yuan China.” China Review International, vol. 23, no. 2, 2016, pp. 107-25. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26593014. Accessed 6 Apr. 2024.

Kim, Jin Yeong, et al. “Goryeoyang and Mongolpung in the 13Th-14Th Centuries.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, vol. 68, no. 3, Sept. 2015, pp. 281-92. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1556/062.2015.68.3.3.

Kim, Yung-chung. Women of Korea: A History from Ancient Times to 1945. Translated by Yung-chung Kim, Ewha Womans UP, 1982.

Lee, Kang Hahn. “Shifting Political, Legal, and Institutional Borderlines between Koryŏ and the Mongol Yuan Empire.” Seoul Journal of Korean Studies, vol. 29, no. 2, Dec. 2016, pp. 239–66. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1353/seo.2016.0013.

“The Goryeo Dynasty (918–1392).” Khan Academy, khanacademy.org/humanities/art-asia/korea-japan/goryeo-dynasty/a/the-goryeo-dynasty-9181392. Accessed 31 Mar. 2024.

Wong, King Kwong. “All Are the Ruler’s Domain, but All Are Different: Mongol-Yuan Rule and Koryŏ Sovereignty in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries.” Seoul Journal of Korean Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, June 2021, p. N.PAG. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1353/seo.2021.0001.


Notes

  1. The spelling of Korean words in this paper follows the “Revised Romanization of Korean” system. See https://www.korean.go.kr/front_eng/roman/roman_01.do. ↩︎
  2. Taejo of Goryeo, (Korean: 태조; Hanja: 太祖), founder of the Goryeo dynasty. Born Wang Geon (왕건; 王建). ↩︎
  3. See Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Goryeo dynasty”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 22 Mar. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Koryo-dynasty. Accessed 31 March 2024. ↩︎
  4. Korean: 정동행성; Hanja: 征東行省 ↩︎
  5. Gongnyeo (Korean: 공녀; Hanja 貢女) refers to Goryeo women taken to Yuan as tribute, literally called “tribute women” (J. Kim 282). ↩︎
  6. Also spelled Empress Qi. Korean: 기황후; Hanja: 奇皇后; Mongolian: Öljei Khutuk ↩︎
  7. Korean: 고려사; Hanja: 高麗史 ↩︎
  8. Quotes and summaries from the Goryeo-sa were translated by me from Korean to English; there may be inaccuracies as I am not a professional translator. ↩︎
  9. Goryeo-sa Royal Family (世家) Book 41 [18th year of King Gongmin’s reign. June 20, 1369] ↩︎
  10. Goryeo-sa, Annals (志) Book 38, Criminal Law 1, “Adultery” (奸非) ↩︎
  11. Goryeo-sa Royal Family (世家) Book 38 [First year of King Gongmin’s reign. September 18, 1352] ↩︎
  12. Korean: 대악; Hanja: 大恶 ↩︎
  13. Goryeo-sa, Annals (志) Book 38, Criminal Law 1, “Great evils” (大恶): “Statute of punishment for conspiring to kill a relative’s child” (주친의 비유를 살해하려 한 경우 처벌하는 율문) ↩︎
  14. Li (里), also known as the Chinese mile, is a traditional Chinese unit of distance that was also used in Korea. One li was usually about one third of an English mile and is now standardized at 500 meters. ↩︎
  15. Goryeo-sa, Annals (志) Book 38, Criminal Law 1, “Great evils” (大恶): “State of punishment for those who beat or swear at their older brothers and sisters” (친형과 친누나를 구타하거나 욕질한 경우 처벌하는 율문) ↩︎
  16. Patricide: 惡逆 ↩︎
  17. Filial piety: 不孝 ↩︎
  18. Discord: 不睦 ↩︎
  19. Korean: 이곡; Hanja: 李穀 ↩︎

Citation Style: MLA