I keep coming across references to this idea that in 1802, Nguyễn Phúc Ánh, the founder of the Nguyễn Dynasty, to quote Wikipedia: “crowned himself emperor, under the reign name Gia Long, which was derived from Gia Định (Saigon) and Thăng Long (Hanoi) to symbolize the unification of northern and southern Vietnam.”
This is NOT TRUE!!! This is NOT where the name Gia Long comes from.
Although this has been written about many times, I discovered while researching my PhD dissertation in the 1990s that this is not true and wrote about it in that document.
When I published my dissertation as a book in 2005, I included that information (Liam C. Kelley, Beyond the Bronze Pillars: Envoy Poetry and the Sino-Vietnamese Relationship [Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2005, 78-9]).
No one, of course, has ever read that book (Who reads books anymore anyway?), so I wrote a blog post about this in 2013, but Wikipedia (and probably a lot of people too) don’t like blogs, so it’s now 2022 and people are still thinking that “Gia Long” is a name that was meant to symbolize the unification of Vietnam.
In 1802, Nguyễn Phúc Ánh, the first ruler of the Nguyễn Dynasty declared that Gia Long 嘉隆 would be his reign title. This name can be roughly translated as something like “auspicious prosperity.” (Đại Nam thực lục, đệ nhất kỷ, 17/1a)
At that time, there was a citadel in what is now “Saigon” that was called “Gia Định Citadel” and there was a citadel in what is now “Ha Noi” that was called “Thăng Long Citadel.”
The “gia” in “Gia Định” (嘉定) was indeed the same as the “gia” in “Gia Long.” However, the “long” in “Thăng Long” was NOT the same as the “long” in “Gia Long.”
The “long” in “Thăng Long” means “dragon,” and the full name means “rising dragon” (昇龍). The “long” in “Gia Long” means “prosperous/plentiful.”
In 1802, not long after Nguyễn Phúc Ánh declared Gia Long as his reign title, he visited Thăng Long Citadel, and this name is recorded in the dynastic chronicles with the characters meaning “rising dragon citadel.” (Đại Nam thực lục, đệ nhất kỷ, 17/20b)
Then in 1803, Gia Long ordered that Thăng Long Citadel be expanded, because it was too small. Here again, this name is recorded in the dynastic chronicles with the characters meaning “rising dragon citadel.” (Đại Nam thực lục, đệ nhất kỷ, 20/4b-5a)
Then in 1805, Gia Long ordered that new gates be constructed for Thăng Long Citadel, and once again, yes, you guessed it, this name is recorded in the dynastic chronicles with the characters meaning “rising dragon citadel.” (Đại Nam thực lục, đệ nhất kỷ, 26/18b)
Then, later in 1805, at a time that I suspect coincided with the completion of these expansions/renovations to Thăng Long Citadel, the name of the citadel was changed.
In particular, the second character was changed from the one meaning “dragon” 龍 to the one meaning “prosperous/plentiful” 隆 (the one that is in the name “Gia Long”), to create a name that means something like “rising prosperity.”
This name change came roughly three years after Nguyễn Phúc Ánh had taken the reign title of “Gia Long.” As such, one thing we can say with absolute certainty is that the reign title “Gia Long” was NOT “derived from Gia Định (Saigon) and Thăng Long (Hanoi) to symbolize the unification of northern and southern Vietnam.”
But why then did this name change take place and who made this decision? The dynastic chronicles don’t say.
One geographic gazetteer dating from 1845 stated that the second character in “Thăng Long” was changed from “dragon” to “prosperity” to “present the idea of peace and prosperity” (Bắc Thành chí lược, A.1565, 1/1b).
That seems logical. Given that this name change came right after the citadel was renovated/expanded, it may have been meant to provide the citadel with a new “vibe” while nonetheless still maintaining the sound of the original name.
Another geographic text, this one from 1891, provides a more elaborate answer. This text records that after coming to power, the first Nguyễn emperor sent envoys to the Qing Dynasty capital where they reported their ruler’s reign title.
This name surprised Qing Dynasty officials because the gia/jia 嘉 in Gia Long was the same as the first character in the reign title of the Qing Dynasty emperor at that time, Jiaqing 嘉慶, while the other character, long/long 隆, was the same as the second character in the preceding Qing Dynasty emperor’s reign title, Qianlong 乾隆.
