The Future of Early Korea in the West

The Future of Early Korea in the West 1 THE FUTURE OF EARLY KOREA IN THE WEST: FOCUSING ON THE CONFLICT BETWEEN NATIONALIST HISTORIOGRAPHY AND WESTERN WRITINGS ON EARLY KOREA PANKAJ MOHAN THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY A couple of decades ago Korea was described as a well-kept secret in the Western World, but primarily due to the Miracle of the Han River the West recognised the existence of Korea, and beginning with the 1990 s started making an earnest effort to understand some aspects of modern and contemporary historical experiences of the Korean people. Today one may find Western libraries stacked with publications on the Korean War, the Chaebol and Seoul- Pyongyang relations. Several important works on Koryo, Choson and the colonial period have also appeared. But early Korea, the root of Korean identity, remains not only the most understudied but also most misunderstood area in the West. Leading historians of modern South Asia, particularly those associated with the cutting edge subaltern research have noted and clearly demonstrated how important it is to access classical sources for gaining an incisive understanding of the cultural basis of politico-social phenomena. It is apparent that authentic studies of past societies have contemporary relevance, as they provide contexts to understand links between ideology, religion and politics paradigms for contemporary consideration in a world where ideology affiliated with religion and to state are increasingly on the rise. If one looks at Western works on early Japan, China, India and Southeast Asia, one is struck by new approaches that they have evolved and broader comparative and conceptual insights for historical research that they have

The Future of Early Korea in the West 2 yielded. Meticulous studies of various aspects of early Korean history will doubtless enable scholars to look at contemporary phenomena with the historical depth of an intellectual well educated in regional and global culture who can see Korea from the inside and from the outside. But unfortunately, early Korea remains almost a barren land, waiting to be explored. In this paper I attempt to understand some of the problems associated with the study of early Korea in the West, focusing on the inherent dichotomy that exists between the tradition of nationalist historiography in Korea, part of the wider project of forging an imagined community and the Western writings that are not part of this nation-building process. Indeed, Korea is not unique in establishing a relationship of mutual empowerment between historians and forces of nationalism. As a recent edited volume by Wang Gungwu eloquently illustrates, historians have played seminal role in shaping nationalism in various parts of the world where nation-states originated. (Nation-building: Five Southeast Asian Histories). In order to demonstrate the tension between nationalist vision and version of early Korea and Western approaches to early Korea, it is essential to look at the genealogy of nationalist historiography in Korea. The Genealogy of Historiography on Early Korea: Japanese Imperialist Historiography Bruce Cumings made an important observation in his book Korea's Place in the Sun: A Modern History that with the rise of modern Japan in the Meiji era, Korea was deterred from constructing its own past, and was divested of its significance as an actor in history in the Western imagination. The intellectual tradition of Meiji Japan, anchored in the Kokugaku (National Learning School), authenticated the popular Shintoistic belief that Japan was a divine land, and the imperial myths found in the Nihon shoki and the Kojiki were established as an

The Future of Early Korea in the West 3 articulation of Japan's historical consciousness. The popular Japanese mind was overwhelmed with a nostalgia fixated on the myth-historical accounts that Silla was conquered by Empress Jingu and the southern Korean kingdom of Kaya served as Japan's colonial outpost. They cried out for a revival of their so-called lost imperialist glory beyond the border. Yoshida Shoin of the late Tokugawa period, who was hailed as an ideologue of the Meiji restoration, argued passionately that Korea needed to be penalised 'for her long negligence in the observation of her duties towards Japan' and be 'instructed to show obeisance, as she did during the glorious imperial period of ancient Japan'. An echo of similar sentiments can be heard in a number of publications of the time. It was in this charged atmosphere and amidst the slogan of seikanron (Conquer Korea Debate) that the Department of History at the Tokyo Imperial University was set up and modern historical scholarship in Japan took root. It is also interesting to note that Shigeno Yasutsugu, Kume Kunitake and Hoshino Hisashi, the three pioneer scholars assigned to the newly founded department, were previously employed in the government's Bureau of Historiography. Kume Kunitake (1839-1931)and Hoino Hisashi (1839-1971) specialised in the ancient history of Japan, and because of the question of ethnicity and identity that their field involved, they had to delve into some aspects of ancient Korean history as well. Kume's Nihon no fukuin no enkaku (A History of the Periphery of Japan) and Hoshino's Honpo no jinshu ni tsuki hiko wo nobete yo no shinshin aikokusha ni tadasu (Some Questions to True Patriots Regarding the Ethnology of the Japanese Race), published in the 1890s, deal with ancient Korean history. Some other Japanese scholars of the early Meiji era wrote on Korea, and what is striking is the fact that they adopted singularly political topics such as Imna (Japanese 'Mimana') or Kaya, the Kwanggaet'o stele, and the origin of Samhan, which were relevant to the contemporary political climate of the 'restoration' of Japan's hegemonic

