I do not know how many times I have heard or read that the Văn Miếu (Temple of Literature) in Hanoi was “built” in 1070 AD, but it’s a lot, and everyone seems to think this, however it’s not true.
If you read the modern Vietnamese translation of the main historical chronicles for premodern Vietnam, the Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư, it says that in 1070, this temple was “built” (làm).
However, if you read the original classical Chinese version, it says that in 1070 the Văn Miếu was “tu” 脩, which means “renovated.”
Here is the passage (and I prefer to translate Văn Miếu as “Temple of Civility” as văn referred to much more than literature):
秋八月，脩文廟，塑孔子、周公及四配像，畫七十二賢像，四時享祀，皇太子臨學焉。
In the eighth lunar month of autumn, the Temple of Civility was renovated, statues of Confucius, the Duke of Zhou and the Four Correlates were sculpted, and images of the Seventy Two Worthies were painted. Sacrifices were made at each of the four seasons and the Heir Apparent attended studies there [3/5a].
(Mùa thu, tháng 8, làm Văn Miếu, đắp tượng Khổng Tử, Chu Công và Tứ phối, vẽ tượng Thất thập nhị hiền, bốn mùa cúng tế. Hoàng thái tử đến học ở đây.)
The term for “renovate” here, “tu” 脩, is a variant of the character, “tu” 修, which we can also find in the Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư indicating “renovate.”
We can see this, for instance, with the extant information about Diên Hựu Pagoda (Diên Hựu tự 延祐寺), commonly known today as the One Pillar Pagoda (Chùa Một Cột), a famous historical site in Hanoi.
The Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư records that this pagoda was “constructed” (tạo 造) in 1049 [2/37a]. It was then “renovated” in 1101 (tu 修), 1105, and 1249 (trùng tu 重修) [3/13b, 3/15a and 5/16b].
Back to the issue of the Temple of Civility, for 1171, the Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư contains the following entry:
脩文宣王廟殿及后土祠。
Renovations were made to the Temple of the King of Exalted Civility and the Soil Deity Shrine [4/15a].
(Làm miếu điện thờ Văn Tuyên Vương và đền thờ Hậu Thổ.)
The same verb for renovate, “tu” 脩, appears here, and in the modern Vietnamese translation it is again rendered as “built” (làm). Further, there is a footnote in the modern Vietnamese translation that indicates that the “King of Exalted Civility” is a reference to Confucius (Văn Tuyên Vương: tức Khổng Tử).
The modern Vietnamese translation does not equate the Temple of Civility (Văn Miếu 文廟) with this Temple of the King of Exalted Civility (Văn Tuyên Vương Miếu 文宣王廟), however, this was in fact the same temple. The first name was just a simplified/contracted version of the longer second name (Văn Tuyên Vương Miếu).
The history of the honoring and worship of Confucius is very long and complicated, and official state temples dedicated to him go back to Han Dynasty times. Over the centuries, the titles granted to Confucius, the internal layout of his temple, and the particular disciples included in the temple, all changed many times.
For instance, the name, “King of Exalted Civility” (Văn Tuyên Vương 文宣王), was granted to Confucius in 739, during the period of the Tang Dynasty (618-907).
Prior to that point, the temples dedicated to Confucius in the Tang empire were referred to by other names, such as Confucian Temple (Kongzi miao 孔子廟 or Kong miao 孔廟). However, after the granting of this new title, the name, Temple of the King of Exalted Civility, started to be used, although never exclusively.
Finally, in 1530, during the time of the Ming Dynasty, there was a discussion at the Ming court that resulted in a decision to discontinue the use of the title, “King of Exalted Civility,” the emperor and his officials felt that Confucius was of a higher status than that name implied. It was decided instead that he be referred to as Paramount Sage and First Teacher Confucius and his temple officially took that name as well, as the Temple of the Paramount Sage and First Teacher Confucius (Zhisheng xianshi Kongzi miao 至聖先師孔子廟). However, in Ming era sources we can see that shorter names, such as Temple of Civility and Confucian Temple, continued to be employed.
Ok, so given that the Temple of [the King of Exalted] Civility was “renovated” in 1070 and again in 1171, then when was it first built? There is no direct evidence to answer that question, but there is indirect evidence that can give us a general idea of when it may have first been constructed.
There was a close connection between Confucian temples and schools, and we can see that both of these institutions existed across the Tang Dynasty empire.
