[KS] Re: More on HKT

Mark Peterson Mark_Peterson at byu.edu
Mon Feb 28 15:46:24 EST 2000

My two-cents worth on Hong Kiltong:
	I've used him not so much as a literary text, but as social
commentary regarding his standing as a so^ja.
	I cited him once at an RAS lecture that Wm Skillend attended.
Afterward he scolded me and Marshall Pihl, my teacher, for quoting the
oft-cited, but never proved, authorship as that of Ho^ Kyun.  Skillend
stated that the textual evidence indicated that HKT was not a 16th century
piece, but was rather more likely a 18th century work.
	Ho^ was not so much a radical but a supposed sympathizer of the
so^ja cause.  Several of his associates, including two of his cousins, were
so^ja who enjoyed the limited success of so^ja as government officials --
there were times when the government allowed so^ja to pass exams.  Early on
they were labeled as ho^t'ong, an allowance recommended by Yi I; later
there was an second liberalization called the o^byu movement, whereby so^ja
could pass exams with that label.  The complaint was that after they passed
the exam they were seldom employed, and if employed, only briefly at lower
levels.  Some of Ho^ Kyun's associates were ho^t'ong.  So, the assumption
was made that he wrote HKT.  At least that's one version.
	Concerning the sillok citation, I hadn't known that before, but I
do know that he is listed in the MTP -- Ed Wagner's favorite comprehensive
genealogical abstract, a kind of table of peerage -- the manso^ng taedong
po.  The MTP is otherwise a serious and accurate list of prominent people
in their lineages.  I've always thought, as did Prof. Wagner, that it was
the compiler's joke, an aside to lighten the perspective of the serious

best regards,

>What is the evidence that Hong Kiltong-jeon
>was originally written in han'gul rather
>than being written in Hanmun in the 17th century
>and translated into han'gul a century or so
>later? As far as I know, Ho Kyun wrote
>nothing else in han'gul, so why would
>the HKT story be any different? Also,
>Ho Kyun doesn't show much evidence
>in his political career of being much
>of a radical, so what justification
>is there for a radical interpretation
>of his story?
>A question for Mickey Hong: do you have
>the sillok citation for Hong Kil-tong?
>I am curious to know what the sillok
>says about him.
>Associate Professor, Asian Studies, Univ. of British Columbia


More information about the Koreanstudies mailing list