The Future of Early Korea in the West 4 politics in Korea. The Nihon shoki-based history of the Kaya league and the famous 'sinyu year' passage in the Kwanggaet'o stele were widely used as indubitable evidence of Korea having been a Japanese colonial outpost in ancient times. No attempt was made to rigorously interrogate the contextual bias of the sources, and those subjects which did not help define Japan with 'contrasting image, idea, personality, experience' (as Edward Said has noted in the context of Europe) did not figure in the academic agendas of the new Japan. The early Japanese historians of Korea combined training in Kosho-gaku (an empirical and inductive methodology of textual study) with tools of Western historical research. Their research was doubtless significant as a methodological breakthrough. Nonetheless, since Meiji Japan's historical practice was integrated closely within the matrix of the contemporary political imperatives of Japan, it involved a binary opposition in which Japan as 'self' or 'privileged signifier' wielded power, and the role of Korea, the 'other', was mostly to authenticate Japanese superiority over Korean backwardness. This all limited its value as objective scholarship. An important theory which governed the Japanese reconstruction of Korea's past was taritsusei which Ch'oe Yong-ho translates as 'heteronomous determination', implying that Korea lacked innate dynamism so that the course of its history was shaped by external factors and forces. Other influential theories in relation to Korea which the Meiji scholars of Korean history propounded were those of geographical determinism, historical changelessness (stagnation) and the common origin of Korea and Japan (nissen dosoron). The theory of geographical determinism asserted that due to the peninsular character (hantosei) of Korea its historical development was inevitably manipulated by external forces and factors. Shiratori Kurakichi, for

The Future of Early Korea in the West 5 instance, specified that the influence emanating from the continental lands of China proper and Manchuria constituted of two of these forces, and Japan was the third such force. The political implications of these Orientalist myths were obvious - Korea could not shape its own destiny, and Japan as a 'superior' nation had to bring 'backward' Korea under its control and lead it forward on the path of enlightenment and modernisation. Korean Works on Early Korea: Establishment of Nationalist Paradigm Modern Korean historiography was a radically nationalist inversion of Japan's Orientalist historiography, a counter-discourse of the assumptions implicit in Japan's historical practice during the Meiji period. Korean intellectuals in the early twentieth century engaged in an impassioned quest for an alternative historiography in such a way as to 'allow memory to usurp the estate of history', as Ranajit Guha has noted in the context of Indian historiography. Guha further points out that nostalgia in itself does not constitute a sufficient condition for the production of historiography for a nation in the same way as it does not produce an autobiography for an individual, but what is common in the nostalgic urges in the life of a nation and an individual is that they are 'informed by a notion of the Other'. In fact it is the concept of the 'notion of the Other' in nationalist historiographical urges which is relevant to our discussion of the Korean historiography, particularly as represented by Sin Ch'aeho (1880-1937) and Ch'oe Nam-son(1890-1957). Sin was the most representative nationalist historian of the early twentieth century, whose historical writings can be described as explorations of the interpretive 'otherness' about the Korean past. They were particularistic histories charged with an intense realisation of Korea's unique racial identity and a sense of

The Future of Early Korea in the West 6 community. They were, furthermore, specifically addressed to the challenges of Japanese theories about Korean history, and were intended as a means to promote the national selfstrengthening and enlightenment movement. For instance, Sin's emphases on Manchuria as an integral part of Korea's geographical self-identity and on Tangun as the symbol of racial uniqueness were an articulation of a nationalist historical consciousness and represented a response to the challenges of the imperialist historiography. The Japanese emphasis on the migration of Kija, a sage-prince of the Yin Dynasty of China, as a basis of state-formation implied that the beginning of the Korean state was not an autonomous enterprise which in turn meant that the contemporary reality of Korea's subjugation by an external power was not an aberration but formed part of a historical pattern. In contrast, the nationalist historians laid emphasis on Tangun, believed to have been born out of the union of the Son of Heaven and a bear-turned-woman and to have founded the first state of Choson on the Korean peninsula in 2333 B.C. Sin's theory of history identified the conflict between self (a) and non-self/other (pi-a) as the major stimulus of the development of history, which implied that the early history of Korea was characterised by spatial dichotomies between Korea (self) and China (non-self), so that the indigenous culture of Korea had to wrestle with the imported Chinese civilization (non self/other) in order to retain its independent identity. This explains why Ulchi Mundok of Koguryo, who fought the Sui army, emerged as an archetypal moral icon in Sin's historiography, and why Silla's reliance on external force for the accomplishment of so-called national unification is portrayed as 'a dark chapter in Korean history'. It also explains why Sin mounted a vitriolic assault on the Sinicisation/Confucianisation of Korean society, believing it to have led to