In 619, for instance, the emperor ordered schools to be built in the prefectures, districts and villages of the empire (州縣及鄉，並令置學。). In 670, it was ordered that any Confucian Temples (Kongzi miaotang 孔子廟堂) in the prefectures and districts of the empire in need of repair should be renovated. In 738, it was ordered that schools be built in every village in the prefectures and districts of the empire. (其天下州縣。每鄉之內。各里置一學。)
We also know that there were people from the area of what is now Vietnam who passed the civil service exams at the highest level of “presented scholar” (tiến sĩ 進士) during the time of the Tang Dynasty.
Therefore, there must have been schools, and if there were schools, then it is likely that there was a Confucian Temple (or perhaps multiple temples) as well.
In fact, a Confucian Temple may have been built in the area of Hanoi even earlier than the Tang, as it is reasonable to assume that the dynastic officials appointed there would have patronized such a temple. However, at the very least, I would argue that given the documented efforts of the Tang to build schools and maintain the upkeep of Confucian Temples across the empire, it is highly likely that such a temple existed in Vietnam from at least the period of the Tang Dynasty.
Hence, the need to RENOVATE that temple in 1070.
This Post Has 5 Comments
How interesting! Thank you very much for this article.
Remind me of the phrase “Domain of manifest civility”.
Dear Dr Kelley,
To date, I have greatly enjoyed reading your articles about the history of Vietnam. Your critical analysis on the current knowledge of this subject are much appreciated by myself.
Nonetheless, in this article, I found the way you constructed your entire argument on the word “脩” (Sino-Vietnamese: tu, English: renovate) is unsubstantiated because of the following reason:
Firstly, a word might have multiple meaning and that it could be incorrectly or vaguely used by the author/historian. I firmly believe that no one (even an editor in chief of a top journal in his/her field) can edit his/her own work. It is thus possible that in his notable work, the Đại Việt Sử Ký Toàn Thư (the original version in Chinese), historian Ngô Sĩ Liên used a less transparent word “脩” instead of “建” (Vietnamese: xây dựng, English: build). Like this, in this article, the way you used the English word “pagoda” for 寺 (Sino-Vietnamese, tự) is regrettable, as it should be interpreted as tháp (a component of a temple). The Britannica dictionary defines, “Pagoda, a tower-like, multistory, solid or hollow structure made of stone, brick, or wood, usually associated with a Buddhist temple complex and therefore usually found in East and Southeast Asia, where Buddhism was long the prevailing religion.” Thus, we should correctly note that, Tháp Một Cột là một phần của tổng thể Chùa Diên Hựu.
Secondly, probably like the way the Japanese engineers constructed the Kansai Airport out of nowhere instead of on a solid ground, you then vaguely concluded:
“In fact, a Confucian Temple may have been built in the area of Hanoi even earlier than the Tang, as it is reasonable to assume that the dynastic officials appointed there would have patronized such a temple. However, at the very least, I would argue that given the documented efforts of the Tang to build schools and maintain the upkeep of Confucian Temples across the empire, it is highly likely that such a temple existed in Vietnam from at least the period of the Tang Dynasty.”
In the language of research argument, how you could use the phrase “In fact” with “may have been…”?
Also, I have a great doubt about whether the Tang court would be willing to spend a large amount of money to build Confucius temples even in China, as this dynasty was largely known to overall embrace Buddhism. The construction of Văn Miếu (Temple of Literature) in Thăng Long might make more sense, as in this time, Chinese thinkers throughout China had attempted to revive Confucianism in the later part of 11th century leading to the revival of this religion in Đại Việt.
Thank you for your comments!!
I completely agree with you about the word “pagoda.” I only used it for Chùa Một Cột because I think English-language readers would be more familiar with that name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Pillar_Pagoda).
For some reason, many people have decided that the English word for chùa is “pagoda.” I agree with you that it’s not accurate, so you do not need to convince me. But please do your best to convince the thousands upon thousands of people in the world who use this term incorrectly. 🙂
As for this final comment: “Also, I have a great doubt about whether the Tang court would be willing to spend a large amount of money to build Confucius temples even in China, as this dynasty was largely known to overall embrace Buddhism,” it’s fine to think that way, but for this to be convincing, you have to be able to provide some evidence. Is there some historical source from the Tang where we can see people talking how there is not enough money to build something like schools or Confucian temples because too much money is being spent on Buddhism?
To build an historical argument, you have to provide some evidence. It doesn’t have to be direct evidence (because there may not be any), but indirect evidence can provide some support to an argument. That’s what I did when I provided information from the History of the Tang.
