When I first started to learn about Vietnamese history, I was taught a certain “narrative” about the Vietnamese past. That narrative argued that in the early twentieth century Phan Bội Châu led students to Japan to study “modern” subjects in what is known as the “Đông Du (or ‘travel to the East’) Movement.”
This project did not last long, as the French put pressure on the Japanese to expel the Vietnamese students from the country, but some of them reportedly returned to Hanoi where they were involved with a short-lived school called the Đông Kinh Nghĩa Thục, often translated into English as the “Đông Kinh Free School.”
This school is praised in the narrative of Vietnamese history that I learned as a place where modern subjects, like those which students in the Đông Du Movement had learned in Japan, were taught, and it was particularly praised for promoting the use of the Romanized script for writing Vietnamese, known as quốc ngữ.
Taken together, the Đông Du Movement and the Đông Kinh Free School are represented in the narrative of Vietnamese history that I first learned as critical steps towards transforming Vietnam from a “traditional” to a “modern” society, and as critical early steps in the anti-colonial movement.
I was recently at a conference where a Korean scholar presented a fascinating paper on “what actually happened in Japan” during the period of the Đông Du Movement. What this scholar found in his examination of Japanese writings was that the Đông Du Movement was very poorly organized, many of the students were very young (even elementary school age), some of them failed to get admitted to schools, they fought with each other, they didn’t interact with Japanese, and they didn’t learn much of anything at all.
This scholar’s conclusion was thus that the Đông Du Movement was essentially a failure (if the goal was to learn “modern” knowledge), as most of the students appear to have learned very little during their time in Japan.
With all of this as background, I found it interesting today to find among the Hán Nôm materials that the National Library of Vietnam has digitized a text in Hán called the Ấu học phổ thông thuyết ước (幼學普通說約). This was a textbook for children that was compiled by scholar and Nguyễn Dynasty official Phạm Quang Sán (范光璨) in 1908 (The National Library record has “維新戊申 1888.” That is not correct. “維新戊申” was 1908.).
This text is a Hán translation of a quốc ngữ text called the Ấu học quốc ngữ tân thư. Why was a quốc ngữ text translated into Hán in 1908, the year that the modernizing Đông Kinh Free School closed?
Phạm Quang Sán wrote some introductory comments to this text in which he stated that although a new age of scholarship had dawned, many people were still following old ways. Phạm Quang Sán stated that this was probably due to the fact that people had functioned within the world of Hán texts for 1,000 years, and that the teachings from that world of texts were “imprinted in citizen’s brains” (ấn ư quốc dân chi não trung 印於國民之腦中).
Many people still did not know quốc ngữ and this lack of understanding was, according to Phạm Quang Sán, an obstacle to progress.
What is interesting, however, is that rather than force people to “modernize” by learning quốc ngữ, Phạm Quang Sán created this Hán version of the Ấu học quốc ngữ tân thư so that the many people who did not know quôc ngữ could get access to the ideas in this text.
So what exactly was the Ấu học quốc ngữ tân thư? I’m not sure, but searching for it in the National Library of Vietnam’s catalog I see that it was published by a French publishing house, the Imprimerie d’Extrême-Orient.
In looking at Phạm Quang Sán’s Hán version of this text, it is clear that it introduced many new ideas from the West. The above page, for instance, talks about the three stages of evolution that peoples pass through – savagery, semi-enlightenment and civilization – and the four major religions of the world – Buddhism, Islam, Judaism and Christianity.
These were radically new ideas. And they were being introduced in this book not by a “revolutionary” like Phan Bội Châu, but by a member of “the establishment.”
This is where the narrative that I first learned about Vietnamese history fails to explain the past. There were massive changes that began to take place in the early twentieth century in Vietnam. Those changes, however, were not brought about by Phan Bội Châu, the Đông Du Movement or the Đông Kinh Free School. Instead, they were brought about (through Hán) by modernizing Nguyễn Dynasty officials. That is a story which, as far as I know, has never been told, and one which the existing narrative does not include.
