Везде
Insights from Khiêm Cung Ký: King Tu Duc’s Epitaph and its Relevance to Vietnam in the Second Half of the 19th Century
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Insights from Khiêm Cung Ký: King Tu Duc’s Epitaph and its Relevance to Vietnam in the Second Half of the 19th Century
Annotation
PII
S086919080028896-2-1
DOI
10.31696/S086919080028896-2
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Phuong Thao Hoang 
Occupation: Lecturer and PhD. student
Affiliation: PhD. Student, University of Lodz, Poland, Lecturer at Faculty of Philosophy, Hanoi National University of Education, Vietnam.
Address: Lodz, 21/23 Matejki Lodz
Edition
Issue 5
Pages
166-176
Abstract

This article analyzes the reign of King Tu Duc, the longest-serving monarch in the Nguyen Dynasty (1847–1883), focusing particularly on his seminal work, Khiêm Cung ký. The study draws upon diverse sources, including royal decrees, archival materials from the Quoc su quan trieu Nguyen (National Historical Bureau of Nguyen Dynasty), as well as scholarly contributions from both Vietnamese and international academics. Notably, it incorporates a complete translation of Khiêm Cung ký by Phan Hua Thuy, published on the Hồn Việt website. The research identifies Khiêm Cung ký as a significant landmark within the annals of traditional Vietnamese literature, serving as both a reflective assessment of King Tu Duc’s life and a candid acknowledgment of the limitations inherent within the dynasty. Despite Tu Duc’s discerning recognition of his own fallibility, the inscription also exposes his adherence to conservative ideologies and the inherent contradictions within his governance. His reign was characterized by multifaceted challenges, including socio-political upheavals, external aggressions, internal familial discord pertaining to succession, and the monarch’s personal health afflictions, notably his failure to produce a legitimate heir. Furthermore, the inscription not only holds intrinsic historical value but also offers invaluable insights and lessons for posterity. It serves as a cautionary tale, illustrating the complexities and vicissitudes of dynastic rule, while also shedding light on the topics of leadership, governance, and self-reflection. The study contributes to a deeper understanding of Vietnam’s historical trajectory and provides a foundation for future research in this field.

Keywords
Tu Duc, Khiêm Cung ký, Khiêm mausoleum, Nguyen dynasty, historical sources, confessions
Received
06.10.2024
Date of publication
27.10.2024
Number of purchasers
1
Views
61
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf 200 RUB / 1.0 SU

To download PDF you should pay the subscribtion

Full text is available to subscribers only
Subscribe right now
Only article and additional services
Subscription benefits
200 RUB / 1.0 SU
Whole issue and additional services
Subscription benefits
1680 RUB / 0.0 SU
All issues and additional services for 2024
Subscription benefits
0 RUB /  SU
1 REVIEW OF King Tu Duc’S LIFE and Khiêm cung ký
2 Tu Duc (1829–1883), whose birth name was Nguyen Phuc Hong Nham, ascended to the throne as the fourth emperor of the Nguyen dynasty. He was the second son of Emperor Thieu Tri (reigned for 7 years before his death) and Pham Thi Hang (Tu Du). Tu Duc’s reign, which lasted from 1847 to 1883, stands out as the longest in the history of the Nguyen dynasty.
3 In October 1847, at just 19 years old, Hong Nham ascended the throne as Tu Duc. He was known for his scholarly pursuits. His governance aligned with Confucian principles, grappling with challenges, notably interactions with the West, particularly France. Despite resistance efforts, Vietnam gradually succumbed to French dominance. [Khám phá Huế, 2017]
4 In 1871, Tu Duc composed the Khiêm Cung Ký text and had it engraved on a stele. This stele, reflecting the style of the Nguyen dynasty, has the largest character count among all Vietnamese steles and is the heaviest among similar ones in the dynasty’s tomb complex.
5 The Khiêm Cung Ký stele is kept in a tall pavilion surrounded by four decorative pillars, adding to its impressive appearance within the grandeur of the Khiêm mausoleum complex1. Standing at 4 meters tall with a 1-meter base, the stone block holds the meticulously engraved text of precisely 4,995 classical Chinese characters, showcasing exceptional craftsmanship.
1. Khiêm mausoleum is a historical monument within the complex of the former imperial capital of Hue. It is the burial site of the fourth emperor of the Nguyen dynasty, Emperor Tu Duc (Nguyen Phuc Hong Nham) [National Archives Centre N1, 2022]
6 Khiêm Cung Ký differs from typical Nguyen dynasty steles as it expresses King Tu Duc’s personal sentiments rather than glorifying his accomplishments. Unlike other steles that praise deceased emperors, Tu Duc self-assessed his merits and faults, inscribing both his father’s and his own during his lifetime.
7

Khiêm Cung Ký is comprised of five sections: detailing Emperor Tu Duc’s tomb construction, describing the tomb’s landscape, expressing the emperor’s sentiments toward the country, and exploring his personal life. It starts with his childhood, moves to his governance, describes the tomb’s structures, reflects his thoughts, and reveals his innermost feelings, actions, mistakes, and sincere words. This distinctive content on the Khiêm Cung Ký stele (Fig. 1) stands alone without any overlap with other steles.

