Le Minh Khai's SEAsian History Blog (+ More)

Dear Dr Kelley,
Wow! It looks as if I am the first person to comment on your article! I hope that with my review, more constructive comments would follow.
As usual, I appreciate your critical views on major works of Vietnam’s history. I trust that open-minded Vietnamese social science researchers and historians would be inspired by this approach.
Nonetheless, I am not convinced with the evidence put forward in your argument specifically when you disregarded how Confucianism has evolved, adapted to social changes, and how Chu Hsi (I use the Wade-Giles system for all Chinese names in this post) assimilated the philosophy and spirituality of Buddhism and Taoism into his Neo-Confucianism in the 12th century. Since then, the “Confucianism” as we know it today is a mixture of traditional Confucianism, Taoist mysticism, and Mahayana Buddhism (yet, both Taoism and Chinese Buddhism had also gone through a similar cultural assimilation process). Thus, your claim that it was the imperial Confucian ideas that gave legitimacy to the ancient cities of China (Chang’an), Japan (Nara), Vietnam (Thăng Long), and Korea (Chandeokgung ) deserves to be scrutinized. In the following comments, I examine some unsupported claims in your article.
First, there is no evidence that the Classic of Changes (I Ching 易經) is the work of Confucius (551–479 BCE). By contrast, Confucius himself seemed to be deliberately avoided speaking of strange doctrines. Chapter 2 (:16) of the Analects states, “The Master said, To delve into strange doctrines can bring only harm” (see The Analects of Confucius / Columbia University Press / translated by Burton Watson [2007]).
Second, probably because of its metaphysics instead of ethical nature, the Classic of Changes was only mentioned in one of the later versions of the Analects (Watson [2007], Introduction, p.2). Meanwhile, it is feasible that under influenced by the Taoist doctrines, Confucian theorists ascribed this classic to Confucius in the 2nd century BC (Britannica).
Third, in his notable work, “A History of Chinese Philosophy” (first publication in 1931), the noted Chinese philosopher and historian Fung Yu-lan remarks that because the original corpus of this classic is comprised of eight triagrams, each consisting of three broken or unbroken lines, it is sensible to presume that the I Ching existed before the birth of Confucianism probably sometimes in the Western Chou dynasty (1046-771 BCE), as the yarrow-stalk method was widely used by divination practitioners in this period. For this reason, the thought that the I Ching was derived from Confucius is unjustifiable (Princeton [1983, p.379]).
Fourth, Chang’an was originally constructed around 1600 BCE, many centuries before the time of Confucius. Since then, it had been modified, expanded, and chosen as the capital cities of Han, Sui, and Tang. During this long period, Chang’an had been planned, built, and renovated to demonstrate the wealth, and fulfil specific needs and desires, of its rulers. The assumption that Chang’an of Tang is the typical model of imperial Confucian ideas is unjustified, as no state-sponsored Confucius temple was built during this dynasty since Emperor Taizong of Tang (598-649) decreed in 630 that every provincial and county school should build a Confucian temple. Additionally, contrary to your claim, Xie, Shen, and Chen (2023) in their article titled “A Growing System: Constituent Elements and Spatial Evolution of Ancient Local Confucian Temples in China” (Frontiers of Architectural Research, Vol. 12, Issue 5, October 2023) indicated, “… as a typical form of ritual architecture, the establishment system of Confucian temples was always influenced by the feudal regime or official purport” (pp. 966-967).
From the above-mentioned evidence, I strongly believe that because the I Ching had existed long before the birth of Confucianism, numerous names of buildings including the Palace of Great Origination (Càn Nguyên điện 乾元殿) of Chang’an and Thăng Long should have been inspired by Taoist cosmology instead of the imperial Confucian ideas.
Lastly, I would like to comment more on other areas of your articles in my next post if you are keen and consider my post as a peer review.
Sincerely yours,
Hung Ky Nguyen