[KS] Re: More on HKT

[Mickey Hong]

Hong Sangjik, Hong KT's father according to _MTP_, was certainly a real
person.   _MTP_ records Hong KT as the 2nd son of Hong SJ, whose 1st son was
Hong Iltong.  Hong KT's name doesn't appear in the Namhyang Hong kagyedo b/c
he's illegitimate, but the Hong family chokpo indicates that both IT & KT were
Hong SJ's sons.

Authorship: There was a debate in Korea around the 60s about the true
authorship of _Hong KT ch^on_.  Taektang chip_ ,  _Songch'o^n p'ildam_, &
_Chu^ngpo haedong icho^k_ all agree that Ho^ Kyun's the author of _Hong KT
chip_.  I'd love to see the "textual evidence that  indicated that HKT was not
a 16th century piece, but was rather more likely a 18th century work."  _Hong
KT cho^n_ was almost lost until it was compiled under King Cho^ngjo (1776-1800)
who appreciated literature.

Let's say the insertion of the name "Hong KT" in the _MTP_ was a joke.  Now I
ask all of you: to what degree is history a construct.  Why was it so desirable
to give Hong KT an existence?

A cultural analysis: I always thought it was hilarious that the name Hong
Kiltong is often used as example for official forms.   It's, of course, b/c
he's supposed in all 8 provinces at once, but I don't know how this phenomenon
started.  It's the conspiracy of the Korean people, even as a joke, to keep him
alive even if not in flesh.

-Mickey Hong

Mark Peterson wrote:

>         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
> reader.
>
> best regards,
> Mark



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%