8 Fig. 1. Khiêm Cung Ký stele [To quoc].
9 Khiêm Cung Ký stands out among Nguyen dynasty steles as it presents Emperor Tu Duc’s personal confessions, justifying previously criticized actions. Tu Duc avoids self-praise on the stele, acknowledging unresolved problems during his reign and prioritizing the preservation of his imperial rule.
10 After Tu Duc’s approval, the construction of the Van Nien Tomb began in the winter of November 1864, during Tu Duc’s 17th year of reign2. It took over three years to complete, but it had not been until 1871 that Tu Duc personally composed the inscriptive text for his stele. He provided the engravers with the copy to be inscribed onto the stone as late as 1875 [Quoc su quan trieu Nguyen, 2003, p. 267].
2. The Đại Nam thực lục chính biên (Veritable Records of the Great South) notes that in the 17th year of Emperor Tu Duc's reign (1864), the king “selected the site for the Van Nien Tomb (the tomb for his afterlife) in a mountainous area, located in the Duong Xuan thuong commune, Huong Thuy district”. He appointed an official with the responsibility to initiate the construction, naming it Khiêm palace (construction began in the winter of November) [Quoc su quan trieu Nguyen, 2006, p. 899].
11 The Content of Khiêm Cung Ký and Historical Issues
12 In Khiêm Cung Ký, Tu Duc notably dedicates a significant portion to the story of his ascension to the throne, a previously controversial matter. As the second son of Emperor Thieu Tri, he was preceded by his elder brother, Hong Bao (1825–1854). In the feudal system, passing over the eldest to anoint a younger son as the heir was unconventional and raised questions among both ruling class and common people. Thus, Tu Duc’s succession after Thieu Tri’s death raised doubts for many.
13 Of course, the official records of the Nguyen dynasty present Tu Duc’s ascension as a reasonable choice because “Among our sons, Hong Bao, despite being the eldest, was lacking in intelligence and had little education, being more inclined toward indulgence and not fit to inherit. The second son, Phuoc Tuy cong (Hong Nham), on the other hand, was intelligent and dedicated to learning, resembling us. He was more worthy of ascending the throne” [Quoc su quan trieu Nguyen, 1998, p. 351]. Nevertheless, such historical accounts did not entirely quell widespread suspicions. In addition to debate within the country, some foreign observers of the time also posed similar questions. According to them, the decision to bypass the eldest and anoint a younger son was influenced by the machinations of Tu Du, particularly with the considerable influence of two powerful court dignitaries [Gosselin, 1904, p. 181], Nguyen Tri Phuong3 and Truong Dang Que4. In a letter dated January 15, 1852, Priest Galy stated with certainty: “It was indeed Hong Bao who was set aside, all orchestrated by Que. Therefore, he often said he would become king for just one day to entice Que into a trap. Que schemed to switch positions, putting Hong Bao in difficult circumstances and leading him to a tragic end. Que set a trap for Hong Bao, making it appear as though there were reasons to execute him”5. Researcher Pham Khac Hoe (1902–1995) wrote: “With Thieu Tri closing his eyes, the powerful Truong Dang Que removed Hong Bao and installed Tu Duc as the king...” [Pham Khac Hoe, 1986, p. 65]. Many slanderous stories emerged from the inner court to defame Tu Duc, suggesting that he was Truong Dang Que’s son. Que’s wife brought the child (Tu Duc) into the palace and switched him with Thieu Tri’s child, or Truong Dang Que had an affair with Tu Du, who then gave birth to Tu Duc [Do Bang, 1986, p. 133].
3. Nguyen Tri Phuong (1800–1873) was a notable Vietnamese scholar and military strategist of the Nguyen dynasty. He led resistance against French invasions in Da Nang (1858), Gia Dinh (1861), and Ha Noi (1873). Despite being captured after Ha Noi’s fall, he rejected French medical aid and never collaborated with them until his death [Nguyen Quang Thang, Nguyen Ba The, 1992, p. 664].

4. Truong Dang Que (1793–1865) was a teacher and influential figure at the court of Emperor Thieu Tri, and he held significant power within the royal court. He had conflicts with Hong Bao [Pham Van Son, 1962, p. 13–16].

