COLLECTED BY GRIFFIS | eas369-eunicelee

Collected by Griffis:

Korea in the Third Person

The outermost layer of Griffis’s virtual map of Korea is what I refer to as the third-person space. Korea, here, is a rather distant text, a space populated and narrated by “them.” The “them,” here, refers to authors of the existing literature on Korea — histories, ethnographies, political reports, treatises, promotional pamphlets, etc — i.e. the third-person voices represented in the Griffis’s extensive collection of Korea-related materials.

It is important, then, to identify whose voices are represented, and whose texts Griffis consulted in his virtual experience of Korea. A substantial proportion of these third-person voices were those of non-Koreans — Korean histories written by Japanese scholars, pleas for Korean independence by American contributors, reports on Korean customs and values by Christian missionaries, and the like.

One notable example of a third-person and non-Korean voice that Griffis utilizes is that of the Japanese scholar. A manuscript of the bibliography to Corea: The Hermit Nationis a source that illustrates this predominance of the Japanese perspective. The majority of the texts and authorities consulted for this book are Japanese — Precious Jewels from a Neighboring Country by Zenrin Koku-hoki, Chōsen Monogatori by “two men from Mikuni, Echizen, cast ashore (in Corea) in 1645,” Illustrated History of the Invasion of Chosen by Tsuruminé Hikoichiro, and other Japanese sources densely populate this list (Griffis "Corea: The Hermit Nation. Bibliography/list of authorities used in writing, partial valleys to the ninth edition."). In the margins of the manuscript, Griffis has also written the following: “The reason why Japanese works are so full of material for a history of Corea is that for many centuries, Japan claimed Corea as a tributary nation” (Griffis "Corea: The Hermit Nation. Bibliography/list of authorities used in writing, partial valleys to the ninth edition."). The accuracy of this observation aside, Griffis’s specific attention to Japanese interpretations of Korea must be noted. Griffis chose the voices of Japanese historians, ethnographers, and narrators, among other foreign perspectives, to build his understanding of a third-person Korea.

Other third party sources gathered by Griffis — unlike those explicitly cited in the bibliography — are not accompanied by the compiler’s explanations. Such include the colletions of documents (pamphlets, essays, newspaper clippings, etc.) on specific topics such as Korean self-determination or Christian missionary activities in Korea. While Griffis does not verbally respond to or critique these texts, an aspect that must be noted is the overwhelming prevalence of American and missionary voices. The voices of missionaries are best represented in the sources on Korean Christianity — the Women’s Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church, The Christian Literature Society of Korea, and the Board of Foreign Missions of the Methodist Episcopal Church are some of the publishers behind these texts. The majority of sources on Korean independence, on the other hand, are American: “More Light From Korea” is an essay that was published in The Literary Digest; the pamphlet “Korea’s Appeal for Self-Determination” was written “By J. E. MOORE, an American Born in Korea”; multiple booklets including “‘Mansei’: Little Martyrs of Korea” were endorsed and published by the Korea Information Bureau in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Thus, along with the voices of Japanese scholars, some perspectives that are well represented across Griffis’s collection of third-party sources are those that reflect American and Christian viewpoints.

Griffis may have selected these non-Korean sources because some texts were more readily available than others, or more capable of rendering this remote third-person space more decipherable. In other words, my argument is not that the scholar deliberately dismissed the voices of Koreans, but rather that non-Korean texts may have been more user-friendly for an American Orientalist at the time. With the dearth of academic literature on Korea during Griffis’s time, translated Korean sources written by Korean historians or ethnographers may not have been available, and Griffis’s proficiency in certain languages may have facilitated his engagement with certain textual sources over others. The physical remove between Griffis and Korea may also have prompted the scholar to look to sources within his proximity, e.g. the Japanese books that he had at hand. This may be an effort to somewhat bridge the gap of impersonality in the third-person experience — Korea remains a space narrated by “them,” yet when it is told through other more familiar third-party voices, it is rendered less aloof and more readable. The literature within his reach, albeit representative of mostly non-Korean perspectives, may have been a meaningful and friendly avenue through which Griffis attempted to draw the faraway peninsula closer to his sphere of comprehension.

William Elliot Griffis Collection