The Future of Early Korea in the West 7 a gradual erosion of the indigenous values of the Korean people and the concomitant subjugation of the pattern of the Korean past to Sinocentric moral interpretations. Sin's historiographical framework magnified the significance of Tangun Choson, which he believed to be evidence of the indigenous origin of the Korean race, and whose territorial boundaries embracing Manchuria were emblematic of a vast theatre of early Korean history. Ch'oe Nam-son, another major historian of the Japanese colonial era, seems to have been influenced by Sin's vision of history which defined pre-buddhist Tangun civilisation as a representation of the true identity of Korean history. Ch'oe Nam-son wrote Tangunnon (On Tangun) in which he criticised Japanese scholars for a lack of anthropological insight into the Tangun myth and their prejudice against Korean sources, because they never questioned the credibility of their own ancient texts. He wrote several other detailed theses to refute the claims of Japanese historians who argued that the Tangun legend was an invention of the monk Iryon, the author of Samguk yusa in the13th century. According to several Japanese historians, such Buddhist elements in the legend as Hwanin, a deity of the Buddhist pantheon and the word Tan in Tangun meaning sandalwood (Sanskrit candana) were evidence that Tangun was just an imaginary creation of a Buddhist monk of the 13th century and did not have any basis in history. Choe sought to affirm the validity of this folklore as a core of historical data by arguing that Tan should be written with the earth radical (meaning 'a sacred altar'), not the tree radical meaning sandalwood and clarifying that many terms and terms appearing in the myth could be reconstructed as archaic Korean. He demonstrated, for instance, that 'Hwanin' was a corruption of the Korean word hanul nara, meaning heaven.

The Future of Early Korea in the West 8 Some Western Writings on Early Korea and Attack by Nationalist Historians The political establishment of the post-liberation Korea from 1948 to 1988 sought to further consolidate the legacy of nationalist historiography, but sone pioneer historians of this period, notably Professor Yi Ki Baik and Prof. Kim Ch ol-jun broke new ground with their focus on historical processes or an attempt to locate distinctive social and political forms and on understanding the transitions that lead to changes in social and political forms. But the landscape of early Korean history was not yet receptive to ideas that conflicted sharply with the received wisdom. For instance In his review of Dr Gardiner s short book An Early History of Korea, Professor Kim Won-yong of Seoul National University wrote that his ambivalent attitude towards the two Korean records, Samguk sagi and Samguk yusa, was derived from his full acceptance of the traditional Japanese view of the two works. He further emphasized the need for the two works to be reconsidered from a new point of view without undue prejudice from Japanese days. Dr Gardiner correctly retorted that a critical study of Korean history by a Western scholar and Japanese studies of Korean history, are not identical, and must not be misconstrued as influenced by Japan s imperialist historiography. He further noted: If a foreign scholar fails to accept the authority of the Korean chronicles as to use Prof. Kim s word- absolute, if he indulges in criticism, then he is obviously accepting the traditional Japanese view. which is to say that he is in error. Statements such as these do honour to the spirit of sacred nationalism that beats strongly in the hearts of some Korean historians, but I am tempted to recall the words of Dr. Samuel Johnson on the subject of patriotism, and to reflect that patriotism is all too often the first resort of poor scholarship.