5. Quoted from [Pham Van Son, 1962, p. 16].
14 However, Hong Bao’s exclusion triggered intense internal conflicts within the Nguyen dynasty’s court when Tu Duc assumed the throne. Kieu Oanh Mau’s book, Bản triều bạn nghịch liệt truyện, vividly portrays the tragic scene of Thieu Tri’s abdication decree and Tu Duc’s coronation at Can Chanh Palace. The account describes Hong Bao's furious reaction, collapsing in anger before the decree’s completion, needing assistance to stand during the coronation ceremony [Kieu Oanh Mau, 2023, p. 183].
15 To this day, suspicions linger, unresolved. Whether true or not, what is apparent is Tu Duc’s continuous doubt during more than three decades of his reign. Khiêm Cung Ký reveals this uncertainty as he justifies his rightful ascension to the throne. Tu Duc recounts the favors bestowed upon him by Thieu Tri – participation in royal activities, inclusion in important matters, literary engagements, and gifts like a golden ring with a jade face for poetry – indicating unexpected royal favor that indirectly suggested his claim to the throne. Tu Duc wrote in Khiêm Cung Ký:
16 “A saintly heart is inherently profound, while the envious are quite easy to discern. I regarded it as natural and never suspected any jealousy. When someone suggested that I enter the inner council to practice state affairs, I would often reply, ‘We already have him for that’”.
17 He expressed surprise when chosen as the heir, saying:
18 “Hearing the imperial proclamation, I remained impassive, only obediently entering the court as the duty dictated. It was only my duty, and I never considered it. I only wished for Emperor Thieu Tri’s swift recovery, hoping to receive his guidance for a long time. Unexpectedly, the heavens had no compassion, hastily assigning this humble and inexperienced person to a daunting and challenging task. Alas, it is truly painful!”.
19 Because Hong Bao was not chosen as king, he plotted secretly and looked for opportunities to overthrow Tu Duc. However, this plan eventually failed, and Hong Bao had to return to Tu Duc’s court, where he met a mysterious death in 1854. His descendants had to change their surname to Dinh [Nguyen Quang Thang, Nguyen Ba The, 1992, p. 594] and were detained. Later, to avoid suspicion, Tu Duc sent them to study at Quoc Tu Giam6, but in reality, it was a form of house arrest [Pham Khac Hoe, 1986, p. 67].
6. Quoc Tu Giam was built in 1076. After more than 700 years of existence, it is Vietnam's first national school and the largest center of high-class Confucian education during the monarchy [ >>>> / (accessed: March 22, 2024)].
20 In 1866, during the uprising of the Van Nien laborers led by Doan Huu Trung7, Tu Duc used the pretext of exterminating the descendants of Hong Bao. In a decree dated August 11, Tu Duc’s 19th year (September 9, 1866), he emphasized: “To eliminate evil, it must be completely eliminated; what needs to be terminated must be terminated”. This shows that Tu Duc used the pretext of “perpetually safeguarding the national plan” to ruthlessly eliminate his rivals, even if they were his siblings or nephews. However, in Khiêm Cung Ký, he cleverly disguised these actions with ambiguous statements like, “Why did I rush to make such a decision? It’s difficult to explain everything in a moment. There is already a history of a hundred years; how could I!”. Despite expressing remorse, Tu Duc did not see these actions as wrong; he considered them “necessary to clarify the greater purpose”.
7. Doan Huu Trung (1844–1866) led the September 16, 1866 uprising in Hue, aiming to overthrow Emperor Tu Duc. The movement began with labourers enduring extreme hardships during the construction of Emperor Tu Duc’s tomb [Nguyen Quang Thang, Nguyen Ba The, 1992, p. 174–175].
21 The French colonialists opening fire and initiating their invasion with the attack on Da Nang clearly demonstrated Tu Duc’s significant weakness and his strong desire for personal safety. Due to his attachment to the throne and a lack of courage, Tu Duc made a grave misjudgement of the country’s situation at the time. The French attack on Da Nang in 1858 was not a sudden or unexpected event, as Tu Duc claimed. The feudal ruling class was well aware of the situation because, when facing the Tay Son8 army’s advance, Nguyen Anh9 had previously engaged Ba Da Loc10 to represent him and, along with the Marquis de Montmorin11, signed the 10-clause Versaille Treaty [Clercq, 1864, p. 193–195; Reinach, 1902, p. 93], in which Nguyen Anh ceded Hoi An and Con Lon to France.
8. The Tay Son dynasty (1778–1802) included three kings: Nguyen Nhac (1778–1793), Nguyen Hue (1789–1792), Nguyen Quang Toan (1792–1802).

9. Nguyen Anh (1762–1820) in Thua Thien Hue. On February 1, 1802, after defeating the Tay Son army, Nguyen Anh ascended the throne in Phu Xuan, Hue, taking the name Gia Long, officially established the Nguyen Dynasty. He held the throne for 18 years [Hội đồng Trị sự Nguyễn Phúc Tộc, 1995, p. 126; Dang Viet Thuy, Dang Thanh Trung, 2008, p. 277].

