In the English-language scholarship on Vietnamese history, the Lý Dynasty (1009-1225), the first major Vietnamese dynasty, is usually presented as not being influenced by Confucian ideas and institutions. Instead, historians have argued that it was “primarily Buddhist.”
When I look at the sources for that time period, I find it extremely difficult to agree with that viewpoint.
Let’s take a look at some of the earliest information about the Lý Dynasty, and in particular, let’s look at the information about the construction in 1010 AD of a new capital, Thăng Long, at what is now Hanoi.
This was where the Tang Dynasty’s main administrative center had been. Therefore, there were already buildings and a city wall there, however, under the Lý, new buildings were constructed. Let’s take a look at what those buildings were.
遂於昇龍京城之内起造宫殿。前起乾元殿，以為視朝之所。左置集賢殿，右立講武殿。又啓飛龍門通迎春宫，丹鳳門通威遠門，正陽起髙明殿，皆曰龍墀。墀之内引翼回廊，周圍四面。乾元殿後置龍安、龍瑞二殿，以為燕寢之處。左建日光殿，右建月明殿，後起翠華、龍瑞二宫，以為宫女之居。修府庫，洽城隍。城之四面啓四門，東曰祥符，西曰廣福，南曰大興，北曰耀德。又扵城内起興天御寺、五鳳星樓，城外離創造勝嚴寺。
Lõi xây dựng các cung điện trong kinh thành Thăng Long, phía trước dựng điện Càn Nguyên làm chỗ coi chầu, bên tả làm điện Tập Hiền, bên hữu dựng điện Giảng Võ. Lại mở cửa Phi Long thông với cung Nghêng Xuân, cửa Đan Phượng thông với cửa Uy Viễn, hướng chính nam dựng điện Cao Minh, đều có thềm rồng [I don’t agree with the translation here. There is a footnote in the translation where they explain how they changed the meaning of the original, but there is no reason to do so.], trong thềm rồng có hành lang dẫn ra xung quanh bốn phía.
Sau điện Càn Nguyên dựng hai điện Long An, Long Thụy làm nơi vua nghỉ. Bên tả xây điện Nhật Quang, bên hữu xây điện Nguyệt Minh, phía sau dựng hai cung Thúy Hoa, Long Thụy làm chỗ ở cho cung nữ. Dựng kho tàng, đắp thành, đào hào. Bốn mặt thành mở bốn cửa: phía đông gọi là cửa Tường Phù, phía tây gọi là cửa Quảng Phúc, phía nam gọi là cửa Đại Hưng, phía bắc gọi là cửa Diệu Đức. Lại ở trong thành làm chùa ngự Hưng Thiên và tinh lâu Ngũ Phượng. Ngoài thành về phía nam dựng chùa Thắng Nghiêm.
In 1010 AD, there were various “palaces” (điện 殿) that were constructed. While that name sounds like a place where a monarch would live, in fact, some of these structures were the work of government.
The most important was the Palace of Great Origination (Càn Nguyên điện 乾元殿), a concept from the Classic of Changes (Yijing 易經) which in this context could refer to both Heaven and the emperor. According to the Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư, audiences with the Lý emperor were held in this building.
On one side of this palace was constructed the Palace of Assembled Scholarly Worthies (Tập Hiền điện 集賢殿), and on the other, the Palace of Martial Discussion (Giảng Võ điện 講武殿). Also constructed were the Flying Dragon Gate (Phi Long môn 飛龍門), the Cinnabar Phoenix Gate (Đan Phượng môn 丹鳳門), the Aweing Those Afar Gate (Uy Viễn môn 威遠門) the Wecoming Spring Residence (Nghêng Xuân cung 迎春宮) and the Palace of Wise Brilliance (Cao Minh điện 髙明殿).
All of these structures were in an area called the Dragon Platform (Long Trì 龍墀), another reference to the emperor. This appears to be where the work of governance took place. Meanwhile, the emperor’s private quarters were behind the Palace of Great Origination in the Palace of Dragon Peace (Long An điện 龍安殿) and the Palace of Dragon Portents (Long Thụy điện 龍瑞殿), and behind those palaces were still more structures for the court ladies.
Surrounding this imperial city, a wall was constructed with the following four gates: Auspicious Sign (Tường Phù 祥符), Extending Blessings (Quảng Phúc 廣福), Great Prosperity (Đại Hưng 大興), and Glorious Virtue (Diệu Đức 耀德).
