How Did Ito Hirobumi and Lee Wan-yong Communicate? -- The Hidden Language Story of the Eulsa Treaty

What Language Was Used to Sell a Nation?

November 1905. The moment that decided the fate of the Korean Empire.

Ito Hirobumi stood before Lee Wan-yong and the other ministers of the Korean Empire. But here's a curious question.

Ito couldn't speak Korean, and Lee Wan-yong couldn't speak Japanese... so how did these two communicate?

The answer is surprisingly fascinating.

English? Japanese? Korean? The Answer Is...

The Reality of Diplomatic Language at the Time

Remarkably, their primary means of communication consisted of three methods.

1. Written Classical Chinese (Brush Conversation)

The most basic method of communication was pildam (brush conversation) -- writing Chinese characters with a brush to converse. Since both Korea and Japan belonged to the Chinese character cultural sphere, even complex conversations could be conducted in written classical Chinese.

Joseon's yangban (aristocratic) officials were proficient in classical Chinese, and Meiji-era Japanese politicians were also elites educated in Chinese classical learning. Ito Hirobumi himself had studied Chinese classics from childhood.

In fact, brush conversation was an extremely common form of communication in East Asian diplomacy. It was a remarkable situation where spoken language didn't work, but picking up a brush made conversation possible.

2. The Presence of Interpreters

Official meetings always included interpreters. Japan had systematically trained interpreters fluent in Korean as part of its diplomatic infiltration of Joseon.

A representative figure was Maema Kyosaku and similar Japanese Korean-language specialist interpreters. These individuals went beyond simple interpretation, playing key roles in executing Japan's diplomatic strategy.

On the Korean side, there were also officials who could speak Japanese, but ironically, they failed to advocate for Korea's interests during the Eulsa Treaty negotiations.

3. Lee Wan-yong's Special Language Ability

Lee Wan-yong was actually quite fluent in English. He had served at the Korean Empire's legation in Washington in 1887 and had lived in the United States. He could speak English fluently.

Ito Hirobumi also had extensive diplomatic experience with Western nations after the Meiji Restoration and could understand English to some degree (he had visited Britain multiple times).

Therefore, in some unofficial conversations, English may have served as a lingua franca.

The Scene of the Eulsa Treaty

Reconstructing the scene on November 17, 1905, the day the Eulsa Treaty (Eulsa Forced Treaty) was signed:

Official meetings: A Japanese-side interpreter translated Ito's Japanese into Korean
Document drafting: The treaty was written in both classical Chinese and Japanese
Unofficial discussions: Brush conversation in classical Chinese or conversations through interpreters
Pressure and coercion: Interpreters accompanied Ito even during the process of individually summoning each minister to ask their position

According to records from the time, Ito spoke very aggressively during the meetings, and interpreters conveyed his words as-is -- sometimes even more threateningly.

Moments When Interpretation Changed History

Here's where it gets interesting. The accuracy of interpretation influenced the course of history.

Suspicions of Deliberate Mistranslation

Some historians point to the possibility that Japanese interpreters deliberately altered nuances.

For example:

Conveying Ito's "consultations" as "orders" to pressure the ministers
Distorting Korean ministers' objections into passive agreement
Deliberately downplaying the severity of treaty terms

Of course, since Lee Wan-yong and the other members of the "Five Eulsa Traitors" fully understood the treaty's contents, translation distortion alone cannot excuse their responsibility.

The Duality of Classical Chinese

Brush conversation wasn't a perfect communication tool either. The same Chinese characters could carry subtly different meanings in Korean and Japanese.

For example, the characters "yakusoku" (promise/commitment) carry an everyday meaning of "promise" in Korean, but in Japanese, they more strongly connote "contract" or "agreement." It's fascinating to consider what impact such subtle differences might have had on diplomatic documents.

Same Era, Different Cases

This kind of diplomacy across language barriers wasn't unique to Ito and Lee Wan-yong.

Meeting	Communication Method
Ito Hirobumi - Emperor Gojong	Interpreter + classical Chinese brush conversation
Empress Myeongseong - Miura Goro	Interpreter
Emperor Gojong - Russian envoy	French (the international diplomatic language of the time)
Kim Ok-gyun - Fukuzawa Yukichi	Classical Chinese brush conversation + Kim Ok-gyun's Japanese

Kim Ok-gyun was a rare case -- he learned Japanese directly during his extended stay in Japan. Lee Wan-yong, by contrast, reportedly never learned Japanese.

The Real Problem Beyond Language

Digging into how Ito and Lee Wan-yong communicated, you ultimately arrive at this realization:

What matters more than whether language works is whose side you're speaking for.

Lee Wan-yong was one of the most accomplished intellectuals of his time, proficient in both English and classical Chinese. It wasn't a lack of linguistic ability that led him to hand over his country. Rather, the tragedy was that despite his outstanding linguistic abilities, he chose not to use them to defend his nation.

During the same period, figures like Yi Sang-seol and Yi Wi-jong, fluent in English and French, used their language skills at the Hague Peace Conference to appeal for the Korean Empire's independence.

Closing: Understanding Each Other's Words Doesn't Mean Understanding Each Other's Hearts

Ito Hirobumi and Lee Wan-yong communicated through classical Chinese brush conversation, interpreters, and sometimes English.

But the true irony is this:

They understood each other's words, but those words pointed in opposite directions.

Ito spoke for the expansion of the Japanese Empire, and Lee Wan-yong agreed for the sake of his own safety. And between them, the voices of 20 million Korean Empire subjects went uninterpreted.

The language problem in history is not simply a matter of "translation." It is a matter of for whom and what is being conveyed.

It's worth reconsidering why we learn foreign languages today. Language is merely a tool -- how we use that tool is ultimately a matter of personal choice.