The Future of Early Korea in the West 9 Dr Gardiner also pointed out that Kim Pu-sik either arbitrarily fixed or borrowed from Silla writers a date for the foundation of Silla 57BC. This manipulation of historical chronology made Silla antedate the earliest Chinese reference to Goguryeo, and also placed the birth of Park Hyokkose clearly before that of Chumong. It is important to note that the date 57 BC as the foundation date of Silla also has the merit of being the first year of a sixty year cycle, and exactly twelve such cycles before the final elimination of Silla s older rival in AD 663. It is also remarkable that 18 B. C., the foundation date of Paekche in the Samguk sagi is in conflict with the Chinese accounts. In the 3 rd Century A.D. Paekche was one of the 54 guo or kingdoms of Mahan and Mahan did not possess a clearly articulated structure of kingship. Moreover, according to Kim Pu-sik s own text, Paekche did not establish its bureau of history until 375 and Silla until the reign of King Chinhung., It is obvious, therefore, that one can t pose confidence in Kim Pu-sik s chronological details of the beginning of these two kingdoms in the 1 st century BCE. Though Dr Gardiner put forward a persuasive argument, and a younger scholar, Yi Kangnae took note of this fact in his book on the Samguk Sagi, a majority of research works, history textbooks and museums in South Korea still accept the chronology of the Samguk sagi as an authentic guide to the early Korean history. It is also important to note that Hyung-Il Pai s study on the process of state-formation in Korea has also not been given due recognition in South Korea. For the sustained growth of early Korean history in the West it is important to establish a channel of dialogue between Korean and Western scholars so that both groups forge a commonality of purpose.

The Future of Early Korea in the West 10 In the new millennium some important developments took place in the study of early Korea. Doctoral researches on the tomb murals of Koguryo were written at Columnia and UPenn. Mark Byington wrote his dissertation on Puyo at Harvard. He also organised an international conference on Koguryo History and Archaeology in 2005 in which six South Koreans, three Chinese, three Japanese, Ken Gardiner from Australia and two scholars each from the U.S. and France participated. Recently the Korea Foundation and the Academy of Korean Studies financed Mark Byington s project on Early Korea, but for the successful implementation and sustained development of this project it is necessary that the host institutions creates a tenuretrack position in the field of early Korean history which does not appear to be forthcoming, Jonathan Best s translation of the Paekche Pongi section of the Samguk sagi is an extremely important step in the elevation of the profile of Early Korea in the West. The above-noted studies doubtless redress major lacuna in our understanding of early Korea, but for an integrated perspective of the field and its growth as an academic program in the West, monographs and/or edited volumes on the following important topics 1. Sources of early Korea: Accounts of Korea in the Chinese dynastic annals and non-chinese tradition: tensions between imported data and native historical writings, both literary and epigraphic, 2. Archaeology, pseudo-history and prehistory 3. Tangun: Shaman-King or an Inventend Tradition 4. The Four Han Commanderies : Impact of Han Colonial rule 5. Chinese and Korean perception of Koguryo as a state 6. Indigenous Belief-system of Korea

The Future of Early Korea in the West 11 7. Koguryo s relations with Gongsun (Kung-sun) Warlords, Puyo, Wei and Murong Yan 8. Formation of state in the Southern part of the Korean peninsula: Paekche 9. Paekche s relationship with Japan, Paekche culture and Tradition 10. The Golden Age of Kogyuryo: King Kwanggaet o and King Changsu 11. Introduction of Buddhism to the Korean peninsula;< Buddhism and State; Buddhism and Art and Culture 12. Silla s relations with Koguryo and paekche and the war of peninsular conquest 13. Hwarang and Silla Society 14. Silla s Solution or why the Tang Army withdrew 15. Unified Silla: Politcal structure, Social organization (Kolp um), Buddhist art 16. Parhae 17. The Disintegration of Silla, the rise of Three later Kingdoms and transition to Koryo As Korea s strategic and economic significance for the West and its role in East Asia become increasingly prominent, and Korean communities form an inalienable part of a cosmopolitan future for many cities, including Hawaii and Sydney, it is advantageous for politicians, civic institutions and business personnel in the West to understand the significance of Korean cultural heritage and its impact on the East Asian region. The West can expand its role in the geopolitical environment of East Asia and the Pacific and further diversify and consolidate its economic and social linkages with Korea by building expertise and research capability on the roots of Korean culture, belief-system and its place in East Asian historical development. It is not coincidental that Korea s dispute with its two neighbors is rooted in the dichotomous or divergent memories of history. Early Korea is a particularly difficult field, because early Korea-related research

The Future of Early Korea in the West 12 requires one to make sense of a process on which there is not a great deal of information, and much of that dates from centuries after the events it covered. One has to approach the subject by taking a wide and comparative view of the historical development and draw on one s ability to read Classical Chinese, Japanese and Korean. Knowledge of archaeology is also necessary, because as Romila Thapar says, it questions what might be called the monopoly of the text, and introducing archaeological data into historical studies forces historians to think along interdisciplinary lines. A scholar properly trained in the craft of a historian, able to read primary sources with ease and draw on insights from anthropology and cultural studies, can detect the contextual biases of both primary sources and secondary material and provide a much-needed dispassionate objectivity to the field.

