Viet Nam Vong Quoc Su

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Việt Nam Vong Quốc Sử (English: History of the Loss of Vietnam) was a book written by Phan Boi Chau, the leading Vietnamese anti-colonial revolutionary of the early 20th century, in 1905 while he was in exile in Japan. It was published by Liang Chi Chao, a leading Chinese nationalist revolutionary scholar then in Japan, who assisted Chau during his time attempting to drum up support for Vietnamese independence in China. The book was intended for distribution mainly among Chinese in China and abroad, but also for smuggling into Vietnam. The book was intended to rally people to the cause of Vietnamese independence, and was regarded as one of the most important books in the history of the anti-colonial movement of Vietnam.[1]

The book is noted for its negative assessment of the response of the Nguyen Dynasty in the 19th century to the colonial challenges facing Vietnam and the failure to modernise, with the Nguyen instead turning to ultra-orthodox conservative Confucianism. The book presents strident and emotive memorials to the key figures of the Can Vuong (Protect the King) movement of the late 1880s and early 1890s, led by mandarins such as Ton That Thuyet and Phan Dinh Phung, who led guerrillas against the French. The Can Vuong attempted to overthrow the French rule and establish the boy emperor Ham Nghi as the ruler of an independent Vietnam.[1]

Viet Nam Vong Su Quoc also analyses the French social and economic policies in Vietnam, which it regards as oppression. In the book, Chau argues for the establishment of a nationwide pro-independence front with seven factions or interested groups with a specific motivation to fight the French colonial authorities. [1]

The book is written in a style that differed from the prevailing writing technique and structure of the scholar gentry of the time. The scholar gentry under the Confucian education system fostered by the classical imperial examinations were moulded by their study and memorisation of classical Chinese poetry and literature. As such, the literary style tended to be poetic, indirect and metaphorical, relying on allusions and imagery to depict an idea. Chau eschewed this traditional style to write in a direct, ordinary prose style, especially in his analytical and argumentative sections. The book precipitated a new style of writing among scholar gentry revolutionaries, who later tended to use a more direct style. The book also led to a change in the style used in the modern Vietnamese language.[2]

The book was printed for distribution in China at least five times, and the first two printings were incorporated into Liang's periodical magazine Hsin-min ts'ung-pao. The book was accompanied by a foreword by Liang, which was used to draw similarities between the situation facing Vietnam and China with respect to foreign domination. The book created a reaction in China, sparking follow-up essays by Chinese writers who were taken aback by the Chau's description of the life that faced Vietnamese people under French rule. It generated gloomy pieces by Chinese writers who predicted that their nation would suffer a similar fate if they failed to modernise. One such Chinese response later became a teaching text at the Tonkin Free School in Hanoi, a school run by Chau's contemporaries to promote the independence movement. However, Chau did not receive much of a reaction in terms of aid towards his independence efforts, since the book mainly had the effect of worrying Chinese about their own future. Instead the book mainly had the effect on local Chinese of making them think that Vietnam was doomed to permanent colonisation.[2]

Viet Nam Vong Quoc Su had a much better reception among readers in Vietnam. Chau and his colleague Dang Tu Kinh left Japan for the first time in August 1905, carrying fifty copies of the book that were distributed throughout Vietnam, of which further copies were made inside the country. Chau's direct writing style, without the use of allegories, upset traditionalists but made the book more accessible to literate people who had not been trained in classical literature.[2]

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ a b c Marr, p. 114.
  2. ^ a b c Marr, p. 115.

[edit] Reference