Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 April 2011
Our chief sources of information about Vietnam until the middle of the tenth century are the dynastic histories and related writings of China. This is because, from the beginning of recorded history in Vietnam until then, Vietnam was, for the most part, under the authority of Chinese governors or people who posed as Chinese-style governors. By the end of the tenth century, an independent Vietnamese monarchy was established, and historical information was being independently preserved by the Vietnamese; this information was eventually incorporated into the Vietnamese historiographical tradition as it developed in later centuries. Consequently, the historian of tenth-century Vietnam finds two streams of information, one coming from a wellestablished viewpoint from which Vietnam was a remote frontier district at the edge of the horizon, the other coming from the Vietnamese themselves as they worked toward a standpoint from which to remember their past.
This essay grew out of research begun with a grant from the Social Science Research Council.
1 Taylor, K.W., The Birth of Vietnam (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), pp. 261–95.Google Scholar
2 Naojiro, Sugimoto, “Sangoku Jidai ni okeru Go no Tainansaku”, in Tōnan Ajia-shi Kenkyū 1 (Tokyo, 1956): 417–526Google Scholar. Tatsurō, Yamamoto, “An-nan ga Dokuritsu-koku o Keiseishitaru Katei no Kenk yū”, Tōyō Bunka Kenk yū-jo Kiyo 1 (1943): 1–90Google Scholar. Masahiro, Kawahara, “Tei Buryō no Sokui Nendai ni tsuite”, Hōseidaigaku Bungakubu Kiyō 15 (1970): 29–46Google Scholar. Gardiner, Ken, “Vietnam and Southern Han: Part I”, Papers on Far Eastern History 23 (March 1981): 64–110.Google Scholar
3 Kawahara summarizes his argument, presented in detail in the 1970 article cited in note 2, in his “Richō to Sō tono kankei”, in Betonamu Chūgoku Kankeishi, ed. Tatsurō, Yamamoto (Tokyo, 1975), pp. 14–16Google Scholar.
4 Huang, Ssu-ma, Tzu-chih t'ung-chien 281 (Shanghai, 1956), vol. 10, pp. 9192–93Google Scholar. Hsiu, Ou-yang, Hsin Wu-tai shih 64 (Taipei, 1963), p. 149.Google Scholar
5 Việt s 
lược 1: 14a-b, in Shou shan ko ts'ung shu (Taipei, 1968). Ngô Sĩ Liên, Đai Việt ký loàn thư, Ngoại 
5: 20a-21a (Tōyō Bunko “mixed manuscript”).
6 Kuang, Ssu-ma, Tzu-chih t'ung-chien 291, vol. 10, p. 9501Google Scholar. Ou-yang Hsiu, Hsin Wu-tai shih 64, p. 149.
7 Việt lưǮc 1: 14b-15b. Ngô Sĩ Liên, Toàn thư, Ngoại 5: 21b-25a.
8 Ou-yang Hsiu, Hsin Wu-tai shih 64, p. 150.
9 Sung hui-yao 197 (Peking, 1957), p. 7723. Sung shih 488 (Taipei, 1965), p. 2431. Ma Tuan-lin, Wen hsien t'ung-k'ao 330: 19b (Hangchou, 1896).
10 T'ao, Li, Hsü izu-chih t'ung-chien ch'ang-bien 4: 29a (Shanghai, 1881Google Scholar).
11 It is cited in the I-wen chih of the Sung chih. See Yu-fu, Chin, Chung-kuo shih-hsüeh shih (Shanghai, 1944), p. 154.Google Scholar
12 See Chung, T'ang, Sung hui-yao yen-chiu (Taipei, 1966), pp. 3–16.Google Scholar
13 Ma Tuan-lin, T'ung-k'ao 330: 20a. Sung shih 488, p. 2431.
14 Sung shih 488, p. 2431.
15 Li T'ao, Ch'ang-bien 4: 29a.
16 Sung hui-yao 197, p. 7723. Ma Tuan-lin, T'ung-k'ao 330: 19b. Sung shih 488, p. 2431.
17 Ngô 
Liên, Toàn th'u, 1: 12a.
18 Việt s 
lʰợc 1: 17a–b.
19 Taylor, Birth, p. 351.
20 Lê Tắc, An-nam chí lược 11: 5b. Ch'in-ting Ssu-k'u ch'uan-shu 1782 edition (Taipei reprint, series 7, vol. 86 [1977]).
21 Ngan-nan tche yuan (Hanoi: École Française d'Extrême-Orient, 1932). See É. Gaspardone's introductory essay, pp. 26–38.
22 Ibid., 3, p. 173.
23 Ibid., 3, p. 182. Also see Sugimoto, “Sangoku Jidai”, pp. 65–76.
24 Việt lႰợc 1: 15b–16a.
25 Ngan-nan tche yuan 2, p. 136; Việt s lược 1: la. On this reference to “simple customs” and “knotted cords”, see Wolters, O. W., “Assertions of Cultural Well-being in Fourteenth-Century Vietnam”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies XI, 1 (Mar. 1980), pp. 76ff.Google Scholar Also note in these passages the reference to “eighteen generations”.