The Future of Early Korea in the West 13 Appendix 1. 호주속의한국학 호주는핚국젂쟁당시 8047 명의굮인을파견하여혈맹국으로서의우호관계를맺었다. 그러나핚국의정치적인혼띾으로말미암아 1980 년대말까지호주의지식인들은핚국에 대하여무관심하거나비판적인태도를갖고있었다. 1978 년호주의저명핚 동양사학자인개번매코맥 (Gavan McCormack) 교수가 날로심화되어가는위기의나라 핚국 이라는제목으로책핚권을출간했는데, 그것은유싞시대의비극을다룬 내용이었다. 그러나 80 년대후반기에접어들어핚국이높은경제성장을보이고 민주화를이루면서핚국에대핚인식이변화하기시작했다. 핚국과호주두나라간의 관계도 1980 년대후반부터긴밀하게유지되었고정치 경제 안보협력등제반붂야로 우호협력관계가확대됐다. 80 년대말쯤노동당이집권하면서호주는서양의 일원으로서보다는지리적으로귺접지역인아시아의일원으로국가욲영방향을 바꾸어갔다. 이에따라핚국에대핚관심도급격히높아졌다. 가너 (R. Garnaut) 교수는 1989 년호주연방정부의프로젝트로 호주와동북아시아의 흥기 (Australia and the Northeast Asian Ascendancy) 라는제목으로보고서를

The Future of Early Korea in the West 14 작성했는데호주정부의핚국인식에크게영향을미쳤다. 이가너보고서에힘입어 호주에서핚국어가아시아 4 개핵심언어중하나로지정되기도했다. 핚국은호주가 중시핚아시아 4 개국가에포함됐기때문에 1992 년도에는호 핚재단 (Australia-Korea Foundation) 이설립되기도했다. 호 핚재단은호주외무부산하재단으로서교육, 예술, 문화, 언롞등의여러붂야에걸쳐핚국과호주간의인적교류를통하여두나라의관계 개선및강화목적으로하고있다. 이무렵호주국립대, 시드니대, 뉴사우스 웨일즈대 (NSW), 모내시대등호주의주요대학에핚국어프로그램이설치되었다. 초 중 고등학교에서도핚국어교육이시작되었다. 핚국학의이러핚팽창을기반으로 1994 년에는호주 뉴질랜드핚국학연구회가설립되었다. 2000 년뉴사우스웨일즈대는 핚국학과핚국어에대핚보다체계적인연구를목적으로핚다는취지에서핚 호연구소를 설립하였다. 그러나아쉽게도양국간의교역규모를감안핛때호주내핚국학의위치는튺튺하지 않은실정이다. 현재호주의대학에서핚국어를배우는학생가욲데대다수는핚류에 매료된중국계학생이다. 뉴사우스웨일즈대의대입수능시험인 HSC 에서 비 ( 非 ) 핚국인들이응시하는 외국어로서의핚국어초급과정 (beginners course) 에매년

The Future of Early Korea in the West 15 겨우핚두명정도가지원하는것도호주내핚국어교육의건강상태를우려하게하는 일이다. 핚편호주속의핚국, 또는핚국학을얘기핛때호주에건너온핚국교민의졲재를간과핛 수없다. 핚국인의호주이민역사는베트남패망직젂인 1974 년부터시작된다. 1976 년 호주내핚국인거주자수는 1460 명에불과했다. 그러나 1986 년에는 9285 명으로 6 배나 증가했다. 호주통계국이발표핚 2001 년인구센서스종합자료 에따르면호주내 핚인인구는 4 만 2564 명이나된다. 2006 년통계에의하면 9 만 4000 명에달핚다. 이들 핚국교민가욲데약 6 만 5000 명이시드니지역에서거주하고있다. 현재이스트우드, 어번, 캠시등핚국인인구가많은지역에있는경찰서에는동포출싞소수민족사회 연락관 (Ethnic Community Liaison Officer) 들이배치되어있다. 핚국과호주간의관계증짂을위해서는인적교류가매주중요하다. 2006 년 2 만 5000 명의핚국인관광객이호주를방문했다. 호주대학에유학와서공부하고있는 핚국인은 3 만 2000 명에달핚다. 호주유학이미국과유럽보다싸고시드니대, 호주국립대, 멜버른대, 뉴사우스웨일즈대, 모내시대등이세계 100 위권안에랭크될정도로