This of course does not mean that someone like Phan Bội Châu was not an important or heroic figure. He most certainly was both. But he did not change the worldview of the Vietnamese. That process was brought about by other people, people who have yet to be fully recognized for their achievements.
So interesting, thanks! I have a few questions to ask you:
1. Do you know if the students participating in the Dong Du Movement had had any preparations for the Japanese language and for their study in Japan before they were sent there?
2. Do you think there might have been some education providers in Japan offering courses in the Chinese language to these Vietnamese students, assuming that they knew Chinese?
3. Do you know if some Vietnamese already living in Japan at that time helped these students with their adjustment in Japan at all? Who else could they rely on during their stay in Japan?
Thanks!
Good questions. I took a lot at the paper again and this is what I can say.
There weren’t Vietnamese already in Japan. Phan Bội Châu was the one who organized things, but he did not do a good job, and in the end of the day a Japanese “education provider,” as you say, had to step in and help out.
And yes, that educational provider was exactly what you suspect it was – focused on China/Chinese. It was called the East Asia Common Cultural Academy. The following information from the Wikipedia page about Prince Konoe Atsumaro explains what it was (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konoe_Atsumaro):
“He established a Pan-Asian political movement called the East Asia Common Culture Society (東亜同文会 Toa Dobunkai?) which promoted mutual understanding and improvement in relations between Japan and China after the First Sino-Japanese War. The society opened a college in Nanjing called the East Asia Common Cultural [Academy] (東亜同文書院 Toa Dobun Shoin) in 1900, which was relocated to Shanghai in 1901. The college recruited students from Japan wishing to learn the Chinese language and Chinese culture, and sponsored a school in Tokyo for Chinese students seeking higher education in Japan.”
That said, the Vietnamese students did not study together with other students at this school. Instead, special classes were set up for them, and they lived separately (and they were more or less restricted to their dorm – so they don’t seem to have seen much of Tokyo). There may have been some instruction in Japanese, but since this was a “China-focused” school, I think Chinese would have been the more important language for learning new information.
As for studying Japanese before they went, I haven’t heard of that. Some apparently tried to study after they got there, but no one seems to have gotten very far in their study of the language.
Hi, I remember reading from a book by Vinh Sinh that even Phan Boi Chau himself learned the Western concepts through Chinese, not Japanese, while he was in Japan. I could be wrong though. Is there a chance you can share out the paper of the Korean scholar? Thanks.
Yea, you’re right. And Vinh Sinh’s writings on the topic are good. 🙂
As for the paper, no I can’t do that, BUT I think that they will try to publish the papers from that conference soon (maybe next year). And these days publishers usually say that it’s ok for an author to post her/his article/chapter on her/his personal web page. The way I look at it, when someone sets up an account on http://www.academia.edu/, it is a “personal web page.” So if that author doesn’t already have an academia.edu page, when the article gets published I will encourage him to set up one and put the article there.
That paper is based on work that Japanese scholars have already done, so the author did not really “discover” something new. Instead, he just looked at what some people already know from a more realistic perspective. But I think that’s really helpful.
Because when you stop and think realistically about it, it makes so much sense. How could Vietnamese students have learned much in Japan in a short period of time? There was no infrastructure in place for what they were doing, they were not prepared, they didn’t know Japanese. . . if you think of how difficult it is for anyone today to study in a foreign language even though they study the language before going overseas, etc., imagine how difficult (in fact, impossible) it would have been for the young students who went to Japan at that time!!
Thanks for the responses! Much appreciated. I’ve got some ideas and hopefully will be able to share more later. I need to do more homework first.
I can now go and enjoy some Khmer songs you’ve recommended :).
Actually, that recent version of The Champa of Battambang relates to foreign language learning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxLryNfHfgQ#t=229
The guy singing is American, and he has a band with two other Americans, and they all know Khmer extremely well. How did they learn it so well? As Mormon missionaries.