26 Việt lược 1: 16b–17a.
27 Ngan-nan tche yuan 3, p. 182.
28 Lê Tắc, An-nam chí lược 15: 11b.
29 Việt sư︠ lược 1: 17a-b.
30 Lê Tắc, An-nam chí lược 5: 15a-17b.Ngô Sĩ Liên, Toàn thư, k: 10a–12a.
31 See Trần Quốc Vượng, translator and annotator, Việt s lược (Hanoi, undated), notes on pp. 46–47.
32 Wang Ying-lin, Tung-chien ti-li t'ung-shih, in Hsüeh chin t'ao yuan (Taipei, 1965), 1: 3a-4a, 6a, 7b, and 3: 15b.
33 An Hsi, Mou an chi, in Ssu-k'u chin-shu chên-pen, 3rd series (Taipei, 1972), 2: 6a–b.
34 See the Shu ching; Legge, James, The Chinese Classics V (Hong Kong, 1960), p. 38Google Scholar. Also Ssu-ma Ch'ien's Shih chi (Po-na edition) 1: 18a.
35 Ou-yang Hsiu, Hsiu Wu-tai shih 65, p. 150. Li T'ao, Ch'ang-bien 4: 29a. Sung hui-yao 197, p. 7723. Ma Tuan-lin, T'ung-k'ao 330: 19b. Sung shih 488, p. 2431. Việt s lược 1: 15b-16a. Ngô Si Liên, Toàn thư, Ngoại S 5: 25a-b. Lê Tắc, An-nam chí lược 11: 5b, is based on the late Sung and Yüan sources. Ngan-nan tche yuan 3, p. 182, is based on the late Sung and Yuan sources plus the Việt s lược. I here ignore these last two works because they offer no original information and cannot be considered as primary sources for our discussion.
36 Lữ 
is most probably a corruption of Ngô 
.
37 Việt lược 1: 14b.
38 Ngô Sĩ Liên, Toàn thưl, Ngoaạ k 5: 21b–22b.
39 Trân Quốc Vượg, Việt s lược, note on p. 47.
40 Ngô Sĩ Liên, Toàn thư, Ngoại k 5: 21b–22b.
41 See references in note 35.
42 Taylor, Birth, pp. 200, 235, 240.
43 Ssu-ma Kuang, Tzu-chih t'ung-chien 281, pp. 9172, 9192–93. Việt s lược 1: 14a. Ngô Sĩ Liên, Toàn thư, Ngoai k 5: 19a.
44 Việt s lược 1: 14b, 15b. Ngô Sĩ Liên, Toàn thư, Ngoai k 5: 22b, 24b. The two villages described as the scene of hostilities are identified as being in Thái-binh, which lay on the border of Phong and Giao on the north bank of the Hống River.
45 Ibid.
46 Trấn Quốc Vượng, Việt s lược, note on p. 46.
47 Tetsuji, Morohashi, Dai Kanwa Jiten (Tokyo: Shukusha ben, 1966–68), vol. I, p. 155Google Scholar.
48 Taylor, Birth, pp. 271, 273.
49 Morohashi, Dai Kanwa Jiten, vol. 3, p. 541.
50 Maspero, Henri, “Le Protectorate General d'Annam sous les T'ang”, Bulletin de l'École Française d'Extrême- Orient 10 (1910): 579–80.Google Scholar
51 Trần Quôc Vượng, Việt s lược, note on p. 47.
52 Ibid.
53 Pham Văn S⋯n, Việt s tân biên, vol. I (Saigon, 1954), pp. 283–85.
54 Việt s lႰợc 1: 14b. Ngô sĩ Liên, Toàn thư, Ngoại K 5: 21b-22a.
55 Lý Tế Xuyên, Việt điện u linh tập (Tōyō Bunko X.39 manuscript), 7b. On this source, see Taylor, Birth, pp. 352–54.
56 Trần Quốc Vưóng, Việt s lႰợc, note on p. 47.
57 Ngô Sĩ Liên, Ṫoàn thư, Ngoại K 5: 25b–26a.
58 Việt s lႰợc 1: 17a.
59 Ngô Sĩ lႰợc, Toàn thư, Ngoại K 5: 26a.
60 Morohashi, Dai Kanwa Jiten, vol. 7, p. 108.
61 Ibid., vol. 7, p. 829. It was the name of a town in Ho-nan.
62 Cao Huy Giu (translator)and Đào Duy Anh(annotator), Đại Việt s ký toàn thư, vol. 1 (Hanoi, 1972), p. 327, n. 65.
63 Ngô Sĩ Liên, Toàn thư, B
n K1: 8a-b.
64 Ibid., Ngoại 5: 21b.
65 Ibid., 5: 20b.
66 This passage appears in the “Introduction”, which has not been preserved in the Ch'in-ting Ssu-k'u ch'uan-shu 1782 edition; see Ch'en Ching-ho's collated edition (Huế, 1961), p. 17 of the Chinese text.
67 Ngô Sĩ Liên, Toàn thư, Bn K1: 13a, 15b-16a.
68 Ibid., 1: 3b.
69 Ibid., 1: 19a.
70 Ibid., 1: 18a-b.
71 Ibid., 2: la.
72 Ibid., 2: 2a-b.
73 Ibid., 2: 11a-b, 27b.
74 For another example of this, see Wolters, O.W., “Historians and Emperors in Vietnam and China: comments arising out of Lê Văn Hưu's History, presented to the Trần court in 1272”, in Perceptions of the Past in Southeast Asia, ed. Reid, A. and Marr, D. (Hong Kong, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, 1979): 69–89.Google Scholar