The Future of Early Korea in the West 16 유명하기때문이다. 또핚호주의 40 여개대학은핚국의 100 여개대학과자매결연을 맺고교홖프로그램을욲영하고있다. 20 년젂만해도일반적으로핚국인에게호주는너무나먼곳에있었다. 백호주의 로 대표되는인종차별의나라로비춰졌다. 그러나그동안의경제협력관계강화를비롯핚 여러붂야에걸친홗발핚교류덕붂에현재양국은국제무대에서서로손을잡고동반자 관계를유지하고있다. 호주내에핚국인이만든단체들이많은데다같이핚국인 2 세의 가슴속에핚국에대핚애정을심으려꾸준히노력하고있다. 예를들면재호 핚인상공인연합회는매년장학생몇명을선발해핚국교육부산하국제교류짂흥원이 주관하는 동포학생동계학교 를다닐수있는기회를마렦하여핚국인부모에게서 태어난 2 세들이핚국을더욱가깝게느낄수있게하고있다. 호주인들도핚국이띾 나라에대해서호감을갖고있으며계속해서핚국과의밀접핚관계를이어가길희망핚다.

The Future of Early Korea in the West 17 Appendix 2. 호주에한국학첫소개켄가디너 켄가디너 (Ken Gardiner:1932~ ) 박사는호주에핚국학을소개핚선구자이다. 그는 1964 년런던대에서고구려를주제로박사논문을쓴최초의서구학자이다. 1966 년 호주로건너와호주대아시아문화학과에서교편을잡으면서초기핚국사에대핚강의를 시작함으로써호주에서핚국학연구의시대를열었다. 그가 1969 년펴낸저서 초기 핚국사 (Early Korea) 는서구학계에있어핚국의역사를영문으로체계화하려는최초의 시도였다. 이후가디너박사는고구려에관핚다양핚저술홗동을펼쳤다. 핚국학중앙연구원에서발행하는 핚국학평롞 (Review of Korean Studies) 을위핚인터뷰 자리에서필자는고구려가중국왕조 ( 중원의왕조 ) 에대핚예속관계를지속했으며 고구려의왕들이중국의통치를받는싞하에불과했다는중국측주장에대해가디너 박사의고견을청핚바있다. 당시그는다음과같이답변했다.

The Future of Early Korea in the West 18 후핚 ( 後漢 ) 시대대부붂의기간동안고구려는젂핚시대에유지했던종속적동맹국 지위에서결별핚양상을보였으며동북아시아에있어중국의패권에도젂하는주요 세력으로점차부상했다. 더불어고구려가늘중국의세가약해짂시기를이용했다는 사실도특기핛만하다. 중국이강성하고통일상태에있을때에는저자세를견지했다. 이런점에서볼때고구려왕들도중국변방의여느국가의왕들과별반다르지않았다. 기실북부베트남은여젂히중화제국의일부붂으로남았으며 9 세기당왕조가몰락핛 때까지그상태를유지했다. 고구려의왕들은국내에서자싞들의권위를높이기위해중국조정의책봉을받아들였다. 젂기고구려의왕위는부족간에오고갔으며특정부족 ( 예를들면계루부 ) 출싞의왕이 책봉을받은경우이는그부족의권위를높이는데에보탬이됐다. 가드너교수는수많은학자를배출했는데유명핚영문학자최재서 (1908~1964) 선생의 딸최양희교수도그의지도하에조선조여류시인허난설헌의문학세계를연구하여 박사학위를받았다. 최교수역시호주대에서교편을잡고핚국고젂문학연구에 몰두해왔으며호주에서핚국학발젂에큰공헌을하였다. 최교수가영역핚허난설헌

The Future of Early Korea in the West 19 시집 Vision of a Phoenix ( 불사조의비젂 ) 띾제목으로 2003 년미국코넬대출판사에서 출간됐다. 이책은지난해핚국문학번역원이시상하는제 7 회핚국문학번역상 수상작으로선정됐다. 이에앞서최교수는 1985 년영국런던에서혜경궁홍씨의 핚중록 을영역핚 Memoirs of a Korean Queen ( 핚중록 ) 을출간핚바있다.