The period of Tây Son rule in late eighteenth-century Vietnam has long been viewed as marking a low point in Confucianist influence on government and social structure. This article argues that the rule of Tây Son Emperor Quang Trung and his successor (1788–1802) was marked by a substantial emphasis on key elements of Confucianized approaches to governance. These included strong support for education and examinations, efforts to disseminate core Confucian texts, and a commitment to producing dynastic histories.
Archives des Missions Étrangères de Paris (AMEP), Paris.
2.
LịchBúi Duong (1987), Lê Quý Dật Sṷ [Unusual Tales of the Late Lê], translated by ThậmPhậm Văn, Nhà Xuật Bận Khoa Học Xã Họi, Hà Nọi.
3.
Cậnh Thịnh Triều Công Vận [Public Records of the Cậnh Thịnh Court], VHt 45, Viền Hán Nôm, Hà Nọi.
4.
Ɖậi Viềt Sṷ Ký Tiềp Tọng Tṷ [The Summary of the Continued Historical Records of the Great Viêt], Viềt Nam National Library, Hà Nọi, R 2254.
5.
Ɖậi Viềt Sṷ Ký Tṷc Biên [A Continuation of the Historical Records of Ɖậi Viềt] (1991), translated by LongNgô ThềHungNguyền Kim, edited by ChiNguyền ƉọngHọiNhà Xuật Bận Khoa Học Xã, Hà Nọi.
6.
DeFrancisJ. (1977), Colonialism and Language Policy in Viet Nam, Mouton Publishers, New York.
7.
DurandMaurice (nd), Tây Son, typescript held at the Manuscripts Division, Yale University Library, New Haven, CT.
8.
DuttonG. (2002), ‘Reassessing Vietnamese Christianity in the Tay Son period, 1771–1802’, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Asian Studies, Washington, DC.
9.
DuttonG. (2001), ‘The Tây Son uprising: Society and rebellion in late eighteenth–century Viềt Nam’, University of Washington dissertation, Seattle, WA.
10.
BậngHoa (1966), ‘Nhà Tày Son Ɖọi vọi Hai Nṷ Anh Hùng Nguyêt-Thai và Nguyềt-Ɖọ’, [The Tay Son and the two female heroes Nguyet Thai and Nguyet Do], Nghiên Cúu Lịch SṷVol 86, No 5, pp 35–38.
11.
Thúc-TrâmHoàng (1950), Quọốc Vận Ɖòi Tây-Son [National Literature of the Tây Son Period], ĩnh Bậo, Sài Gòn.
12.
HãnHoàng XuaCn (1952), La Son Phu Tṷ [The Master of La Son], Minh Tân, Paris.
13.
BáHuýnh Công (2002), Lịch Sṷ Viềt Nam [History of Viet Nam], Nhà Xuật Bận Thuận Hóa, Huề.
14.
KhôiLê Thành (1992), Histoire du Viet Nam, des origines à 1858, Sudestasie, Paris.
15.
ThuócLêChínhTruong (1971), ‘Tìm hiều Dòng Vận Học Tiền Bọ thói Tây Son’, [Seeking to understand the flow of progressive literature in the Tây Son era], Tập chí Vận học, No 6, pp 70–71.
16.
TanaLi (1998), ‘An alternative Vietnam? The Nguyen Kingdom in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, Vol 29, No 1, pp 111–121.
17.
McHaleS. (2004), Print and Power: Confucianism, Communism and Buddhism in the Making of Modern Vietnam, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
18.
ChiMinh (1999), Buddhism in Vietnam, The Gioi Publishers, Hà Nọi.
19.
NhậmNgô Thì (1978), Tuyền Tập Thọ Vận Ngô Thì Nhậm [The Collected Writings of Ngô Thì Nhậm], Volume 2, translated by LiênMai Quọc and others, edited by HyNgọc, Nhà Xuật Bận Khoa Học Xã Họi, Hà Nọi.
20.