Qing Dynasty officials at the court in Beijing supposedly wondered about this, and asked one of the members of the delegation, Nguyễn Gia Cát 阮嘉吉, why his ruler had selected this name.
Nguyễn Gia Cát responded by noting that, “Our Kingdom, from the time of the Trần, Lê and even earlier, has seen its northern and southern portions administered separately. Our current king began [his effort to retake the domain] in Gia Định [i.e. Saigon], and completed [this endeavor] in Thăng Long [i.e. Hanoi]. Therefore, he took the reign title of Gia Long. If we were to deceive you about this, it would be in vain.” (我國陳黎以前，南北分治。今我國王起於嘉定，成於昇隆，故號嘉隆，徒敢謾也。Anonymous, Bắc Ninh toàn tỉnh địa dư chí 北寧全省地輿誌 [Geographic Gazetteer of Bắc Ninh Province], (1891), A. 2889, 1/24a.)
Nguyễn Gia Cát set off on his mission to the Qing Dynasty capital in 1802, three years before the name of Thăng Long was changed. Therefore, this story cannot be true.
It is also significant that nothing about this story is mentioned in either the Nguyễn or Qing records.
My guess would be that this is an apocryphal tale that emerged at some point in the nineteenth century, and it is probably from this apocryphal tale that the now widely-repeated idea that the name “Gia Long” is meant to indicate “Gia Định + Thăng Long” comes from.
Whatever the case may be, the one thing we can say for certain is that the historical evidence demonstrates that it is NOT TRUE to say that Nguyễn Phúc Ánh “crowned himself emperor, under the reign name Gia Long, which was derived from Gia Định (Saigon) and Thăng Long (Hanoi) to symbolize the unification of northern and southern Vietnam.”
If any Wikipedia editors read this, you can use the above book to correct what is written there.
(Liam C. Kelley, Beyond the Bronze Pillars: Envoy Poetry and the Sino-Vietnamese Relationship [Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2005, 78-9]).
This Post Has 15 Comments
Cai TInglan’s 1837 海南雜著 records something similar to the 1891 gazetteer: 安南之地，悉為所有。改隴奈為嘉定，東京為升隆。紀元嘉隆，取起於嘉定、成於升隆也. That shows, at least, the origin of the story is early in the 19th century. On the other hand, perhaps there is some truth to the story. There may be some branding that occurred during Gia Long’s reign, even if he changed the name of Hanoi to resonate with his reign name, rather than the other way around.
Funny, I always thought that Gia Long had a twin brother named Thang Dinh… hehe.
Thanks for sharing this, Kate!!
This part is kind of strange though “changed Lũng Nại [?] to Gia Định and Đông Kinh to Thăng Long” (改隴奈為嘉定，東京為升隆). These aren’t changes that took place during Gia Long’s time.
While there is that one entry from 1805 that says that Thăng Long Citadel was changed from 昇龍 to 昇隆, most of the time that same place was simply referred to as “Bắc Thành” 北城. No one seems to have been calling it Đông Kinh at that time, or calling Gia Định “Lũng Nại” (?).
My guess would be that it has nothing to do with official Nguyễn policy, but instead, is some story that emerged later among the elite. Rather than it being the case that the Qing emperor once asked about the name, it could be that this story began with Cai Tinglan asking about the name. I haven’t looked at that book in ages and can’t remember who he interacted with though.
In any case, thanks a lot for sharing this!! It adds interesting details to this mystery.
I just want to add that Lũng Nại is actually “Đồng Nai”, which was the vernacular name of Gia Định (you see name a lot in letters by missionaries, who use vernacular language)
Thanks!! I was thinking that, but 1) the way I’ve seen this name recorded is different, and 2) the name was changed long before Gia Long:
“Bắt đầu đặt phủ Gia Định. Sai Thống suất Nguyễn Hữu Kính kinh lược đất Chân Lạp, chia đất Đông Phố, lấy xứ Đồng Nai (鹿野) làm huyện Phúc Long (nay thăng làm phủ). . .” (Đại Nam thực lục tiền biên, quyển 7, Mậu dần, năm thứ 7 [1698])
I’m not saying that you are wrong. What I’m saying is that all of this information makes the quote by the Chinese visitor in the 1830s all the more confusing.