10. Pierre Pigneau de Béhaine (1741–1799), also known as Ba Da Loc, was a French missionary, pivotal in aiding Nguyen Anh to establish the Nguyen dynasty. He was the Bishop of Cochinchina, known as Bishop Adran in history books [Pham Quynh, 1997, p. 391].

11. Count de Montmorin de Saint Herem (1745–1792) was a French statesman who served as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Navy under King Louis XVI [ >>>> , 1884, p. 42].
22 The 1789 revolution in France had indeed prevented the implementation of the treaty, meaning that the intentions of French colonialists to invade Vietnam predated the revolution. King Tu Duc understood it wrongly in Khiêm Cung Ký:
23 “The Europeans, distant across the ocean, have no prior relationship. But the French, who were previously acquaintances, suddenly sent their troops and ships, abandoned friendship and goodwill, and sought to invade our shores. Relying on sturdy ships and powerful guns, they greedily devoured the land of Quang Nam, disrupted the land of Gia Dinh”.
24 In Da Nang, the French colonialists faced strong resistance from Vietnamese people and military. General Le Dinh Ly12 was mortally wounded, and Nguyen Tri Phuong was immediately brought back from Nam ky Luc Tinh13 to assume the role of General-in-Chief for Quang Nam. The local population obstructed the enemy's ships, pushing them back on the Han River [Tran Trong Kim, 2010, p. 201–206].
12. Le Dinh Ly (1790–1858) was a notable military leader in Vietnamese history. He became the first general of the Nguyen Dynasty to perish in the fight against French colonial forces in Vietnam [Young Humanities Group, 2007, p. 18].

13. During the early Nguyen Dynasty, the Southern region of Vietnam, called Nam Ky Luc tinh, existed from roughly 1832 (during Minh Mang’s administrative reforms) until 1867. In this period, the French called this area Basse-Cochinchine, culminating in their full control after taking both Eastern and Western provinces by 1867 [Truong Vinh Ky, 1875, p. 5].
25 Initially, during Tu Duc’s reign at the Hue court, a strategic counterattack plan had existed. Yet, over time, facing enemy gunfire ahead and the tempting allure of power, Tu Duc grew hesitant, diverting from the plan. He lost confidence in resistance forces and underestimated the patriotic movement. He wrote:
26 “Living in a prolonged period of peace, the people have forgotten how to fight. The fortresses are guarded by only a few, the land is full of thieves, and both internal and external enemies are conspiring more and more openly. They are destructive like storms, and it is uncertain whom to entrust with the protection of our land and our people. By necessity, I must appear to fight, but the people are increasingly restless”.
27 Tu Duc intentionally left out the names of anti-French movement leaders and the courageous fighters on the battlefield upon hearing enemy gunfire. He ordered the suppression of the uprising, directing local authorities to apprehend patriotic forces and hand them over to the French, effectively assisting the enemy in quelling and pursuing resistance fighters14. The mission led by Phan Thanh Gian15 heading to France, was merely a desperate attempt to appease a hungry tiger. Phan’s tragic end, taking his own life with poison, was a result of the erroneous policy at the helm of which was Tu Duc. The proactive approach of the Hue court in seeking “quick reconciliation and signing peace” surprised the French: “Fortunately, just when we were expecting a dire situation, Hue requested a peace treaty” [Salles, 1865 , p. 161]. Nevertheless, Tu Duc shifted all the blame onto Phan by ordering the removal of his titles and erasing his name from the Doctoral Stele after Phan's death [Pham Van Son, 2016, p. 155]. King Tu Duc condemned the prime ministers Phan and Lam, saying: “They are not only criminals of this dynasty but also criminals of all generations” [Phan Khoang, 2017, p. 148].
14. At that time, the North faced severe uprisings while the French controlled four Southern provinces. To address these threats, Tu Duc’s court sent Phan Thanh Gian and Lam Duy Hiep to negotiate with the French in Saigon. They sought an agreement to deploy the main army and quell the Northern uprisings endangering the Nguyen dynasty’s rule [Hoang Van Lan, Ngo Thi Chinh, 1979, p. 59–61].