SịNgô Thì (1997), Ɖậi Viềt Sṷ Ký Tiền Biên [The Preliminary Records of the History of the Great Viềt], translated and annotated by Van BâyLê, Nhà xuật bận khoa học xã họi, Hà Nọi.
21.
HuânNguyền Ba (1979), Tây Son Vận Thận Liềt Truyền [Ranked Tales of Tây Son Civil Officials], Tỵy Văn Hóa Thông Tin Nghĩa Bình, Qui Nhon.
22.
ThúyNguyền CậmHùngNguyền Phậm (1997) Vận Thọ Nôm Thòi Tây Son [Nôm Literature of the Tây Son Period], Nhà Xuật Bận Khoa Học Xã Họi, Hà Nọi.
23.
AnhNguyen The (2002), ‘From Indra to Maitreya: Buddhist influence in Vietnamese political thought’, Journal of Southeast Asian StudiesVol 33, No 2, pp 225–241.
24.
SonNhũng Mậu Chuyền về Tây [Some Tales about the Tây Son] (1979), Ty Vận Hóa Và Thông Tin Nghĩa Bình, Qui Nhọn.
25.
TậnQuáchGiaoQuách (2000), Nhà Tây Son [The Tay Son Dynasty], Nhà Xuật Bận Trề, TP Họ Chí Minh.
26.
SmithR. (1973), ‘The cycle of Confucianization in Vietnam’, in VellaW., ed, Aspects of Vietnamese History, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, pp 1–29.
27.
LuọcTây Son Thuật [A Summary Recounting of the Tây Son] (1971), translated by PhátTậ Quang, Phṷ Quọc Vṷ Khanh Ɖậc Trách Vận Hóa Xuật Bận, Phṷ Quọc.
28.
GiápTrận Vận (1972), ‘Ɖậi Viềt Sṷ Ký Tiềp Lṷc Tọng Tṷ: Mọt Quyền Viềt Sṷ Tôm Tật Dịch Nôm Và Khậc Ín Duòi Triều Tây Son’, [The Dai Viet Su Ky Tiep Luc Tong Tu: An abbreviated history book translated into Nom and printed under the Tay Son Court], Nghiên Cúu Lịch Sṷ, Vol 142, No 1/2, pp 10–13.
29.
TânVận (1967), Nguyền Huề: Con Nguọi và Sṷ Nghiềp [Nguyen Hue: The Person and His Accomplishments], Nhà Xuật Bận Khoa Học, Hà Nọi.
30.
AndayaB. WatsonIshiiYoneo (2000), ‘Religious developments in Southeast Asia, c. 1500–1800’, in TarlingN., ed, The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, Vol 1, Part 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 164–227.
31.
WhitmoreJ. (2000), ‘Gender, state and history: The literati voice in Vietnam’, in AndayaB. Watson, Other Pasts: Women, Gender and History in Early Modern Southeast Asia, Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Honolulu, Hawaii, pp 215–230.
32.
WhitmoreJ. (1999), ‘Literati culture and integration in Dai Viet, c.1430–c.1840’, in LiebermanV, ed, Beyond Binary Histories: Reimagining Eurasia to c. 1830, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, pp 221–243.
33.
WhitmoreJ. (1985), Vietnam, Họ Quý Lý, and the Ming (1371–1421), Yale Council on Southeast Asian Studies, New Haven, CT.
34.
WoodsideA. (1969), ‘Buddhism, the Vietnamese court and China in the 1800s’, in WickbergE., ed, Historical Interaction of China and Vietnam: Institutional and Cultural Themes, Center for East Asian Studies, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, pp 11–24.
35.
WoodsideA. (1988), Vietnam and the Chinese Model, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
36.
WoodsideA. (2002), ‘Classical primordialism and the historical agendas of Vietnamese Confucianism’, in ElmanB., eds, Rethinking Confucianism: Past and Present in China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam, UCLA Asian Pacific Monographs Series, Los Angeles, CA, pp 116–143.