The Mormon Church encourages young people to do missionary work for a couple years, and when that requires the knowledge of a foreign language, the young people go through a period of intensive language study and then they go into “the field.” When they are in the field, new people are paired with people who have already been there for a year, and basically the senior person is supposed to help the junior person, and the junior person is supposed to use the senior person as a teacher and source of knowledge. And finally the missionary work requires that they talk a lot, so everyone gets lots of practice.
I’m not sure what that initial intensive study is like, but I get the sense that a lot of emphasis is placed on the real fundamentals, like pronunciation.
At the end of the above video (at around the 3:45 point), the three guys talk. They ask people to subscribe to their YouTube video channel and then get into an “argument” about whether the word “subscribe” is Khmer or not. It’s obviously a “stupid” discussion, but through this “dumb” discussion it becomes completely obvious that their language ability is incredibly good and that they are all very smart (and as far as I can tell, their pronunciation is just superb too).
I doubt that it is the case that every Mormon missionary ends up speaking a foreign language as well as these guys (and I studied Khmer with a former missionary who’s spoken language ability was fantastic, but who’s knowledge of more complex vocabulary, etc. was quite limited – which is predictable given how they go about learning languages and the fact that the mission period only lasts for two years), but for those who have the talent, this system really seems to enable them to become extremely good at the spoken language, and to give them a great feel for the language.
These guys are really amazing! I often wonder how I can learn another foreign language and be really good at it. Perhaps copy this Mormon approach 🙂 and see how it goes! Thanks.
On the occasion of the Vietnamese Teachers’ Day, I would like to send you all the very best wishes and a BIG THANK with a huge bunch of FLOWERS for all the many great posts you have had on this blog that have generated so much knowledge and on-going interactions. A real learning experience for many including myself! You are a great teacher. I mean it.
THANK YOU!!!!!!!
“Visibly female” (is that the term that you used before?) “Kuching” (Indonesian/Malaysian word for “cat” and the name of a lovely city in Sarawak) is thanking me on the occasion of “Vietnamese Teachers’ Day”. . . wow!! I’m completely confused, but I guess that is one reason why cyberspace is so wonderful. Confusion is good.
“On-going interactions” only work when people interact, so THANK YOU for interacting!!! I always learn from your comments, and from other people who interact. So how about if we all congratulate each other and ourselves? 😉
HAPPY Vietnamese Teachers’ Day EVERYBODY!!!
I went to a seminar today which focused on the role of academics as public intellectuals. We had a lot of good discussion around the concept and discourses shaping the concept, and the whole time I was thinking about your blog and some particular posts that are related to the role of scholars and intellectuals in global contexts.
Do you and others reading your blogs know when the term ‘intellectual’ started to appear in written texts in SEA in general and in Vietnam in particular?
It was interesting for me to see that during the seminar instead of thinking about some particular figures who have served as ‘public intellectuals’ in certain national and international space(s), I straightaway found my thoughts wandering on your blog. I do feel that this blog in many ways serves as a public intellectual space although you do not necessarily see it that way.
The on-going interactions play an important role in this space. Keep the good work up and on! Thank you!
Thanks for the kind comments, however I think that to characterize what happens on this blog as somehow connected to the role of a “public intellectual” is pushing the definition of that term a bit too far (or WAY too far).
Edward Said was a public intellectual. He produced academic work, but he also engaged with people and ideas in society at large and with government policies, etc. I, on the other hand, just wrote a blog piece about Dr. Sanden’s Electric Herculex Belt. . . So I think that there is a difference there.
Professors have lots of ideas in their heads (well, not every professor. . . but that’s another story), but most of those ideas never get published, so the only way other people can find out about them is by talking to the prof.
Way back when I first started writing this blog, one of my ideas was to take all of the bits and pieces of ideas that I might have and just put them on the Internet. I figured that it is better for them to be there then to just be in my head.