15. Phan Thanh Gian (1796–1867) was a respected mandarin of the Nguyen dynasty, known for his integrity. Yet, his decision to cede three southern provinces to French colonial rule remains controversial and criticized [Pham Van Son, 2016, p. 92].
28 In a more indirect manner, Tu Duc raised a somewhat rhetorical question to justify his actions, stating:
29 “To avoid exhaustion, when the enemy sought peace, I had to send an envoy to make a treaty. Many elder statesmen and mandarins implored me in anguish. I do not understand why I was too lenient in negotiations and turned away. Previous dynasties struggled to reclaim the land, but suddenly, in the blink of an eye, we handed it over to the enemy. They chose to endure the small misfortune to save the king’s honor. Is it really like that?”.
30 At least until the inscription of Khiêm Cung Ký in 1875, after the two peace treaties of 1862 and 1872, Tu Duc subtly referred to his mistakes but couldn't hide his conservative thoughts. He wrote:
31 “Oh, if one abandons a gain and considers it a loss, that is a sin; if one incurs a loss and does not deem it a sin, then how can one consider it a gain? These two distinctions can be made. A loss can be regained, which is considered a gain, especially if it was surrendered and then abandoned. Oh, how can that be a gain? How can such a contradiction be considered wisdom? Deception like this, how can it be called gain?... But not being astute in knowing people is my sin. Misusing people is my sin. Failing to accomplish hundreds of tasks is all my sin”.
32 Tu Duc justified his actions by referencing the Spring and Autumn Annals and the Qing Dynasty’s struggles against the British invasion. He wrote:
33 “More than the time of the Spring and Autumn Annals, even if Confucius were to return, he would not necessarily be able to accomplish anything. Oh, look at the Great Qing Empire; they couldn’t even strengthen themselves, let alone other countries”.
34 This statement reveals a conservative outlook and hints at the Nguyen dynasty’s evolving perspective on Confucianism, which had been foundational during Tu Duc’s reign. While valuing Confucianism highly, they began to question its relevance to contemporary times.
35 Tu Duc’s focus on his personal life is exemplified by the construction of the Van Nien Palace, originally known as the Khiêm palace. Described in Khiêm Cung Ký, this private residence resembled a complex, housing palaces, fortifications, pavilions, halls, temples, shaded walkways, and a lake island.
36 The construction of Khiêm mausoleum (Fig. 2) was an extremely arduous and costly task, as evidenced by the labourers’ rebellion that even encroached upon the Emperor’s tomb in 1866. Nevertheless, Tu Duc still considered the construction as the “wish of the court officials” saying: “As for me, I have never thought about it”. Ironically, Tu Duc wrote: “Furthermore, I built this mausoleum because, according to tradition, I must have my own temple and tomb. If not prepared in advance, future generations would inevitably encounter difficulties in distant and remote places, causing inconvenience and fatigue. So, I truly intend to save and facilitate”.
37 Fig. 2. Khiêm Mausoleum [Nguyen, 2019].
38 The reason for choosing Van Nien co, as Tu Duc explained, was because “the land here is low, very close to the previous mausoleums, and the land and water are gentle, not like high mountains and thick forests where construction is difficult”. On the other hand, from Tu Duc’s perspective, Khiêm palace was “located in a special position because in front of it is the Nam Giao Esplanade, behind is the Linh Mu Pagoda, to the right is Xuong Lang, and to the left is Van Mieu”. However, Tu Duc seemed to have forgotten that this land was also famous for its resistance, as shown by Doan Huu Trung in his work Trung nghĩa ca16: “Visiting Van Nien’s office – Our troops climb the mountains and hills”. Residents of Duong Xuan village were displaced to make space for the tomb. They resettled along the Huong River, founding Duong Xuan Ha. The name honored their origin while subtly challenging the regime.
16. “Trung nghĩa ca” by Doan Huu Trung was written during his captivity. This Luc Bat verse poem spans 498 lines, narrating the uprising in detail. Though it has limitations, it vividly depicts the labourers’ resilient struggle at the Khiêm mausoleum construction site. Additionally, the poem vehemently criticizes Emperor Tu Duc for his domestic and foreign policies [Nguyen Quang Thang, Nguyen Ba The, 1992, p. 174–175].
39 The contradiction in Khiêm Cung ký is that, on one hand, Tu Duc appeared to be very frugal in building Khiêm palace. He mentioned, “There are many dance stages, but only Hòa Khiêm, Lương Khiêm, and Di Khiêm are made from new wood; the rest were gathered from old houses, moved from one place to another”. At the same time, he listed numerous shrines, temples, bridges, intricacies, artificial lakes, “stone terraces, caves, forested mountains, inhabited by flying birds and running animals”. Tu Duc portrayed Khiêm palace as the most comfortable place in the world for the extravagant entertainment of a king. It was a place where dozens of boats and hundreds of soldiers brought silver to the west to buy porcelain, smashing it to use for decoration in Khiêm palace.
40 Tu Duc’s excesses drew condemnation not just from the public but also from his own subordinates who could not tolerate it. In 1866, during the incomplete construction of Van Nien Co, laborers and peasants revolted. Governor Than Van Nhiep17 of Binh Phu (also Binh Dinh – Phu Yen) expressed frustration in a letter to Tu Duc, stating: “Our enemies know the weakness of our affairs... that enmity, that humiliation, I implore Your Majesty never to forget... Yet the expenses on these extravagant and unnecessary activities are so lavish that they surpass the costs of the Thien Thu mausoleum tenfold... When Your Majesty has a country and does not show compassion, then the fate of people like me, if we die for a cause, should not be regretted” [Quoc su quan trieu Nguyen, 1998, p. 367].
17. Than Van Nhiep (1804–1872), was a high-ranking mandarin in the Nguyen Dynasty. He was a skilled military strategist and a dedicated official known for his honesty and commitment to improving the well-being of the people [Thân tộc nhất gia, 2004].
41 However, Tu Duc remained firm in his intentions, responding to Than Van Nhiep: “The things you criticize are all my mistakes. But now, I have many tasks, and you know I am in pain. If you are strict with these small matters, this humble self will have no more strength to carry on” [Quoc su quan trieu Nguyen, 2006, p. 632].
42 Tu Duc even used the word “Khiêm” (which means modesty or humility) as the first letter in the name of his monumental project as well as for various smaller components within the structure. He explained:
43 “Khiêm signifies respect, yielding, having a position but not clinging to it, bending down to be level with all things. When I bear shame and guilt like this, what else is there to yield, what else is there to humble oneself? What talents and virtues are not represented by ‘Khiêm’? I am accustomed to simplicity, my position may be within a golden house, but my heart is ordinary, like a person in simple clothing. Apart from the grand ceremonies that require beautiful attire, there is nothing extravagant. It means there is a position but not clinging to it... Therefore, I use the name ‘Khiêm’ in a way that suits my feelings, as a self-reminder, a self-reproach”.
44 However, when one compares the actions of Tu Duc to the historical record, it becomes clear that this use of the word “Khiêm” serves more as a cover-up for Tu Duc’s many wrongdoings. “Khiêm” has become a sort of shield to conceal the numerous mistakes and misjudgements of Tu Duc. Just considering the 45 components named “Khiêm” within the entire Khiêm palace complex, it's evident that Tu Duc’s humility and modesty were far from genuine.
45 Nevertheless, Tu Duc always aspired to be a king who was simple, diligent, and virtuous. Between fame and virtue, he wished to be recognized for his virtue. In Khiêm cung ký, there is a passage that reads:
46 “Throughout the reigns of various kings, there were both wise and foolish individuals. But when it comes to talking about fame, Han Van18 cannot compare to Duong Thai19. When it comes to talking about virtue, Duong Thai far surpasses Han Van... I dare not belittle Duong Thai; I can only wish to emulate Han Van”.
18. Han Van (漢文帝) (203–157 BC) was the fifth emperor of the Chinese Western Han Dynasty, reigning from 180 BC to 157 BC. Emperor Wen of Han is renowned not only in Chinese history but also in Japan, Korea, and Vietnam, and is considered one of the most praiseworthy emperors, exemplifying benevolence and generosity. Additionally, Emperor Wen of Han was famous for his filial piety, being listed as one of the Twenty-Four Famous Filial Piety examples in Chinese culture [Tieu Le, 2000, p. 319, 320, 325, 326].

