A few days ago, I wrote, in part:

> at least four
> men who rendered Korean stories into English died long enough ago,
> and published long enough ago, that both in the US and in countries
> where the Bern convention applies their writings are in the public
> domain.

I subsequently wrote that

| All four of the men known to me as the first Englishers of Korean
| traditional stories were missionaries to the Far East.

This, it turns out, was a bit of an exaggeration.

William Elliot Griffis, 1843-1928, did go to Japan, where he set up
schools and taught in them, and did become a minister, but although
Wikipedia on him (the best source I found online) calls him a
"missionary", technically he probably wasn't (which in turn is
probably why he doesn't have a non-Wikipedia biography online).
He grew up in Philadelphia, fought in the Civil War, then went to
Rutgers. There he tutored the school's first Japanese student.
After graduation and a Grand Tour, he started at seminary, but then
got an invitation from his student's home province, to come and teach.
He worked there for two years, 1870-1872, then in Tokyo for two more.
Then he returned to the US, finished seminary, and worked from 1877
to 1903 as a Congregational pastor. He also wrote a ton of books,
and in 1903, sixty years old, he retired to write more and also go on
lecture tours.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Elliot_Griffis>

Already in the 1880s he'd published two books on Korea, which he
hadn't visited while in Japan, and based mainly on Japanese sources.
But most of his books were on Japan, and the rest ranged pretty
widely, as we'll soon see. However, in 1880 he'd published a book
titled <Japanese Fairy World>, and in 1908 either a new edition or a
new book, <The Firefly's Lovers>. In 1911 came <The Unmannerly Tiger>,
Korean stories. On the strength of these, in 1918-1921 each year
brought a book of European fairy tales, Dutch, Belgian, Swiss and
Welsh, and then in 1922 came a new edition of <The Unmannerly Tiger>
and either a new or revised Japanese book.
1911: <https://books.google.com/books?id=lJrAQ1PeeewC>
1922: <https://archive.org/details/koreanfairytales00grif/>

I was biased against Griffis from getgo when I first read his Korean
fairy tale books. This is because I'd already read his Dutch book,
and posted here about its faults:
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.sf.written/c/soFUtvMswFw/m/oWTWCJ8nWf8J>
My charges were: 1) All the stories went to explain something,
either strictly Just So or at least some historical fact. 2) They
all got fit into a historical scheme. 3) He was much too rigid with
his fairies. And 4) He was much too didactic.
1918: <https://www.google.com/books/edition/Dutch_Fairy_Tales_for_Young_Folks/JZA6AQAAMAAJ>

In addition, his was the first full-length collection of Korean
"folklore", in the mixture of literary and folk sources typical
thereafter, and like all such, borrowed from predecessors. Since I
haven't read much of the periodical literature, I don't know how
*much* he borrowed, but given that he never got to Korea until
1926 or 1927, it was probably considerable. At the time, since I was
trying to read in chronological order, I actually doubted the stories
I couldn't source were actually Korean; but later writers from Korea
told the same stories, so I was wrong about that. Anyway, though,
his *first story*, the title story of the 1911 edition, is retold
from E. B. Landis's <China Review> article, its story 6. He also
retold three of H. N. Allen's chapters, including two pansori tales,
and based three more of his stories on shorter passages in Allen's
book. He dedicated the book to Allen, which seems fair, but the lack
of credit to Landis really pissed me off. However, lack of credit
has been the norm in kids' fairy tale books since long before, and I
was really wrong about that too, however unfair to Landis it was.

So here I am, at least two years later (I'm really unsure just when
I did this work, but 2018-19 seem the likeliest possibilities), and
can I get over all this bias to be fair to Griffis?

Well, after the Landis retelling, the book proceeds to a succession
of three major introductions of Korean stories, and they're all
kiddified. No doubt that's what his publishers wanted, but in the
case of the first, it's really problematic. "Tokgabi and His Pranks"
is the first English-language account of a specifically Korean
supernatural being, and it presents the critter known online as
dokkaebi more or less as a Puck. It does some systematising too,
trying to turn dokkaebi from a story into a species, but not that
much, and Griffis doesn't then insert dokkaebi into all his stories,
though he does show up in one where he doesn't belong (one of the
new elements in Griffis's versions of Allen's tales).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dokkaebi>
I'm watching a drama at the moment *titled* <Dokkaebi>, or in
English <Goblin>. The titular character is the leading man, and
although this isn't one of the harsher K-dramas, he definitely is
neither as chaotic nor as trivial as a Puck.
<https://www.viki.com/tv/31706c-guardian-the-lonely-and-great-god>
(paywalled)

Next comes a pseudo-historical section. He did indulge his taste for
historicising fairy tales enough for this: He gave the first
accounts in Korean "folklore" of three major foundation myths.
(I don't know whether they'd already appeared in histories of Korea,
though.) "East Light and the Bridge of Fishes" concerns a king
usually, in English, called Jumong.
<https://www.korea.net/NewsFocus/Culture/view?articleId=121572>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dongmyeong_of_Goguryeo> (tough reading)
This story is known from a 5th century A.D. inscription and books
starting in the 12th century.
Several K-dramas, of which <Jumong> is pretty famous, retell
Jumong's story 100% mundanely.
Somewhere at Amazon with Prime, but neither Google nor Amazon wants
me, not being a Prime member, to tell you where.
<https://tv.apple.com/us/show/prince-of-the-legend/umc.cmc.290paklyuyq2tnyfi63upf0sh>