Additionally, within the city walls was constructed a temple, Prospering Heaven Imperial Temple (Hưng Thiên ngự tự 興天御寺), and a structure called the Five Phoenix Asterism Towers (Ngũ Phượng Tinh Lâu 五鳳星樓), while outside of the city walls the Thắng Nghiêm Temple was constructed (Thắng Nghiêm tự 勝嚴寺).
Ok, so that’s a lot of names. What do they mean? What can we learn from these names?
The Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư record that the Palace of Great Origination (Càn Nguyên điện 乾元殿) is where court audiences were held. The name of this structure is the same as the name that Tang Gaozong gave to a palace that he had constructed in 656 in Luoyang, the “Eastern Capital” of the Tang Dynasty. That palace was built on the foundation of a building that had served as the main audience hall for the emperor during the Sui Dynasty, and the new palace continued to serve that function in the early Tang period as well.
The Palace of Assembled Scholarly Worthies (Tập Hiền điện 集賢殿) was clearly an institution modeled after the Tang Dynasty’s Academy of Assembled Scholarly Worthies (Jixiandian shuyuan 集賢殿書院), a combination library and Confucian academy.
Wait, what? There was a Confucian library/academy at the center of Thăng Long right next to the emperor’s audience hall, which was named after a key term from the Classic of Changes??
Yes, that’s right. Interesting, huh?
The History of the Song mentions a Palace of Martial Discussion (Giảng Võ điện 講武殿) where not only were military exercises carried out, but exams as well.
The Cinnabar Phoenix Gate (Đan Phượng môn 丹鳳門) was the name of a gate in front of the emperor’s residence in the Tang Dynasty capital of Chang’an. There are a few entries in the History of the Tang where we can see that the emperor declared a great amnesty at this gate after performing the Nanjiao sacrifice to Heaven and Earth.
The Five Phoenix Asterism Towers (Ngũ Phượng Tinh Lâu 五鳳星樓) must clearly have been related to, or inspired by, the Five Phoenix Towers (Wufeng lou 五鳳樓) in Luoyang during the Sui and Tang periods.
I’m sure that if we dig deeper, we can find still more connections.
All of these names literally scream “CONFUCIANISM”!!! Or what we could perhaps more accurately label “imperial Confucianism” that is, the Confucian ideas that supported the emperor and the empire.
Virtually every one of the above names makes reference to something in the imperial Confucian tradition, from Heaven, to moral virtue (đức 德), to dragons and phoenixes.
Further, this extends beyond the construction of these buildings. At this same time, Cổ Pháp 古法 Prefecture became Heavenly Virtue (Thiên Đức 天德) Prefecture. Hoa Lư 華閭 Citadel became Eternal Peace (長安 Trường Yên) Citadel. In Chinese, this is pronounced “Chang’an” and was the capital of such prominent dynasties as the Han and Tang. Finally, the North River (Bắc Giang 北江) became the Heavenly Virtue River.
The reign name that the first Lý emperor took for himself was Obediently Following Heaven (Thuận Thiên 順天), while his successor chose Heavenly Completion (Thiên Thành 天成).
So, if this was a “primarily Buddhist” dynasty, then where was the “Dharma Palace” (Phật Pháp điện 佛法殿)? And where was the “Prajna Gate” (Bát Nhã môn 般若門)? And how come the Palace of Assembled Scholarly Worthies wasn’t called the “Palace of Assembled Eminent Monks” (Tập Tăng điện 集僧殿)??
Yes, as I will discuss later, the Lý Dynasty did offer patronage to Buddhists (as we can find Chinese emperors during the Tang and Song periods doing as well), but the buildings and gates constructed in Thăng Long in 1010 AD were 1,000,000% within the imperial Confucian tradition of East Asia.
Indeed, while it is well known that the Japanese constructed Nara in the model of the Tang Dynasty capital of Chang’an (and that doesn’t bother anyone), for some reason historians have decided to ignore all of the clear connections between Thăng Long and the imperial cities of the Sui-Song Dynasties, as well as the imperial Confucian ideas that gave legitimacy to those cities.
Why is that?
This Post Has 2 Comments
Dear Dr Kelley,
Wow! It looks as if I am the first person to comment on your article! I hope that with my review, more constructive comments would follow.
As usual, I appreciate your critical views on major works of Vietnam’s history. I trust that open-minded Vietnamese social science researchers and historians would be inspired by this approach.