19. Tang Taizong (唐太宗) (598–649) was the second Emperor of the Chinese Tang Dynasty, reigning from 626 to 649. He is often considered one of the greatest Emperors in Chinese history. Under Tang Taizong’s rule, the Tang Dynasty experienced significant economic development and military prowess, emerging as the largest and most powerful country in the world at that time. The Tang Dynasty expanded to encompass nearly all of modern-day China, parts of Vietnam, and a substantial portion of Central Asia, reaching as far as eastern Kazakhstan [Nguyen Hien Le, 1997, p. 124–128].
47 However, this aspiration, comparing historical figures, faced scrutiny and criticism from Than Van Nhiep in a letter to Tu Duc in 1868. Than Van Nhiep wrote, “In the past, Emperor Han Van regretted not building the Lo tower even when he had a hundred taels of gold... Your Majesty, originally you always hoped to be like Han Van. But now, your actions are completely contrary... You want to indulge in such a lifestyle for your entire life” [Quoc su quan trieu Nguyen, 2006, p. 527].
48 Than Van Nhiep’s criticisms hit the weaknesses of Tu Duc and effectively undermined the meaning of the “Khiêm” that Tu Duc used to describe his projects. Excessive criticism left Tu Duc feeling troubled, and in Khiêm cung ký, he dedicated a significant portion to express his concerns about his own mistakes. He acknowledged that many of these mistakes were influenced by the objective circumstances he faced. Tu Duc wrote:
49 “What I am still concerned about is my incomplete education, unfulfilled ambitions, undeserved reputation in relation to my real shortcomings, and physical weakness that is not sufficient to handle major tasks. Now, the land is lost and has not been regained; we are troubled by external invaders, and the work to rebuild is slow and difficult. Finding the right people to manage the tasks is also challenging”.
50 Tu Duc repeatedly mentioned his frail health and longing for a child to clarify with the public. This vulnerability in Khiêm Cung ký displayed his desire for protection and comfort. He detailed his physical weaknesses and how numerous burdens triggered relapses of old illnesses. Despite moments of emotional turmoil and occasional outbursts, he highlighted his self-restraint, never ordering executions when cases were unclear. He acknowledged relying on divine grace to fulfil his duties, acknowledging his limitations in achieving everything independently.
51 In Khiêm Cung ký, Tu Duc aimed to defend his moral and literary qualities20, but faced doubt and scepticism. He acknowledged his mistakes and revealed the inner turmoil of a monarch feeling ineffective in serving his nation. When Tu Duc came to power, Vietnam’s feudal system was already declining, with internal uprisings among the peasantry and growing colonial influence externally.
20. Tu Duc was an intelligent and diligent individual, with a talent for poetry and literature. He once wrote in Khiêm cung ký: “When I was still a child, my mother told me to find a teacher for my studies. At that time, I had already composed several verses, but I had no knowledge of poetic rules... When I was young, I excelled in my studies, and I could memorize a whole elementary school textbook in just half a day... As for composing poetry, that was quite normal. Once, during a meal, Emperor Thieu Tri put down his chopsticks to compose poetry, and he even had the palace attendants bring the ‘four treasures of the study’ and placed them right in front of me to choose and use... There were even times during a drinking party with music and dance when he would ask me to compose poetry about current events... In reality, at that time, I was just beginning to study the Four Books and Odes, and my understanding of classical texts was still incomplete. I had not yet mastered the intricacies of poetry... Fortunately, I was agile in responding, which made me exceptionally cherished”.
52 The Confucian ideology, crucial to Nguyen dynasty’s rule, became outdated. Tu Duc’s attempts to follow Confucian principles faltered due to his weakness and lack of determination in bringing reforms. Feeling helpless, he relinquished territory to safeguard his security, experiencing bitterness due to the contrast between his aspirations and capabilities, which led to his confessional writing.
53 He expressed a realization that he “lacked the strength to reform traditions and educate the people effectively”, as he “struggled with the complexities of high expectations and limited capabilities”. Therefore, it can be said that Tu Duc had some self-awareness but did not use it as a basis for improvement during his reign, a period spanning from the time he wrote Khiêm cung ký until his death (1871–1883) and in a context that offered opportunities to implement such insights.
54 Khiêm Cung ký, much like the Khiêm mausoleum, stands as a distinctive historical document reflecting the era’s political trends. It encompasses events such as land cession to France, rebellions against Emperor Tu Duc, and royal court dynamics. Designated a national treasure in 2015 (Prime Minister’s Decision No. 2382/QD-TTg, Dec. 25, 2015), this stele holds educational and historical significance for future generations.
55 This act of introspection, creating a stone inscription to acknowledge shortcomings and mistakes before history, reflects human values and a leader’s sense of historical responsibility. These enduring values are embedded in Khiêm Cung ký, elevating it to a significant cultural and historical artifact.