So what does Gia Long actually means ? Usually a reign title has solemn , deep meanings with historical ,
literary or geographical refarences , taken from the Classics .
Looking at the selection of Akihito’ s title , Reiwa 令和 ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiwa
the words were chosen by a erudites ‘ committee ,
they were taken out from a Japanese poem which was a part of Man’yoshu 万葉集
a collection of poems written in Japanese ( meaning not written in wenyan , classical Chinese )
supposedly to avoid Chinese influence ( thoát Trung ) and extol Japanese independance of spirit
But that poem was a pastiche of an older Chinese poem , Return to the field 歸 田 賦 Quy điền phú
written by polymath Zhang Heng
The Nguyễn emperor at first took as reign title Gia Long 隆 then later changed the name of the north capital
to Thang long 隆 to symbolize the reunification of the country
It is said that the naming of the country as Vietnam has the same sy;bolic ;
it is a combination of Việt thường 越裳 ( Tonkin ) and An nam
I don’t think we have any way of knowing why that name was chosen. We only have stories that were created (long) after the fact.
The Việt thường 越裳 explanation is recorded in Đại Nam thực lục:
https://leminhkhai.blog/how-viet-nam-became-viet-nam/
While that might also be an invented tradition, the idea that the Nguyễn ruled over the area that had been the ancient domain of the Việt thường is one that I have come across in other sources and in reference to other issues. So that idea does seem valid. However, I haven’t come across such evidence to support the idea that the name Gia Long was meant to signify unity.
Were the two characters taken from the names of the Jia-qing nad Qian-long emperors? There is no way to prove that either, as far as I can tell. However, it would be interesting to put the titles of Chinese and Vietnamese emperors side by side to see if there is a correspondence. I remember wondering about that once, but I’ve never taken the time to actually investigate it.
A lot of Vietnameses believe that Nguyễn Ánh took ‘Gia’ from Jia qing Gia Khánh and ‘Long” from Qian Long (Càn Long). I don’t buy it. They said Nguyễn Ánh was perfect in wenyoan (văn ngôn). He picked “long” from the name of Jia Qing’s father to show that he is the father of Jia Qing. Unfortunately, Jia Qing and all members of the Qing clan could not know that; shame on them, they didn’t speak Chinese, they spoke their own native language. Many things of the like regarding word games (jeu de mots) were fabricated to show their “so called” superiority toward the Northern foes. (I’m from Vietnam, belonging to the royal family of the last dynasty). In the way I see it, Nguyễn Ánh nurtured a symbol of the reunification but he used an opposite process. Instead of taking something alien to make of it a part of his personality, for example the 800 year-old “dragon – long, he personalized it, to endow it with his personality, the prosperity – long. This prosperity is in reality of the South (to use a modern word) and in expectation. That’s why he changed the meaning of the word ‘long’ not the sound. His early visit to the Northern Citadel showed his keen interest in the land that might be prone to the Lê dynasty reminiscence. But his son wanted to get rid of the burden of the past in the name Thăng Long, he changed it to Hanoi.
You wrote: “”In 1802, not long after Nguyễn Phúc Ánh declared Gia Long as his reign title, he visited Thăng Long Citadel.” Let’s guess together how long. Up to Bảo Đại’s abdication in 1945, the Nguyễn Dynasty observed the National Day Hưng Quốc Khánh Niệm on the 2nd of the 5th month Lunar Year. On this day of Nhâm Tuất, 1802, Nguyễn Ánh notified his ancestors the Royal title (Niên hiệu) Gia Long that he proclaimed one day ago. I’m advised that Tây Sơn Dynasty took an end on the seventh month of the same year Nhâm Tuất, 1802. I wonder whether Nguyễn Ánh came to Thăng Long to wage himself the battle against his nemesis. If yes, he should have set forth in the early 5th month, considering the transportation of the time. If not, probably it happened in the last quarter of the year.
Gia long probably didn’t take his reign title after the names of Manchu emperors .
According to your post , https://leminhkhai.blog/gia-long-the-ming-descendant/ , he looked down upon them as
usurpers of the Han culture
@Tôn Thất Tuệ
Seeing your anti chinese bias , apparently you’re still buying into the hoax : even after1000 year domination , the modern Vietnamese were not assimilated into the “Chinese ” culture . .As you see , Gia Long thouhgt of himself as Han people .
So did Hô quy Ly who claimed to be emperor Thuâ’n or Nghiêu offspring
I just noticed that Choi Byung Wook deals with this in “Southern Vietnam under the Reign of Minh Mang.” It’s on page 45, footnote 1. He Cai Tinglan. He writes that 龍 was changed to 隆 in 1803 to 1805 because dragon is the imperial symbol but Hanoi was not the imperial city. He says that Gia Long became the reign name in 1806. I don’t know if that’s a typo, or if Choi has reason to think that Gia Long chose that reign name only in 1806 and had it retroactively used in the Dai Nam Thuc Luc.
Thanks for pointing this out, Kate, but yea, that looks like a typo. Also, I’ve never seen anything talking about how “dragon is the imperial symbol but Hanoi was not the imperial city.”
Very interesting Dr.Kelly! Can I ask you for some book recommendations on Gia Long’s rule and rise to power of the house of Nguyen? I am quite interested in the work of his French advisors as well?
Dear Kelly
Thanks for your interesting article.
I do not intend to deny your theory, but I have another theory.
There is a history book of the Qing Dynasty made during the Republic of China called “Qing Historic Manuscript (清史稿)”
In it, there is the following description.
阮福映之得國也，藉嘉定、永隆兵力居多，乃取二省爲年号，曰嘉隆。
https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E6%B8%85%E5%8F%B2%E7%A8%BF/%E5%8D%B7527
It says that NguyenPhucAnh expanded his territory by procuring troops from “嘉定” and “永隆”, so the name “嘉隆” was taken from these two provinces.
I believe that “永隆” was a place called VinhLong.
In other words, “嘉定 (later HCMC)” and “永隆 (VinhLong)” became “嘉隆(GiaLong)”.
There are two reasons why I think this theory is correct.
(1) Unlike the TaySon dynasty, NguyenPhucAnh was trying to establish good relations with the Qing dynasty, so it is unlikely that he would have used the Qing’s era name(嘉慶) or the former emperor’s era name(乾隆) without Qing’s permission.
(2) The location of Vinh Long was near where NguyenPhucAnh was severely defeated by the Xishan dynasty in the Battle of Rach Gam-Xoai Mut in 1785, and was as memorable to him as it was to GiaDinh. To remember his first failure, he may have used the place of VinhLong as his era name.
I am also researching and writing about the history of Vietnam in Japanese. If you are interested, please take a look.
https://note.com/cdma2000/
Dear Kentaro-san,
Thank you for pointing this out. I’m on the road at the moment and don’t have access to materials, but I checked the first volume of the Dai Nam thuc luc as well as basic information on the internet (https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C4%A9nh_Long), and it looks like the name Vinh Long first started to be used in 1832. Before that, the area was referred to by names like Dinh Vien and Vinh Tran. So, if that is correct, then it makes it impossible for this theory to be true.
Beyond that, if this was true, I don’t know why the envoys in the early 19th century would come up with a different story. Further, even though Gia Long was a general, he was educated and advised by some very erudite scholars. I can’t imagine a situation where an emperor would take as a reign name the places where troops were raised.
One thing I’ve always wanted to do, but have never taken the time to do so, is to create a list of the names of Le dynasty emperors and to put it beside a list of Chinese emperors to see if or how many names are the same. If Gia Long used characters from the names of Jiaqing and Qianlong, I don’t think that was the first time this ever happened. However, I haven’t taken the time to look into this, but my impression is that this was something that had been done before.
Finally, this still leaves us the question of where the story in the Qing shi gao came from. I have not spent much time working with that text, so I’m not sure. However, it would be interesting to investigate further. So, thank you again for pointing it out.
Ah, and thank you for sharing you blog. I see something there about the Ho Quyen. I’m very interested in that right now!!