There was a brief article in VnExpress the other day called “What can you do if you study Hán Nôm?” “Hán” is the same as what other people call “classical Chinese” and “Nôm” is the name for a demotic script that was developed in the past to write the Vietnamese vernacular. It is based on Chinese characters.
In Vietnam, “Hán Nôm” is a field of its own. People who study in that field learn to read classical Chinese and Nôm and then they read texts and either translate them into modern Vietnamese if the original text was written in classical Chinese or transliterate them into the Romanized script that is used today in Vietnam if the original text was in Nôm.
Scholars who study Hán Nôm also write about various textual issues that they come across, such as the authenticity of certain texts or the accuracy of information in texts.
So what can you do if you study Hán Nôm? The VnExpress article lists various things, from teaching Hán Nôm to working as a translator, but I found it interesting that there is one profession that was not listed – historian.
I find this interesting because in history departments in Vietnam, students are not required to gain a solid knowledge of classical Chinese or Nôm in order to study the past, even though the vast majority of historical sources up until the early twentieth century are in that language.
In many other parts of the world, it is inconceivable that someone can become a professional historian without an ability to read primary sources in their original language. For some reason, however, this is acceptable in Vietnam, and I have never been able to understand why.
Meanwhile there are people who can read those documents – people who study Hán Nôm – but those people are not trained in history or historical methodology. And as the VnExpress article indicate, becoming an historian (or teaching history) is not really an option for people who study Hán Nôm.
Why is it the case that the people who learn to read primary sources in the original language are off in a field of their own? I think it has to do with the history of Vietnam’s engagement with the outside world. The field of Hán Nôm studies is a continuation of the field of philology, a field that was particularly strong in Europe and the Soviet Union, but which has become marginalized in the Anglo world over the past 60 years in favor of a broader approach to studying texts and the past, one that combines linguistic ability with knowledge of an academic discipline (or disciplines).
So there is a divide in academia in Vietnam that doesn’t exist in some other countries, and I would argue that it’s a very destructive divide as it means that no one is getting fully trained to be able to examine the past.
It would be wonderful if some institution in Vietnam would recognize this someday and make changes that would allow students to get equipped with the skills that they need to study history.
This Post Has 5 Comments
Speaking of ancient Vietnamese texts, I wonder about why I see so little about Văn Khoa Đầu (Vietnam’s indigenous “tadpole script”). Any time I look into historic Vietnamese documents, there’s a lot of information relating to Hán Nôm, but it’s almost as if Khoa Đầu never existed!
I only found out about it when I saw some of the ancient documents being restored here in Ho Chi Minh City (that was lucky for me, as people rarely get to see inside that restricted government department). I found it strange that despite their uneasy relationship with China, they’re not more proud of the script that was developed independently of Chinese influence.
Không hề có loại văn tự tiếng Việt cổ nào gọi là “chữ khoa đẩu”, nó chưa bao giờ tồn tại ngoài đời thực.
An Chi – Chữ “Việt cổ” của ông Đỗ Văn Xuyền: http://petrotimes.vn/chu-viet-co-cua-ong-do-van-xuyen-112177.html
An Chi – Chữ “Việt cổ” của ông Đỗ Văn Xuyền (tiếp): http://petrotimes.vn/chu-viet-co-cua-ong-do-van-xuyen-tiep-113045.html
Cảm ơn bạn! Tôi đông ý với ông An Chi, nhưng ý kiến ở đây thì không đúng:
“Huống chi, Tàu đâu có ghi hai chữ “Việt Thường” [越裳]; Triệu Thường [趙裳] mới đúng là tên cái xứ sở mà sách của họ đã ghi. Các nhà làm sách, làm sử của ta thời xưa hoặc đã “gian lận” mà đưa chữ “Việt” [越] vào để “ăn theo”, hoặc chỉ vì “tác đánh tộ, ngộ đánh quá” nên mới đọc “Triệu” [趙] thành “Việt” [越] đó thôi! Vâng, Triệu Thường mới đúng là chữ trong sách Tàu. ”
Thái bình quảng ký có ghi “Việt” Thường:
http://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&file=3242&page=128
Nhưng dĩ nhiên không có nghĩa là “chuyện có sứ giả Việt Thường sang dâng cho vua Nghiêu bên Tàu một con rùa thần” là đúng, hay là “Việt Thường” ở đây có nghĩa là “Việt Nam.” 🙂
“Việt Thường” giống như một đề tài người Tàu đã sử dùng để tạo ra rất nhiều chuyên, thậm chí có âm nhạc nữa:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL5ukXtOMy8
Thanks for the comment!! Actually, a friend forwarded to me the blog piece that you wrote on this a while back. Those are beautiful photographs, but those texts are not written in tadpole script. Some of the pictures are of a Khmer text. (and maybe a Cham one too??)
So I’m curious – did they tell you that this was tadpole script? Or did they show you something else that they did not let you photograph that they said was in tadpole script?
Personally, I think part of the reason why people don’t talk about this is because the evidence for it is weak (or non existent?). That said, I also don’t know much about this topic. There is a guy who reads this blog sometimes who I think is doing some kind of research on this right now. If he sees this, hopefully he can tell us what he knows.
http://adamrobertyoung.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/the-restorers-ancient-vietnamese-manuscripts-behind-locked-doors/
Luận văn tiến sỹ của Lương Mậu Hoa (梁茂华) có đề cập tới những thứ mà một số người cho rằng đó là chữ viết do người Việt tự mình tạo ra: http://www.mediafire.com/file/33x08c2hfaaixx8/%E8%B6%8A%E5%8D%97%E6%96%87%E5%AD%97%E5%8F%91%E5%B1%95%E5%8F%B2%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6.pdf