References

1. Bảo tàng cổ vật cung đình Huế (Hue Museum of Royal Antiquities). https://www.baotangcungdinh.vn/baotang (accessed: October 20, 2023) (in Vietnamese).

2. Bảo tàng Lịch sử quốc gia (Vietnam National Museum of History) https://baotanglichsu.vn/vi/Articles/4050/trieu-tay-son-1778-1802 (accessed: March 22, 2024) (in Vietnamese).

3. Bardoux A. Pauline de Montmorin, comtesse de Beaumont: Études sur la fin du XVIIIème siècle. Paris, 1884.

4. Dang Viet Thuy, Dang Thanh Trung. 54 vị Hoàng đế Việt Nam. Hanoi: People’s Army Publishing House, 2008 (in Vietnamese).

5. De Clercq J. Recueil des traités de la France. Tome premier: 1713–1802. Paris: Amyot, 1864.

6. De Reinach L. Recueil des traités conclus par la France en Extrême-Orient: 1684–1902. Paris: Éditeur E. Leroux, 1902.

7. Di sản văn hóa – Quốc tử giám. https://huecity.gov.vn/Du-khach/Du-lich/tid/Quoc-Tu-Giam (accessed: October 20, 2023). (in Vietnamese)

8. Do Bang. Đoàn Hữu Trưng trong Danh nhân bình Trị Thiên. Hue: Thuan Hoa Publishing House, 1986 (in Vietnamese).

9. Gosselin C. L’Empire d’Annam. Paris, 1904.

10. Hoang Van Lan, Ngo Thi Chinh. Lịch sử Việt Nam từ năm 1858 đến cuối thế kỷ XIX. Vol. 3. Part 2. Hanoi: Education Publishing House, 1979 (in Vietnamese).

11. Hội đồng Trị sự Nguyễn Phúc Tộc. Nguyễn Phúc Tộc Thế phả. Hue: Thuan Hoa Publishing House, 1995 (in Vietnamese).

12. Hồn Việt (Vietnamese soul). https://dinhtrien1957.violet.vn/entry/show/entry_id/7910487 (accessed: October 16, 2023). (in Vietnamese).