So, for instance, if a student came to me and was trying to find a topic to research about early-20th-century Southeast Asia that would deal with issues of technology, modernity, etc., I might say, “How about researching about things like Dr. Sanden’s Electric Herculex Belt”? A prof would know that such a topic is 1) sexy (and if researched well might help the student get hired one day), and 2) interesting as it relates to a lot of fundamental issues.
Now the chances that someone is going to actually ask me that question, however, are very slim, but the chances that there is someone out there in the world who might research a topic like that is much higher, so if you put that information out there, maybe s/he will find it.
So maybe what I’m doing here is more the work of something we might call an “eProf.” I’ve extended my “office hours” or end-of-week casual conversations over beer with grad students to the Internet.
Yea, the Internet has enabled new categories of many things to emerge. So maybe eProf is one such new category. 😉
Sorry I didn’t mean to characterise the blog as somehow connected to the role of the public intellectuals. I just made that connection in my head when such discussions surrounding this role were taking place. It is entirely my own way of looking at the blog, and I don’t assume that you and others share that view at all.
In my view, a public intellectual can totally be amusing and doesn’t have to be talking about just a particular kind of topics, etc.
Anyway, your suggestion of the alternative ‘eProf’ is interesting and it perhaps serves more purposes and seems more inclusive.
Yes, and please don’t confuse eProf with iProf. They are VERY different. 🙂
Trao đổi với Le Minh Khai
về một góc nhìn đối với phong trào Đông Du.
Vấn đề Le Minh Khai nêu ra trên đây khiến tôi nghĩ đến 2 việc, một là thành quả thực sự của phong trào Đông Du, và hai là các nhân tố/ thành phần tham dự vào công cuộc cải cách xã hội Việt Nam và tinh thần của giới trí thức người Việt hồi đầu thế kỷ XX. Ở đây chỉ trao đổi mấy ý về vấn đề thứ nhất.
Tôi chưa được đọc bài viết của vị học giả Hàn Quốc mà Le Minh Khai nói đến, nhưng tôi có thể nhận định rằng: uy tín học thuật của người viết và độ tin cậy của các nguồn tài liệu cho dù ở mức cao nhất thì nó vẫn chỉ phản ánh một mặt nào đó, hoặc có thể nhiều mặt của một sự kiện lịch sử. Sự kiện ở đây là phong trào Đông Du, thực tế thảm hại của nó qua kết quả nghiên cứu tư liệu Nhật Bản của vị học giả Hàn Quốc ấy có thể đúng, nhưng không hẳn đúng hoàn toàn.
Đối với người Việt Nam, sử gia của cả hai phe đối chọi nhau về tư tưởng chính trị đều có cảm tình đặc biệt với Phan Bội Châu và xem phong trào Đông Du mà ông khởi xướng như là một bước ngoặt quan trọng cho sự chuyển biến cũ sang mới. Vì vậy, vấn đề mà Le Minh Khai nêu ra thật là shock!
Nhưng vấn đề này đối với tôi lại thật hấp dẫn, không phải vì tính nhạy cảm mà vì nó đã gợi nhớ lại một suy nghĩ của tôi trước đây. Tám năm trước, khi làm thư mục phần chữ Hán tạp chí Nam Phong, đối diện với những danh mục dày dặn các bài nghiên cứu của Lê Dư và Nguyễn Bá Trác tôi nghĩ rằng họ- những nhà nho cựu học- có thể phải được xếp kế Phạm Quỳnh, trong lĩnh vực xông vào nền học thuật mới.
Sở Cuồng Lê Dư và Tiêu Đẩu Nguyễn Bá Trác là nhân vật Đông Du, tôi phải dùng từ “nhân vật Đông Du” hoặc “người Đông Du” để phân biệt với “phong trào Đông Du”. Lịch sử Việt Nam viết về “phong trào Đông Du” bi tráng nhưng thật tròn trịa, thành ra những người góc cạnh có lẽ nên đặt một chiếu riêng. Trong những người Đông Du, nói về lý lịch khoa học thì hai người này (Lê và Nguyễn) có lẽ được xếp trước Phan Bội Châu. Viết đến đây, để bớt đi phiền nhiễu buộc tôi phải copy ý của Le Minh Khai: “Điều này dĩ nhiên không có nghĩa là một người như Phan Bội Châu không phải là một nhân vật quan trọng hay anh hùng”.
Theo ghi chép của Phan trong Phan Bội Châu niên biểu thì Lê và Nguyễn là 2 nhân vật “có vấn đề” đối với phong trào. Nhưng về phương diện học thuật, qua những công trình nghiên cứu về lịch sử, văn học và giáo dục cụ thể, tôi thấy họ đã bước đầu tiếp cận được với phương pháp và tác phong nghiên cứu của giới học thuật Nhật Bản. Đây là một ý tưởng mà có lẽ tôi phải phát triển nó theo chiều hướng hứng thú trong những ngày mát mẻ nào đó, tuy nhiên không phải làm việc này để biện minh cho kết luận: “họ không tương tác gì với người Nhật, và họ chẳng học hành gì nhiều cả.”.
Cho dù đúng hay sai, đúng nhiều hay đúng ít, vấn đề mà Le Minh Khai đặt ra lớn đến độ các sử gia chính thống ở Việt Nam phải xem lại chất lượng và nội dung thu hoạch được qua các kỳ hội thảo Việt Nam học, có phải nên bớt dần đi các tham luận mang tính “giao hữu” và tăng dần thêm các nghiên cứu gây sốc giống như của vị học giả Hàn Quốc nói trên. Việc những thanh niên trong phong trào Đông Du đánh lộn nhau ở Nhật cũng mang mùi vị cay đắng không kém gì việc một số thành viên đoàn ngoại giao Việt Nam Dân Chủ Cộng Hoà vừa đến Pháp đã vội vã tách đoàn đi thăm bà con thay vì phải dự họp nội bộ để thống nhất chương trình làm việc (ngày 13/6/1946, theo Hồi ký của Phạm Khắc Hoè). Từ Đông Du đầu thế kỷ XX đến năm 1946, tính vô tổ chức và việc xem trọng quốc quyền quốc thể của một số người Việt tinh hoa hình như chưa có dấu hiệu thay đổi.
22- 11- 2013
Phạm Hoàng Quân
Cam on chu Pham Hoang Quan! Khong duoc biet chu nhung da duoc nghe nhieu ve chu. Nhung dieu chu neu ra o day dat ra nhieu cau hoi quan trong de moi nguoi cung phai nghien cuu them mot cach nghiem tuc. Rat mong co co hoi duoc gap go va hoc hoi them tu chu.
Cảm ơn bạn Phạm Hoàng Quân đã viết comment này. Khi tôi viết ở trên blog thì có thường viết một chút cực đoan để “giúp” đọc gia suy nghĩ. Tôi tất nhiên không nghĩ rằng “họ chẳng học hành gì nhiều cả,” nhưng tôi nghĩ rằng chắc là có những người là như vậy.
Nhưng việc thứ 2 – vấn các nhân tố/ thành phần tham dự vào công cuộc cải cách xã hội Việt Nam và tinh thần của giới trí thức người Việt hồi đầu thế kỷ XX – là rất quan trọng.
Ở đầu thế kỷ XX vẫn còn nhiều trường sử dụng sách giáo khoa tiếng Hán, và người Pháp đã thay đổi chương trình giảng dạy và giới thiệu sách giáo khoa mới như Việt sử tân ước toàn biên, Nam quốc địa dư giáo khoa thư và Trung học Việt sử toát yếu.
Như vậy dưới quản trị của người Pháp có kha nhiều ý tưởng mới vào xã hội bằng tài liệu văn bản đã được viết bằng tiếng Hán và đã sử dụng ơ trường. Nhưng đây là một vấn đề mà học giả chưa nghiên cứu nhiều.