Now, as for 脩/修, yes, in certain contexts this could mean “construct.” I am aware of that, and I looked into the issue before I wrote the blog post. The main words for “construct/build” in the DVSKTT are words like 起, 構, 造, and 建.
脩/修 usually appears in compounds where it is clear that it means “renovate/repair,” like 重修. There are a few instances where it appears alone (including the record about the Văn Miếu). For a couple of those instances, we can determine that it means “renovate/repair” because we can see in the DVSKTT that the building had earlier been constructed.
I am providing below all of the relevant places where I have found 脩/修. Having looked at this, and having examined the places where terms like 起, 構, 造, and 建 are used, I am convinced that 脩/修 almost certainly (of course we can never be 100% certain, but if I was gambling on this, I would bet a lot of money on 脩/修 meaning “renovate/repair” here) means “renovate/repair.” When you add the information I provided from the History of the Tang, I beceome even more convinced.
The numbers below are for the chapters in the DVSKTT. You can look up the context for each passage here: https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E5%A4%A7%E8%B6%8A%E5%8F%B2%E8%A8%98%E5%85%A8%E6%9B%B8
I. Places where “脩” appears:
2
，重脩之。
3
脩文廟
4
脩文宣王廟殿及后土祠。
5
及退，率家奴及親属，得千餘人，脩戰噐戰船，
II. Places where “修” appears:
2
，意欲重修之。
重修龍安、龍瑞二殿。
3
慶成永光殿重修故也。
修大内諸殿宇。 (“Built” the various palaces in the Đại Nội? But they were already built in 1010. There is a clear record of that. This has to mean “repair.”)
修延生殿五岳觀。
時帝重修延祐寺
修延祐寺。 (chapter 2, already built = 造延祐寺。)
修治大羅城。
4
重修太和橋。
重修真教寺。
5
及重修國子監。
重修延祐寺
7
時重修御史臺成
於是重修之，
修造舟船
修戰船戰噐
修諸陵寢廟。
8
修造城池。
10
修治戰噐船艘。
遣防禦使陳班督修棃花関
修治城池，
修戦噐。
令北江、諒江修橋梁、道路，
13
修治京城西邊墻。
14
修築之術，
以修理關隘。
15
命阮文郞重修國子監崇儒殿及兩廡明倫六堂，
旣命官重修國子監及新構碑室，
時上旣命重修國子監幷新構作碑室
16
重修國子監。
17
令修造昇龍城內太廟各殿。
莫令修理昇龍城外層，
令修作浮橋
遂議修築其城
Dear Dr Kelley,
Thank you for your enthusiastic comments. In this post, I would like to provide some evidence for my argument. I believe that the most useful way to figure out when the current Van Mieu in Ha Noi might have actually been built is through finding out whether this kind of building was built in China at the same period; who could pay for it; what it was used for; and who were required to attend.
I firmly stand by my doubt whether the Tang court would be willing to spend a large amount of money to build more Confucius temples even throughout China after the first temple was constructed in Confucius’s hometown one year after his death in 479 BC. Despite the decree of Emperor Taizong of Tang in 630 that every provincial and county school should build a Confucian temple, there was no historical record of any Confucius temples with equal size with Van Mieu in Ha Noi being constructed in China during the reign of the Tang dynasty. On the other hand, the Fuzi Temple in Nanjing was only built 404 years after Taizong’s proclamation.
There are two major factors that could have influenced this disappointing reality. First, as the construction of a Confucius temple is extremely costly, it is thus impossible to build one without the financial supports of the government. Because Buddhism had ascended to an imperially patronised religion for a long period of the Tang dynasty, through having been generously granted significant amount of public lands and allowed to collect taxes on those lands, as well as having been exempted from paying taxes, the wealth of Chinese Buddhist institution had greatly accumulated over the centuries. As a result, the financial gains of this Establishment had gradually and consistently depleted the revenue and limited spending of the Tang governments on major public works.
Second, in addition to the presence of government bureaucracies across provinces, cities, and districts, there should be good attendance of local degree holders in annual worship at any Confucius temple on his birthday. These two factors were not available in a remote and volatile Tang protectorate like Annan where the majority of its population were farmers and there were very few number of local officials (see Ben Kiernan, Vietnam: A History of the Earliest Times to the Present [New York: Oxford University Press, 1917], 109).
Yours sincerely,
Hung Ky Nguyen
Ps: I would like to correct the year of the publication of Ben Kiernan’s book. It is 2017 instead of 1917.