13. Khám phá Huế (Discovery Hue). https://khamphahue.com.vn/Hue-24h/Chi-tiet/tid/So-luoc-ve-chin-chua-muoi-ba-vua-trieu-Nguyen (accessed: October 10, 2023). (in Vietnamese)

14. Khiêm Lăng – Lăng của hoàng đế Tự Đức. National Archives Centre N1. 02.01.2022. https://archives.org.vn/gioi-thieu-tai-lieu-nghiep-vu/khiem-lang-–-lang-cua-hoang-de-tu-duc.htm (accessed: October 11, 2023) (in Vietnamese).

15. Kieu Oanh Mau. Bản triều bạn nghịch liệt truyện. Hanoi: Hong Duc Publishing House, 2023 (in Vietnamese).

16. Nguyen Hien Le. Sử Trung Quốc. Chương III: Thống nhất trở lại (580 – 906). Hanoi: Nhà xuất bản Văn hóa, 1997 (in Vietnamese).

17. Nguyen N. Lăng tự đức: công trình lăng tẩm đẹp nhất thế kỷ xix của triều đại nhà nguyễn. Bazaar Vietnam. 03.08.2019. https://bazaarvietnam.vn/lang-tu-duc-cong-trinh-lang-tam-dep-nhat-the-ky-xix-cua-trieu-dai-nha-nguyen/#post-2476879 (accessed: July 20, 2023) (in Vietnamese).

18. Nguyen Quang Thang, Nguyen Ba The. Từ điển nhân vật lịch sử Việt Nam. Hanoi: Social Science Publishing House, 1992 (in Vietnamese).

19. Nhóm Nhân văn trẻ. Hỏi đáp lịch sử Việt Nam. Vol. 4. Ho Chi Minh: Youth Publishing House, 2007 (in Vietnamese).

20. Pham Khac Hoe. Kể chuyện vua quan nhà Nguyễn. Huế: Nhà xuất bản Thuận Hóa, 1986 (in Vietnamese).

21. Pham Quynh. Hành trình nhật ký: mười ngày ở Huế, một tháng ở Nam Kỳ, Pháp du hành trình nhật ký. Paris: Nhà xuất bản Ý Việt, 1997 (in Vietnamese).

22. Pham Van Son. Việt Sử tân biên. Tập V. Sài Gòn: Nhà xuất bản Khai Trí, 1962 (in Vietnamese).

23. Phan Khoang. Việt Pháp bang giao sử lược. Hà Nội: Nhà xuất bản Khoa học Xã hội, 2017 (in Vietnamese).

24. Quoc su quan trieu Nguyen. Quốc triều chánh biên toát yếu. Huế: Nhà xuất bản Thuận Hóa, 1998 (in Vietnamese).

25. Quoc su quan trieu Nguyen. Châu bản triều Tự Đức (1848–1883). Vu Thanh Hang, Tra Ngoc Anh, Ta Quang Phat (eds.) Hà Nội: Nhà xuất bản Văn học, 2003 (in Vietnamese).

26. Quoc su quan trieu Nguyen. Đại Nam thực lục chính biên. Vol VII. Hà Nội: Nhà xuất bản Giáo dục, 2006 (in Vietnamese).

27. Salles A. Souvenir de l’expédition de Cochinchine. Paris, 1865.

28. Tập san sử địa, Đặc khảo về Phan Thanh Giản. Pham V.S. (tr.) Hanoi: Hong Duc Publishing House, 2016 (in Vietnamese).

29. Thân tộc nhất gia (Than Family). http://www.hothan.org/danh-nhan/than-van-nhiep-nha-quan-su-loi-lac-vi-quan-cuong-truc-thuong-dan (accessed: October 22, 2023). (in Vietnamese)

30. Tieu Le. Những vị vua nổi tiếng trong lịch sử Trung Quốc, tập 1, Nhà xuất bản Đà Nẵng, 2000 (in Vietnamese).

31. To quoc (Bao vat quoc gia: Bia Khiêm cung ký) (Fatherland (National treasure: Khiem Cung Ky stele). https://toquoc.vn/bao-vat-quoc-gia-bia-khiem-cung-ky-99212432 (accessed: October 23, 2023) (in Vietnamese).

32. Tran Trong Kim. Việt Nam sử lược. Hanoi: Thoi dai Publishing House, 2010 (in Vietnamese).

33. Truong Vinh Ky. Petit cours de geographie de la Basse-Cochinchine. Sài Gòn: Imprimerie du Gouvernement, 1875.

34. Văn Miếu Quốc Tử Giám (Temple of Literature). http://vanmieu.gov.vn/vi/di-tich/lich-su/ (accessed: March 22, 2024) (in Vietnamese).

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate