[KS] By train from Seoul to Incheon--what's in a name?

[sumnom at u.washington.edu]

One can find references to the capital as Kyongsong well before the colonial period. Take for example the Kyongsong Suchuk Togam, the temporary agency assigned the task of moving the capital from Kaesong to Hansong. You can find reference to this in the Taejo sillok 2.8.sinmyo, for starters. In the readings that I encounter, primarily from the 1880s and 1890s, kyong is not at all an uncommon word used to denote the city we now call Seoul.

Another interesting phrase is "kyonggaksa," meaning all government offices in Seoul. If you look up "kyong" in the Hanguk hanchao sajon, as I am doing now, you can find many Choson period uses in reference to Seoul.

In the case of the Kyong'in line, "kyong" simply means "capital."

Why do you think that "kyong'in" is contrived?



Joshua Van Lieu

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Stefan Ewing wrote:

> Dear KS list members:
>
> All right, it's my turn to ask a vexing question.  The question and its 
> motivation are arcane and necessarily long, so my apologies in advance, and 
> please feel free to skip this posting entirely.
>
> (For consistency's sake, I'm using McCune-Reischauer for almost all place names 
> in this article, both historical and modern.  Some names go by different 
> renditions today.)
>
> Korea's first railway line was built during the era of foreign concessions, at 
> the close of the 19th century.  In 1899, a line was opened connecting 
> Noryangjin (across the river from the city gates of Hanso^ng--modern-day Seoul) 
> with Chemulp'o in Inch'o^n, the forerunner of today's Kyo^ngin Line.  (The 
> Noryangjin-Kuro stretch is now part of the Kyo^ngbu Line to Pusan, a 6-track 
> artery served by everything from the high-speed KTX to lowly, 
> packed-to-the-handrails local Line 1 subway trains.)
>
> Historical articles on the early development of Korean railways invariably 
> refer to the original 1896 line as the Kyo^nginso^n (so^n = Line; 
> http://www.korail.go.kr/2003/100th/year/index1.html) or Kyo^ngin Ch'o^lto 
> (Railway; http://webzine.korail.go.kr/20050402/00250.html).  If the line was in 
> fact so named in 1896--which is not at all clear--this would indicate that the 
> characters in the line's name were chosen because the line connects the capital 
> (so^ul kyo^ng) with Inch'o^n (o^jil in).  The Kyo^ngbu (to Pusan, opened 1905) 
> and Kyo^ngu^i Lines (to Sinu^iju, 1906) appear to have been named on a similar 
> pattern.
>
> The sticking point is that, up until 1910, Seoul's name was Hanso^ng, and 
> thereafter changed by or under the Japanese authorities to Kyo^ngso^ng. 
> Long-time Korean practice before and since has been to name many provinces, 
> transportation routes, or events by joining together one character from each of 
> the two place names involved: thus, Ch'ungch'o^ng-do (Ch'ungju-Ch'o^ngju); the 
> Kyo^ngjo^n (Kyo^ngsang-Cho^lla) railway line; the Kuma (Taegu-Masan) 
> Expressway; and relevant to the recent discussion, the Puma (Pusan-Masan) 
> Uprising(s) (?--cannot find their mention now).  Why, then, was the original 
> railway called not, say, the Hanin (Hanso^ng-Inch'o^n) Ch'o^lto, but the 
> somewhat contrived Kyo^ngin Ch'o^lto?
>
> That Seoul was not officially named as such until one year after liberation in 
> 1946 does not preclude the possibility that the word "so^ul" ("capital") was 
> used colloquially to refer to the city prior to that time.  When streetcars 
> first came to the capital in 1898, the operating company--Hanso^ng Cho^ngi 
> Hoesa--was referred to in English as the "Seoul Electric Co." 
> (http://www.seoul.go.kr/life/life/culture/history_book/picture_seoul2/7/1203339_3020.html 
> , 7th photo from top; note Han'gu^l rendition of company's name as "Hansyo^ng 
> Tyo^ngu^i Hoesa").  Could the character "kyo^ng" have had some currency as a 
> written noun, equivalent to the colloquial name "Seoul"?
>
> It is also possible that the original railway had a different name and that the 
> modern name--Kyo^ngin--has only been applied to the line retrospectively by 
> later writers.  Under this scenario, the Kyo^ngin Line and its pre-1910 younger 
> sisters--the Kyo^ngbu and Kyo^ngu^i Lines to Pusan and Sinu^iju 
> respectively--would have been so renamed some time after the Japanese 
> annexation.  In that case, the first character in each line's new name would 
> presumably have come from the "kyo^ng" in "Kyo^ngso^ng" (the Japanese "Keijo"), 
> Seoul's new name--the same character, but with a different story behind it.
>
> To summarize, my question, then, is this: Was the name "Kyo^ngin" chosen (over, 
> say, "Hanin"), because the character kyo^ng denotes "capital," the Korean 
> equivalent--Seoul/So^ul--being the colloquial name for Hanso^ng?  Are there 
> attestations in other (non-rail-related) sources to the use of "kyo^ng" (or 
> "Seoul") to refer to the capital during the Choso^n Dynasty?  Or is this a 
> commentary on non-scholarly historiography, with modern writers retrospectively 
> applying an anachronistic name to the railway, the original name lost in the 
> mists of time?  Or between the railway's concession holder--James R. Morse--and 
> the Koreans with whom he worked, was this highly idiosyncractic name the simple 
> result?
>
> I hope someone, somewhere on this list can provide some sort of satisfactory 
> answer.  It would appear that whatever the answer, there's an interesting story 
> waiting to emerge!
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Stefan Ewing
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Designer Mail isn't just fun to send, it's fun to receive. Use special 
> stationery, fonts and colors. 
> http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
> Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN. Premium right now and get the first two 
> months FREE*.
>
>
>