Nonetheless, I am not convinced with the evidence put forward in your argument specifically when you disregarded how Confucianism has evolved, adapted to social changes, and how Chu Hsi (I use the Wade-Giles system for all Chinese names in this post) assimilated the philosophy and spirituality of Buddhism and Taoism into his Neo-Confucianism in the 12th century. Since then, the “Confucianism” as we know it today is a mixture of traditional Confucianism, Taoist mysticism, and Mahayana Buddhism (yet, both Taoism and Chinese Buddhism had also gone through a similar cultural assimilation process). Thus, your claim that it was the imperial Confucian ideas that gave legitimacy to the ancient cities of China (Chang’an), Japan (Nara), Vietnam (Thăng Long), and Korea (Chandeokgung ) deserves to be scrutinized. In the following comments, I examine some unsupported claims in your article.
First, there is no evidence that the Classic of Changes (I Ching 易經) is the work of Confucius (551–479 BCE). By contrast, Confucius himself seemed to be deliberately avoided speaking of strange doctrines. Chapter 2 (:16) of the Analects states, “The Master said, To delve into strange doctrines can bring only harm” (see The Analects of Confucius / Columbia University Press / translated by Burton Watson [2007]).
Second, probably because of its metaphysics instead of ethical nature, the Classic of Changes was only mentioned in one of the later versions of the Analects (Watson [2007], Introduction, p.2). Meanwhile, it is feasible that under influenced by the Taoist doctrines, Confucian theorists ascribed this classic to Confucius in the 2nd century BC (Britannica).
Third, in his notable work, “A History of Chinese Philosophy” (first publication in 1931), the noted Chinese philosopher and historian Fung Yu-lan remarks that because the original corpus of this classic is comprised of eight triagrams, each consisting of three broken or unbroken lines, it is sensible to presume that the I Ching existed before the birth of Confucianism probably sometimes in the Western Chou dynasty (1046-771 BCE), as the yarrow-stalk method was widely used by divination practitioners in this period. For this reason, the thought that the I Ching was derived from Confucius is unjustifiable (Princeton [1983, p.379]).
Fourth, Chang’an was originally constructed around 1600 BCE, many centuries before the time of Confucius. Since then, it had been modified, expanded, and chosen as the capital cities of Han, Sui, and Tang. During this long period, Chang’an had been planned, built, and renovated to demonstrate the wealth, and fulfil specific needs and desires, of its rulers. The assumption that Chang’an of Tang is the typical model of imperial Confucian ideas is unjustified, as no state-sponsored Confucius temple was built during this dynasty since Emperor Taizong of Tang (598-649) decreed in 630 that every provincial and county school should build a Confucian temple. Additionally, contrary to your claim, Xie, Shen, and Chen (2023) in their article titled “A Growing System: Constituent Elements and Spatial Evolution of Ancient Local Confucian Temples in China” (Frontiers of Architectural Research, Vol. 12, Issue 5, October 2023) indicated, “… as a typical form of ritual architecture, the establishment system of Confucian temples was always influenced by the feudal regime or official purport” (pp. 966-967).
From the above-mentioned evidence, I strongly believe that because the I Ching had existed long before the birth of Confucianism, numerous names of buildings including the Palace of Great Origination (Càn Nguyên điện 乾元殿) of Chang’an and Thăng Long should have been inspired by Taoist cosmology instead of the imperial Confucian ideas.
Lastly, I would like to comment more on other areas of your articles in my next post if you are keen and consider my post as a peer review.
Sincerely yours,
Hung Ky Nguyen
Dear Hung Ky Nguyen,
Thank you for your comments!!
First, I think you are making too rigid of a distinction when you say that since the I Ching came before Confucius it is somehow not Confucian. The I Ching was of great importance to Confucius and virtually every “Confucian” scholar after that point. In fact, it’s core to everything in the Chinese and East Asian traditions.
As for the palace, it wasn’t in Chang’an. As I explain in the post, it was in Luoyang, the “Eastern Capital” of the Tang Dynasty. It was built on the site of a Sui Dynasty audience hall, and later, Wu Zetian changed it to “Mingtang,” a term that is very important in the Confucian tradition. (http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Terms/mingtang.html).
The Tang had Daoist temples in their imperial city. However, I have found no evidence that the audience halls of any Chinese dynasties had Daoist meanings.
This is how the term is commonly explained: 《易•干》：“大哉乾元，万物资始，乃统天。”
指天。
元气；大气。
指帝王。
In the “I Ching, Qian,” it is said: “Great indeed is the primordial Qian, the origin of all things, it rules the heavens.” This refers to Heaven. It also signifies the primal energy or the great atmosphere. It refers to an emperor. https://www.zdic.net/hans/%E4%B9%BE%E5%85%83