Papers by Dan T Nguyen
Thang Long Journal of Science: Van Hien and Heritage, 2025
In this essay, I perform a close reading of Ngô Thì Sĩ's 吳時仕 (1726-1780) commentary on the-Annals... more In this essay, I perform a close reading of Ngô Thì Sĩ's 吳時仕 (1726-1780) commentary on the-Annals of the Hồng Bàng Lineage‖ (Hồng Bàng thị kỷ 鴻厖氏紀) as found in Việt sử tiêu án 越史標案 [Salient Comments on Việt History]. I argue that Ngô Thì Sĩ's commentary reveals a historiographical mindset which presupposed the historicity of certain non-human entities while rejecting various details in the historical record regarding these entities and their role in Việt antiquity. Thus, Ngô Thì Sĩ's historiography in Việt sử tiêu án represented an eclectic variety of approaches which improved on existing modes of historical inquiry prevalent in eighteenth-century Tonkin without radically altering their underlying methodology. This allows us to contextualize Việt sử tiêu án alongside other eighteenth-century critiques of Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư 大越史記全書 and its primary compiler, Ngô Sĩ Liên 吳士連 (fl. fifteenth century).
Thang Long Journal of Science: Van Hien and Heritage, 2023
This annotated translation presents for the first time in English the complete text of “On Teache... more This annotated translation presents for the first time in English the complete text of “On Teachers and Friends” 師友第五, Chapter Five in Nam-sơn tùng-thoại 南山叢話, a text authored by late Nguyễn scholar-official Nguyễn Đức-Đạt 阮德達 (1825-1887). In this chapter, Nguyễn expounds the different roles which the teacher-figure and friends play as guides and aides to learning and moral cultivation. Although he recognizes the necessity of teachers during the initiatory stages of learning, Nguyễn champions the role of friends in bringing that learning to completion. While Nam-sơn tùng-thoại is thematically and stylistically eclectic, this chapter is not without passages that reveal a fundamentally Neo-Confucian underpinning to Nguyễn’s understanding of human nature, moral cultivation, and interpersonal relationships.
Journal of Confucian Philosophy and Culture, 2023
This paper examines 18th-century Annamese Neo-Confucian discourse on conceptual issues related to... more This paper examines 18th-century Annamese Neo-Confucian discourse on conceptual issues related to zhongguo and the hua-yi dichotomy as expressed across a diversity of 18th-century writings. I engage with Huang Chun-chieh’s theory of “contextual turn” and localized subjectivity in 18th-century East Asian Confucianisms by arguing that 18th-century Annamese Neo-Confucianism operated along a dissimilar ideological trajectory which affirmed “geographic China, political China, and cultural China” as a transdynastic and singular zhongguo from which Annam received its politico-cultural legitimation and prestige. This discourse of dependence on institutional recognition and geographical connection to the Chinese zhongguo distinguished 18th-century Annamese literati not only from contemporaneous modes of Confucian intellectuality in Japan and Joseon, but also from foundational conceptions of Vietic statehood characteristic of the early Le dynasty. My analysis of metaphysical theories invoked by 18th-century Annamese literati in their discussions of zhongguo and the rise of human civilization engages with both Huang Chun-chieh’s theory of a philological turn away from the metaphysical commitments in 18th-century East Asian Confucianisms and Alexander Woodside’s theory of pre-modern Vietnamese Confucianism being characterized by a non-metaphysical “classical primordialism.”
Conference Presentations by Dan T Nguyen
Nghiên Cứu Hán Nôm, 2024
Bài viết đặt lại vấn đề về tác giả bài “Trùng khắc Tứ thư ước giải tự” trong văn bản Tứ thư ước g... more Bài viết đặt lại vấn đề về tác giả bài “Trùng khắc Tứ thư ước giải tự” trong văn bản Tứ thư ước giải. Vốn dĩ, lập luận của học giới trước đây cho rằng bài này là của Lê Quý Đôn. Trong bài viết này, tác giả phân tích vì sao giả thiết này có nhiều phần không hợp lý. Tác giả cho rằng tác giả bài tựa này có thể là Trần Công Hiến, một danh thần thời Nguyễn sơ có hoạt động sưu tầm và trùng khắc văn hiến Đàng Ngoài vào đầu thế kỷ 19. Căn cứ trên liên hệ giữa văn bản hiện tồn của Tứ thư ước giải và Hải Học đường, trung tâm khắc in do Trần Công Hiến chủ trương ở Hải Dương, tác giả phân tích những điểm tương tự giữa tự thuật của tác giả bài tựa và tiểu sử của Trần Công Hiến như được biết từ các nguồn sử liệu như Đại Nam thực lục và Đại Nam liệt truyện. Lập luận của bài viết chỉ dừng ở mức giả thiết, vì còn thiếu những chứng cứ cụ thể hơn.
This paper reexamines the authorship of the “Trùng khắc Tứ thư ước giải tự” [Preface to the Re-carved Edition of Essential Explications of the Four Books] in Tứ thư ước giải [Essential Explications of the Four Books]. Previously, scholarship has argued that this preface was authored by Lê Quý Đôn. In this paper, the author analyzes why that hypothesis contains multiple implausibilities. The author proposes that the author of this preface could be Trần Công Hiến, a notable official from the early Nguyễn dynasty who collected and reprinted texts from Đàng Ngoài in the early 19th century. Drawing on the relationship between the existing version of Tứ thư ước giải and Hải Học đường—the printing center founded by Trần Công Hiến in Hải Dương—the author examines parallels between the preface author’s own account and what is known of Trần Công Hiến’s biography from historical sources such as Đại Nam thực lục and Đại Nam liệt truyện. The argument in this paper remains hypothetical, given the current lack of more concrete evidence.
Uploads
Papers by Dan T Nguyen
Conference Presentations by Dan T Nguyen
This paper reexamines the authorship of the “Trùng khắc Tứ thư ước giải tự” [Preface to the Re-carved Edition of Essential Explications of the Four Books] in Tứ thư ước giải [Essential Explications of the Four Books]. Previously, scholarship has argued that this preface was authored by Lê Quý Đôn. In this paper, the author analyzes why that hypothesis contains multiple implausibilities. The author proposes that the author of this preface could be Trần Công Hiến, a notable official from the early Nguyễn dynasty who collected and reprinted texts from Đàng Ngoài in the early 19th century. Drawing on the relationship between the existing version of Tứ thư ước giải and Hải Học đường—the printing center founded by Trần Công Hiến in Hải Dương—the author examines parallels between the preface author’s own account and what is known of Trần Công Hiến’s biography from historical sources such as Đại Nam thực lục and Đại Nam liệt truyện. The argument in this paper remains hypothetical, given the current lack of more concrete evidence.