After this, he told the story of Dangun, which is known from books
starting in the 13th century. Dangun is supposed to have been a
younger contemporary of the Chinese Emperor Yao, in the 24th century
BC. This is why Koreans claim Korean history spans five millennia.
Dangun is supposed to be the son of a god and a woman who'd started
life as a bear. He's supposed to have founded an advanced society
in the early Bronze Age. Conveniently, this society would've been in
North Korea, so we don't know much about the archaeology, but I'm
sceptical. In Korean historiography, picking Dangun as progenitor
suggests Korean nationalism. In this book, "Prince Sandalwood".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangun>
A fantasy K-drama set mainly around AD 400 also features scenes
showing something close to the Dangun story, depicted as much earlier.
<https://wiki.d-addicts.com/The_Legend> (the lawbreakers)
His just-so-ing, in this and the next story, focuses heavily on
top-knots, for some reason. He's fascinated, in this book, with hair
and hats.

Following the first straight retelling of an Allen pansori tale comes
the remaining "historical" bit. During the Han Dynasty in China, a
sage documented in earlier sources was turned into the founder of a
state in Manchuria or, again, North Korea, a state whose certainly
historical last dynasty the Han would conquer in the 2nd century BC.
Kija is supposed to have lived in the 12th century BC. Picking Kija
as progenitor suggests traditional Korean looking up to China. In
this book, "Topknots and Crockery Hats", the first chapter expanding
one of Allen's shorter passages. This story is technically non-
speculative, but too silly to be mundane.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizi>

Although Griffis occasionally mentions one of these three guys
thereafter, he doesn't, in this book, indulge the historicising bent
I found so annoying in the Dutch book to anywhere near the extent I
remember. He was also far less didactic in this book than the way I
remember the Dutch one.

In the 1922 edition another historical story follows, but I'll save
the extra stories from that edition for last. The next four stories
in the 1911 version are all ordinary Korean "folklore", and more or
less wry. The last, 1911 "Peach-Blossom", 1922 "The King of the
Flowers", is technically not speculative. Then comes an inferior
retelling of Allen's chapter 4, another wry Korean fantasy (Just So-
ish), and Griffis's last major introduction, the first English
version of what's known as the Korean equivalent of "Cinderella",
"Kongji and Patzzi" or some such.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kongjwi_and_Patjwi>
I don't find this version as filling, so to speak, as "Cinderella";
it has less conversation, and its magic is more mundane, but then,
"Cinderella" has never been one of my favourites anyhow. In this
book it's "Pigling and Her Proud Sister".
A couple of Korean Web dramas with "Cinderella" in their titles
are speculative (<Cinderella and the Four Knights>, which I haven't
seen, and <Ghostderella>, which is incomplete and is an OK pun in
Korean). Most K-dramas with such titles, including <Cinderella's
Sister>, which I've seen, are not speculative; this is also true of
<My Love Patzzi>, which I haven't seen. (Patzzi is the bad sister.)
<https://www.viki.com/tv/36746c-cinderella-and-four-knights>
(free, but not well spoken of)
<https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB9T2y1i5vEjYer7zUR44xyb3TRTrMBs2>
(law-abiding uploads)
<https://www.viki.com/tv/37075c-cinderellas-sister> (free)
<https://wiki.d-addicts.com/My_Love_Patzzi> (the lawbreakers)

A few more stories, one expanding something in Allen, follow, but
then comes "The Voice of the Bell", which manages something like baby
horror. After one more Allen pansori retelling the book ends with
what may be the best story in the 1911 edition, "The Woodman and the
Mountain Fairies", a "Rip van Winkle" analogue. (The second oldest K-
drama I've watched, a 1979 episode of "Hometown Legends", is a very
different "Rip van Winkle" analogue: law-abiding upload:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klQXGPGuUFk>.)

The 1922 edition adds seven stories in various places. Griffis's
best Korean story, "The Magic Peach", which despite his
sententiousness artfully leavens the sentiment with modernism, is one
of these. Two amusing stories of visits to Seoul, "The Mirror That
Made Trouble" and "Old Timber Trap", are OK too (the former non-
speculative).

But the other four all indulge stereotypes. "Fancha and the Magpie"
mocks Manchurian pretensions to ancientness, and doesn't belong in
this book at all. "Cat-Kin and the Queen Mother" would be pretty
good except that it ends with a list of good and bad personality
traits it's supposed to just-so in Koreans in general. And
surprisingly for a man who was twice decorated by the Japanese
government, "Longka, the Dancing Girl" and "Shoes for Hats", the
former non-speculative (but the starting point for a time-travel K-
drama), both savagely attack the 16th century Japanese invasions of
Korea, in the process harshly mocking relatively recent Japanese
people.
<https://wiki.d-addicts.com/Thousand_Years_of_Love> (the lawbreakers)

I'm surprised to find myself recommending at least two of the stories,
so maybe I've at least come closer to doing Griffis justice, or maybe
this is just a better book than the Dutch one. Anyway, next comes a
very different book, probably two or three days from now. The other
free-online book I mentioned in starting this thread is a lot more
reading, and I haven't read most of it before, so it'll come much
later, though I'll provide relevant URLs soon.

Joe Bernstein

--
Joe Bernstein, writer <Kdeurama@gmail.com>